James Brien Comey, Jr.

James Brien Comey Jr. is traitor.

James Brien Comey Jr. is traitor.

James Brien Comey, Jr. is a traitor.

James Brien Comey, Jr. is the 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.

Watch here:

“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.”


Additional Information

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!


Additional Information

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.

HSBC link

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.

Politico:

“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.

Lockheed Martin

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.

HSBC Holdings

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.

Fox News:

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.

FBI Case Letter

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)

    * Perjury

    * 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.

Letter by FBI traitor James Comey

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.


Additional Information

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.


Addison Mitchell “Mitch” McConnell, Jr.

Addison Mitchell Mitch McConnell Jr. is a traitor.

Addison Mitchell Mitch McConnell Jr. is a traitor.

Addison Mitchell “Mitch” McConnell, Jr. is a traitor.

Addison Mitchell “Mitch” McConnell, Jr. is a treasonous United States Senator from Kentucky. As a senior member of the Republican Party, he has been the Majority Leader of the Senate since January 3, 2015.

Along with his treasonous acts, Senator Mitch McConnell voted for the following:

1. Mitch McConnell Voted to Let Harry Reid Fund ObamaCare – (2013, RCV 206) Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voted to end debate and allow Senate Democrats to re-insert funding for ObamaCare into the Continuing Resolution to fund the federal government. Although McConnell did vote against the final bill, he and all Republicans knew that voting for cloture to end debate would allow Senator Harry Reid to fund ObamaCare by a party-line vote, and thus a vote for cloture was a de facto vote to fund ObamaCare.

2. Mitch McConnell Voted for the Fiscal Cliff Tax Hike – (2012, RCV 251) The fiscal cliff was a fake crisis created by Congress and the president. In which President Obama threatened to shut the government down if Republicans refused to massively raise taxes. In response, Senator McConnell personally negotiated with Vice President Biden and produced a New Year’s Day 2013 fiscal cliff deal that raised payroll taxes on 77 percent of U.S. households and contained no real spending cuts.

3. Mitch McConnell Voted for the Ineffective “Super Committee” Debt Hike – (2011, RCV 123) During the 2011 debt ceiling impasse, McConnell came up with the idea of allowing President Obama to increase the debt limit three times in exchange for allowing Congress a symbolic vote of disapproval each time. McConnell’s idea carried the day and he voted to pass the Budget Control Act, which allowed over $2 trillion in new debt. In return, taxpayers got stuck with the “super-committee”, which failed to come up with any agreement on targeted spending cuts and gave us the across-the-board sequestration cuts instead.

4. Mitch McConnell Voted for the Wall Street Bailout (T.A.R.P.) – (2008, RCV 213) Senator McConnell voted for the $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Taxpayers should never have been forced to pay for the reckless lending practices of the big banks. McConnell took credit for being a major part of negotiating the bailout, and called the passage of T.A.R.P. “the Senate at its finest.”

5. Mitch McConnell Voted to Bail Out the Housing Market – (2008, RCV 186) Senator McConnell also voted to bail out the government-sponsored mortgage lending companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The risky lending activities of these organizations were a major factor in creating the housing bubble that led to the financial collapse of 2008, yet McConnell and the Senate voted to allow Fannie and Freddie to borrow up to $300 billion of the taxpayers’ money.

6. Mitch McConnell Voted to Increase the Federal Minimum Wage – (2007, RCV 42) Senator McConnell voted for the Fair Minimum Wage Act that increased the federal minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $7.25 per hour in 2007. Raising the minimum wage is a bad idea because it reduces employment especially among low-skilled workers. The cost of raising the minimum wage is passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

7. Mitch McConnell Voted to Give the Government Unprecedented Surveillance Powers – (2006, RCV 25) In spite of warnings by 4th Amendment and privacy advocates, Senator McConnell voted to make most of the USA-PATRIOT Act’s provisions permanent in 2006. He also voted for the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which granted immunity to U.S. telecommunication companies for giving information about their customers to the government without a warrant (2008, RCV 168). Together, the “Patriot Act” and the FISA Amendments Act authorized unprecedented surveillance powers that have been used by the FISA courts to allow bulk data collection on U.S. citizens without a warrant. Yet McConnell called the Patriot Act “one of the most important and overdue pieces of legislation in a generation”, and declared that perhaps “it did not go far enough”.

8. Mitch McConnell Voted against Eliminating the Federal Ethanol Mandate – (2005, RCV 138) Senator McConnell voted to table an amendment that would have eliminated the federal mandate that forced ethanol to be blended into the fuel supply. The ethanol mandate is a market-distorting disaster that has increased the cost of gasoline, while environmentalist groups admit that it is actually bad for the environment (not to mention your car).

9. Mitch McConnell Voted for Massive New Energy Subsidies and Regulations – (2007, RCV 430) Senator McConnell voted for final passage on an omnibus energy bill that created massive new subsidies for green energy development, while also tightening environmental regulations in some areas. The bill massively tightened fuel mileage requirements for passenger vehicles and created a new renewable fuels standard, both of which have increased the cost of both cars and fuel. Also, this is the bill that started the infamous phase-out of incandescent light bulbs.

10. Mitch McConnell Voted for Medicare Part D – (2003, RCV 457) Senator McConnell voted to pass Medicare Part D, a massive entitlement expansion that conservatives rightly predicted would tremendously expand the deficit and add trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities to the federal rolls.


Additional Information

On Tuesday (April 24, 2015), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced a short bill that would extend key expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, a sign this extension could happen without any substantive talk about whether and how to reform these provisions.

The bill from McConnell and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) would extend sections of the PATRIOT Act through 2020 that allow access to business records and roving surveillance. The business records provision is found in the controversial Section 215 of the bill, which has been used to justify access to phone records.

Roving surveillance refers to language elsewhere in the PATRIOT Act that makes it easier to surveil suspects using different methods, without having to get approval each time the method changes.

McConnell’s bill would also extend Section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act through 2020. That’s the “lone wolf” language that lets the government surveil suspects as terrorists even when they have no clear association with a known terrorism group.

All of these authorities expire June 1, 2015.

National Security Agency surveillance through the PATRIOT Act has become controversial ever since a contractor, Edward Snowden, revealed that it was being used to collect bulk phone data on millions of Americans. That started a debate about how to pare back the NSA’s authorities.

However, reform efforts have failed so far, and GOP leaders in the House and Senate have indicated they support no changes in order to ensure effective surveillance of terrorist threats to the United States.

Earlier this month, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told Republicans that some legislation to extend these surveillance authorities could be considered this month. It’s unclear if the House will come up with its own plan, or whether it might take language the Senate passes first.


UPDATE: June 24, 2015

Senate Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) wants to remove a statue of Kentucky-native Jefferson Davis from the state capitol building.

The statue of Jefferson Davis has been in the rotunda of the Kentucky Capitol building since 1936, but it has come under fire by McConnell, and “other treasonous Republicans in Kentucky’s House and Senate.”

Senator Mitch McConnell gave a measured response to questions about removing the statue, saying, “Maybe a better place for that would be the Kentucky History Museum.


UPDATE: August 7, 2015

Senator Mitch McConnell has repeatedly violated his oath of office.

For example, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans should not use a must-pass government spending bill to defund Planned Parenthood, despite increasing pressure from conservatives who want to use a threat of a shutdown to target the embattled women’s health group.

In a wide-ranging news conference with reporters Thursday (August 6, 2015), McConnell warned of the consequences for Republicans if the party triggers a government shutdown over a controversial policy dispute, like the GOP did with Obamacare in 2013.

“We’ve been down this path before,” he said. “This is a tactic that’s been tried going back to the ’90s, frequently by Republican majorities that always have the same ending: that the focus is on the fact that the government is shut down, not on what the underlying issue that is being protested is.”

First of all, essential operations of the government would never be shut down. Second of all, if Obama vetoed a spending bill, he would be the one to “shut down” the government, as McConnell calls it.

Let’s examine the constitutional implications of McConnell’s statements. What he is saying, essentially, is that he will not pass legislation that will be opposed by the Executive Branch. That’s why Obama has had to issue only four vetoes in his entire presidency, an unusual low.

Now, here’s the oath that McConnell swore to when he was last reelected:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

He promises to defend the Constitution. And what does the Constitution say about the branches of government? It is strongly implied that the Legislative Branch is co-equal (and some would even say superior) to the Executive Branch. Section 1 of Article 1 of the Constitution says that all legislative powers are vested in the Congress. And sections 7 and 8 talk about the power of the Congress to raise and spend revenue.

Implicit in all this is that the Congress can decide to legislate as it wishes, even passing legislation not approved of by the president (who can veto, but who can also be overridden).

But Mitch McConnell has given up this power. He has stated, in many ways at many times, that he is not going to pass legislation that the president disapproves of. By giving the Executive total power over legislation, McConnell has ceded the powers of the legislative branch, and disrupted our constitutional system. That’s why he’s given up on gay marriage, the debt ceiling, and Obamacare, to name a few.

He has effectively made the Congress a rubberstamp, meaningless forum whose only purpose is to ratify the decisions of the Executive. Congress seems merely to exist to symbolically ratify the decisions of the leader. That’s what Congress does when it ratifies 100% of Obama’s spending without a fight.

Given that, McConnell has violated his oath of office by failing to protect the powers of the legislative branch. Of course, he won’t suffer any consequences for this treasonous act, but it is alarming to note that his failure as Republican leader is not only political, but also constitutional in nature.


UPDATE: September 26, 2015

Why can’t Mitch McConnell be forced out? With only 54 Republican senators, it would only take four dissenters to deny McConnell a majority.

Here’s are a few of the things McConnell has given Barack Obama:

1) 100% of his budget requests.

2) Fully funding Obamacare without any restraints.

3) Fully funding Obama’s illegal amnesty without any restraints.

4) Raised the debt ceilings repeatedly without any restraints.

5) Effectively given away the Senate’s treaty deciding powers.

6) Refused to set up select committees to investigate the abuse of powers by Obama and his administration.


Andrew Lamar Alexander, Jr.

Senator Lamar Alexander is a traitor.

Senator Lamar Alexander is a traitor.

Andrew Lamar Alexander, Jr. is a traitor.

United States Senator Lamar Alexander is considered by most as a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

Senator Alexander wants to double federal spending on energy, and is calling for more Obama-style “green” energy research.

Senator Alexander supported the Obama amnesty bill for millions of illegal immigrants.

Senator Alexander supported TARP and the bailouts.

Senator Alexander tried to SNEAK an unconstitutional National Internet Sales Tax into a Defense Bill.

Senator Alexander voted against food freedom by allowing the FDA to raid farmers, natural food stores, and people who sell/posses raw unprocessed foods at gunpoint.

Senator Alexander voted to prolong the Iraq occupation.

Senator Alexander was one of two Republicans that voted in favor of allowing President Obama to imprison US citizens indefinitely without trial.

Senator Alexander voted to continue giving American tax dollars to the governments of Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya (among others).

On top of his $174,000 salary, Senator Alexander has become extremely rich while serving in public office. It is reported Senator Alexander now has upwards of $19.2 million in assets, and this amount doesn’t include his homes, automobiles or other effects.