BloggeRhythms

Today, virtually all other news is overshadowed by FBI Director, James Comey’s, testimony before a committee in the House, regarding his decision not to seek criminal charges against Bill Clinton’s wife. Thus, this entire entry serves as today’s update on her. 

Leading off, is an article by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano @FoxNews.com, who’s been steadfastly following the case for many months by now.   

The Judge asks at the start: “Is it worth impairing the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice to save Hillary Clinton from a deserved criminal prosecution by playing word games? 

“What has become of the rule of law -- no one is beneath its protections or above its requirements -- when the American public can witness a game of political musical chairs orchestrated by Bill Clinton at an airport in a bizarre ruse to remove the criminal investigation of his wife from those legally responsible for making decisions about it? 

“How hairsplitting can the FBI be in acknowledging "extreme carelessness" while denying "gross negligence" about the same events, at the same time, and in the same respect? 

“These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report delivered earlier this week on the likely criminal behavior of Hillary Clinton.” 

Whereas the judge has a particular perspective of the law far above that of the average citizen, his conclusions bear considerably more weight than all but a very few others. And his thoughts are certainly significantly above those of any politician whomsoever, regardless of party affiliation. 

In that regard, the judge wrote: “It is obvious that a different standard is being applied to Clinton than was applied to Petraeus and the others. It is also now painfully obvious that the game of musical chairs we all witnessed last week when Bill Clinton entered the private jet of Comey's boss -- Attorney General Loretta Lynch -- unannounced and spent 30 private minutes there with her at a time when both he and his wife were targets of FBI criminal probes was a trick to compromise Lynch and remove her and her aides from the DOJ chain of command regarding the decision as to whether to present evidence of crimes against either of the Clintons to a federal grand jury.” 

After making his case, the judge asks: “Why do we stand for this? 

“The criminal case against Mrs. Clinton would have been overwhelming. The FBI acknowledged that she sent or received more than 100 emails that contained state secrets via one of her four home servers. None of those servers was secure. Each secret email was secret when received, was secret when sent and is secret today. All were removed from their secure venues by Clinton, who knew what she was doing, instructed subordinates to white out "secret" markings, burned her own calendars, destroyed thousands of her emails and refuses to this day to recognize that she had a duty to preserve such secrets as satellite images of North Korean nuclear facilities, locations of drone strikes in Pakistan and names of American intelligence agents operating in the Middle East under cover. 

“Why do we stand for this? 

“Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme carelessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime's worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme carelessness is gross negligence. 

“Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect. 

“Why do we stand for this?” 

Confirmation of the Judge’s analysis that Comey has perverted the law to insulate Bill’s wife from deserved prosecution can be found in an excerpt from today’s Congressional hearings regarding questioning by Representative Trey Gowdy.  

As reported by Nick Gass @politico.com: “During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified. 

"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents." 

“Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed." 

"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state." 

“Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department. 

"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said. 

"Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked. 

"That's a harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system." 

“Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No." 

The testimony provided by Comey is well-worth reading whereas it clearly and definitively illustrates the FBI’s brazenly giving Bill’s wife an undeserved pass on her breaches of the law. It also provides Republicans a significant basis for perusing the bureau’s obvious compliance in a political campaign for the first time in its history.  Here's a link address: www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216

Therefore in closing, since the Republicans now have considerable, although unplanned, FBI provided weaponry to be deservedly used against Bill’s wife throughout the remainder of the presidential campaign, the ongoing question can be asked again: Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Starbucks chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz; are  you guys reading this?  

That’s it for today folks.     

Adios