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.

Judge Nap: FBI Just Released “Smoking Gun” Documents on Clinton

While millions of Americans were otherwise occupied with football on Sunday, the FBI discreetly released hundreds of additional documents pertaining to its investigation of Hillary Clinton — the contents of which analyst and legal expert Judge Andrew Napolitano described as “the smoking gun if there ever was one.”

Indeed the nature of the documents and the method in which they were communicated might be sufficient to bring charges against the former secretary of state and failed presidential candidate.

In an interview with FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs on Monday night, Napolitano asserted the 300 documents — released by an unknown source inside the FBI — evince a tremendously divergent characterization of Clinton’s handling of sensitive information than portrayed by intelligence agencies and the Democratic establishment.

“The highly sensitive nature,” the judge told Dobbs, “was 301 pages of emails, which Mrs. Clinton sent on a regular basis to a non-government person. We have reason to believe that was Sid Blumenthal — with whom she emailed on a daily and regular basis, several times a day.”

Judge Napolitano explained, what “[President-elect] Donald Trump feared and argued during the campaign, and what rogue FBI agents who profoundly disagreed with Director Comey’s decision to recommend against indictment” had been saying all along, is actually true.

And “the information Mrs. Clinton regularly sent to [the unnamed individual] was hacked by foreign intelligence agencies of countries unfriendly to us, and friendly to us — and sources tell FOX News those were Russia, China [both] unfriendly, and Israel, friendly.”

On page 235 in the latest cache of documents, as The Free Thought Project reported, “the FBI admits the Office of Inspector General found classified materials on Clinton’s server. This means the FBI knew about this leak well before anything was made public — and while Clinton was publicly denying it the entire time.”

Napolitano continued, the new information will be “extremely relevant in this time period,” as Senator Jeff Sessions continues to be grilled in confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a potential cabinet role as U.S. Attorney General because — pertaining to the freshly released documents — he will undoubtedly be asked, “what will you do with this?”

Dobbs asserted pertinent questions now arise, such as why these had not been released previously, and “why did the FBI director have such a struggle — a Hamlet act — that persisted over a number of months?

“And this evidence … makes it clear that his last judgment on the matter of prosecution was utterly in error, does it not?”

“You’re absolutely correct,” the judge replied, “this is the smoking gun if ever there was one — this ramps up the case for her prosecution.”

However, there are timely caveats to consider with President Obama’s administration in its eleventh hour — and the imperative to prosecute legitimately criminal activity doesn’t necessarily preclude other considerations, including a last-minute pardon for Clinton.

Napolitano noted, however, that if Obama chooses not to pardon Clinton, “the pressure on the attorney general, from the FBI agents who conducted the investigation — who probably posted this stuff last night during the Giants-Packers game — will be very difficult for him to resist.”

Additional germane but unanswerable aspects concerning the publication of the FBI documents tell of the murkiness of the entire investigation of Hillary Clinton and her use of a personal server.

Dobbs posited that if the person or persons who published the information came from inside the FBI and acted in a rogue capacity, the intent might have been to ensure an indictment as soon as possible. But the responsible party could also be an Obama administration insider leaking information for the sake of muddying the waters — or perhaps to provide the impetus for a presidential pardon.

As yet, there is no way to tell. However, as the judge added,

“Did Director Comey know about this at the time he exonerated Mrs. Clinton on July 5th, last summer? Did Director Comey tell President-elect Trump about this, when he met with him at Trump Tower last week? Did Director Comey know that this was going to be released when it was, and why was it released during a football game? Was it to gin it up for the senators to ask Senator Sessions about?”

Although Judge Napolitano laments the motivations and players remain shielded now, it’s possible further indicators will come out as Sessions testifies — but as of now, that hasn’t happened.

Some inside the Democratic establishment have criticized the investigation of Clinton as baseless and likened it to a witch hunt — but as this new cache of information reveals, feasible grounds for prosecution have existed this entire time in the transmission and compromise of classified information.

The Times Are Changing: Assange Goes on FOX News and Destroys the Russia Hack Conspiracy Theory

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange came forward after a long period of silence for a video interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity — in particular, to decimate claims leaked emails from the Democratic establishment had been hacked and provided by Russian government actors.

“The narrative has begun that, in fact, the U.S. government is accusing Wikileaks of having received materials from Russia and Russia’s cybercriminals with the political agenda of influencing the election. And obviously they’re talking, not just about the John Podesta emails, the DNC emails, but in other ways. I’ve asked you before, I’ll ask you again today — did Russia give you this information, or anybody associated with Russia?” Hannity asked.

“Our source is not a State party,” Assange told Hannity, once again confirming assertions he and Wikileaks have made on previous occasions. “So, the answer for our interactions is ‘no.’”

Continuing, he explained the political establishment has attempted to distract from the revelations in the leaked documents — which exposed the true words of Clinton and others in her campaign,

“And the American public read that information, true information, and said, ‘We don’t like these people.’ And then voted accordingly.”

Rather than acknowledge the breadth of corruption and behind-the-curtains nastiness on display in the documents, the establishment has attempted to conflate Wikileaks with Russians hacking the election — an accusation Assange explained amounted to bait-and-switch, as,

“Even Obama has had to admit that there was no hacking of U.S. voting machines.”

“But … the main focus for most Americans is that, they are being told by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, by the President of the United States, there are the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, et cetera, that in fact,” Hannity asked, “that Wikileaks was working with the Russian government to influence the election. Is that true in any way, shape, matter, or form?”

“No, it is absolutely false,” Assange replied, “and, if you read their statements carefully, you’ll see they don’t actually say that. They kind of mention one fact here, and one fact there, and nothing else.

“In the most up-to-date information, the twenty-ninth of December, where the FBI, DHS, White House, et cetera, made a statement, what is completely absent — from all those statements — is Wikileaks. Totally absent. So, what’s going on?

“I believe two things are going on. Number one, they don’t have the evidence that Wikileaks is involved in that way. Now, why am I confident about that? Because there is one person in the world — and I think it’s actually only one — who knows exactly what is going on with our publications. And that’s me.”

Asked whether he could state “unequivocally” the information published by Wikileaks did not come from any person associated in any way with the Russian government, Assange stated,

“We can say, and we have said repeatedly over the last few months, our source is not the Russian government, and it is not a State party.”

Again refusing to comment on the clarifying details concerning the source of documents leaked to the publishing organization, Assange emphasized that — although he could not confirm or deny reports from close friend and former British intelligence agent, Craig Murray the leaker came from within the Democratic establishment — “our sources are not a State party.”

Hannity then directly requested clarification for several accusations bandied about by the United States political establishment, asking if Assange had ever conversed with Russian President Vladimir Putin, to which he replied flatly, “No.”

“Have you ever talked to any of his surrogates?” the host continued.

“No.”

“Have you ever talked to Donald Trump?” Hannity asked, addressing suspicions Wikileaks had acted on behalf of the billionaire businessman’s campaign.

“No.”

“Any of his surrogates?”

“No.”

“Not one?” Hannity prodded.

“No,” Assange firmly responded.

“There was some report you might have talked to someone who was not associated with the campaign, Roger Stone?”

“No. That’s false.”

Claiming The Russians hacked anything has been largely a creation of the corporate press and politicians, and, as he explains, Obama is “acting like a lawyer,” and “If you look at most of his statements, he doesn’t say that. He doesn’t say that WikiLeaks obtained its information from Russia, or worked with Russia.”

Addressing one of the most frequently touted ideas that leaked documents influenced the election in order to sway the election for Donald Trump, Assange noted it would be impossible to tell for sure, but,

“If it did, the accusation is that the true statements of Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager, John Podesta, and the DNC head, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz — their true statements is what changed the election.”

Discussing millions of documents hacked by the Chinese, about which the aforementioned parties and the Obama administration have selectively chosen not to focus, Hannity asked whether Assange felt the move was intended to “delegitimize Donald Trump — what’s your interpretation of that?”

Assange explained, “It is exactly what it is designed to do … If you look at what the allegations are, they don’t mention Wikileaks, for the 29th, they don’t mention our publications. Our publications had wide uptake by the American people. They’re all true. But that’s not the allegation that’s been presented by the Obama White House. So, why such a dramatic response? Well, the reason is obvious: they’re trying to delegitimize the Trump administration as it goes into the White House. They’re going to try — they are trying to say that President-elect Trump is not a legitimate” president.

The Wikileaks head went on to explain the Democratic Party continues to attempt “short term wins” in such criticisms, while ignoring the factual substance of leaked documents — and the American people “want as much true information as possible.”

Wikileaks has been vilified for not releasing documents pertaining to Trump or his campaign — but, as Assange has repeatedly contended, no such documents were provided to the publisher.

“If the information you had was about Donald Trump and his campaign,” Hannity asked, “would you have equally released that?”

“Yes,” Assange responded without hesitation. “Absolutely.”

Murray, Assange’s associate — and former intelligence officials entirely unassociated with Wikileaks — have suggested the documents were leaked by a disgruntled party inside the Democratic establishment. On that topic, after Assange noted the perfect record Wikileaks has maintained in regard to authenticity of documents and refusal to expose the identity of sources, Hannity asked, since the leaker was not Russian,

“Can I ask … take it one step further. Can you say that the source was within the United States?”

After a frustrated pause, Assange replied, “I don’t want to constrain whether it was someone inside the United States, in the DNC, in the service providers that provide for the DNC, or outside, et cetera. I think that we have already pushed it quite a lot … more than we would like, by saying it was not a State party.”

But speaking out with that qualification had been a necessity as “there was a serious attempt to distract from the content of our publications with this Russian narrative.”

On the joint report from DHS and the FBI, Assange noted the tools provided as loose evidence of Russian hacking are commercially available — to anyone — and nothing laid out by the agencies evinced solid proof.

Additionally, Podesta’s careless choice of “password” for his password, and his staff’s erroneous assertion the infamous phishing email he received was legitimate, Assange said,

“This is something a fourteen-year-old kid — a fourteen-year-old kid — could have hacked Podesta that way.”

On the topic of corporate media’s lack of coverage of the content of the leaked documents — and exposed collusion with the Clinton campaign — Assange described the American mainstream press as “ethically corrupt.”

Despite allegations Assange and his organization had been somehow motivated to influence the election in favor of Trump, he noted,

“My motivation, for twenty years — ten years with Wikileaks — is to publish true information that is otherwise unassailable.”

Emphasizing he has no party political agenda, he added,

“We believe that the best type of government comes from a government that is scrutinized by the people, when they have true information about how governments and major corporations, other power actors in society, are behaving.”

Assange has been confined for years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London under threat of extradition to the United States — effectively making him a political prisoner. But vociferous anti-Russia rhetoric and allegations Russian hackers provided documents to Wikileaks forced Assange to come forward — first in an interview on Hannity’s radio program, and then this face-to-face interview — to call out the claims as hollow and baseless.

Although mainstream media has parroted these allegations against Russia, perhaps hearing Assange’s words in this rare appearance will help quiet the new Red Scare propaganda — and bring logic and common sense back to the table.

WATCH: Honest News Anchor Destroys CIA Russia Hack Claims in Under 5 Minutes

When unnamed officials with the CIA recently claimed Russia hacked the U.S. presidential election, but failed to provide any evidence, suspicions immediately circulated that the allegation constituted a fabrication — particularly as left-leaning corporate media unquestioningly parroted the story.

This, after the Washington Post first tried — and miserably failed — to convince the U.S. populace professional Russian propagandists were running nearly every alternative and independent media outlet, and had plotted to smear Hillary Clinton to ensure Donald Trump’s victory.

In tandem with the ratcheting up of anti-Russia propaganda by the left political and media establishment has been the equally laughable war on putative fake news, because — according to Clintonite Democrats and a smattering of Republicans — fake news also helped Trump win.

Of course, the irony in all this is the mainstream media’s articles on the CIA’s claims and allegations of Russian meddling are the exact sort of fake news which threatens to do actual, physical, palpable damage — whether by crushing dissent or instigating war with the U.S.’ old Cold War foe.

Fortunately, alternative media — sans any paychecks from President Putin — and a few journalists with integrity have brilliantly torn through the American propaganda machine to shine the light of truth on claims of Russian hacking.

One mainstream journalist, Ben Swann — who frequently breaks ranks with the corporate-approved narratives proffered by his colleagues — offers a much-needed Reality Check on the situation.

Swann notes there are five, specific problems with the CIA claiming Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails — worsened, he says, because “most media” isn’t “actually asking for evidence of these claims.”

The CIA, he explains, did not formally release a report about Russia’s hacking — rather anonymous sources inside the agency allegedly leaked the “conclusion” to the Washington Post and New York Times. This is highly problematic for obvious reasons, not the least of which is the near impossibility of verification — both of the sources and the information.

According to the Post, who first reported the story, “The CIA has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system, according to officials briefed on the matter.

“Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others, including Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, according to U.S. officials.”

Leaking this supposed information to the corporate press might indeed represent the easiest way to launch propaganda without the burden of proof — proof it most likely lacks.

As Swann explains, this absence of evidence — and that the sources remained anonymous — means there “is no one accountable to provide that proof.” No politicians or other media outlets have any way to verify claims printed by the Post and Times.

The third major problem with the Russian hacking story, Swann reports, is — put simply — “the CIA lies.”

Indeed, the CIA could be considered notoriously mendacious, and has made public claims that have been proven untrue. For one, Swann notes, “the Senate Intelligence Committee blasted the CIA in 2014, for an ‘ongoing culture of misinformation,’ which they said has undermined the public’s trust in America’s Intelligence leadership.”

Senator Ron Wyden, quoted by Swann, said at the time, “That trust has been seriously undermined by senior officials’ reckless reliance on secret interpretations of the law and battered by years of misleading and deceptive practices” within the CIA.

An easy second example concerns the CIA’s torture program as exposed in a four-year study by the Senate which found the agency repeatedly lied about the use of brutal techniques and more.

Swann’s fourth problem of note surrounds a little-discussed fact from the Post’s article — even CIA investigators don’t unanimously agree on the assessment Russians hacked those systems. Reported the Post:

“A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.”

“Well, what does that mean?” Swann asks. “What are those disagreements? And without providing that information, how can we trust these disagreements are actually minor, since that’s, of course, a relative term?”

Indeed, considering these CIA ‘officials’ felt the need to remain anonymous lends credence to the idea the discord is anything but minor — but we have no way of knowing for certain.

And that brings us to the fifth problem: The one person with the most intimate knowledge about the DNC and Podesta files, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, has repeatedly asserted the information was leaked from the inside, not hacked at all — and certainly not by Russians.

In fact, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray — a close friend of Assange — recently said “he has met the person who gave the DNC emails to Assange and to Wikileaks, and he says it is not the Russians,” Swann explains.

“I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider,” Murray said. “It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.”

Just because a report sounds official coming from the CIA does not give it instant viability — and the allegation Russian agents hacked the system is too shaky to stand on its own.

Swann concludes, “So what you need to know is that on top of all of these questions is one fundamental issue that everyone is missing: The claim is that Russia decided to hack the election — not by altering voting results — but by making public actual emails from the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

“Look, I have said this before and I will say it again: how bizarre is it that the argument is not that the Russians were trying to influence the election through lies or electronic voting; but, rather, the claim — if you really boil it down — is that the Russians swayed the election for Donald Trump by revealing the truth about the Clinton campaign and the truth about the DNC.”

Rioters Take to Streets & Social Media, Demand Assassination of President Trump

United States — Has America gone mad? Judging by the altogether hypocritical response to Donald Trump winning the election, the answer is inarguably Yes — and it needs to be addressed, post haste.

Fury that the nation elected a snidely racist, misogynist, bombast might not be misdirected — indeed, it’s understandable. But flooding the streets to burn public and private property, vandalize the same, and simultaneously bombard social media with vociferous, naked summons to assassinate an elected president — by unabashed gun-control liberals, no less — take hypocrisy to a whole other level.

well the riots have already begun on my campus they"re all chanting "fuck Donald Trump" pic.twitter.com/QyaXmTUX9X

— Joanna (@JoannaStilinski) November 9, 2016

@ERINJEEN So Trump is mocked for not accepting a loss in the election but everyone else can lose their minds if he wins? #DoubleStandard

— Peter (@PeterB_512) November 9, 2016

Liberal America, you need to come to terms with the bed you’ve made — including the election to president of a gauche, cocksure misanthrope with zero qualifications for office other than his not being Hillary Clinton.

Viewing from a computer screen the sheer gall of hypocrites storming cities nationwide because their team didn’t win, is a mind-numbing mental battle between comedy and tragedy — but, unlike theater, no one triumphs. This is sore-loserism at its worst, given the object of scorn — and his failed rival — garnered the lowest approval from the electorate, possibly ever in the history of U.S. politics.

This, worsened by the exact shameless violence scaremongered by the now-enraged mere days before, is a most embarrassing rebuke of responsibility for political partisanship. Liberals, rather than berating the Democratic establishment for nominating a candidate they knew faced unlikely victory against Trump, instead decided not to acknowledge the predicted outcome — directing anger against the exact consequences recently-leaked emails warned was coming.

Had the Democratic National Committee not pledged fealty to Clinton against the screams of Bernie Sanders ‘revolutionaries’ to whom it owed an ear, perhaps a billionaire reality TV host would not be ascending to office in January. Neoliberal establishment politics-as-usual, and decades of failed economic, domestic, and foreign policy, thus bear the brunt of blame — not fed-up, if perhaps misguided, Trump voters.

Clintonite Democrats colluding with corporate media presstitutes and the DNC, years of godawful neoliberal economic policy, topheavy and bellicose government, and failure to properly remedy stratification of wealth and social ills, made Trump a reality.

Gullible voters, blindly buying a campaign amounting to at least this one isn’t that one, made Trump a reality.

Oppression through free speech-quashing political correctness did this. Entitlement did this. Lesser-evilism did this. Expensive, confusing, mandatory Obamacare did this. Bombing seven countries, and countless others unofficially, for hegemonic imperialism and theft of natural resources — and resultant refugee crisis — did this.

An expansive, invasive, privacy-robbing surveillance state did this. Facilitating the foreign outsourcing of jobs through laughably-titled free trade agreements — and ignoring the disappearance of the middle class — did this.

Continuing the drug war, refusing to fix the injustice system, unfair taxation, a defense policy permitting the U.S. government to kill its citizens, lack of congressional term limits, an appalling veterans healthcare program, a crooked and anachronistic Federal Reserve, and ignoring everyone decrying these issues, did this.

Swaths of the populace, quietly deciding they’d had their fill of all the aforementioned, did this — they voted for Trump because the system failed them, and Obama and Clinton Democrats willfully ignored their pleas.

And that’s where rampaging liberals have it all wrong.

Trump voters on the whole aren’t woman-hating racists — they’re ordinary Americans whose voice too long fell on deaf ears.

Social media and the streets of at least 25 cities are in full meltdown. Rioters, apparently incapable of seeing the mediocrity and hypocrisy of their actions, point fingers of blame at everyone but the responsible: the Democratic establishment, of course, but also themselves.

Understandably, a backlash has ensued, but tellingly not of a parallel magnitude. Trump voters, rather than gloating in a fashion Clintonites almost certainly would have, erupted in mockery at the duplicity of this madness. Had Democrats once again reigned, and Trump backers reacted this way, those rioting now would be appalled. Propaganda claiming it would happen foretold as much.

Indeed, it’s difficult not to laugh at the Second Amendment-denigrating leftists begging for the assassination of an elected official and imploring all-out revolt when three days ago they expressed terror about Trump supporters doing the same.

And the hypocrisy only darkened on Twitter. Deciding the forcibly-trended hashtag #NotMyPresident didn’t sufficiently encapsulate their wrath, sanctimonious liberals then started the brazen trend, #AssassinateTrump — and the tweeters did not bother cloaking their desire for literal murder.

Despite this inane insanity, Trump voters and others remained largely level-headed, responding in what could be best summarized as a collective Get Over Yourselves. Many, astonished there was protest at all, noted the rioting would only hinder diplomacy between Republicans and Democrats, the former appearing more than willing to hammer out differences for the good of all wherever possible.

They make a good case.

Eschewing personal responsibility for the election of Trump and refusing to come to grips with that reality won’t advance any of us further toward a better-functioning system. Rioting blows indignant hot air, proving only dissatisfaction and laggard reluctance to put in actual work to solve grievances.

Although the prospect of President Trump nauseates many, it is our reality now. It’s time to stop this misguided blaming, scrutinize the failings landing us in this position, and together ensure the nation doesn’t devolve into total chaos. Complete harmony might not be possible, but seeing one another’s common ground will go far to prevent future issues similar to those gifting us President Trump.

Before that can happen, the absurdity has to end.

Angry liberals, the entire planet understands you didn’t want this man as president, but you need to get over it. Summon the unity you claim to desire.

This shameless display of hypocritical dichotomous partisan bullshit must stop. All of us — supporters of Trump, supporters of Hillary, and those wise enough to support neither — can make lemonade of this lemon. But only when cooler heads prevail.

Report: FBI to Move to “Likely Indictment” Of Clinton Foundation

A new report says the FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation has taken a “very high priority” after dragging on for over a year in its White Collar Crime Division, and a preponderance of evidence means a forthcoming indictment is “likely.”

Two unnamed, separate sources with “intimate knowledge” of the investigation told FOX News’ Bret Baier the FBI is “actively and aggressively pursuing this case” — even re-interviewing key people for the third time.

Ironically, one of the anonymous sources told Baier the investigation has benefited from ongoing publications by Wikileaks of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails, in that “There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day.”

Taken in conjunction with the rapidly approaching presidential election on November 8, it appears Julian Assange’s ‘October Surprise’ could have lasting implications beyond lifting the veil from behind-the-scenes wrangling by Clinton campaign insiders, corporate media, and Democratic National Committee.

However, even before Wikileaks began publishing the Podesta Files, unnamed law enforcement sources told FOX News, the bureau had collected “a great deal of evidence.”

“FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people on the foundation case,” FOX reports, “which is looking into possible pay for play interaction between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.”

Indeed, an indictment on the pay-for-play scandal appears likely, “barring some obstruction in some way” from the Department of Justice.

Real Clear Politics summarized major points of Baier’s revealing report, noting the FBI’s investigation is “far more expansive than anybody has reported so far.”

In fact, although previous revelations the FBI had made special “side agreements” to “destroy” the laptops of Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — which prompted scathing criticism and doubts about possible purposeful decimation of evidence — Real Clear Politics notes those computers “have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them.”

Baier reports, “As a result of the limited immunity deals to top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the Justice Department had tentatively agreed that the FBI would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. We are told definitively that has not happened. Those devices are currently in the FBI field office here in Washington, D.C. and are being exploited.

“The source points out that any immunity deal is null and void if any subject lied at any point in the investigation.”

Further, elaborating suspicions about aide Huma Abedin’s now-estranged husband’s laptop causing the FBI to relaunch its investigation, Real Clear Politics notes, “Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton’s secret server on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.”

While Baier’s sources, being unnamed, are impossible to verify, the FOX report comes on the heels of reporting by the Wall Street Journal — also citing unnamed sources “familiar” with the same investigation — which states, “Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay.”

Those sources, paraphrased by the WSJ, explained, “Agents, using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the foundation that started in summer 2015 based on claims made in a book by a conservative author called ‘Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.’”

Inter- and intra-agency disputes over the strength of evidence surrounding the pay-to-play allegations against the Clinton Foundation left senior officials at both the FBI and DOJ at odds with lower-ranking investigators, who felt that — in combination with ‘Clinton Cash’ and the aforementioned recordings — promising leads deserved to be pursued.

Internal discord spilled into the public arena recently when FBI Director James Comey took the highly anomalous step of publicly announcing the investigation had been re-started — sparking condemnation by President Obama, politicians, and other officials about potentially influencing the looming election.

Partly fueling the internal squabble over investigating the foundation are those who blame Comey’s second-in-command, “deputy director Andrew McCabe, claiming he sought to stop agents from pursuing the case this summer. His defenders deny that, and say it was the Justice Department that kept pushing back on the investigation,” the WSJ reports.

While FBI agents continued making headway in an informal probe to decide whether a full investigation was warranted, official in the Justice Department began objecting to their actions, under the premise the evidence was flimsy at best — despite further statements from informants and additional information beyond what had been presented in “Clinton Cash.”

As the WSJ describes:

“FBI investigators grew increasingly frustrated with resistance from the corruption prosecutors, and some executives at the bureau itself, to keep pursuing the case.

“As prosecutors rebuffed their requests to proceed more overtly, those Justice Department officials became more annoyed that the investigators didn’t seem to understand or care about the instructions issued by their own bosses and prosecutors to act discreetly.”

Friction between the DOJ and FBI reached a pivotal point when a ‘senior Justice Department official’ summoned McCabe to a meeting over the perception agents had rebuffed instructions from superiors not to pursue the investigation further.

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” the WSJ quoted McCabe asking the official.

“Of course not,” the DOJ official is said to have replied.

Whether or not quashing a deeper investigation into the Clinton Foundation had, in actuality, been the Justice Department’s intent may never be clear — but given the overlapping dates of this bickering and the FOX News report of the yearlong probe, it would seem the Clintons are still very much treading water.

Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>

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.

‘Make Soros Happy’ — Leaked Email Exposes Clinton Campaign’s Yearning to Gratify Corrupt Billionaire

In yet another explosive revelation thanks to Wikileaks’ release of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails, a discussion among Clinton’s top aides shows their desire to accede to billionaire globalist George Soros politically — just to make him happy.

Greg Speed, president of the Soros-funded organization America Votes, wrote an email to aide Huma Abedin to extend an invitation “for Secretary Clinton to join us at an evening reception at the home of George Soros in December. We would be thrilled to have her serve as honored guest and speaker at this gathering of our top supporters honoring America Votes’ work over the past 10 years and looking forward to the next decade.”

Abedin, seemingly unsure about the invitation, forwards the email message to Clinton campaign strategist and manager Robby Mook, asking,

“She is having dinner with George Soros tonight. Do you know much about America Votes? As Greg Speed explained to me, they are the coordinated campaign for various outside groups. Soros is a big supporter of the group and hes [sic] going to ask her tonight if she will come to a fundraiser for them at his house in December. Thoughts?”

Mook tellingly replies:

“I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy) It’s very unclear to me how much AV will matter next cycle. And I haven’t seen then adding any value this cycle. I also worry a little it will cause donor confusion vis a vis Priorities.”

America Votes, which works “with over 400 state and national partner organizations to advance progressive policies, win elections, and protect every American’s right to vote,” and has received millions from Soros, describes itself as “the common link between many of the largest and most influential issue and membership organizations in the country. Our work has brought together a wide range of causes and built a unified coalition that has transformed how the progressive community works. Together, we have engaged communities across the country to take action on critical issues – from fighting for working families, to advancing women’s healthcare, to protecting the environment and more – and mobilized millions of voters to turn out on Election Day.”

As the Free Thought Project has reported at length, many documents from Wikileaks’ files show the cozy relationship between Clinton — as well as campaign insiders — and Soros.

In fact, in another email, Podesta receives quite the personal invitation of his own. Jacqueline Carozza, assistant to George and Tamika Soros, wrote to Podesta on July 21, 2015, in part, “Please let me know if you are available to join Mr. and Mrs. Soros one weekend at their residence in Southampton. Weekends that would work well for a visit are August 7th-10th or August 28th-31st.”

Soros has been previously exposed as pulling powerful strings behind Clinton and her campaign in previous document caches revealed by Wikileaks and on the site, DCLeaks.

From hopes of capitalizing on police violence against minorities to implement, in essence, federalized policing in the U.S. and attempts to influence the Supreme Court on immigration, to plans of manipulating journalists over the refugee crisis and demands the Clinton Foundation align the U.S. and European Union on policy, Soros seems to have his hands in nearly every imaginable pocket — most particularly that of Hillary Clinton, herself.

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.