FBI Email Exposes Attorney General Promise to Protect Clinton from CRIMINAL CHARGES

Virtually unnoticed by the majority of corporate media, on Wednesday — in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the FBI’s oversight of an investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails — Director James Comey revealed a murky effort as outlined in an undisclosed document by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or her associates to ensure the former presidential candidate would not be charged.

No matter what was divined during that investigation, this peculiar document apparently evinced the thwarting by Lynch and associates of any effort to hold Clinton accountable.

But Comey, mildly recalcitrant in testimony due to the classified nature of ongoing investigations, refused to reveal any details about the ostensible document — or about why Lynch would have employed such extreme protectionism on the topic of Clinton.

A report from the New York Times last month first discussed the ostensive contents of this mystery document and its implications, stating it appeared Comey and his associates harbored misgivings about the oversight of their bosses at the Justice Department — and whether or not their biases would allow for a neutral probe.

Speaking on condition of anonymity with more than 30 current and former law enforcement, congressional, and other officials, the Times found Comey’s quasi-rogue attitude toward supervisory departments and tradition of bureau secrecy caused friction between the DOJ and FBI — and extended specifically to his direct boss, Lynch.

Lynch, the Times inquiry found, refused even to allow Comey to publicly term the probe of Clinton an “investigation” — over fears such semantics would prejudice the public against the former secretary of state.

“His misgivings were only fueled by the discovery last year of a document written by a Democratic operative that seemed — at least in the eyes of Mr. Comey and his aides — to raise questions about her independence. In a bizarre example of how tangled the F.B.I. investigations had become, the document had been stolen by Russian hackers,” the Times reported.

Of course, the theory Russian hackers actively subverted the U.S. presidential election — enjoining willing and tacit participants in a scheme to both leak information and insert pro-Russian, anti-Clinton propaganda — has never been unassailably proven.

Nevertheless, the Times reports officials from the U.S. Intelligence Community were, at times, privy to information hacked by The Russians — and even received a cache of hacked documents for perusal.

That Lynch, or someone close to her, intended to undertake a Herculean effort to ensure Hillary Clinton would survive the crucial probe over wrongdoings and misbehavior — as putatively revealed in this undisclosed, explosive document — comprised one bit of information seen by the Russians, Comey worried. Continued the Times report,

“The document, which has been described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far, according to several former officials familiar with the document.

“Read one way, it was standard Washington political chatter. Read another way, it suggested that a political operative might have insight into Ms. Lynch’s thinking.

“Normally, when the F.B.I. recommends closing a case, the Justice Department agrees and nobody says anything. The consensus in both places was that the typical procedure would not suffice in this instance, but who would be the spokesman?

“The document complicated that calculation, according to officials. If Ms. Lynch announced that the case was closed, and Russia leaked the document, Mr. Comey believed it would raise doubts about the independence of the investigation.”

Even the very existence of this damning document has never been proven — perhaps due to its incendiary contents.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley referenced the New York Times’ article in questioning Comey, stating it “reportedly provided assurances that Attorney General Lynch would protect Secretary Clinton by making sure the FBI investigation ‘didn’t go too far.’”

“How, and when, did you first learn of this document? Also, who sent it and who received it?” Grassley queried the FBI chief.

“That’s not a question I can answer in this forum, Mr. Chairman, because it would call for a classified response,” Comey stymied. “I have briefed leadership of the intelligence committees on that particular issue, but I can’t talk about it here.”

Grassley, not content at the stonewall tactic, pressed further in a similar vein, asking,

“What steps did the FBI take to determine whether Attorney General Lynch had actually given assurances that the political fix was in no matter what? Did the FBI interview the person who wrote the email? If not, why not?”

Comey balked, however, refusing on the same grounds his answer would be considered classified — and maintained that position, even when Grassley noted the FBI had yet to answer the Committee’s request to view the contentious document, described occasionally as an email, replying,

“I’m not confirming there was an email, sir. I can’t — the subject is classified and in an appropriate forum I’d be happy to brief you on it. But I can’t do it in an open hearing.”

Lynch’s apparent loyalty to Clinton came into sharp focus on a number of occasions — including in a private meeting on an airport tarmac between herself and former President Bill Clinton — amid the ongoing investigation of Secretary Clinton, which Lynch at least semantically opposed.

Senator John Cornyn, in questioning Comey, pointed to both the unrevealed email or document and the tarmac meeting that exploded international ire for its brazen indiscretion, stating,

“[I]t was the former attorney general Loretta Lynch, who up until that meeting with President Clinton, was the person responsible for making the decision whether to convene a grand jury involving the allegations against Secretary Clinton. And it was former attorney general Loretta Lynch who apparently forbade you from using the word investigation. Indeed, if the New York Times story is true, a Democratic operative expressed confidence that the former attorney general would keep that investigation from going very far.”

READ MORE:  BREAKING: FBI Makes Stunning Reversal, Reopens Clinton Investigation After Discovery of New Documents

With the FBI still looking into the campaigns and communications of Clinton, the document in question — and its likely damning contents pegging the U.S. Attorney General responsible for abating efforts to levy charges as needed against the former secretary of state — could prove combustible, if not detrimental, to assumed neutrality of high-level investigators in preeminent law enforcement agencies.

James Comey maintains the bureau “made right decisions” in its investigations, no matter the alleged ambivalence from his boss, Loretta Lynch — but, in order to earn the trust of Congress and the American public, it would behoove the FBI or any other entity in possession of the startling document to reveal its contents to the world.

Until then, flagrant and surreptitious stonewalling of the FBI’s probe, as controvertible then as at present, will paint the top law enforcement agency’s efforts against Clinton as an impotent remnant of failed presidential aspirations — but further evidence that family’s dynasty had been gifted impunity of steel from its nascent days in Arkansas.

New Clinton Probe Dead from the Start, John Podesta’s Best Friend at DOJ In Charge of Investigation

Late on Friday evening, the FBI announced the reopening of its investigation of Hillary Clinton and her opprobrious emails, and the Department of Justice quickly followed suit on Monday, vowing to “dedicate all needed resources to quickly review emails in [the] Clinton case,” according to a tweet by the Associated Press.

BREAKING: Justice Dept. says it"ll dedicate all needed resources to quickly review emails in Clinton case.

— The Associated Press (@AP) October 31, 2016

Both announcements, made after Clinton aid Huma Abedin’s emails were discovered on estranged husband Anthony Weiner’s computer, come amid growing internal contention, as the FBI and DOJ parse out how to deal with the pressure of a rapidly approaching presidential election, as well as public perception the original investigation had been purposely bumbled in favor of the Democratic nominee.

However welcome or unwelcome the news of reopened investigations might be, one major detail — revealed in Wikileaks ongoing publications of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails — presents evidence the Justice Department’s probe could amount to little more than a smoke screen to placate an irate public.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik promised Congress in a letter the Justice Department “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible.”

#BREAKING Senior DOJ official sends letter to lawmakers responding to request for more information about email review.#8days pic.twitter.com/PCgT2ODkQd

— Just the Facts (@JTF_News) October 31, 2016

Perhaps that vow, from a government branch putatively dedicated to ensuring the criminal element is duly punished for misbehavior, should reassure those increasingly suspicious of an obviously-rigged system.

Perhaps, before Wikileaks revealed interdepartmental communications and corruption, that promise might have held weight beyond a symbolic gesture of obligation — but as Podesta’s emails reveal, it’s entirely possible this reopened investigation is failed from the start.

Kadzik, in fact, maintains a cozy enough relationship with Podesta to have had dinner with the Clinton insider just one day after the former secretary of state testified before the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October.

And the pair’s familiarity isn’t held to a simple dinner party, as the Daily Caller reported, “Podesta and Kadzik, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs, were in frequent contact, other emails show. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.”

So, Kadzik — an extremely close friend to the chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — is tasked with heading the newly reopened investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Clinton couldn’t ask for an arrangement better situated to again find insufficient evidence worthy of bringing charges against her. As far as conflicts of interest go, this takes the cake.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, Matthew Whitaker, told the Daily Caller.

If political wranglings and connections marred transparency and neutrality the first time around, it would be reasonable to assume the players haven’t since magically unentangled themselves from Clinton and her campaign mere days before Americans take to the polls.

“It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” Whitaker continued, also noting the controversial meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch on an airport tarmac in Phoenix during the DOJ’s previous investigation.

In fact, Kadzik, as an Obama appointee to the Justice Department beginning in 2013, also initiated the effort to have Loretta Lynch appointed to the role of Attorney General.

And the friendship between Kadzik and Podesta — as well as their connections to the Obama administration and additional officials overseeing the Clinton investigation — spans decades.

In 2008, for example, as the Washington Free Beacon from of the leaked emails, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik have a supportive role in Obama’s presidential campaign — particularly because the latter was a “fantastic lawyer” who managed to keep Podesta “out of jail.”

Although Kadzik, as head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, does not have a direct role in ‘chain of command’ for the Clinton investigation, he does field inquiries from Congress concerning her emails.

Noted by the Daily Caller, in “November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation,” which sparked outrage by the GOP over potential conflicts of interest.

Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis voiced particular concerns about Lynch’s longtime connections to the Clintons in a February 1, 2016 , and that Obama’s appointees “are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.”

While the Daily Caller’s report goes much further in depth concerning the relationships of Podesta and Kadzik with the Clintons and their insiders, it can be easily surmised in even a simple perusal of facts there could be no possible way an investigation this critical — and with resounding implications — would maintain any semblance of impartiality.

When Julian Assange vociferously denounces the U.S. electoral and political systems as rigged beyond repair, these connections are precisely what he’s referring to.

It might calm an irate public to hear an investigation had to be reopened — but when the effort involves the same players as the first round, the outcome is all-too predictable.

Google Search Results for ‘Pathological Lying’ Return Clinton Photo in Epic Act of Trolling

Despite a full month of revelations from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails published on a near daily basis by Wikileaks that, in a non-dystopian year, would utterly ruin an average candidate’s bid for the presidency, the corporate press has laughingly maintained its fealty to the former secretary of state.

So, assumedly fed up with the farce, someone — or, rather, a group of someones — took matters into their own hands Sunday night to flatly prove the point by linking a Google search for the term “pathological lying” directly to an image of Ms. White House Hopeful and two-time FBI investigation subject, Hillary Clinton.

In the “featured snippet block,” as Google terms it, Clinton’s image appeared next to the preview for and link to the Wikipedia entry for “Pathological lying,” along with the cursory definition, stating:

“It is a stand-alone disorder as well as a symptom of other disorders such as psychopathy and antisocial, narcissistic, and histrionic personality disorders, but people who are pathological liars may not possess characteristics of the other disorders. Excessive lying is a symptom of several mental disorders.”

Clinton’s mendaciousness has proven itself time and again, whether during testimony concerning her use of a personal server for business during and after her tenure as secretary of state, to claiming she had no memory of sardonically joking about assassinating Wikileaks founder Julian Assange with a drone hit.

But beginning on October 28, as can be seen in the Wikipedia edit history, someone decided they’d had enough with the corporate presstitutes’ continued excuses made for the benefit of Clinton’s continued campaign, and changed the pathological lying entry to reflect as much.

“Added the only person who has a proven track record for being a Pathlogical [sic] liar. References can be easily looked up on wikileaks, most media sites, and thru congressional hearings,” the bold editor noted of their new addition.

It would seem someone alert enough caught the edit and reverted the entry — but then another editor decided to try again the following day.

“I added a picture of a Pathological Liar,” the second editor noted.

At one point, as the Huffington Post reported, someone deleted the entire page introduction and replaced it with, simply, “Hillary Clinton.”

None of these edits went over too well with the Wikipedia moderators, and despite repeated attempts by the pranksters turned truth-tellers, the entry was eventually locked from any further edits until November 3rd due to “vandalism.”

As the Washington Times noted, these rogue editors assumed public familiarity with Clinton’s less-than-honest record — none cited specific examples of actual lies.

Had they done so, there would have been a plethora from which to choose — perhaps most notoriously the subject of a reopened investigation by the FBI.

Clinton, in fact, lied under oath in Congressional testimony concerning her private server when she claimed “there was nothing marked classified” in emails, either “sent or received.”

Not only were classified documents both sent and received over the unsecured server, but a handful were determined later to be “secret.”

While examples of Clinton’s lies, corruption, and collusion could easily fill entire volumes of work, nonetheless, she continues to be shown in a favorable light by the very corporate media outlets found to have worked in concert with her campaign behind the scenes.

Although Wikipedia’s Pathological Lying entry can’t be touched for at least a few more days, the epic prank certainly made the point — Hillary Clinton might indeed be a pathological liar.

These Damning Revelations from WikiLeaks’ October Surprise Explain Why Assange Was Just Silenced

Wikileaks continues dropping bombshell revelations in its coordinated October Surprise of documents and emails hacked from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta — so many, in fact, it has been difficult to keep up. Damning best describes information released so far — damning not only for Clinton, but countless top U.S. politicians, officials, the FBI, the State Department, President Obama, corporate media, Big Banks, and nearly innumerable others.

For all intents and purposes, the sheer volume of damaging information should, theoretically, lay waste to Clinton’s bid for the presidency — if not land her behind bars.

Nonetheless, the same corporate media — proven in the leak to have colluded with the Clinton camp to have actively crafted the narrative about her personal email server, among other things — has dismissed the significance of the leak, and CNN even hubristically and falsely scolded actual journalists with integrity for their ‘illegal’ perusal of the cache.

And overnight, in an albeit unverified act of possible reprisal for the October Surprise, Wikileaks tweeted that “Julian Assange’s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.”

Julian Assange"s internet link has been intentionally severed by a state party. We have activated the appropriate contingency plans.

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 17, 2016

This, after previous cryptic tweets appearing to hold keys to files on U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Ecuador, and the U.K.’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office drew widespread and unfounded speculation about Assange’s assassination — under the assumption his ‘dead man’s key’ had been tripped.

Alternate theories to the intimation an unknown agent of an unknown state continue to run the gamut from the outright humorous to subtly tongue-in-cheek — including an account claiming to be Verizon Wireless Support offering its services, which drew the response, “If this is Verizon Support, I am Neptune of the Oceans.”

But the bizarre events didn’t end there. Donald Trump’s controversial and prominent advisor Roger Stone also took to Twitter with the accusation, “John Kerry has threatened the Ecuadorian President with ‘grave consequences for Ecuador’ if Assange is not silenced,” followed by, “Reports the Brits storm the Ecuadorian Embassy tonite while Kerry demands the UK revoke their diplomatic status so Assange can be seized.”

John Kerry has threatened the Ecuadorian President with "grave consequences for Equador" if Assange is not silenced @StoneColdTruth

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 17, 2016

Reports the Brits storm the Ecuadorian Embassy tonite while Kerry demands the UK revoke their diplomatic status so Assange can be seized

— Roger Stone (@RogerJStoneJr) October 17, 2016

Wikileaks and its intrepid founder no doubt constitute one of the U.S. government’s most despised ‘enemies number one,’ with the enormity of disclosures leaked over its ten-year history lending credence to the accusation a state actor would indeed cut off one of Assange’s paltry remaining means of outside communication from inside his haven-turned-prison inside the Ecuadorian Embassy. Following are a mere sampling from the Podesta leaks thus far — any one of which evidences why there likely is a state target sight trained on Assange’s forehead.

In fact, Hillary Clinton once flippantly joked about assassinating Assange in a drone strike as revealed in a recent document — and though she has since employed the most notorious of government cop-outs, ‘I don’t remember saying that,’ further evidence disputes the remark constituting a humorous quip.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton asked during a meeting in 2010, according to an anonymous source inside the State Department.

However, following that meeting, as The Free Thought Project reported, “Clinton aide Anne-Marie Slaughter emailed Clinton and aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and Jake Sullivan with the subject ‘RE an SP memo on possible legal and nonlegal strategies re Wikileaks.’” True Pundit reported that email’s attachment — potentially fleshing out said strategies — has not been found by any of the various agencies investigating Clinton’s emails.

In what it deemed “the holy grail of U.S. journalism,” Wikileaks unleashed the full transcripts of three paid speeches Clinton gave to Goldman Sachs in 2013, attached to an email dated January 23, 2016, sent by top aide Tony Carrk — who marked certain “problematic” excerpts in the event those texts ever surfaced publicly.

So problematic, in fact, Carrk prefaces the email: “Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with Policy.” In one of the many speech passages, given during a Goldman Sachs conference in June 2013, Clinton heralded the need to intervene in Syria “as covertly as possible,” saying:

“The problem for the US and the Europeans has been from the very beginning: what is it you – who is it you are going to try to arm? […] How do intervene – my view was you intervene as covertly as is possible for Americans to intervene. We used to be much better at this than we are now. Now, you know, everybody can’t help themselves. They have to go out and tell their friendly reporters and somebody else: Look what we’re doing and I want credit for it, and all the rest of it.”

But the retroactive scrubs of Clinton’s highly-paid speeches appear to have been an ongoing practice. As the Intercept reported, in November 2015, Clinton campaign speechwriter Dan Schwerin retro-edited a $260,000 speech she gave to Deutsche Bank in 2014, by strategically adding a passage critical of Wall Street “precisely for the purpose of having something we could show people if ever asked what she was saying behind closed doors for two years to all those fat cats.”

Schwerin continued, “I wrote her a long riff about economic fairness and how the financial industry has lost its way. Perhaps at some point there will be value in sharing this with a reporter and getting a story written. Upside would be that when people say she’s too close to Wall Street and has taken too much money from bankers, we can point to evidence that she wasn’t afraid to speak truth to power.”

Additional emails surrounding the contentious Big Bank speeches show insider rifts over dealing with an obstinate Clinton family intent to make hefty profits when to do so would not have been politically prudent — such as a speech former President Bill Clinton had been set to give within days of Hillary’s formal announcement of her candidacy.

“I know this is not the answer she wants, but I feel very strongly that doing the speech is a mistake — the data are very clear on the potential consequences,” Clinton campaign strategist and manager Robby Mook wrote. “It will be three days after she’s announced and on her first day in Iowa, where caucus goes [sic] have a sharply more negative view of Wall Street than the rest of the electorate. Wall Street ranks first for Iowans among a list of institutions that ‘take advantage of every day Americans’, scoring twice as high as the general election electorate.”

While the long-sought transcripts and inter-office quibbling proving Hillary’s fealty to Big Banks and Wall Street certainly prove what many surmised, in another wholly unexpected revelation, it was revealed the former secretary of state — and by extension, the U.S. government — had known for some time its ally Saudi Arabia funds and assists the terrorist organization known as the Islamic State.

Ironically discussing potential strategies for combating the group’s growing influence in the Middle East in August 2014, Clinton stressed the need to “use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

Apparently not a secret among State Department and other government insiders, the Saudi funding and backing of the terrorist group should — in an atmosphere less infused with corruption — brought an immediate end to billions in arms and other military equipment to the Kingdom.

Indeed an investigation by Reuters recently evidenced a 2015, $1.3 billion arms sale to known human rights abuser and notoriously imprudent coalition leader Saudi Arabia caused U.S. officials to worry about being “implicated in war crimes.”

Each of these stunning disclosures would certainly give Wikileaks and Julian Assange sufficient concern to consider himself a marked man — but the organization’s dedication to provide the transparency so vowed and not delivered by the Obama administration make such leaks in indispensable tool for journalists dedicated to truth, and the public so desperate to know it.