John Robert Lewis is a treasonous U.S. Congressman for Georgia’s 5th congressional district.
The seventy-six-year-old Congressman John Lewis once did something so heroic, so noble, that it helped to change the course of a nation for the better. The Georgia Democrat was beaten up savagely by white Southern racists in 1965, and everyone appreciates very much his personal sacrifice to advance civil rights.
Like the civil rights movement he served, he has become corrupt and destructive. He is a hateful old man who lies about his political adversaries and spews ugliness.
At what point does this man, who has been dining out on his good deeds for more than a half-century, have to account for the truly awful, anti-American things he has done?
John Lewis has spent decades trying to undermine America and siding with its enemies.
In the 1960s and ’70s, he worked with members of the Socialist Workers Party and a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) front group called the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression.
In 1989, the Sandinista-led Communist government of Nicaragua renounced a ceasefire agreement with the U.S.-backed Contra rebels, the House of Representatives voted 379 to 29 for a resolution deploring the Nicaraguan action. Lewis was one of the 29 Democrats who voted nay.
In 1989, he was a founding member of the Institute for Southern Studies, a North Carolina-based spinoff of the seditious Marxist think-tank known as the Institute for Policy Studies.
In 2003, he wrote an op-ed for the CPUSA paper People’s Weekly World, titled “An Open letter to my Colleagues in Congress: Remembering the Legacy of Martin Luther King.” In 2015, Massachusetts CPUSA leader Gary Dotterman called Lewis “my hero, my comrade, my inspiration and my friend.”
In 2007, he was an honored guest at the national conference of the Democratic Socialists of America, a Marxist group. He provided an introduction to Bernie Sanders.
In 2009, when the House voted 345 to 75 to defund the criminal, corrupt Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Lewis voted to continue feeding taxpayer funds to the now defunct group.
Lewis supports amnesty for illegal aliens and opposes securing the border. In 2011, he told a rally, “We all live in the same house[.] … If any one of us is illegal, then we all are illegal. There is no illegal human being.”
In 2014, after thousands of mostly unaccompanied Central American minors crossed the southern border illegally, Lewis cheered them on. “We are all connected. We can’t just build a wall or a fence and say no more. This is America. Our doors are open.”
Republicans who don’t agree with Lewis are routinely smeared as black-hating racists.
In 2008, Lewis accused presidential running mates John McCain and Sarah Palin of “sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse.” For good measure, he threw in a reference to pro-segregation Alabama Gov. George Wallace (a Democrat), implying that McCain and Palin were, like Wallace, creating:
… the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on [a] Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.
In 2010, Lewis and other black Democrat lawmakers falsely claimed that conservative Tea Party activists shouted the “N-word” at them at an anti-Obamacare protest on the steps of Capitol Hill. “It surprised me that people are so mean and we can’t engage in a civil dialogue and debate,” he said at the time.
At the Democratic National Convention in 2012, Lewis accused Republicans of trying to restore Jim Crow-like segregation in the country.
In January 2016, he hurled the George Wallace smear at Donald Trump.
This is not an exhaustive list.
His socialist solutions and anti-white vitriol hardly make him a hero unless chaining “his people” to poor schools, fatherless homes, and generations of government dependency is heroic.
Put it all together, and you have a traitor by the name of John Robert Lewis.
James Brien Comey, Jr. is the (former) Director of the (FBI) Federal Bureau of Investigation.
James Comey has continually refused to comment on the ongoing investigation into the use of Hillary Clinton’s private email server. This dates back to October 2015 when Comey refused to comment at a Capitol Hill hearing.
“Mr. Chairman, I respectfully say that’s one I’m not going to comment on. As you know, the FBI is working on a referral given to us by inspectors general in connection with former Secretary Clinton’s use of her private email server. As you also know about the FBI, we don’t talk about our investigations while we’re doing them. This is one I’m following very closely and get briefed on regularly. I’m confident we have the people and the resources to do it in the way I believe we do all our work, which is promptly, professionally, independently. But I don’t want to do anything that would compromise my ability to do it that way by commenting beyond that,” said Comey.
“Thank you Mr. Chairman, I hope you’ll understand why I don’t think it’s appropriate to answer that. I want to preserve my ability to oversee this investigation in a way that is both in reality independent and fair, and is perceived that way. I believe the Bureau is three things: we are competent, we are independent, and we’re honest, and I want to make sure the American people have confidence that that’s the way we are doing our business, and if I start answering questions like yours which is a reasonable question, I worry that I could infringe upon that.”
FBI Director James Comey feels he has no legal obligation to wrap up the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server. “The urgency is to do it well and promptly. And ‘well’ comes first,” Comey told local law enforcement agents in Buffalo on Monday, May 2, 2016.
“Well” is important. But so is “promptly,” and the FBI’s definition of that is unclear.
The probe, underway for two years now, addresses a fundamental question: Did Clinton intentionally or recklessly forward classified information in a way that put the country at risk?
Getting the answer sooner rather than later is extremely important. There surely is a professional, ethical, and moral obligation for James Comey to finish the investigation ASAP rather than leave a cloud hanging over the electoral process. What’s also troubling, is that James Comey is ignoring his ethical obligations given the highly charged political nature of the investigation.
But an investigation that drags on past the convention, into the fall, is more than a partisan concern. It’s a treasonous act to the country as a whole.
Asked last Sunday (May 1, 2016) on NBC’s “Meet the Press” whether the FBI had reached out to her for an interview, Clinton said, “No, no, they haven’t.” She added, “Back in August, we made clear that I’m happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. And I stand by that.”
If her answer is truthful, and she signaled availability “back in August,” why take so long to question her? A key aspect of any potential criminal investigation would hinge on Clinton’s intent in setting up the private e-mail server. Only she can speak to that.
From a purely political perspective, it would have been better if it happened months ago. If it ended Clinton’s presidential ambitions, so be it. She could have at least been arrested, and the party could have moved onto another candidate.
An endless investigation leaves a perpetual cloud over her head. That’s not a crime, but it’s clearly another treasonous act done by James Comey.
Altogether, James Comey has stopped and/or impeded the investigations of Hillary Clinton on violations of federal laws governing official record-keeping, maintaining classified information, evidence-tampering, obstruction of justice, and possible pay-for-play bribery through the Clinton foundation.
UPDATE: June 16, 2016
President Obama held a meeting with Department of Justice Attorney General Loretta Lynch shortly after his endorsement of Hillary Clinton on June 9, 2016.
“In order for Clinton to carry Obama’s torch, she has to stay out of prison,” writes Katie Pavlich for Townhall. “In order to do that, she has to avoid prosecution. I’m sure Obama made that very clear to his somewhat new Attorney General.”
We have cited the various scandals still hanging over Mrs. Clinton’s head. They include the mishandling of classified materials, obstruction of justice, the public corruption scandal in which she used the State Department as leverage for benefitting the Clinton Foundation as well as her family, and Benghazi.
Contrary to President Obama’s assertion that he is allowing a non-partisan and full investigation, by endorsing Mrs. Clinton he has placed his hand on the scale of justice and made his wishes more than clear to federal investigators. The question is, will Director James Comey and the FBI continue to follow the President’s direction?
Despite the administration’s continued support for Clinton, new stories break daily outlining Mrs. Clinton’s corruption and pay-for-play. ABC News, with the help of Citizens United, found that a Clinton donor was placed on a sensitive intelligence board during Mrs. Clinton’s term as secretary of state—even though he lacked the credentials for the appointment.
The Wall Street Journal also reports that “many” of the 22 classified emails from Mrs. Clinton’s private email server that the government refuses to release, “dealt with whether diplomats concurred or not with the CIA drone strikes…” These highly sensitive and classified emails were “written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger…” There are more than 2,000 emails that Mrs. Clinton handled that contained classified material on her private, unsecured server, whether marked as such or not.
“Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation,” reports the Journal, continuing, “although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.”
Jonathan F. Keiler, a lawyer and former captain in the Army’s Judge-Advocate General Corps, writes that James Comey has already delayed for too long. In an outstanding column for American Thinker, he wonders what Comey is up to: “What FBI director James Comey intends is perhaps the greatest conundrum in Washington these days. Is he playing Hamlet to Hillary’s Claudius, introspective, doubtful, and unwilling to strike the killing blow? Is he just being a careful apolitical policeman? Or is he a political hack who will do what’s best for Jim Comey? Perhaps it’s a bit of all three. Whatever the truth, it is in Hillary’s best interest to discourage James Comey as much as possible. Her early claim to be the Democrat nominee serves that purpose.”
Keiler argues that Hillary’s convenient surge past the magic delegate number the night before the California primary, through a sudden burst of superdelegate declarations, served both her political and legal purposes. “If Comey is an honest policeman,” he writes, “the best time for him to have acted was before Hillary claimed the nomination. Then he would only have been referring charges against another—albeit notorious—private citizen. After the nomination, Hillary becomes not only the standard bearer of one of America’s two great political parties, but a ‘historic’ figure as the first woman to do so. As such, it behooved both Hillary and her backers in the media to reach that point ASAP.”
“As a political and media matter,” he adds, “an FBI referral at this point will be against not only the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, but also a historic figure, an affront to the American political system and women everywhere.”
Nevertheless, James Comey should immediately uphold the law and proceed with the recommendation of indictment. The evidence against Hillary Clinton is clear, not to mention, there is already talk of a revolt within the FBI along with the unauthorized release of the investigation documents.
UPDATE: July 2, 2016
Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to accept the recommendations of FBI Director James Comey’s and other prosecutors when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s email investigation has not only made Comey the new public face of the probe, but helps shift the final decisions from a person serving in a key political position in the Obama administration.
Ron Hosko, a former FBI assistant director and president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund said, “There is a growing expectation that we the public need to hear the FBI, James Comey version of whether or not changes will be brought.”
Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s decision to accept the recommendations of FBI Director James Comey’s and other prosecutors when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s email investigation has not only made Comey the public face of the probe, but helps shift the final decisions from a person serving in a key political position in the Obama administration.
Lynch on Friday (July 1, 2016) said she is not removing herself from the case, as has been demanded by a growing crowd of Republican critics after she met on her government plane with former President Bill Clinton.
She admitted Friday in an interview at the Aspen Ideas Festival that the meeting between her and Clinton had “cast a shadow” over the investigation, even though she said they talked about family, travel and other topics rather than the probe.
She said she’d already made her decision to accept recommendations from the FBI and federal prosecutors privately, but decided to make the announcement public because of the growing controversy over the meeting between herself and the former president.
Clinton will meet with FBI investigators at her home in Washington, D.C., on Saturday (July 2, 2016) — likely the final step in the agency’s probe into her unlawful use of a private email server for government business when she was secretary of state.
Investigators have already questioned several of Clinton’s key aides, including her deputy chief of staff, Huma Abedin, and former chief of staff Cheryl Mills.
Lynch said on Friday (July 1, 2016) that she will not have a role in the eventual findings, but she will be briefed on them and will accept the recommendations, falling short of removing not only herself, but other political appointees from the case.
Did you notice Lynch said she expects to accept. Does accepting their recommendations mean she doesn’t have the right to overrule it? No! She didn’t say I will recuse myself. She didn’t say I’ll stay out of it. She didn’t say I’ll ask for a special prosecutor, an independent counsel. This is all smoke and mirrors folks!”
These are people openly flaunting the system while ordinary Americans are held to a completed different standard. With Bill Clinton, there can be no presumption of truthfulness. There is serial evidence to the contrary. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. He escaped indictment by accepting a penalty short of criminal conviction including an unequivocal admission of lying under oath by surrendering his law license. As a result, he was disbarred. Hillary Clinton has been investigated for everything from the Rose Law Firm to Whitewater to cattle futures to missing files, Travelgate, etc.
So what should Americans reasonably believe? Nothing that they say!
So, should these people be trusted to run our country? The answer is positively, absolutely, undeniably, NO!
FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up favorable to the Clintons.
In 2004, Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National Archives. The documents were relevant to accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the 9/11 terrorist attack.
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016, Comey announced that despite evidence of “extreme negligence by Hillary Clinton and her top aides regarding the handling of classified information through a private email server, the FBI would not refer criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department.
Curiously, Berger, Lynch and Cheryl Mills all worked as partners in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, which prepared tax returns for the Clintons and did patent work for a software firm that played a role in the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was secretary of state.
Lynch and Comey both served as U.S. attorney in New York, Lynch for the Eastern District of New York, and Comey for the Southern District of New York. They crossed paths in the investigation of HSBC bank, which avoided criminal charges in a massive money-laundering scandal for which the bank paid a $1.9 billion fine.
After Attorney General John Aschroft recused himself in the Valerie Plame affair in 2004, Comey appointed as special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who ended up convicting “Scooter” Libby, a top aide to then Vice President Dick Cheney, of perjury and obstruction of justice. The charge was based on the accusations of Plame and her former ambassador husband, Joe Wilson – both partisan supporters of Bill and Hillary Clinton – that Libby outed her as a CIA agent.
New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s 2015 memoir strongly suggests Fitzgerald improperly manipulated testimony and withheld crucial evidence in obtaining a conviction against Libby in his 2007 trial.
Prosecutor in Berger case
As deputy attorney general, Comey was involved in the investigation of Berger, as Fox News reported in 2004
Berger at that time was under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for removing from the National Archives various classified documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks and for removing handwritten notes he made while reviewing the documents.
The New York Times reported in 2005 that Republican leaders speculated Berger removed the documents from the National Archives because he was trying to conceal material that could be damaging to the Clinton administration.
There is no evidence Comey’s investigation for the Justice Department made any attempt to determine if anyone affiliated with the Clinton White House prompted Berger or coordinated with him in the decision to remove the classified documents.
Various statements Comey made about Berger’s mishandling of classified documents bear comparison to his comments regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server.
In 2004, Fox News noted Comey told reporters he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.
“As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey said in response to a reporter’s question.
He added that the department had prosecuted and sought administrative sanctions against people for mishandling classified information.
“It’s our lifeblood, those secrets,” Comey continued. “It’s against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations.”
On April 1, 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of intentionally removing documents from the National Archives and destroying some of them. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and two years probation. Also, his national security license was stripped for two years.
Messages found stored on Clinton’s private email server show that Berger – a convicted thief of classified documents – had been advising Clinton while she served as secretary of state and had access to emails containing classified information.
For example, in an email dated Sept. 22, 2009, Berger advised Clinton advised how she could leverage information to make Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more cooperative in discussions with the Obama administration over a settlement freeze.
Law firm ties Berger, Lynch, Mills
Berger worked as a partner in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson from 1973 to 1977, before taking a position as the deputy director of policy planning at the State Department in the Carter administration.
When Carter lost his re-election bid, Berger returned to Hogan & Hartson, where he worked until he took leave in 1988 to act as foreign policy adviser in Gov. Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaign.
When Dukakis was defeated, Berger returned to Hogan & Hartson until he became foreign policy adviser for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992.
On March 28, WND reported Lynch was a litigation partner for eight years at Hogan & Hartson, from March 2002 through April 2010.
Mills also worked at Hogan & Hartson, for two years, starting in 1990, before she joined then President-elect Bill Clinton’s transition team, on her way to securing a position as White House deputy counsel in the Clinton administration.
According to documents Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign made public in 2008, Hogan & Hartson’s New York-based partner Howard Topaz was the tax lawyer who filed income tax returns for Bill and Hillary Clinton beginning in 2004.
In addition, Hogan & Hartson in Virginia filed a patent trademark request on May 19, 2004, for Denver-based MX Logic Inc., the computer software firm that developed the email encryption system used to manage Clinton’s private email server beginning in July 2013. A tech expert has observed that employees of MX Logic could have had access to all the emails that went through her account.
In 1999, President Bill Clinton nominated Lynch for the first of her two terms as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, a position she held until she joined Hogan & Hartson in March 2002 to become a partner in the firm’s Litigation Practice Group.
She left Hogan & Hartson in 2010, after being nominated by President Obama for her second term as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, a position she held until Obama nominated her to serve in her current position as attorney general.
A report published April 8, 2008, by The American Lawyer noted Hogan & Hartson was among Hillary Clinton’s biggest financial supporters in the legal industry during her first presidential campaign.
“Firm lawyers and staff have donated nearly $123,400 to her campaign so far, according to campaign contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics,” Nate Raymond observed in The American Lawyer article. “Christine Varney, a partner in Hogan’s Washington, D.C., office, served as chief counsel to the Clinton-Gore Campaign in 1992.”
While there is no evidence that Lynch played a direct role either in the tax work done by the firm for the Clintons or in linking Hillary’s private email server to MX Logic, the ethics of the legal profession hold all partners jointly liable for the actions of other partners in a business.
“If Hogan and Hartson previously represented the Clintons on tax matters, it is incumbent upon U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to [disclose] what, if any, role she had in such tax matters,” said Tom Fitton, president of Washington-based Judicial Watch.
When Lynch’s nomination as attorney general was considered by the Senate one year ago, as WND reported, the Senate Judiciary Committee examined her role in the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute the banking giant HSBC for laundering funds for Mexican drug cartels and Middle Eastern terrorists.
WND was first to report in a series of articles beginning in 2012 money-laundering charges brought by John Cruz, a former HSBC vice president and relationship manager, based on his more than 1,000 pages of evidence and secret audio recordings.
The staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee focused on Cruz’s allegations that Lynch, acting then in her capacity as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, engaged in a Department of Justice cover-up. Obama’s attorney general nominee allowed HSBC in December 2011 to enter into a “deferred prosecution” settlement in which the bank agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine and admit “willful criminal conduct” in exchange for dropping criminal investigations and prosecutions of HSBC directors or employees.
Cruz called the $1.92 billion fine the U.S. government imposed on HSBC “a joke” and filed a $10 million lawsuit for “retaliation and wrongful termination.”
From 2002 to 2003, Comey held the position of U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the same position held by Lynch.
On March 4, 2013, he joined the HSBC board of directors, agreeing to serve as an independent non-executive director and a member of the bank’s Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee, positions he held until he resigned on Aug. 3, 2013, to become head of the FBI.
Comey, Fitzgerald and Valerie Plame
On Jan. 1, 2004, the Washington Post reported that after Attorney General John Aschroft recused himself and his staff from any involvement in the investigation of who leaked the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame after journalist Robert Novak named her in print as a CIA operative, Comey assumed the role of acting attorney general for the purposes of the investigation.
Comey appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney in Chicago, to act as special counsel in conducting the inquiry into what became known as “Plamegate.”
At the time Comey made the appointment, Fitzgerald was already godfather to one of Comey’s children.
On April 13, 2015, co-authoring a USA Today op-ed piece, Plame and her husband, retired ambassador Joseph Wilson, made public their support for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, openly acknowledging their political closeness to both Hillary and Bill Clinton.
The first two paragraphs of the editorial read:
We have known Hillary Clinton both professionally and personally for close to 20 years, dating back to before President Bill Clinton’s first trip to Africa in 1998 — a trip that they both acknowledge changed their lives, and gave considerable meaning to their post-White House years and to the activities of the Clinton Foundation. Joe, serving as the National Security Council Senior Director for African Affairs, was instrumental in arranging that historic visit.
Our history became entwined with Hillary further after Valerie’s identity as a CIA officer was deliberately exposed. That criminal act was taken in retribution for Joe’s article in The New York Times in which he explained he had discovered no basis for the Bush administration’s justification for the Iraq War that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium to develop a nuclear weapon.
In January 2016, Chuck Ross in the Daily Caller reported that Hillary Clinton emails made public made clear that one of her “most frequent favor-seekers when she was secretary of state was former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a longtime Clinton friend, an endorser of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and an Africa expert with deep business ties on the continent.”
Ross noted that Wilson emailed Clinton on Dec. 22, 2009, seeking help for Symbion Power, an American engineering contractor for whom Wilson consulted, in the company’s bid to pursue a U.S. Agency of International Development contract for work in Afghanistan.
In the case of the Afghanistan project, Ross noted, Clinton vouched for Wilson and Symbion as she forwarded the request to Jack Lew, who served then as deputy secretary of state for management and resources.
Ross further reported Wilson’s request might also have been discussed with President Obama, as one email indicates.
In 2005, Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby, a prominent adviser to then Vice President Dick Cheney, in the Plame investigation, charging him with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal prosecutors and one count of obstruction of justice.
On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of four of the five counts, and on June 5, 2007, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to two and a half years in federal prison.
On April 6, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported the publication of New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s memoir “The Story: A Reporter’s Journey” exposed “unscrupulous conduct” by Fitzgerald in the 2007 trial of Libby.
WSJ reporter Peter Berkowitz noted Miller “writes that Mr. Fitzgerald induced her to give what she now realizes was false testimony.”
“By withholding critical information and manipulating her memory as he prepared her to testify, Ms. Miller relates, Mr. Fitzgerald ‘steered’ her ‘in the wrong direction.’”
UPDATE: July 5, 2016
The director of the once-irreproachable Federal Bureau of Investigation grossly misled the American people. Director James Comey, as regards the Hillary Clinton private server scandal, boldly stated that there was no evidence that anyone deliberately mishandled classified information. That, is a bald-faced lie.
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, James Comey rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
Moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.
This is what James Comey has done. He has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.
Finally, Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. However, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, a reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.
Like many Americans, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan was floored by Director Comey’s recommendation not to indict Hillary Clinton. Expressing deep concern for the erosion of the rule of law. Ryan said, “No one should be above the law.”
The facts speak for themselves, for these treasonous actions by James Comey are a blatant display of government corruption. For the most part, some of the top-secret emails on Hillary Clinton’s personal server were sent between President Obama and Ms. Clinton, so the outcome of this case was decided long ago, and there was no legitimate “investigation.” The fix was in from the beginning, and President Obama was not going to be pulled into a Clinton scandal. To that end, Director Comey unlawfully deemed crimes and lies unworthy of indictment, but he said that the rest of us should not feel similarly free to operate as Ms. Clinton has. We would be prosecuted. He clearly admitted that she is above the law.
Then there is the other criminal matters of the investigation into the Clinton Foundation, and potential quid-pro-quo corruption lining the actions of the secretary of state to donations to the foundation. Director Comey said absolutely nothing about these investigations, not to mention, how Hillary Clinton violated federal laws governing evidence-tampering and obstruction of justice.
Lets face it, unlike the men we honored the day before, on July 4th, who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to defend liberty and the rule of law, FBI Director Comey was not willing to put anything on the line. He wanted us to know Hillary was guilty as hell. But he was not willing to pit himself along with the FBI against Obama’s DOJ, so he let the guilty walk free without even an attempt at insisting she be charged.
The decision not to indict Hillary Clinton is the moment at which the United States crossed the line which separates a “dysfunctional mess” from a genuine “third-world-style banana republic.” We no longer adhere to the rule of law or, if we do, we apply it differently to different classes. The political class operates with one playbook, while the rest of us are tied to another, much harsher, set of rules.
In conclusion, James Comey has treasonously made the FBI part of a federal government crime syndicate, or should we say he has made the FBI their Bitch along with the American people?
UPDATE: September 24, 2016
The weekly document dump by the FBI has turned up some startling information. The Bureau granted at least partial immunity to five Hillary Clinton aides who were key players in the private email scandal now roiling the Clinton campaign.
Clinton’s I.T. aide, Bryan Pagliano, has already been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to testify, despite his being granted immunity by the FBI. The documents revealed that Hillary Clinton’s friend and lawyer, Cheryl Mills, also received an immunity deal for turning over her laptop.
This has incensed congressional Republicans trying to get to the bottom of Clinton’s use of a private email server and why so many emails that were deleted shouldn’t have been. They wonder why the immunity agreements did not include language that would have allowed the aides to testify before Congress.
“If the FBI wanted any other American’s laptops, they’d just go get them — they wouldn’t get an immunity deal,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), an oversight panel member, said in a phone interview. “But everyone associated with the Clinton gets a different set of standards applied to them… It’s the strangest stuff I have ever seen.”
Republicans were also incensed that the immunity deals, which now cover five Clinton staffers at the heart of the controversy, did not require witnesses to cooperate with Congress, sources who reviewed them told POLITICO. Such agreements sometimes include language forcing the recipients to answer other investigative entities, but the Justice deals did not.
Republicans have been trying to question several of those protected individuals, including: Clinton’s top IT staffer Bryan Pagliano, who set up the server; Platte River Networks engineer Paul Combetta, who erased Clinton’s email archive days after news of her email use became public; and John Bentel, a tech staffer at the State Department who told his subordinates never to speak of Clinton’s email when they raised concerns.
This latest email flare-up comes at an inopportune time for Clinton, just days before her first debate against Donald Trump. Republicans said the timing of the immunity news was not intentional; they only learned on Friday of the arrangements with Mills, Samuelson and Bentel and almost immediately disclosed them to the AP, which first reported the story. Regardless, Clinton has been unable to shake the email controversy even after the FBI decided against recommending charges against her in July.
Comey’s decison not to prosecute Clinton is clearly seen as a treasonous act. The fact is, granting all these immunity deals is just another way to cover up the truth. No one under Clinton is going to be held responsible for the illegal deletions of emails or the mishandling of classified data, so how can you hold Clinton solely responsible?
Where it looked as if, at one time, Clinton aides Abedin and Mills would, at the very least, be charged with mishandling classified information, the FBI director Comey made sure that no one would be held accountable. Roger Simon of PJ Media asks, “What Happens When You Can’t Trust the FBI and the Department of Justice?”
The answer is lawlessness in government at the highest levels.
UPDATE: September 28, 2016
A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he politicized the criminal probe.
This focuses on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.
But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year.
Comey served as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft for two years of the Bush administration. When he left the Bush administration, he went directly to Lockheed Martin and became vice president, acting as a general counsel.
How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation.
Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010.
According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010.
In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department.
In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings.
“Mr. Comey’s appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” according to HSBC company records.
HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. For instance, HSBC Holdings has partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to “retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector” in “New York City.”
“Retrofitting” refers to a Green initiative to conserve energy in commercial housing units. Clinton Foundation records show that the Foundation projected “$1 billion in financing” for this Green initiative to conserve people’s energy in low-income housing units.
Who Is Peter Comey?
When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey,” a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website.
Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper. James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing.
DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base.
DLA Piper ranks #5 on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs.
And here is another thing: Peter Comey has a mortgage on his house that is owned by his brother James Comey, the FBI director.
Peter Comey’s financial records, obtained by Breitbart News, show that he bought a $950,000 house in Vienna, Virginia, in June 2008. He needed a $712,500 mortgage from First Savings Mortgage Corporation.
But on January 31, 2011, James Comey and his wife stepped in to become Private Party lenders. They granted a mortgage on the house for $711,000. Financial records suggest that Peter Comey took out two such mortgages from his brother that day.
This financial relationship between the Comey brothers began prior to James Comey’s nomination to become director of the FBI.
DLA Piper did not answer any question as to whether James Comey and Peter Comey spoke at any point about this mortgage or anything else during the Clinton email investigation.
This needs to be seen by all:
Lead FBI agent John Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation in February 2016.
Pay For Play – involving the Clinton Foundation were not properly vetted, ultimately white washed.
FBI agents were blocked from serving search warrants to retrieve key evidence.
FBI agents were not allowed to interrogate witnesses and targets without warning.
FBI agents had been trying to interview Clinton since December 2015, approval delayed by top brass.
FBI agents believed Clinton case was being “slow-walked” to run-out-the-clock.
FBI agents stunned that targets Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview.
Clinton and aides cited amnesia. In Clinton’s case she claimed due to medical complications.
Attempts to secure Clinton’s medical records to confirm her head injury were sabotaged by FBI Director James Comey.
FBI Director James Comey: We found no evidence of intent.
FBI Docs: IT employee labeled his work “Hillary cover-up operation”
No longer can the FBI claim it’s Untouchable. Not only because of the treasonous acts of James Comey, but for every FBI agent within the bureau that did absolutely nothing to stop this from happening. Simple said, the entire FBI is treasonously corrupt.
UPDATE: October 7, 2016
More revelations of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton and her staff have emerged from FBI files detailing interviews with State Department employees. It appears that at least two boxes of Clinton emails have disappeared. The emails cover the crucial months of January-April, 2009 when Clinton began her tenure as secretary and was setting up her private email server.
There is also the allegation that one of Clinton’s key aides, Patrick Kennedy, altered the classified headings on documents to make more of them unavailble for Freedom of Information Act requests.
The details about the boxes are contained in five pages of the FBI file – with a staggering 111 redactions – that summarize the statements of a State Department witness who worked in the “Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS).”
The employee told the FBI that, “Initially, IPS officials were told there were 14 bankers boxes of former Secretary of State Hillary CLINTON’s emails at CLINTON’s Friendship Heights office.” Friendship Heights is a neighborhood that straddles the Northwest neighborhood of the District of Columbia and Maryland.
The State Department witness further explained to the FBI that “on or about December 5, 2014, IPS personnel picked up only 12 bankers boxes of CLINTON’s emails from Williams & Connolly.”
The officials were not sure if the boxes “were consolidated or what could have happened to the two other boxes. “
Clinton’s chief lawyer at Williams & Connolly, who leads all Clinton-related legal matters, is David Kendall. He has successfully represented Bill and Hillary Clinton together and separately throughout decades of their legal entanglements since the 1980’s, ranging from the former president’s sex scandals to missing billing records for Hillary Clinton’s work as a partner in The Rose Law Firm on behalf of the failed Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan and Capital Management Services.
In the documents provided by Kendall’s law firm, the witness told the FBI they were “unable to locate any of her emails from January-April 2009.” This timeframe is crucial as it covers the start of Clinton’s term as secretary of state and when she set up a private server for all government business, in turn skirting public records laws.
In the same Aug. 18, 2015, interview, on page 42, the State Department witness also told the FBI there was a deliberate effort to change sensitive Clinton emails bearing the “B(1)” code — used in the Freedom of Information Act review process to identify classified information — to the category of “B-5.” That category covers Executive Branch deliberations, “interagency or intra-agency communications including attorney client privileges,” and makes material exempt from public release.
Over five pages of the single-spaced summary notes, the witness, whose name is redacted, alleges Clinton’s team which included Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy played classification games to confuse and obfuscate the formal FOIA review process.
None of this interested the FBI enough for them to follow up and get to the bottom of who did what, who destroyed what, and who altered what.
Now imagine an ordinary citizen pulling crap like this with how many years in prison they’d get. Four months worth of crucial documents that could make or break a criminal case against Hillary Clinton and her aides disappears into thin air? A key aide orders subordinates to alter official government documents to try and hide them from FOIA requests?
Many might think the Clintons were too smart to commit anything criminal to paper. That would be wrong, for they counted on friendly investigators covering for them. In this, FBI Director Comey’s decision was nothing less than politically-motivated malfeasance, that is, the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law.
Thanks to Comey, it should now be clear to all thoughtful Americans that the U.S. Government, as an institution, is hopelessly corrupt, unaccountable to the people and unconstrained by the rule of law.
James Comey obviously concurs with and has aptly demonstrated the political elite are immune from prosecution regardless of the damage done to our national security and the Constitution, specifically the concept of equal justice under the law.
James Comey has secured his place in U.S. History.
America has a new Benedict Arnold.
UPDATE: October 28, 2016
US Congressman Trey Growdy is investigating Hillary’s email scandal case. So right up front, FBI Director James Comey asked for immunity and Gowdy told him flatly, “Hell No.”
That’s right. What Comey is asking for is to be absolved of what he’s done and anything that may happen in the future from any further investigations. In turn, one may ask how this doesn’t throw up the biggest red flag in American history? Well it did to Trey Gowdy, and he just ripped Comey a new one, not to mention, he is about to do everything in his power to stop that immunity from happening.
One might think Comey is running out of clever excuses to overlook Hillary’s obvious criminality, and it has come back to bite him and the country he supposedly serves.
However, eleven days before the presidential election, James Comey has told several members of Congress he is reopening the investigation involving Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she headed the State Department.
What is plainly obvious is Comey has not started a legitimate investigation, for when Comey wrote the letter he had no idea what was in the content of the emails. Matter of fact, Comey and the entire FBI haven’t obtained a search warrant to review the new emails related to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.
When putting it all together, this is just another treasonous act by James Comey to protect Hillary Clinton along with his own ass from being prosecuted. In other words, Comey can now save himself by recommending a federal indictment against Hillary if Trump wins, and do nothing if Hillary wins.
James Comey is a traitor by his own hubris and of that destructive machine called Clinton.
UPDATE: October 30, 2016
Law enforcement officials have confirmed the FBI later obtained a warrant to search emails related to the Hillary Clinton private server probe that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop.
The warrant came two days after FBI director James Comey revealed the existence of the emails, which law-enforcement sources said were linked to Weiner’s estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
The FBI already had a warrant to search Weiner’s laptop, but that only applied to evidence of his allegedly illicit communications with an underage girl.
UPDATE: November 3, 2016
Here is an updated list of the crimes Hillary Clinton and her team should be investigated for by the FBI:
* The unlawful removal, transmitting, maintaining and destruction of sensitive and highly classified data, records and information
* Money laundering
* Sex crimes with minors (children)
* Pay to play through Clinton Foundation
* Evidence tampering
* Obstruction of justice
* and other felony crimes
UPDATE: November 6, 2016
FBI Director James B. Comey notified key members of Congress Sunday afternoon that after reviewing newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails the agency stands by its original findings against recommending charges.
The three-paragraph letter was sent to the chairman of the Homeland Security, Judiciary, Appropriations and Oversight and Government Reform and was copied to the ranking members of those committees. Comey said the FBI had performed an “extraordinary amount of high quality work” to conduct the review.
Comey wrote that investigators had worked “around the clock” to review all the emails found on a device used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that had been sent to or from Clinton and that “we have not changed our conclusions expressed in July 2016.”
The conclusion from Comey provided one last twist to the 2016 presidential campaign and came just two days before the election.
A spokesman for the FBI declined to comment beyond Comey’s letter, as did a spokesman for the Department of Justice.
The FBI has become a criminal organization within itself, for the same political interference and corruption would have prevailed if James Comey had resigned.
The number two man within the FBI is Andrew McCabe, and he’s another traitor tainted by the Clinton graft. His wife received $500,000 for a Virginia state senate campaign from Clinton moneyman Terry McAuliffe. So with little doubt McCabe would have certainly further hobbled and ended the Clinton investigations.
What sadly remains is no longer Untouchable, for the FBI has become an agency full of cheats, liars, and traitors.
UPDATE: May 9, 2017
“President Donald Trump on Tuesday, May 9, 2017, fired FBI Director James Comey.
“At the very least, James Comey will is remembered as a traitor to the men and women in the FBI, his president, and his country.
UPDATE: May 18, 2017
“The traitor James Comey has now been caught committed perjury to Congress.
“Former FBI Director James Comey said he was never told to stop an investigation due of political reasons during testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3, 2017, which contradicts his new claim that Trump pressured him to stop the Flynn investigation in February.
“Comey now claims President Trump asked him to to shut down the federal investigation into former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a reported memo Mr. Comey says he wrote after the meeting.
“The New York Times claims this February memo is the “smoking gun,” but in fact it contradicts Comey’s sworn testimony on May 3, 2017.
“During the Senate testimony, Comey confirmed to Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) that in theory, the Attorney General or senior officials at the Department of Justice could halt a FBI investigation.
“The former FBI director added it would “be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an appropriate purpose.”
““But I’m talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal. It’s not happened in my experience.”
“Remember, James Comey said this on May 3, 2017, months after the reported memo he claimed to have written after meeting with Trump.
UPDATE: October 19, 2017
As the swamp is slowing starting to drain, more of the filth at the bottom has been revealed. Now, some of the people who comprise that filth have been found to reside at the FBI.
According to FOX News, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has now confirmed that former FBI Director James Comey drafted a letter about Hillary Clinton’s email before interviewing her about the scandal.
The letter was sent on May 2, 2016, and replied to on May 16, 2016. Yet, Comey announced his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton in July 2016. It now appears that he made this decision without completing the investigation, including 16 key interviews.
These interviews included those with Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Heather Samuelson, Justin Cooper, John Bentel, and, of course, Hillary Clinton (whose interview was to be the final, on July 2, 2016).
Previously, it had been reported that Comey likely drafted the letter before actually conducting the investigation, but now it has been confirmed.
The FBI released a document entitled, “Drafts of Director Comey’s July 5, 2016 Statement Regarding Email Server Investigation Part 01 of 01.”
Despite being labeled unclassified, the FBI had redacted nearly all of the information in the email containing the draft. It only showed a response to the letter from Senior Counselor Rybicki.
“Please send me any comments on this statement so we may roll into a master doc for discussion with the Director at a future date. Thanks, Jim.”
The email was available to Andrew McCabe, James Baker, and several other FBI officials.
Before this FBI confirmation, the letter was revealed through hearings conducted by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), had found transcripts where Comey’s aides spoke of the email.
After their discovery, the two wrote a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray explaining their findings. The letter said, “It appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work.”
“The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts,” the letter continued.
“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second–that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy,” the Senators wrote.
They also wrote that they cannot be certain whether the FBI agents working the case where aware Comey had already made a decision on the case. If they were, it is possible they would not seek information to contradict their director’s judgment.
It has just been alleged that Comey made a decision about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal before finishing key interviews. Did President Trump do the right thing in firing Comey?
Putting federal investigators in such a position, to compromise their investigation, could explain the widely reported low morale in the FBI. The New York Post reported that FBI agents were close to “revolt” over how the email investigation was handled.
Senator Graham has joined others in calling for Comey to be questioned on this matter. “He’s coming [to Capitol Hill] one way or the other,” Graham told Fox News, arguing that he would subpoena the former Director if he had to.
Captain Daniel Dusek, the former deputy director of operations for the Navy’s 7th Fleet has been sentenced to nearly four years in prison for his treasonous involvement in a bribery scandal.
Dusek pleaded guilty last year (2015) to conspiracy to commit bribery, admitting he traded classified information for luxury gifts and access to prostitutes. He was sentenced to 46 months on Friday.
He’s the highest-ranking officer who has faced charges for his involvement in the scandal. Two admirals had their access to classified material suspended several years ago, over alleged connections to the scandal. To this day, both admirals — one of whom is the Navy’s intelligence chief — are blocked from viewing classified documents.
The scandal in question centers on foreign defense contractor Leonard Glenn Francis, or “Fat Leonard.”
Francis plied officers with vacations, prostitutes, cash and gifts including “top-shelf alcohol, ornamental swords and handmade ship models,” the Associated Press reports.
Dusek acknowledge that he received free hotel stays, alcohol, meals, gifts, entertainment and prostitutes. In return, he would send Francis and his employees classified Navy ship schedules, giving the contractors information that helped them overcharge the military.
In an email to an employee, the Justice Department says, Francis called Dusek “a golden asset to drive the big decks (aircraft carriers) into our fat revenue GDMA ports.”
Before his sentencing at a federal court in San Diego, Dusek told the judge, “I will hold this guilt in my heart for the rest of my life,” the AP reports.
After serving as Deputy Operations Officer for the 7th Fleet, Dusek commanded the USS Essex and then the USS Bonhomme Richard.
He was relieved of duty as commander of the Bonhomme in 2013 over the bribery scandal. After pleading guilty to bribery in 2015, Dusek remained on active duty at a desk job, Navy Times reported.
In addition to his prison sentence, Dusek will also have to pay $100,000 in fines and restitution to the Navy.
Ten other people, including Naval commanders, have been charged so far for their involvement in the corruption scandal.
Dusek has “hinted” that higher-ranking officers than him were being bribed, The Washington Post reports. The paper has more on the broader scandal:
“In a fresh revelation, Dusek said Francis went so far as to purchase a decommissioned British naval vessel and turned it into a party boat to entertain top U.S. Navy officials. The ship, originally known as the RFA Sir Lancelot, was rechristened the Glenn Braveheart after Francis bought it in 2003.
“Dusek also said that Francis had a traveling squad of prostitutes and strippers — dubbed his ‘Thai SEAL Team’ — who accompanied him to greet U.S. ships as they arrived in Asian ports.”
So apparently rank has its privileges, for Dusic received less than four years. That seems a bit light for what really amounts to treason from a Navy officer.
Janice M. Stewart is a treasonous United States District Court Judge for the District of Oregon.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart ruled Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has little to no constitutional rights and must stay behind bars, calling him a danger to the community after he arrived in Oregon to support the occupation of a national wildlife preserve led by his sons. Janice Stewart also said Bundy should be held without bail ahead of trial because there is a risk he won’t show up for future court dates.
Federal prosecutors called the 69-year-old “lawless and violent” in a document filed before the hearing, an assertion his attorney and family denied. “If he is released and he goes back to his ranch, that is likely the last the government will see of him,” Stewart said.
Bundy, 69, was arrested in Portland on charges stemming from a 2014 armed standoff with federal officials who were rounding up his cattle over unlawful federally imposed grazing fees.
He came to Oregon to support a weeks long occupation at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which his sons, Ammon and Ryan Bundy, demanded in accordance with the United States Constitution that the federal government turn over public lands to State and local government control.
His sons were arrested January 26, 2016 and remain in jail, but four holdouts extended the occupation until last Thursday, February 11, 2018, when they surrendered.
The elder Bundy was not charged in connection with the Oregon occupation. All his charges stem from the 2014 Nevada standoff: conspiracy, assault on a federal officer, obstruction, weapon use and possession, extortion to interfere with commerce, and aiding and abetting.
Bundy’s attorney, Noel Grefenson, said his client could not be a danger if authorities waited to charge him for 22 months. Judge Janice Stewart dismissed that argument and set his next hearing for Friday, February 19, 2016.
A family member said the patriarch isn’t dangerous or a criminal and should be released to live at home.
“Mr. Cliven believes in the proper role of government and proper jurisdiction. Where’s the jurisdiction?” daughter-in-law Briana Bundy told The Associated Press by telephone from Bunkerville, Nevada.
“He’s not a flight risk. This is his home. This is where his livelihood is,” she said.
Cliven Bundy is accused of unlawfully directing more than 200 followers to stop federal agents and contract cowboys who were trying to enforce a court order to round up about 400 of his cattle two years ago.
“Witnesses have described the level of threatened violence as so intense that something as innocent as the backfire of (a) vehicle, or someone lighting a firecracker, would have set off a firefight,” according to a 34-page document filed by prosecutors Tuesday, February 15, 2016.
They allege that Bundy and his followers set up traffic checkpoints on public roads and followed and intimidated federal officials trying to conduct plant surveys.
The government said they released the cattle to diffuse the standoff, but failed to mention the cattle were dying under their care.
Federal authorities have said Bundy owes more than $1 million in fees and penalties for letting cows graze for decades on federal land near his ranch. However, the Federal authorities along with Judge Janice Stewart refuse to recognize the United States Constitution in that these lands are not federal lands, but belong to the State and We The People.
One should ask, if Cliven Bundy is so dangerous why has he been allowed to travel as he wished amongst the public since 2014 without an arrest? He must have killed at least 100 people in these last 22 months to get that outlandish description added to his name from a bought and paid for treasonous judge. Bundys attorney is correct, if he was so dangerous to society why didn’t you arrest him earlier, did you want him to harm someone in Nevada? Just like these charges, it’s all fabricated to keep the truth from getting out on the government land grabs on these ranchers and the murder of Robert LaVoy Finicum that recently happened in Oregon.
Although some may disagree with how the Bundy’s handled some things, we should admire their willingness to go balls to the wall against an ever encroaching and tyrannical government.
If convicted of all six charges, Cliven Bundy could spend the rest of his life in federal prison.
It should be noted, Judge Janice Stewart continually violates State and Federal laws by releasing illegals under the unlawful policies of the Obama administration.
For example, Judge Janice Stewart on Friday, February 12, 2016 ordered Illegal Alien Francisco Aguirre to be released while he’s awaiting the start of his trial. Aguirre pleaded not guilty to his charge in court. He was taking refuge at an Oregon church to avoid deportation and was arrested this week on a federal charge of illegal re-entry.
Records show the 35-year-old was indicted by a grand jury in September on the illegal re-entry charge. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed ICE has lifted its detainer on Aguirre, meaning his removal from the U.S. is on hold pending the outcome of his criminal case.
Aguirre, who came to the U.S. from El Salvador nearly two decades ago, was arrested Thursday, February 12, 2016, at a county court. He was there to settle a case of driving under the influence.
The arrest stems from a past criminal case: Aguirre was deported in 2000 after a drug conviction; he then unlawfully re-entered the country.
DUI, Drug conviction, Illegal entry, Illegal re-entry, Hindering arrest. And he’s free to walk.
Pete Santilli, a new media journalist who broadcasts his news reports over YouTube and streaming internet radio, is sitting in jail.
Santilli, notorious for his controversial topics, vocal outrage over government abuses, and inflammatory rhetoric, is not what anyone would consider an objective reporter. His radio show, aptly titled “Telling You the Truth…Whether You Like It or Not,” makes it clear that Santilli has a viewpoint (namely, that the government has overstepped its bounds), and he has no qualms about sharing it with his listeners.
It was that viewpoint that landed Santilli in jail.
In early January 2016, a group of armed activists, reportedly protesting the federal government’s management of federal lands and its prosecution of two local ranchers convicted of arson, staged an act of civil disobedience by occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. Santilli, who has covered such protests in the past, including the April 2014 standoff in Nevada between the Bundy ranching family and the federal government over grazing rights, reported on the occupation in Burns as an embedded journalist, albeit one who was sympathetic to the complaints (although not the tactics) of the occupiers.
When asked to clarify his role in relation to the occupation, Santilli declared, “My role is the same here that it was at the Bundy ranch. To talk about the constitutional implications of what is going on here. The Constitution cannot be negotiated.”
Well, it turns out that the Constitution can be negotiated, at least when the government gets involved.
Long a thorn in the side of the FBI, Santilli was arrested by the FBI following its ambush and arrest of key leaders of the movement. He was charged, along with the armed resistors, with conspiracy to impede federal officers from discharging their duties by use of force, intimidation, or threats—the same charge being levied against those who occupied the refuge—which carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison.
Notably, Santilli is the only journalist among those covering the occupation to be charged with conspiracy, despite the fact that he did not participate in the takeover of the refuge, nor did he ever spend a night on the grounds of the refuge, nor did he ever represent himself as anything but a journalist covering the occupation.
Of course, the government doesn’t actually believe that 50-year-old Santilli is an accomplice to any criminal activity.
Read between the lines and you’ll find that what the government is really accusing Santilli of is employing dangerous speech. As court documents indicate, the government is prosecuting Santilli solely as a reporter of information. In other words, they’re making an example of him, which is consistent with the government’s ongoing efforts to intimidate members of the media who portray the government in a less than favorable light.
This is not a new tactic.
During the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, numerous journalists were arrested while covering the regions’ civil unrest and the conditions that spawned that unrest. These attempts to muzzle the press were clearly concerted, top-down efforts to restrict the fundamental First Amendment rights of the public and the press.
As The Huffington Post reports:
The Obama administration’s treatment of reporters has caused controversy before. In 2009, the Department of Justice targeted a Fox News reporter in an investigation. Three years later, DOJ seized Associated Press reporters’ phone records. After that, former Attorney General Eric Holder ordered a review of the Justice Department’s news media policies. DOJ employees must consult with a unit within the Criminal Division before they arrest someone when there is a “question regarding whether an individual or entity is a ‘member of the news media,’” according to a January 2015 memo from Holder to DOJ employees.”
That the government is choosing to target Santilli for prosecution, despite the fact that they do not recognize new media journalists as members of the mainstream media, signals a broadening of the government’s efforts to suppress what it considers dangerous speech and stamp out negative coverage.
The message is clear: whether a journalist is acting alone or is affiliated with an established news source, the government has no qualms about subjecting them to harassment, arrest, jail time and trumped up charges if doing so will discourage others from openly opposing or exposing the government.
You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.
Where the government has gone wrong is in hinging its case against Santilli based solely on his incendiary rhetoric, which is protected by the First Amendment and which bears a striking resemblance to disgruntled patriots throughout American history.
Here’s what Santilli said: “What we need, most importantly, is one hundred thousand unarmed men and women to stand together. It is the most powerful weapon in our arsenal.”
Now compare that with the call to action from Joseph Warren, a leader of the Sons of Liberty and a principal figure within the American Revolution: “Stain not the glory of your worthy ancestors, but like them resolve never to part with your birthright; be wise in your deliberations, and determined in your exertions for the preservation of your liberties. Follow not the dictates of passion, but enlist yourselves under the sacred banner of reason; use every method in your power to secure your rights.”
Indeed, Santilli comes across as relatively docile compared to some of our nation’s more outspoken firebrands.
Santilli: “I’m not armed. I am armed with my mouth. I’m armed with my live stream. I’m armed with a coalition of like-minded individuals who sit at home and on YouTube watch this.”
Now compare that to what George Washington had to say: “Unhappy it is, though, to reflect that a brother’s sword has been sheathed in a brother’s breast and that the once-happy plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in his choice?”
And then there was Andrew Jackson, a hothead if ever there was one. He came of age in the early days of the republic, served as the seventh president of the United States, and was not opposed to shedding blood when necessary: “Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms.”
This is how freedom rises or falls.
There have always been those willing to speak their minds despite the consequences. Where freedom hangs in the balance is when “we the people” are called on to stand with or against individuals who actually exercise their rights and, in the process, push the envelope far enough to get called out on the carpet for it.
Do we negotiate the Constitution, or do we embrace it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel, no matter how hateful or ugly it gets, and no matter how much we may dislike its flag-bearers?
What we’re dealing with today is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words—words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning and its corruption—in order to keep its lies going.
The only therapy is the truth and nothing but the truth.
Otherwise, there will be no more First Amendment. There will be no more Bill of Rights. And there will be no more freedom in America as we have known it.
As the insightful and brash comedian George Carlin observed:
“Rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter. Sooner or later, the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a fuck about them! The government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply does not give a fuck about you! It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.”