The FBI Is Answering To A Higher Royalty: The Clintons

George Orwell once said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” And Orwell’s nose was much smaller than yours, Zano. Let’s start with the objective facts driving the ‘FBI-wrongdoing’ narrative, as opposed to whatever you’ve been doing. My friend Mick tends to seek facts to support his assumptions, and then he goes on a weekly diatribe that makes Trump’s latest Fox & Friends interview sound like a Dalai Lama tweet.

The Office of Inspector General released a report last week that demonstrates the objective facts that Andrew McCabe disclosed information to the media that violated policy, because it was: “done in a manner designed to advance his personal interests at the expense of department leadership.” A second disclosure was done: “to rebut a narrative that had been developing following a story in the WSJ on Oct. 23, 2016, that questioned McCabe’s impartiality involving former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

The story in the WSJ stated a political action committee run by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Virgina Democratic Party collectively donated nearly $670,000 to the senate campaign of McCabe’s wife. The WSJ story stated that McAuliff is: “an influential Democrat with longstanding ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton.” McCabe later helped oversee the investigation into Clinton’s email use.

The report goes on to claim that when McCabe was questioned about these leaks, he lied: “at least four times, three times under oath.” The report also shows contradictory statements made by McCabe and his then boss, James Comey.

These events, revealed by the Inspector General report, created a narrative that is driven by objective facts that suggests higher ups in the DOJ violated department protocol and the law in an effort to protect Hillary Clinton during the investigation into her private email use as well as alleged Clinton Foundation misconduct.

The narrative of “Trump conspired with Russia to steal 2016 election” did not arise from objective facts. Coincidentally it first arose from illegal (and apparently politically motivated) leaks by higher ups in the DOJ to an (apparently politically motivated) press.

Do you see the difference?

There was smoke all right, but are you unbiased enough to follow the narrative of that smoke back to the objective facts that lead to the actual fire?

You already know Trump’s a criminal? Based on what objective facts? On April 3, 2018 the Washington Post was the first paper to headline how: “Mueller told Trump’s attorneys the president remains under investigation but is not currently a criminal target.” But you already know he’s criminal, because that’s the narrative you’ve been fed. And you want to believe that narrative so bad, that your willing to keep digging for something anything to back it up.

The Inspector General report provides objective facts and then there are the complicated suggestive circumstantial smoke that the “resistance” keeps blowing.

Truth is not about politics or power.

You don’t have to like Trump or support Trump in order to accept the truth of this matter (Loretta Lynch asked me to use the word ‘matter’ here).

 

*Wall Street Journal article: Justice Watchdog Says McCabe Misled Investigators.

 

(Visited 49 times, 1 visits today)

  5 comments for “The FBI Is Answering To A Higher Royalty: The Clintons

  1. Pierce Winslow
    May 1, 2018 at 10:03 AM

    You want objective facts supporting that Trump is a criminal? How about these:

    Hundreds of contractors state that Donald Trump refused to pay them, resulting in 24 citations by the Federal Trade Commission for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

    200 mechanic’s liens filed by Trump employees and contractors, ranging from $75K to $1M, for refusal to pay.

    Over 100 law suits filed against the Public-Servant-in-Chief surrounding refusal to pay his taxes. This is probably why he doesn’t want to release his tax returns.

    That DA in Florida that adamantly wanted to prosecute Mr. “Believe Me” for fraud, but suddenly dropped her investigation of Trump U after Trump’s foundation donated $25,000 to her campaign. It is illegal for his foundation to make such donations, so it fell back on him, specifically his taxes.

    The Manhattan District Attorney’s office dropped a criminal fraud case against Douchebag Jr. and sister Ivanka after Trump’s personal Lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, made a hefty donation ($25K, apparently the going rate) to the district attorney’s campaign.

    At the time of his nomination Mr. “Big Orange” had ~3500 outstanding law suits against him. That’s THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED.

    Señior “Small Hands” has been accused of sexually harassing ~20 women but has faced no controversy, let alone investigation or calls for resignation. That’s more than double the number of allegations faced by Al Franken who was forced to resign.

    Captain “I’d Date My Own Daughter” appointed two members of his family, Ivanka and Jared, to high-level positions in his administration. This is in violation of federal nepotism regulations. They are still there 16 months later, with no calls for dismissals or resignations.

    The Commander-in-Stupid, in a moment of masculine bravado, revealed to the President of the fucking Philippines, that we had two nuclear missile submarines operating in the Korean theater in the middle a tense standoff. I’m no expert, but I would think that this would be highly classified information. Of course, as Commander in Chief, the Douchebag in Chief has the power to declassify that, which I suppose he could do spontaneously, which would render it not exactly illegal. But he didn’t do so ahead of time, and he did put a few hundred of our people (and a couple of billion dollars of US military hardware) in jeopardy, and everyone on the God-damned planet was taken aback by that action.

    Just in the last few weeks 48 servers at his “Winter White House” sued over unpaid over time, with settlements ranging from $800 to $3000.

    It is becoming more and more apparent that Devious Donny’s campaign footed the bill for Cohen & his $130K of hush money paid to the Presidential…Sexual Advisor?…in violation of federal campaign finance laws.

    Is that enough “objective facts” or ya? That’s what I found without even really trying. Just imagine what Mueller is going to unleash after the midterms.

    • Mick Zano
      May 1, 2018 at 12:30 PM

      I was just getting to work on the actual “objective facts” on the Russia probe rebuttal, but this is the problem, isn’t it. Republican wrongdoing comes in at such a fast and furious pace (pardon the pun) you can’t keep up with the allegations, twists and turns. The right has it easy, they just hyperfocus on a handful of procedural errors, or they just make shit up. I may use some of this in my article, Mr. Winslow. There’s and endless treasure trove of potential wrongdoing here that’s changing constantly. I sat down to write this article three times, but each time there’s related breaking news.

      “You can never step into the same Russia scandal twice.”
      -Heraclitus

    • pokey
      May 1, 2018 at 3:27 PM

      Do you consider him innocent until proven guilty?

      I was referring more to “Russia conspiracy narrative” of which Muller’s last publicized statement as of April 2, 2018 was “Donald Trump is the target of an investigation, but not a criminal investigation (paraphrased–I wrote the actual quote somewhere). Hemay find something incriminating. (find me the person, i’ll find the crime), but conspiring with Russia to steal the election? I doubt it.

      • Mick Zano
        May 1, 2018 at 5:52 PM

        I am working on the article, it changes every day, dude. This isn’t one misstatement turned into an illuminati/alien human hybrid conspiracy. There’s a lot of there, there. You can doubt it all you want, as long as we get the investigation. There is enough to warrant one this time, which is admittedly a little different than how republicans are accustomed to things proceeding. Think outside the Fox on this one.

        • pokey
          May 2, 2018 at 8:23 AM

          Yesterday I learned that the Investigation has 49 questions they wish to ask Trump. Let me ask you–how do I know these questions? Did the Investigation publically release these questions? No, I don’t think so. So how do I know these questions?

          If a member or members of the Investigation is willing to leak these questions to the press, can I assume political bias?

          Should you assume political bias?

          If there is a THERE THERE, then I want to here it. But there should be a time frame and BS procedural technicalities should be off the table, and no settling for an illegal campaign contribution. Deliver the hardcore evidence of Trump/Russia conspiracy or get off the pot.

          But the Investigators have not proven themselves trust worthy enough–they’ll find something, that’s their job.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *