Hillary Clinton Misspoke Again

by Jaymez

7 May, 2017

 

Hillary Clinton said the other day that had the election been held on October 27th “I would be your President”. I’m sure she believes that to be true because she does start believing her own lies. That is a trait of pathological liars.

In 2008 Barrack Obama’s presidential nomination campaign team ran an attack ad against Hillary Clinton. I think they nailed it when they stated, “Hillary Clinton will say anything, but change nothing.”

This article looks at:

• Some of Hillary Clinton’s famous lies, and what would lead to the conclusion that she is a pathological liar.
• The Democratic Nomination Committee favoured Hillary and worked un-democratically against Bernie Sanders to ensure Hillary won the nomination. Had they not done so, Sanders may have been the rightful challenger to Trump.
• There is no proof that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians, but there is strong proof that John Podesta, Clinton’s Campaign manager, had strong connections to Russia. The mainstream media don’t mention that.
• Why Hillary Clinton is wrong to blame Wikileaks or FBI Director James Comey for her election loss.
• Proof Hillary Clinton would have lost the election without FBI Director James Comey’s letter of 28th October.
• The solid case as to why Hillary Clinton should have been prosecuted, or at the very least faced a grand jury to determine if charges should be laid regarding her illegal use of a private email server.

We may not like Donald Trump — the left leaning mainstream media certainly doesn’t — and there is a lot to dislike in his personal life. But I am not convinced Americans got it wrong when they elected him ahead of Hillary Clinton. We are all still a bit nervous about Trump, and what his leadership will bring, but it is hard to imagine Hillary Clinton would have been a force for positive change.

The evidence shows that Clinton is not clever, honest, nice, stable or successful in her own right. At least Trump can claim the latter. The USA may have dodged a bullet in not electing Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton’s Most Famous Lie

Hillary Clinton famously lied multiple times about having to run through sniper fire after a helicopter landing in Bosnia. This was during her campaign to gain the Democratic nomination to run for President in 2008. “I remember landing under sniper fire,” she said. “There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

When video footage of the calm greeting ceremony on the tarmac surfaced, all she could say is that she ‘misspoke’. “I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things – millions of words a day – so if I misspoke it was just a misstatement,“ she said.

But as an Obama spokesman pointed out “When you make a false claim that’s in your prepared remarks, it’s not misspeaking, it’s misleading,”

It Seems Hillary Clinton Just Can’t Help But Lie

The left-wing fact checker Politifact has registered 28 false statements by Hillary Clinton, and they didn’t even include the famous one above. In June 2016 the Washington Times published an article titled ‘The lie that is Hillary – A list of her ‘accomplishments’ reveals a suspect pattern’. I love the introduction to the article:

Many of us remember the classic line from the “Seinfeld” show, that “it’s not a lie if you believe it.” Applying that theme to the evolution of Hillary Rodham, then Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now just plain Hillary Clinton, here are the notable accomplishments of her “public service” career:

After listing some of her past failures and her most famous lies, the journalist Daniel Gallington concluded that:

Hillary’s brief solo “professional” career [without Bill] was a total failure, and of her own doing. Despite high-level political sponsorship to get her a key “entry level” job she flunked the D.C. Bar Exam {perhaps the easiest in those days} and got fired from her staff job.

(I know this last point is disputed as to whether she was fired, or the project had just come to an end.) In her recent presidential race Gallington wrote that

she is identified in friendly media solely by her “career” post-marriage to Bubba [Bill Clinton]. After she and Bill left the White House (along with the furniture, crockery and art work they took with them) she simply punched her ticket with two more political gigs that were handed to her. Neither of which identify her as anything but an opportunist, saying and doing whatever necessary to perpetuate her “new” political career, this while biding her time until she could run for president — twice.

Does Hillary Take Absolute Responsibility for Losing, or was She Lying about That Too?

Recently Hillary Clinton told a TV audience “I take absolute responsibility” for her defeat in the Presidential election, but then immediately blamed the defeat on others. “I was on the way to winning until a combination of (FBI Director) Jim Comey’s letter on Oct. 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me,” Clinton said.

So Hillary was lying again — she doesn’t take absolute responsibility. She clearly blames her loss on FBI Director James Comey’s letter and the so-called (by her), ‘Russian Wikileaks’.

Julian Assange was quick to tweet the obvious response to her complaint about what Clinton called “Russian Wikileaks”. He wrote, ‘You can’t blame WikiLeaks when what we leaked was your words and positions. Blame yourself.’ He is right of course, it was the contents of the emails which shined a light on the true Hillary Clinton, what she said internally and what she said for public consumption.

What Evidence is there of Russian Involvement?

Last October, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the Russian government fed the emails to WikiLeaks for publication. Assange has vehemently denied that was the case.

None of the 16 US intelligence agencies have offered any proof of the claim that the Russians were involved.

A couple of Democrat politicians on the Intelligence committee have said that the hacking had the ‘signature’ of a Russian hack without actually providing proof of that. Thanks to TV shows we all know that hackers can make it look like anyone else but them hacked a computer, so that doesn’t really stand as ‘evidence’.

So there is no proof to date of any Russian involvement in the email leaks, and no proof of any collusion in the email leaks between Russia and the Trump campaign. That is, apart from Donald Trump saying that perhaps Russia could find the missing emails that Hillary Clinton deleted from her server. But that was said at a public campaign so hardly counts as collusion. In fact the only definite connection with the Russians has been shown to be with the Democrats, the Clintons and her campaign manager John Podesta.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) “Rigged” the Primaries

In the leak of 20,000 DNC emails from January 2015 to May 2016, DNC staff discuss how to deal with Bernie Sanders’ popularity as a challenge to Clinton’s candidacy. Instead of treating Sanders as a viable candidate for the Democratic ticket, the DNC worked against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the presidential nomination.

The release provides further evidence the DNC broke its own charter violations by favouring Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee, long before any votes were cast.

Of course, honest Hillary would have had nothing to do with that, huh?

Bernie Sanders may well have otherwise been Trump’s adversary in the presidential campaign. This was a really big deal but the left leaning mainstream media didn’t want to talk about it much. Even so the leak eventually led to the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The Democratic Campaign Team Didn’t Like Hillary

The emails leaked from Clinton’s own campaign manager John Podesta described a number of less-than-flattering aspects of Clinton and her campaign. If her campaign manager didn’t really like her, why should the American people vote for her? Is that anyone else fault but Clinton’s?

Here is an example of the email exchange (my bolding):

Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, to Neera Tanden, who worked for the Clinton campaign in 2008 and has remained a close adviser.

“We’ve taken on a lot of water that won’t be easy to pump out of the boat”, he wrote in September 2015 as Clinton staff feared that Vice President Joe Biden would join the Democratic primary race.

“Most of that has to do with terrible decisions made pre-campaign, but a lot has to do with her instincts,” he wrote, to which Mrs Tanden responded: “Almost no one knows better [than] me that her instincts can be terrible.”

Clinton Happily Cheats

Here’s an email from CNN contributor Donna Brazile to Clinton aides, about leaking the debate questions:

“From time to time I get the questions in advance,” Ms Brazile, now chair of the Democratic National Party (DNC), wrote in the subject line of a 12 March email to Clinton aides.

She went on to paste the text of a question about the death penalty that Mrs Clinton would be asked. The question, with very similar wording, ended up being posed to the White House hopeful at the event. Hours after WikiLeaks broke the news of the alleged collaboration, Ms Brazile wrote in an statement:

“I never had access to questions and would never have shared them with the candidates if I did.”

What a whopper! No wonder she was chosen as the DNC Chairman after that.

Trump Lost Votes from Leaks – but it is His Fault

I have absolutely no doubt that Donald Trump lost a great deal of support after the audio of the ‘pussygate’ conversation of 11 years ago was leaked to the media. Should Trump blame whoever leaked it? NBC Universal or someone from there must have sat on it a long time. The Washington Post actually released the recording two days before the second Presidential Debate.

Don’t tell me someone wasn’t trying to influence the election. But do the Main Stream Media want to know who? Not on your life — because it hurt Trump, not their favoured candidate. But it doesn’t matter, the public have a right to know exactly what they are getting with Trump.

Well the same applies to Clinton. The public had a right to know what she did, what she really thinks and what those closest to her really think of her and others. So by the logic that the media applied to Trump, it really shouldn’t matter who hacked the emails or who leaked them.

Of course, had Hillary Clinton not been using an illegal server (which she initially claimed she didn’t have) Podesta’s emails probably wouldn’t have been hacked. Again, Clinton’s fault!

FBI Director James Comey’s Letter is Hillary’s Fault

Now to Clinton’s complaint about (FBI Director) Jim Comey’s letter on Oct. 28th 2016. Previously Comey had stated that Clinton had been reckless about national security in using the illegal private server. He also admitted to the Congressional enquiry that Clinton had lied a number of times. The lies and the truth were detailed in the National Review’s article titled ‘Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie, Lie: The Quick List of Clinton’s Eight E-mail Lies’

Journalist Celina Durgen made the following list of Clinton’s main false statements about the email scandal:

1. Lie: She didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.” Clinton told this to reporters at a press conference March 10, 2015. She repeated it at an Iowa.

Truth: Comey said that the FBI found at least 110 e-mails that were classified at the time Clinton sent or received them — 52 e-mail chains in all, including eight Top Secret (the highest classification level) chains.

2. Lie: She didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.

Truth: Comey confirmed suspicions about Clinton’s claim by noting that a number of the e-mails were, in fact, marked classified. Moreover, he added:

“Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

3. Lie: She turned over all of her work-related e-mails.

It’s important to remember that Clinton made this claim about the 30,000 e-mails she and her attorneys chose to provide to the State Department. After turning over paper copies of these 30,000, she and her attorneys then unilaterally deleted another 32,000 that they deemed personal.

Truth: The FBI found “thousands” of work-related e-mails other than those Clinton had provided; they were in various officials’ mailboxes and in the server’s slack space. Comey also said.

“It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

4. Lie: She wanted to use a personal e-mail account for convenience and simplicity, streamlining to just one device.

Truth: Clinton used multiple servers, administrators, and mobile devices, including an iPad and a Blackberry, to access her e-mail on her personal domain. In fact evidence was given that after the subpoena was served to hand over all illegal devices Clinton staff destroyed a number of devices and disposed of them.

5. Lie: Clinton’s use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation.

Truth: No: A May report issued by the State Department’s inspector general found that it has been department policy since 2005 that work communication be restricted to government servers.

6. Lie: All of Clinton’s e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.

Truth: The State Department did not begin automatically capturing and preserving e-mails until February 2015, two years after Clinton left the State Department.

7. Lie: There were numerous safeguards against security breaches and “no evidence” of hacking.

Truth: Among the “safeguards” of Clinton’s server were Secret Service members — but this is no safeguard at all where the Internet is concerned. Further, Comey noted: None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Your Gmail account is more secure than Hillary’s personal e-mail.

There is some evidence of a possible breach. Comey said:

Hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Clinton’s “no evidence” claim is a bald lie. She also failed to report several hacking attempts. As we now know, because of her private server the emails of her campaign manager John Podesta were ‘hacked’. Which is the reason she is blaming ‘Russian Wikileaks’ for her election loss.

8. Lie: Clinton was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.

Truth: After hearing this claim by Clinton, the chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Trey Gowdy, accused Clinton of lying about not receiving a subpoena. Gowdy said in a statement:

“The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy.”

Others Have Been Convicted For Much Less

There are people serving jail sentences for far less significant breaches of security, whether or not the breaches were INTENTIONAL. And for much less significant lies to Congressional and Senate hearings. Intention is irrelevant to this crime.

In one case, a sailor is serving one year in jail and three years electronic monitoring including six months home confinement for much less. He will be discharged from the Navy on leaving prison. The sailor took six photos showing the nuclear reactor compartment, the auxiliary steam propulsion panel and the maneuvering compartment.

He said he took the photos knowing they were classified, but did so only to be able to show his family and future children what he did while he was in the Navy. He denied sharing the photos with any unauthorised recipient. No evidence was presented that he had. The fact is, if you Google ‘Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarine’ images, you will get more details on the Subs components and layout than were shown in his pictures.

But because he breached security protocols, despite the fact there was nothing discernibly ‘secret’ which could be made out in the photo, he was jailed and discharged from the navy. Did he have any criminal intent? No, so why the different rules for Clinton?

In another case in 2015 David H. Petraeus, a retired general and former CIA Director, and considered one of the greatest military minds of his generation, pleaded guilty in a plea deal to a misdemeanour charge of mishandling classified materials, ending a long-running legal saga that had threatened to send him to prison.

Petraeus admitted he provided the materials, which was still ‘classified’, to his biographer for work on the book. He was sentenced to a two-year probationary period. U.S. Magistrate Judge David Keesler also imposed a $100,000 fine — more than double the amount recommended by prosecutors — to reflect the “seriousness of the offense.” The judge faulted him for a “serious lapse in judgement.” Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, third in line to the Presidency, deliberately set up a private email server and used it for classified Government business knowingly in breach of security protocols. How would that judge have described her actions? Petraeus can never again hold a public office potentially stopping him from running for president one day as many had predicted. Did he have criminal INTENT? I doubt it, he was just getting his biography done. Any classified material would have been taken out in the proof reading process. Why the different rules for Clinton?

It is not like the Clintons hadn’t previously been exposed to cases where classified information was held on private home computers. John Deutch was CIA director from May 1995 until December 1996. He came under Justice Department investigation after his resignation when classified material was found on his home computer in Maryland.

An internal CIA investigation found that he stored and processed hundreds of files of highly classified material on unprotected home computers that he and family members also used to connect to the Internet, making the information potentially vulnerable to hackers.

The Justice Department was in the process of filing a misdemeanour plea deal, which Deutch had agreed to for mishandling government secrets when President Bill Clinton pardoned him. Otherwise he would have been looking at a similar sentence to Petraeus. So the Clintons were intimately aware of the consequences of having classified information on private servers. Perhaps Hillary thought Obama would give her a last minute pardon before charges could be filed on an admitted plea deal, if it came to that?

The unfairness of the misdemeanour deal and then the pardon of Deutch was highlighted at the time. Retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, an author and military analyst:

“If I had top-secret information on my home computer” while on active duty, “I would be investigated by the criminal investigative division, I would lose my clearance forever, and if it were top-secret or above, as it was in the Deutch case, I cannot imagine not being court-martialed–with jail time.”

Sandy Berger was national security adviser during Bill Clinton’s second term. He removed classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it. The materials related to terror threats in the United States during the 2000 millennium celebration. He was preparing to testify before the Sept. 11 commission that examined the events leading up to the 2001 attacks and wanted to study up on them.

He pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material. Though he avoided prison time, he lost access to classified material for three years. A judge fined him $50,000, higher than the amount recommended by prosecutors. At the time Berger said

“I let considerations of personal convenience override clear rules of handling classified material,”

‘Personal convenience’, wasn’t that one of the excuses Hillary Clinton used for setting up the illegal server? It didn’t save Berger, so why should it save Clinton?

Bryan Nishimura was a former Naval reservist in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 and a regional engineer for the U.S. military. He was found to have taken home some classified army records after his deployment ended. Nishimura said he never intended to break the law but was a “pack rat” who thought nothing of warehousing Army records at home alongside personal belongings.

Nishimura pleaded guilty in to unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials. A judge fined him $7,500, and he was ordered to surrender his security clearance.

The violation was a technical and unintentional one, but one that the Justice Department nonetheless thought it needed to punish “to make its point.”

So why wouldn’t the Justice Department want to make its point to all politicians about private servers and the handling of classified material and prosecute Hillary Clinton?

Hillary is Surrounded by Liars so it Comes Naturally

Lying seems to come naturally in the Clinton household. Hillary’s husband almost became the first President to be impeached because he lied in court, claiming he did not have ‘sexual relations’ with Monika Lewinsky, a statement he was later forced to retract in the face of overwhelming evidence including stains on a certain dress.

The impeachment was passed in the Congress but failed in the Senate because it required a two thirds vote or 67 Senators. There were 55 Republican Senators but not a single member of his own Democratic Party voted guilty on either charge despite the overwhelming evidence, and the Congress finding of guilty. So Clinton was saved the infamy of being the first President ever impeached. Perhaps Hillary learned that even huge whoppers can be forgotten by the faithful Media and Democrat voters?

Does Director Comey’s Explanation for Not Recommending Clinton be Prosecuted Stand up to Scrutiny?

Back to the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Given the evidence provided, almost every legal commentator was suggesting that Hillary Clinton and some of her staff should at least face charges with regards to their breaches of security regulations and with obstruction of justice. Though I note many political commentators at the time were saying that somehow that wouldn’t happen at least before the election. Then by the time Hillary Clinton is President, she will be able to make it go away. Some were even suggesting that charges could be laid and Barack Obama could give a presidential pardon. Just about everyone was expecting the decision would be left to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. They were blind-sided with what actually happened.

FBI Director Comey announced he would not be recommending any prosecution against Hillary Clinton. In his statement in July 2016 Comey said

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues INTENDED to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

‘Intention’ is not required to secure a conviction in almost any crime, though it may reduce the severity of the charges. For instance ‘common assault’ vs ‘assault with intention’ or the variants of this which apply in different jurisdictions. The same applies when a person causes the death of someone. If it was intentional, then it is murder. If it was through negligence or carelessness, or indeed to use Comey’s word, reckless, then it is manslaughter.

Did Hillary Clinton’s actions breach security regulations which she was fully briefed and aware of? Yes. Did it expose classified material to potential theft or access by persons with no right to access them. Yes, Comey said Clinton’s system had less security than a Gmail account. In addition we know that because of Clinton’s server, all of her campaign manager, John Podesta’s emails were hacked and released. So we know there was not only potential for exposure, it happened.

Comey continued about the Government related emails on Clinton’s server,

“None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

He further said,

“Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.“

With regards to the hacking of Clinton’s server Director Comey stated,

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

Note that there was no specific mention of Russia in this statement and the FBI has never mentioned ANY evidence that Russia was responsible for gaining access to John Podesta’s emails which were leaked by Wikileaks. That hasn’t stopped the media running that line as a fact just on the basis of what a couple of Democrat politicians said.

Given the above, at this point in Comey’s statement any listener would have been prepared to hear him say that the FBI has determined that the security regulations have been consistently and deliberately breached by Hillary Clinton and her staff, and that they had initially tried to cover up the breaches by lying to the FBI. Therefore he had no alternative but to recommend that the Attorney General proceed with appropriate prosecutions.

Remarkably he did the opposite:

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

That certainly doesn’t stand up to the evidence of past prosecutions brought by the Justice Department as mentioned above.

Comey’s statement continued,

“Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. [No, intent does not need to be proven, as can be seen by passed convictions.] Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and wilful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.”

Seriously if Comey and his team at the FBI cannot see that Clinton wilfully and knowingly set up a private email server in contravention of all the security briefings she and her staff would have received, they must all be wilfully blind! Similarly it is clear that vast quantities of materials exposed. Up to 100,000 work related emails!

Comey continued,

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”

At last he admits that other people who are not Hillary Clinton would at the very least be subject to security or administrative sanctions. For instance a loss of security clearance which would make it impossible for Hillary Clinton to run for President. Comey continued:

“As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.”

So Hillary Clinton was unbelievably let off the hook on these serious breaches of security despite there being plenty of examples of lesser cases going forward to prosecution and jail!

Should Hillary Clinton have been Prosecuted?

Had the public been able to decide at the time whether charges should have been pressed, it might have gone differently for Clinton. According to one poll 56% of American adults disapprove of the FBI’s decision, while 35% said they approved. There was some partisanship in the poll results; 90% of Republicans said Clinton should have been charged, but still 30% of Democrats thought she should be charges too.

While there were plenty of lawyers who took Director Comey’s line that intent would be difficult to prove, many others said that intent is not necessarily at issue and Clinton should have been charged. Pamela Engel writing in the Business Insider just days after the decision got the reactions from some legal experts who thought Clinton should have been prosecuted.

John Malcolm, the director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that while “proving specific intent is a hard thing to do,” the Justice Department could prosecute Clinton based on her negligence in handling classified information.

“He certainly laid out a fairly compelling case for gross negligence,” Malcolm told Business Insider. Malcolm noted that “there are lots of statutes out there on the books that do not require specific intent.”

“They may well have been able to establish gross negligence, and that’s what the statute calls for,” Malcolm said, referring to a provision of the Espionage Act that stipulates it’s illegal to disclose classified information through “gross negligence.”

Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator and Harvard Law school graduate, agreed that Clinton could have been prosecuted for gross negligence.

“They say the crime that she committed requires intent. The statute does not require intent. It requires gross negligence. [Comey] called her ‘extremely careless’ and then proceeded to describe how she was grossly negligent. So clearly it fulfils the requirements of the statute,” he told Business Insider.

Shapiro, moreover, argued that intent was in fact present.

“When he says that there was no intent, the question is intent to do what? The intent he’s talking about is basically treason. No one has said that she’s a traitor. People have said that she intended to put classified material on her server without regard for whether it was going to pose a national security risk. … I don’t know how in the world anyone could possibly claim that it would not cause risk to national security.”

Remember, had Clinton not made the deliberate decision to have the secret server, none of this would have happened. It wasn’t Comey’s fault, Russia’s fault or Wikileak’s fault, it was all Hillary Clinton’s fault. But she was let off the hook and her campaign staff and supporters were able to tell the public the lie that Hillary Clinton “did nothing wrong”. And of course the left leaning mainstream media and most Democrat supporters were happy with that lie, despite any intelligent person knowing it wasn’t true.

Hillary Clinton May Even Be Delusional About Winning the Presidency had the Vote been on October 27th 2016

Apart from evidence showing that Clinton was still behind in swing states, there was other evidence that Clinton may have lost the election when she was thinking she was comfortably ahead. We all know now that the polls, and the pundits, were wrong about the election result the whole way through the campaign. But other polls were also showing the electors were not happy with Clinton.

For instance on October 21st, just days before the release of the ‘bombshell’ Comey letter which Clinton blames contributed to her loss, Rasmussen Reports released a national telephone and online survey that found that 39% of likely U.S. Voters agree with the FBI’s decision not to indict Clinton after it concluded that she potentially exposed top secret information to hostile countries when she used a private e-mail server as secretary of State. But 53% disagree and believe the FBI should have sought a criminal indictment against her.

The likely voters were not on Clinton’s side, despite almost four months of being able to claim she did nothing wrong. The fact is, they could see that Hillary Clinton knew she shouldn’t have had the private server, and shouldn’t have used it for Government and classified business. After all, if that wasn’t the case, then she wouldn’t have initially denied having the server, denied using it for Government business, denied having sent classified material on it or arranged for the scrubbing of emails and destruction of other devices. That is not the behavior of an innocent party with no deliberate intent to breach the security regulations.

It is clear the decision of whether or not to prosecute should not have rested with a Democratic Party appointed FBI Director. The matter was not clear and straight forward, so it should have gone to a grand jury to decide whether Hillary Clinton should have stood trial.

I believe the reason FBI Director Comey, possibly with the collusion of Federal Attorney General Loretta Lynch, decided that there was no way they could let this matter go to a grand jury was because that would mean Hillary Clinton would be running for President while under investigation by a grand jury. There is no way she would be elected if she was — because it is likely that when found guilty she would face impeachment.

Why Did FBI Director Comey Re-Open the Case Sending the Infamous Letter?

So now let’s go to FBI Director James Comey’s letter of Oct. 28, which along with the so called “Russian Wikileaks”, Hillary Clinton blamed for her not now being the US Commander in Chief.

During last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, James Comey explains this now infamous letter. He asked people to go back in time with him to understand his decision making. A decision he say he would still make today.

On Thursday October 27th 2016, members of his staff told Comey that they had found thousands of Hillary Clinton’s private emails stored on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, and needed a warrant to read them, thereby reopening the investigation into the Democratic presidential candidate’s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

In case you have no idea who Anthony Weiner is, I will digress for a moment. On May 27, 2011, Democratic Congressman Weiner sent a link of a sexually explicit photograph of himself via his public Twitter account to a woman who was following him on Twitter. After several days of denying he had posted the image, Weiner held a press conference at which he admitted he had “exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years” and apologized for his earlier denials. After an explicit photo was leaked Weiner announced on June 16, 2011, that he would resign from Congress.

A second sexting scandal began on July 23, 2013, several months after Weiner returned to politics in the New York City mayoral race. Explicit photos were sent by him under the alias “Carlos Danger” to a 22-year-old woman with whom Weiner had contact as late as April 2013, more than a year after he had left Congress. The 22-year-old woman was later revealed as Sydney Leathers, an Indiana native who first came into contact with him when she expressed her disapproval of his extramarital behaviors.

On August 28, 2016, the New York Post reported that Weiner had sexted another woman, including sending one picture while lying in bed with his young son. The New York Times reported the next day that Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, who was a close adviser and aid to Hillary Clinton, intended to separate. Abedin announced her intention to separate from her husband by stating, “After long and painful consideration and work on my marriage, I have made the decision to separate from my husband.”

On September 21, 2016, the Daily Mail published an article claiming that Weiner had engaged in sexting with a 15-year-old girl, and devices owned by Weiner were seized as part of an investigation into this incident. On January 31, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that federal prosecutors were weighing bringing child pornography charges against Weiner over the incident.

So John Weiner is a creep who was close to Hillary Clinton through his politics and his wife who had apparently at times used his laptop for unsecured email exchanges with Hillary Clinton. By Thursday October 27th FBI Director Comey’s staff advised him that they had found the Clinton emails on the laptop as part of their child pornography investigations into Weiner.

So what was FBI Director Comey to do? He could ignore it and say and do nothing; he could look at the emails without officially announcing that the FBI were re-opening the investigation into the Clinton Emails; or he could be transparent and tell the truth that in light of new evidence, he had no option but to re-open the case. To to say nothing would make him appear to be partisan and not transparent. So he wrote the letter to Congress.

As Comey put it the other day at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, he saw two doors in front of him:

“One was labelled speak, the other was labelled conceal. To speak would be really bad. There’s an election in 11 days. Lordy, that would be really bad. But concealing, in my view, would be catastrophic.”

Corruption by Attorney General Loretta Lynch?

Director Comey also said he was also boxed in by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. He said “Her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane was the capper for me, and I then said, you know what, the [Justice Department] cannot, by itself, credibly end this,” Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday.

At the time Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she regretted her meeting with former President Bill Clinton, saying she should have recognised ahead of time how it would be perceived by the public. Mrs. Lynch claimed the private meeting with Mr. Clinton came about by chance after the two wound up on the same airport tarmac in Phoenix on June 27 2016, just days before FBI Director James Comey would announce that he would not press charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server.

Loretta Lynch said they talked for about 45 minutes on topics like golf, grandchildren and the Brexit. I’m sure the topic of the investigation into Hillary never came up! Yet it has now been revealed that Loretta Lynch was assuring people at the time that Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.

Andrew Kerr writing for Western Journalism wrote his article on May 4th 2017, FBI Found New Email Suggesting Lynch Made Sure Clinton Email Probe ‘Didn’t Go Too Far’

Loretta Lynch was the then Federal Attorney General who heads up the Department of Justice.

A new email obtained by the FBI lends credibility to Comey’s statement and suggests Lynch’s tarmac meeting with the former president [Bill Clinton] wasn’t the only way she interfered with the Clinton email investigation.

Director Comey has not revealed who wrote the email and who was the recipent. All we know is that a Democratic operative, indicated (Attorney General) Lynch would do “whatever it took to prevent criminal charges to be brought against Hillary Clinton in the email probe,” said Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge.

Herridge said Sen. Chuck Grassley’s, R-Iowa, acknowledgment of the email was “one of the most significant headlines” to come out of Wednesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Yet have we heard about it on main stream media? Nup, they are ignoring this and are still beating the Russia/Trump drum despite zero evidence of any collusion there.

And so, Director Comey’s decision to send that infamous letter on Oct 28, 2016, to members of Congress, explaining that the FBI was reopening its investigation into the Clinton emails seems the only thing he could have possibly done to stop himself being implicated in a conspiracy with Loretta Lynch at a later date.

Who Should Hillary Blame for Comey’s Letter?

Hillary Clinton is now blaming her election loss in large part to Comey’s letter? She said if the election had been held the day before the election “I would be your President”

But surely she can see that the letter was all related to Hillary Clinton’s deliberate actions to have emails outside the mandated security of Government servers. Should the USA have a Commander in Chief who is so casual about national security? Of course not. As the survey held on 21st October 2016 showed, most likely voters still thought Hillary Clinton should have been charged. This was days before Comey’s letter.

Hillary Clinton can only blame herself for FBI Director Comey’s letter of October 28th 2016. If there had been no need to investigate the new Clinton emails found on Weiner’s laptop, the letter would not have eventuated. There was no way Director Comey could have concealed that the investigation was being re-opened without being implicated in a conspiracy to conceal.

Hillary Clinton blamed the ‘Russian Wikileaks’ with no proof that Russia was even involved, but in any event it was the CONTENT of the emails which showed the true side of Hillary Clinton and her campaign to voters. That is what hurt her.

Another Reason Hillary Would Not be President Anyway

But even this is a lie by Hillary Clinton:

“I was on the way to winning until a combination of (FBI Director) Jim Comey’s letter on Oct. 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me,”

Really? The polls put her ahead of Trump on October 27th, but they also put her ahead in the polls on the day before election day. So she can hardly use the polls to determine that she would have won on October 27th. In fact while all the polls at the time were predicting an easy win for her (or a neck and neck race in one outlier poll), there was one source which predicted that Donald Trump would be President. And the prediction was made before Director Comey sent his letter.

Meanwhile Arjun Kharpal writing for Tech Transformers on CNBC wrote:

An artificial intelligence system that correctly predicted the last three U.S. presidential elections puts Republican nominee Donald Trump ahead of Democrat rival Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House. The prediction was announced early morning on October 21 2016 before Director Comey had sent the letter re-opening the Clinton email enquiry.

MogIA was developed by Sanjiv Rai, founder of Indian start-up Genic.ai. It takes in 20 million data points from public platforms including Google, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube in the U.S. and then analyzes the information to create predictions. The AI system was created in 2004, so it has been getting smarter all the time. It had already correctly predicted the results of the Democratic and Republican Primaries. Rai wrote in a report sent to CNBC:

“If Trump loses, it will defy the data trend for the first time in the last 12 years since Internet engagement began in full earnest,”

At the time most national polls put Clinton and the Democrats ahead by a strong margin. Rai said his data shows that Clinton should not get complacent.

Hillary Clinton did get complacent, she didn’t campaign in seats she had already ticked of as Democrat wins but which she went on to lose. She believed the left leaning pollsters and media. The arch liar was deceived by her allies.

The other day Hillary Clinton said in an interview,

“If the election had been held on October 27, I’d be your president, and it wasn’t.

An artificial intelligence system predicted that she was not going to win the election as at the morning of October 28th before the Comey letter was released.

It seems Hillary misspoke yet again!