Flynn Resignation Raises Tough Questions for FBI, Intel Services

Michael Flynn

Breitbart, by Joel Pollak, February 14, 2017:

The resignation of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on Monday evening raises troubling questions about the role of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the intelligence services.

Flynn ostensibly resigned because he provided Vice President Mike Pence with “incomplete information” about a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador, which turned out to include a discussion of recent sanctions, contrary to his earlier denials. Trust is crucial; the resignation was warranted.

That said, the sanctions were largely bogus, and were applied not just to punish Russia for spying on the U.S. (both countries clearly spy on each other), but to substantiate the Democratic Party’s sore-loser conspiracy theory that Russia was responsible for electing Donald Trump.

There is no concrete evidence to support that theory, and there is no evidence (yet) that Flynn did anything but discuss sanctions in the most general terms. He did not break the Logan Act, nor any other law, apparently.

Whether Flynn deliberately concealed the contents of his conversation from Vice President Pence, or merely forgot what had been said, he was “caught” because the Department of Justice had been eavesdropping on the conversation. And one of the officials responsible for ordering the eavesdropping was none other than Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who forced President Trump to fire her when she defied her duty to enforce his executive order on immigration, however, controversial.

Four possibilities emerge. One, which the media and the Democrats (largely one and the same) clearly believe, is that Flynn really was a potential Russian plant, perhaps indicating much deeper Russian penetration of the campaign and administration.

A second possibility is that things really are what they seem, on the surface, to be. Russia’s unusual response to the sanctions — declining to retaliate — was so bizarre that it warranted investigation, which then raised legitimate suspicions about Flynn.

The remaining possibilities are more worrying. The third explanation is that President Obama deliberately, and cleverly, used the bogus sanctions as a “blue dye” test to expose which strings Russia might try to pull to relieve them. Flynn, with a prior relationship with the Russian government, may have been a natural, innocuous point of contact — or perhaps something more.

The fourth and most worrying explanation is that the government was not merely monitoring the communications of Russian diplomats, but of the Trump transition team itself. The fact that the contents of Flynn’s phone conversation — highly sensitive intelligence — were leaked to the media suggests that someone with access to that information also has a political axe to grind.

Democrats are clamoring for a deeper investigation of Russian ties to Trump. But the more serious question is whether our nation’s intelligence services were involved in what amounts to political espionage against the newly-elected government.

We know that there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of federal bureaucrats already using shadow communications systems. How far does that “shadow government” go?

The FBI, CIA and other agencies ought to reassure Congress, or come clean.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. His new book, How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Also see:

From Churchgoers to Military: ISIS ‘Kill Lists’ Explained

In this video released by ISIS' Amaq news agency in October 2016, jihadists patrol the streets of Mosul.

In this video released by ISIS’ Amaq news agency in October 2016, jihadists patrol the streets of Mosul.

PJ Media, by Bridget Johnson, December 29, 2016:

A Christmastime “hit list” of churches that appeared on a messenger app is far from the first such terrorist suggestion list, representing an escalating trend of terror supporters revealing reams of information on various targets compiled from public sources.

It’s a tactic to sow panic that ISIS and its supporters have used before: putting out a list of purported targets, random information that’s more of a data dump than a carefully curated list, often containing open-source information that a would-be jihadist could just get off of Google on his own.

It also represents the ideological crowdfunding of modern jihad: the terror outlet encourages followers to come up with ideas on training, weapons, targets and more — many of the manuals and guidebooks are not issued by the same official ISIS media outlets that produce videos and magazines, but by supporters who have never left their home countries or jihadists who have taken a trip to the Islamic State — and disseminate those tips across the web and encrypted messaging platforms.

A hacker working on the online campaign to take ISIS websites and social media accounts offline posted a screenshot of the threat discussion on Telegram that did not include a list of churches, but a link to USAChurches.org, a directory of some churches organized by state or denomination. The post also included links to Canadian, French and Dutch church directories, along with the call to target “churches, famous hotels, crowded cafes, crowded streets, markets and complexes.”

It was not issued by an official ISIS media outlet.

Before Christmas, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued a bulletin to law enforcement agencies to be on the alert and watch houses of worship over the holidays, adding that there wasn’t specific credible threat information. Similar alerts have previously been issued by the FBI around holidays and special events.

A spokeswoman for the FBI’s Boston office told the Boston Herald that the FBI was “aware of the recent link published online that urges attacks against U.S. churches.”

“The FBI asks members of the public to maintain awareness of their surroundings and to report any suspicious activity to law enforcement.”

It wasn’t the first time ISIS supporters had distributed a hit list of religious targets. A July list that included church and synagogue members prompted Homeland Security officials to hold a conference call with Jewish leaders to discuss the finding. The list was compiled from directories posted on the religious institutions’ websites.

That month, ISIS’ Dabiq magazine issue was titled “Break the Cross,” and argued “the true religion of Jesus Christ is a pure monotheistic submission – called Islam.” A lengthy theological argument in the issue concluded with the warning that “if you continue to disbelieve, then know that you shall be defeated and then dragged altogether into Hell as your eternal, wicked abode.” The magazine also profiled Abu Sa’d at-Trinidadi, a former Baptist from Trinidad and Tobago who converted to Islam and joined ISIS.

A hit list released by ISIS supporters the previous month featured thousands of American names including tech-industry execs and celebrities.

In June, PJM was able to download a 458-page kill list distributed by ISIS supporters on a file-sharing site. Most of the addresses on the list were in Ontario or Quebec. Many of the names were duplicates. Names appeared to follow no pattern other than being ordinary citizens, with their address, email and phone number posted. Some of the lines were gibberish, as if corrupt data had been downloaded in the process and was unedited by whoever prepared the list for release. There were two Canadians named Mohammad on the hit list.

Another #OpISIS hacker told PJM at the time that it appeared ISIS supporters were simply pulling names off of publicly accessible social media lists.

Occasionally, terrorists get hit-list names from hackers who have done their dirty work.

This year, a 20-year-old Kosovar named Ardit Ferizi was extradited from Malaysia after handing personal information of 1,351 U.S. government employees and military members over to late ISIS hacker Junaid Hussain and others in the organization “for the purpose of encouraging terrorist attacks against the identified individuals,” according to the FBI affidavit. The stolen information, which was pilfered from the website of an unidentified retail company, included emails and passwords, addresses and phone numbers.

After the hacking, in August 2015, Hussain posted a message from the Islamic State Hacking Division claiming that they’d hacked the U.S. military and government instead of snagging the information from a hacker of online shopping.

Hussain tweeted out the list with the warning: “We are in your emails and computer systems, watching and recording your every move, we have your names and addresses, we are in your emails and social media accounts, we are extracting confidential data and passing on your personal information to the soldiers of the khilafah, who soon with the permission of Allah will strike at your necks in your own lands!”

Hussain was killed that month. Other operations from his ISIS hacking division included the March 2015 release of a hit list containing the names of 100 U.S. military officers. This time they also claimed they hacked the Defense Department, but the Pentagon said the information posted by ISIS was accessible via social media and people-search sites. ISIS is believed to have compiled that list starting with news articles about anti-ISIS operations featuring the names of the targeted officers.

An Army guide on operational security (OPSEC) for service members and their families warns that an al-Qaeda handbook suggested terrorists search online for data about “government personnel and all matters related to them (residence, work place, times of leaving and returning, children and places visited).”

ISIS also maintains internal hit lists. Two ISIS terrorists murdered a priest during Mass in Normandy this July; the parish was one of several on a list found when an ISIS suspect was arrested in Paris in April 2015. Authorities believe the Algerian student had been in contact with ISIS figures in Syria about proposed church attacks.

ISIS and sympathizers have been moving many of their communications and dissemination of propaganda to the encrypted Telegram app, where the pre-Christmas posting about churches was located, for greater ease of communication as Twitter has cracked down on their accounts in fits and starts.

Also see:

 

Connecting the Dots Between Boston, Columbus and Berlin

161228bostonmarathonbombersConservative Headquarters, by George Rasley, CHQ Editor | 12/28/16

After every Muslim terrorist attack the establishment media, and others who refuse to take the Koran at face value, seem astonished that a young Muslim “immigrant” or “refugee” would wreak death on innocent non-believers.

They always want to discount the attack as the work of a “lone wolf” or someone who was disaffected or mentally ill.

And they are never prepared to admit that had the authorities acted on the clear information at hand and not been blinded or hog-tied by political correctness the attack could have been stopped.

In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing that killed 3, and injured an estimated 264 others, the perpetrators, Chechen “refugee” brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, should have been on the authorities’ radar because both the FBI and the CIA had been alerted to Tamerlan Tsarnaev by no less an authority on Chechen Muslim terrorism than the Russian security services.

The Russians, who have been fighting the Chechen Muslims since the 19th Century, had separately asked both the FBI (at least twice: during March and November 2011) and the CIA (September 2011) to look carefully into Tamerlan Tsarnaev and provide more information about him back to Russia.

The Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) even secretly recorded phone conversations between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva (they vaguely and indirectly discussed jihad) and sent these to the FBI as evidence of possible extremist links within the family.

The March 2011, Russian Federal Security Service alert provided the FBI with information that Tamerlan and his mother Zubeidat Tsarnaeva were “adherents of radical Islam and that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was preparing to travel to Russia to join unspecified ‘bandit underground groups’ in Dagestan and Chechnya.

A government report released in April of 2014 detailed the failures of federal law enforcement officials to recognize Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a potential source of terrorism in the years before the Boston Marathon bombing. The document—an unclassified summary report from the Inspectors General of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security—called particular attention to an FBI interview of Tsarnaev in 2011 and the failure of a Boston agent of the Joint Terrorism Task Force to follow up on an automated alert that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was leaving the country for Dagestan.

Despite all of these revelations, the report concludes that “based on all of the information gathered during our coordinated review, we believe that the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC…followed procedures appropriately.”

Translation: The information to stop this Muslim terrorist attack was there, but Tamerlan Tsarnaev and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were allowed to carry out their deadly attack because the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC procedures allowed them to.

In the case of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, the Ohio State Muslim terrorist who ran over and slashed 13 people who were hospitalized for injuries once again the signs that Artan was a potential terrorist were there.

According to Senator Chuck Grassley, while applying for entrance into the U.S. as a “refugee” from Somalia in 2013, Artan’s mother told immigration officials she feared persecution from al-Shabaab, an al-Qaida affiliated terrorist group, and believed Abdul and his siblings would be recruited into the organization if they remained in Somalia, the Daily Caller reported.

That knowledge should have led USCIS officials to “conduct additional questioning to better understand ties to a group that the United States designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 2008,” a letter Sen. Grassley sent to DHS said. But the additional questioning, which the Senator’s committee describes as “common practice” in those situations, never happened.

Artan’s mother also told government screeners that her husband had been kidnapped by al-Shabab.

All of these facts should have been red flags our friend Phil Haney, a former DHS screening officer, told WND’s Leo Hohmann.

Haney, a recently retired Homeland Security officer and co-author of the bombshell book “See Something Say Nothing,” said it’s not all that rare that a case with obvious red flags gets no response when passed up the line from the original interviewer at DHS because, says Haney, concerns about certain refugee cases began to be ignored as soon as Obama took office.

Translation: The information to stop this Muslim terrorist attack was there, but Abdul Razak Ali Artan was allowed to carry out his attack because the FBI, CIA, DHS, and NCTC procedures allowed him to.

Anis Amri, the main suspect in the Berlin Christmas market truck attack, was also on the radar as a potential terrorist before he entered Germany.

A Moroccan security official says that his country’s intelligence service warned Germany twice about the risk posed by Anis Amri, the radical Muslim who slaughtered 12 people at a Christmas market in Berlin earlier this month.

“Correspondence from the Moroccan security agencies had a clear warning about the Tunisian man’s desire to carry out a terrorist act,” an unnamed Moroccan official told the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah.

The UK’s Daily Mail has documented that Amri was under surveillance for months, arrested and freed three times, and not deported allegedly because of a clerical error.

According to team reporting by the Daily Mail, German security officials had Amri under close surveillance between March and September this year because he was suspected of dealing drugs and planning robberies to finance the purchase of assault rifles.

The Tunisian radical was known to be a supporter of Islamic State and to have received weapons training.  He also tried to recruit an accomplice for a terror plot – which the authorities knew about – but still remained at large.

Amri was also under investigation for planning a ‘serious act of violence against the state’ and counter-terrorism officials had exchanged information about him last month and after he was named as the suspect it emerged Amri spent four years in an Italian prison for acts of violence and vandalism inside a migrant center where he was being kept following his arrival in Europe, the Daily Mail reported.

Before he was killed in a gun battle with a heroic Italian police officer, it was revealed that Amri had used at least six different aliases under three different nationalities and photographs show how he had changed his appearance over his years of freely moving about Europe even as the signs he was a dangerous terrorist mounted.

The Daily Mail reported that a senior German politician blamed the atrocity on “institutional political correctness,” arguing that Amri would not have been free to act if police had enforced the law.

Hugh Theodore Bronson, the deputy leader of the German political party AfD, said that German deportation law was ignored because the authorities were afraid of offending Muslims, reports Karin Bredenkamp of Free West Media.

Anis Amri, who was being monitored by police, would have been deported long ago if it wasn’t for a liberal “ideological agenda,” Bronson told MailOnline. “The law as it stands is not being implemented,” he said. “If it was, 12 people would still be alive, 48 people would not be in hospital, and there would have been no attack on Monday.”

“We are being too lenient in our implementation of the law. You can call it political correctness, you can call it an ideological agenda, but it cost 12 people their lives.”

No translation needed for Mr. Bronson’s comments.

The German authorities say they have at least 7,000 active Muslim terror suspects at large in their country and they do not have the resources to track them. The FBI and American Department of Homeland Security say that there are too many people like Tsarnaev and Artan across America today for the FBI to track them all—leaving the vast majority of people who the FBI suspects might harbor terrorist aspirations to plan their attacks without government surveillance.

So why would we allow more potential Muslim terrorists into our country?

The dots or common thread that runs through all of these Muslim atrocities is that the perpetrators entered their target countries as “refugees,” took the Koranic directives to kill unbelievers at face value, and most importantly, were allowed to carry out their plans by failed security procedures based upon institutional political correctness.

Recognizing that Islam is the threat, and implementing threat-based security procedures devoid of political correctness or ideological agendas is the only way to stop these attacks from continuing in what Muslims now consider to be “the era of total confrontation” with the West.

As Muslim Jihadi Strikes OSU, Media Drives the Deception Operation

osu

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, November 28, 2016:

UTT readers know, this war in which we are engaged with the Islamic Movement in the United States is primarily an Information War.

A Muslim refugee from Somalia named Abdul Razak Ali Artan is “scared” to pray so he tries to kill non-Muslims on the Ohio State University (OSU) campus with his vehicle and a knife before being shot dead by an OSU police officer.

What he did was legal under sharia (Islamic Law).  Its all about sharia.

American mainstream media pushes the narrative that we simple cannot know what drove this poor young man.

CNN’s headline reads “Searching for a Reason.”

cnn2

Fox News says “The motive behind the attack is still unclear.”

NBC news writes “Officials cautioned that they have not determined a motive for the ambush.”

jihad-stupidWhere are the credible journalists?

A Somali Muslim plows over people with his car, then jumps out with a knife yelling allah u akbar.  For the media to say they do not know the motive is for the media to be waging an information campaign for the enemies of the United States.

mccaul

In come the political elite:  House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) said “we do not yet have confirmation of terrorist connections” to the attack, but he added “this is the type of indiscriminate violence our enemies are urging their followers to use against us.”

Sorry Congressman, this is not “indiscriminate violence.”  This is jihad being waged for the purpose of establishing a caliphate under sharia.  More specifically, this is jihad waged to cause fear to get Americans to further submit to Islam.  Abdul Artan was “scared” to pray because Americans were not providing an environment with more room for sharia.  Therefore, we get violence.

Perhaps if Mr. McCaul were not so busy supporting the jihadis by pushing the CVE program, getting it funded, and doing the business of our enemies, he might have more time to study our enemy and do his duty.

Congressman Adam Schiff, (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, said Artan “may have been self-radicalized.”  What does that even mean?  “Self-radicalized?”  Abdul Artan was following the sharia which comes from the Koran and the example of the Muslim prophet Mohammad. And Adam Schiff serves on the “Intelligence Committee” for the United States House of Representatives.

And of course, in comes Hamas – doing business as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – and no one in the mainstream media mentions they are a Hamas organization.  No one mentions they are terrorists.

Hamas Leaders in Ohio speaking to their lapdogs in the media

Hamas Leaders in Ohio speaking to their lapdogs in the media

CNN finished their piece by promoting CAIR as a soft and cuddly organization that just wants peace:       “As Ohioans, as Americans and as Muslims, we’re shocked by today’s senseless attack,” said Roula Allouch, national board chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations…Jennifer Nimer, legal director for CAIR’s Ohio chapter, urged the public not to jump to conclusions about Artan’s motive.

Good news is Hamas (dba CAIR) now has 3 offices in Ohio – Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus.

Americans elected Mr. Trump because there was some realization our leaders, media, and system has been utterly corrupted.  What will happen when they realize their leaders and media are working with our enemies against them with no response from federal law enforcement or intelligence agencies which have also been catastrophically corrupted?

Who can we thank for these continuing and increasing attacks?  Who can we thank for a disintegrating security in American hometowns?  President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Kerry, Congressman McCaul, Governor Chris Christie, Governor John Kasich, Senator John McCain, Senator Marco Rubio, and all of the other treasonous officials in the American government who continue to provide aid and comfort for our enemies while denigrating people speaking truth about a clear and present danger to the American people and our communities.

It is time, citizens, to understand the threat.  Join UTT to educate, train, and prepare America for this growing cancer, so it can be defeated.  No matter who is President, this war will be won or lost at the local level.

Here’s A Few Other Reasons Muslim Hate Crimes Spiked In 2015 That Have Nothing To Do With Trump

Tashfeen Malik, (L), and Syed Farook are pictured passing through Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in this July 27, 2014 handout photo obtained by Reuters December 8, 2015. REUTERS/US Customs and Border Protection/Handout via Reuters

Tashfeen Malik, (L), and Syed Farook are pictured passing through Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport in this July 27, 2014 handout photo obtained by Reuters December 8, 2015. REUTERS/US Customs and Border Protection/Handout via Reuters

Daily Caller, by Saagar Enjeti, 11/15/2016

Several headlines coming out about the FBI’s report on a 67 percent spike in hate crimes on U.S. Muslims in 2015 seem intent on attributing that spike to President-elect Donald Trump’s candidacy.

First and foremost, Trump didn’t announce his candidacy until June 2015, and his most cited transgression — the Muslim immigration ban — did not occur until December 2015.

Meanwhile, the slaughtering of a dozen cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo Jan. 7 and a staggering 1,200 sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany, Dec. 31 bracket a year of demonstrably bad headlines for the Muslim community ringing loud in the ears of the West.

Comprehensive retelling of history didn’t stop The New York Times deputy Washington editor from insinuating the rise in hate crimes are a burden of Trump’s 2016 campaign rhetoric.

While bearing brief mention of the tangible surge in high-profile Islamic attacks across the U.S. and Europe, media discussion of the FBI’s findings tends to put emphasis on Trump’s rhetoric.

Aside from the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, 2015 saw bloody Islamic State victories across Syria, the November Paris attacks, and then the December San Bernardino terrorist attacks. Collectively, these attacks killed nearly 200 people in the West and thousands in the Middle East.

These attacks were themselves spikes in a rather moderate, but consistent hum of bad news streaming from Muslim refugee camps popping up all around Europe.

Hate crimes against Muslim Americans historically correlate to terrorist attacks. Indeed, 9/11 is the news peg wider media seems most eager to cite along with Trump’s 2015 run.

To the end of avoiding key omissions, the Paris and San Bernardino attacks prompted widespread discussion of U.S. immigration and refugee policy.  Which makes sense, as the San Bernardino attacker, Tashfeen Malik, entered the U.S. on a spousal visa, and at least some of the Paris attackers entered Europe posing as Syrian refugees.

The Syrian refugee debate focused not only on counter-terrorism, but on troubling criminal incidents occurring all across Europe. German police documents indicate nearly 2,000 men, including many Syrian and Iraqi refugee’s, sexually assaulted 1,200 German women on New Years Eve 2015.

Berlin’s biggest pool was even forced to hire burly security guards to deter Muslim refugees from touching women. German civil society organizations also have created councils to teach refugees Western norms at pools — chief among these norms is not touching women.

The sharp rise in high-profile Western terrorist attacks and the flow of nearly 2 million Muslim refugees into Europe may have had more of an effect in stoking anger towards Muslim Americans than campaign rhetoric, which really didn’t hit its crescendo until early 2016.

CAIR Whips Pre-Election Hysteria and Fear Against FBI

shiblyIPT News
November 7, 2016

Federal law enforcement officials reported concern Friday over vague threats of an al-Qaida terrorist attack that could come today in an attempt to disrupt Tuesday’s U.S. elections. Three states – New York, Virginia, and Texas – were identified as potential targets.

So it makes sense that FBI agents in eight states reportedly wore out some shoe leather during the weekend, knocking on doors of people with family connections to Afghanistan or Pakistan – both operating bases for al-Qaida. One of those questioned reportedly is a youth group leader. Others were doctors.

No one was arrested.

To the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), this is an “outrageous and … borderline unconstitutional” “sweep” of American Muslim leaders.

The Dallas Morning News, Washington Post and Time magazine all published stories on the FBI action, offering little in the way of push-back to CAIR’s narrative.

The FBI is “harassing” Muslims in Oklahoma, CAIR’s state director Adam Soltani wrote on Facebook, Time reported.

CAIR-Florida director Hasan Shibly heard from six people contacted by the FBI, the Post story said. CAIR’s Texas office heard from 17 people. The stories lamenting this alleged FBI outrage, therefore, offered two dozen examples nationally.

CAIR officials sounded the alarm on social media, urging Muslims not to say anything to the FBI without a lawyer present. The organization offered to provide counsel to those who needed it. CAIR’s campaign then attracted the media coverage.

Calling it a “sweep,” as Shibly did, usually connotes mass arrests, not knocks on people’s doors. The Post at least placed the word in quotes.

This raises a question: What is the FBI supposed to do when it learns terror plots may be in the works? The news stories don’t say. They do quote CAIR officials expressing their outrage.

“The FBI actions … to conduct a sweep of American Muslim leaders the weekend before the election is completely outrageous and … borderline unconstitutional,” Shibly told the Post. “That’s the equivalent of the FBI visiting churchgoing Christians because someone overseas was threatening to blow up an abortion clinic. It’s that preposterous and outrageous.”

No, it’s not at all like that. There is no foreign terrorist network advocating American abortion foes to attack clinics. ISIS and al-Qaida have spent years advocating random, homegrown terror attacks in online videos, social media and in glossy publications.

It’s a disturbingly effective message, proven successful by the number of people who have tried to leave the country to join ISIS, or who have been arrested trying to do so, or who have plotted to carry out attacks.

Horrible attacks in just the past year show that individual actors responding to the call to jihad can create huge casualty counts. Omar Mateen killed 49 people at Orlando’s Pulse nightclub, pausing in his slaughter to call 911 and pledge allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik killed 14 people at an office Christmas party in San Bernardino last December.

And in September, 29 people were injured when a homemade bomb went off in a Manhattan dumpster. A second bomb was found nearby. Investigators later found five additional unexploded bombs in a trash can in Elizabeth, N.J. near a transit station.

CAIR officials insist they are not trying to hinder the FBI. They say they merely are ensuring people know about, and use, their constitutional right to have counsel present for any questioning. But CAIR’s long record of sowing fear against the FBI casts doubt on that assertion.

482Its “Know Your Rights” lectures have long included claims of tales of FBI agents breaking the law and willing to do anything in order to snare innocent Muslims. FBI agents are depicted as sinister forces lurking outside Muslim homes in images carrying the message “Build a Wall of Resistance: Don’t Talk to the FBI.”

Indictments of terror suspects involving informants and undercover agents are always dismissed by the group as entrapment, though no jury or court has agreed. A December promotional page touting an “entrapment workshop” depicting the FBI as a spider out to snare the Muslim community in its web remains active on CAIR’s Philadelphia office website.

1323

Last year, when authorities in Boston overheard a terror suspect they had been monitoring say he was going to go out and start stabbing police officers, CAIR spent days casting Usaama Rahim’s subsequent death as unjust despite video showing Rahim lunged at officers ordering him to drop a military grade knife.

No one would have learned that fact from reading any of the stories parroting CAIR’s outrage, unless he or she conducted independent web searches. Likewise, readers would not know that the FBI broke off outreach communication with CAIR in 2008, after an investigation placed the organization and its founders in the middle of a Muslim Brotherhood-created Hamas support network in America.

“[U]ntil we can resolve whether there continues to be a connection between CAIR or its executives and HAMAS, the FBI does not view CAIR as an appropriate liaison partner,” an FBI official explained in 2009. The policy remains in effect 7½ years later.

Once upon a time, the Morning News had CAIR’s number, investigating and exposing radical Islamist activity supporting Hamas in north Texas during the 1990s. The Posthas never devoted a story to the evidence that led to the policy.

The FBI declined to comment, the two newspapers reported. But missing from the stories were perspectives from retired law enforcement officials, at the very least, and an explanation about how the Bureau works in situations like this. This context would have been a service to readers, offering balance to CAIR’s talking points.

People in eight states are being targeted for questioning, the Post reported. “Several of the states — including Florida and Pennsylvania — are viewed as crucial swing states heading into the presidential election Tuesday,” the story said, underscoring Shibly’s claim that this is some kind of pre-election intimidation campaign.

But other states, especially Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas, are not considered competitive Tuesday. No CAIR official presented anything to support the organization’s allegation that voter intimidation is in play. Yet, the Post and a story on Fusion.net included it.

Fusion’s story argued that the FBI is somehow ignoring threats of violence from white nationalists and militias, a claim belied by recent arrests.

If the FBI started arresting Muslim Americans without cause, CAIR’s campaign of fear and hysteria might make sense. But pursuing information about a possible terrorist attack, in swing states and decidedly red states, is not sinister.

It’s their responsibility.

Erik Prince: NYPD Ready to Make Arrests in Anthony Weiner Case

huma-abedin-hillary-clinton-anthony-weiner-sexting-1-ap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 4, 2016:

Blackwater founder and retired Navy SEAL Erik told Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM that according to one of his “well-placed sources” in the New York Police Department, “the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making” in the Anthony Weiner investigation, but received “huge pushback” from the Justice Department.

Prince began by saying he had no problem believing reports that the FBI was highly confident multiple foreign agencies hacked Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“I mean, it’s not like the foreign intelligence agencies leave a thank-you note after they’ve hacked and stolen your data,” Prince said to SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.

Prince claimed he had insider knowledge of the investigation that could help explain why FBI Director James Comey had to announce he was reopening the investigation into Clinton’s email server last week.

“Because of Weinergate and the sexting scandal, the NYPD started investigating it. Through a subpoena, through a warrant, they searched his laptop, and sure enough, found those 650,000 emails. They found way more stuff than just more information pertaining to the inappropriate sexting the guy was doing,” Prince claimed.

“They found State Department emails. They found a lot of other really damning criminal information, including money laundering, including the fact that Hillary went to this sex island with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton went there more than 20 times. Hillary Clinton went there at least six times,” he said.

“The amount of garbage that they found in these emails, of criminal activity by Hillary, by her immediate circle, and even by other Democratic members of Congress was so disgusting they gave it to the FBI, and they said, ‘We’re going to go public with this if you don’t reopen the investigation and you don’t do the right thing with timely indictments,’” Prince explained.

“I believe – I know, and this is from a very well-placed source of mine at 1PP, One Police Plaza in New York – the NYPD wanted to do a press conference announcing the warrants and the additional arrests they were making in this investigation, and they’ve gotten huge pushback, to the point of coercion, from the Justice Department, with the Justice Department threatening to charge someone that had been unrelated in the accidental heart attack death of Eric Garner almost two years ago. That’s the level of pushback the Obama Justice Department is doing against actually seeking justice in the email and other related criminal matters,” Prince said.

“There’s five different parts of the FBI conducting investigations into these things, with constant downdrafts from the Obama Justice Department. So in the, I hope, unlikely and very unfortunate event that Hillary Clinton is elected president, we will have a constitutional crisis that we have not seen since, I believe, 1860,” Prince declared.

Marlow asked Prince to clarify these revelations.

“NYPD was the first one to look at that laptop,” Prince elaborated. “Weiner and Huma Abedin, his wife – the closest adviser of Hillary Clinton for 20 years – have both flipped. They are cooperating with the government. They both have – they see potential jail time of many years for their crimes, for Huma Abedin sending and receiving and even storing hundreds of thousands of messages from the State Department server and from Hillary Clinton’s own homebrew server, which contained classified information. Weiner faces all kinds of exposure for the inappropriate sexting that was going on and for other information that they found.”

“So NYPD first gets that computer. They see how disgusting it is. They keep a copy of everything, and they pass a copy on to the FBI, which finally pushes the FBI off their chairs, making Comey reopen that investigation, which was indicated in the letter last week. The point being, NYPD has all the information, and they will pursue justice within their rights if the FBI doesn’t,” Prince contended.

“There is all kinds of criminal culpability through all the emails they’ve seen of that 650,000, including money laundering, underage sex, pay-for-play, and, of course, plenty of proof of inappropriate handling, sending/receiving of classified information, up to SAP level Special Access Programs,” he stated.

“So the plot thickens. NYPD was pushing because, as an article quoted one of the chiefs – that’s the level just below commissioner – he said as a parent, as a father with daughters, he could not let that level of evil continue,” Prince said.

He noted that the FBI can investigate these matters, “but they can’t convene a grand jury.They can’t file charges.”

“The prosecutors, the Justice Department has to do that,” he explained. “Now, as I understand it, Preet Bharara, the Manhattan prosecutor, has gotten ahold of some of this. From what I hear, he’s a stand-up guy, and hopefully he does the right thing.”

Marlow agreed that Bharara’s “sterling reputation” as a determined prosecutor was “bad news for the Clintons.”

Prince agreed, but said, “If people are willing to bend or break the law and don’t really care about the Constitution or due process – if you’re willing to use Stalinist tactics against someone – who knows what level of pressure” could be brought to bear against even the most tenacious law enforcement officials?

“The point being, fortunately, it’s not just the FBI; [there are] five different offices that are in the hunt for justice, but the NYPD has it as well,” Prince said, citing the Wall Street Journal reporting that has “exposed downdraft, back pressure from the Justice Department” against both the FBI and NYPD, in an effort to “keep the sunlight and the disinfecting effects of the truth and transparency from shining on this great evil that has gone on, and is slowly being exposed.”

“The Justice Department is trying to run out the clock, to elect Hillary Clinton, to prevent any real justice from being done,” he warned.

As for the mayor of New York City, Prince said he has heard that “de Blasio wants to stay away from this.”

“The evidence is so bad, the email content is so bad, that I think even he wants to stay away from it, which is really telling,” he said.

Prince reported that the other legislators involved in the case “have not been named yet,” and urged the NYPD to hold a press conference and name them.

“I wish they’d do it today,” he said. “These are the unusual sliding-door moments of history, that people can stand up and be counted, and make a real difference, and to save a Republic, save a Constitution that we actually need and love, that our forefathers fought and died for. For any cop that is aware of this level of wrongdoing, and they have veterans in their family, or deceased veterans in their family, they owe it to them to stand up, to stand and be counted today, and shine the light of truth on this great evil.”

“From what I understand, up to the commissioner or at least the chief level in NYPD, they wanted to have a press conference, and DOJ, Washington people, political appointees have been exerting all kinds of undue pressure on them to back down,” he added.

Marlow suggested that some of those involved in keeping the details quiet might want to avoid accusations of politicizing the case and seeking to influence the presidential election.

“Sure, that’s it. That’s the argument for it,” Prince agreed. “But the fact is, you know that if the Left had emails pointing to Donald Trump visiting, multiple times, an island with underage sex slaves basically, emails, you know they’d be talking about it. They’d be shouting it from the rooftops.”

“This kind of evil, this kind of true dirt on Hillary Clinton – look, you don’t have to make any judgments. Just release the emails,” he urged. “Just dump them. Let them out there. Let people see the light of truth.”

Prince dismissed the claims of people like Clinton campaign CEO John Podesta and DNC chair Donna Brazile that some of the damaging emails already released by WikiLeaks were fabricated, noting that “forensic analysis done shows that, indeed, they are not fabricated; they are really legitimate.”

“This is stuff coming right off a hard drive that was owned by Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest adviser for the last 20 years,” he said of the new bombshells. “This is not from some hacker or anybody else. This is a laptop seized from a warrant in a criminal investigation.”

Prince confirmed that based on his information, Abedin is most likely looking at jail time, unless she cuts a deal with prosecutors.

“There’s a minimum of obstruction of justice and all kinds of unlawful handling of classified information,” he said. “Because remember, this laptop was in the possession of Weiner, who did not have a security clearance. And many, many of those emails were from her Yahoo account, which had State Department emails forwarded to them, so she could easier print these messages, scan them, and send them on to Hillary. That’s the carelessness that Hillary and her staff had for the classified information that the intelligence community risks life and limb to collect in challenged, opposed areas around the world.”

“That’s not who you want in the White House,” Prince declared.

Also see:

Frank Gaffney: FBI Will Probably Find Huma Abedin ‘Playing Fast and Loose’ with Facts

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 3, 2016:

On Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said he “takes no satisfaction” from the renewed FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton, even though the latest developments have thrown a spotlight on top Clinton aide Huma Abedin – someone Gaffney and the Center for Security Policy have long warned was a more important, and troubling, figure than the mainstream media admit.

“I’d rather be wrong,” he told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow. “I really mean that. For the country’s sake, to be honest with you. But in this case, four years ago, we produced a course that’s still available online called MuslimBrotherhoodInAmerica.com. And Hillary’s right-hand woman, Huma Abedin, featured prominently in it as an example – just one example, but as an example of Islamist influence operations inside the United States government.”

“I made that contention on the grounds that Huma Abedin, at that time, was known to have essentially her entire family involved in what was a Muslim Brotherhood front group called the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs,” he explained. “And the question occurred to me – and, in due course, to several members of Congress, led by Congresswoman Michele Bachmann – that hey, wait, maybe if you have somebody that’s got that kind of personal investment in Islamic supremacism, it might have something to do with the fact that the State Department (and the Obama administration, more generally, but specifically the department in whom Huma Abedin then worked as a deputy chief of staff to Hillary Clinton) was aligning its policies so dramatically with the dictates of the Brotherhood, on a whole host of issues.”

Gaffney provided some examples of those issues: “You know, letting in Tariq Ramadan, something Hillary Clinton personally did. One of the, you know, sort of capo de capos of the Muslim Brotherhood, the grandson of its founder. Engaging the Brotherhood and suppressing freedom of speech. Helping overthrow friends of ours, such as they were, in the Middle East in favor of Muslim Brotherhood regimes or jihadist groups of other stripes. And on and on. Now we’ve learned, of course, of mishandling of classified information and the like.”

“But Alex, here’s the point: This was an inquiry, the concerns of Michele Bachmann and four other congressmen, that led to an official request of the State Department’s inspector general to look into this possible, very troubling correlation. And you know who stepped up to shut that down? None other than Republican Senator John McCain. And we now know, thanks to WikiLeaks explorations of John Podesta’s emails, that John Podesta and the Clinton team took credit for setting John McCain up to that,” Gaffney revealed.

“And the real message here – and why I feel regretful about this vindication, such as it is – is poor Michele Bachmann, who simply was doing her job in Congress, suffered the consequences of it. Her career was essentially destroyed when John McCain denounced her on the Floor of the United States Senate. And what’s really bad is that every other member of Congress basically, until very recently, had taken the message: You don’t want to touch this question of Islamist influence operations,” he warned.

“Thanks to Breitbart, you guys have done your heroic work in exploring this. Few others have, but not nearly enough. Had we done more – had that inquiry gone forward, Alex – perhaps some of the damage I believe Huma Abedin is now being examined for having done might have been prevented. At least we would have known about it four years ago,” Gaffney said.

Marlow asked Gaffney if he thinks FBI Director James Comey has “got the goods” on Hillary Clinton and her aides or if the renewed investigation is just a “political thing.”

“We don’t know, but my guess is, in 650,000 emails which we’re told are on Anthony Weiner’s computer, that were from Huma Abedin’s account, I’m reasonably sure you’re gonna find lots of classified information that shouldn’t have been there,” Gaffney replied.

He also anticipated the FBI would discover more evidence that “Huma Abedin was playing fast and loose – in the service of Hillary Clinton, to be sure – with all of the procedures for handling such classified information.”

“And that has resulted, according to Congressman Chris Stewart, who I talked with yesterday, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, that the compromise not just of that information, but of sources and methods by which it’s obtained, which is a hugely serious problem,” Gaffney said.

“I think you’re also going to see that Hillary’s right-hand gal perjured herself repeatedly in the course of the investigations conducted to date, and that in so doing has helped to cover up Hillary’s own malfeasance in many of these areas,” he added. “It’s the tip of the iceberg, what we know so far. I think if the FBI does do its job, and that’s a big ‘if,’ we’re going to find out a lot more about what was really a criminal conspiracy.”

Gaffney recommended a video called “Who is Huma Abedin?” which he said exposes “not simply that her father and her mother and her sister and her brother are all in a family business that was established by a guy by the name of Abdullah Omar Nasif – one of the top Saudi financiers of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood – but that Huma herself was involved in this family business, the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, through its Journal for Muslim Minority Affairs.”

“And here’s the other thing about this, Alex: the Journal, and the Institute of which it was the sort of mainstay, had as its express purpose, in a radical Islamist sense, promoting Muslim minority rights by encouraging Muslims not to assimilate in countries in which they were minorities – to become, in other words, part of the Muslim Brotherhood infrastructure that was ultimately designed to take down those non-Muslim majority countries,” he said.

“This is the thing that’s so troubling,” Gaffney argued. “You had a woman with this in her DNA, if you will, at the right hand of the Secretary of State, and before that, the Senator from New York, and before that the First Lady of the United States. There’s no question, the more we look into this, Alex, with these emails hopefully shedding further light on it, we’re gonna find more and more evidence, I think, not only of Huma Abedin’s direct involvement in the compromise of classified information and various other misconduct with respect to treating classified communications and conversations and devices in inappropriate ways, but also advancing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

He said the “most worrying” example was “promoting this idea that our freedom of speech must be restricted so as not to give offense to Muslims.”

“This is being used against Breitbart. It’s being used against me and my Center for Security Policy. We’re attending a meeting up in Stoughton, Massachusetts, tonight, which will be picketed by – get this – not only the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Hamas front group, but also rabbis and interfaith dialoguers of various stripes, and who knows who all else – all designed to suppress me and other patriots who are warning about this Islamist supremacist agenda that Huma Abedin has advanced,” Gaffney said. “The object is to silence us because the President has said, at the United Nations, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.’ Think about it.”

“This is the story of our time,” he concluded. “It could be the time bomb that actually takes down Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. At the very least, the American people need to know, as they vote, whether we’re going to get more of the same – more of this embrace of the Islamists and enabling of their agenda – or whether we’re gonna get a course correction. I pray it will be the latter.”

LISTEN:

Is the Abedin/Weiner Laptop the Last of It?

Abedin and Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, November 15, 2016. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)

Abedin and Clinton at the Democratic presidential debate in Iowa, November 15, 2016. (Reuters photo: Jim Young)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, November 3, 2016:

A nagging question has been lost amid the tempest over the FBI’s revival of the Clinton e-mails investigation. As everyone knows, the file has been reopened because of a trove of e-mails found on a laptop shared by top Clinton aide Huma Abedin and her estranged husband, Anthony Weiner. What we don’t know, however, is: Why has the FBI only recently learned about a computer used by Ms. Abedin?

Remember, Abedin is said to have cooperated in the Clinton e-mails investigation and sat for a lengthy interview with FBI agents. The agents asked her about her e-mail practices. Assuming they asked basic questions, as agents are trained to do, they would have methodically itemized the computers and e-mail accounts she used. Yet, the Abedin/Weiner computer, which is said to contain 650,000 e-mails (an unknown number of which are relevant to the Clinton investigation), was not acquired by the bureau in connection with the Clinton investigation. It was seized in an unrelated investigation of Weiner, reportedly involving his alleged “sexting” with a teenage minor.

Why did the FBI agents on the Clinton e-mails investigation fail to acquire and search this computer months earlier? The question becomes more pressing in light of the Washington Examiner’s report that the FBI failed to ask not only Abedin but other Clinton aides to surrender their computers, smartphones, or other communications devices.

Now, there could be a good explanation, at least in connection with some Clinton aides. If, after a reasonably thorough investigation, the FBI had found no indication that potentially classified information was transmitted or stored on a particular device, there’d be no need to seize it. Let’s say X is a Clinton staffer. Let’s also say the FBI finds that X appears only to have used her government e-mail account for official business; that X did not have an account on the clintonemail.com domain; that whenever Clinton or other government officials e-mailed X, they addressed the e-mail to X’s state.gov account; and that X was cooperative when interviewed and convincingly said she never used her private e-mail for government business. Under those circumstances, it would be reasonable not to ask for the surrender of X’s private cellphone or computers.

Let’s now consider, though, the case we actually have. Several Clinton staffers appear to have sent and received e-mails about government business on private devices and private e-mail accounts. A number of those e-mail exchanges involved classified intelligence. It seems like a no-brainer to me that these devices should have been seized and searched.

Why was this not done? There are at least four reasons, none of them good.

First, the Obama Justice Department under Loretta Lynch denied the FBI’s Clinton e-mails investigators access to the grand jury. The grand jury’s power to compel production of evidence and testimony is the source of much of the FBI’s power to convince people to be cooperative. Defanged by DOJ, investigators were forced to negotiate and cajole when they should have been able to demand. That makes it much harder to investigate. It undoubtedly drummed into the agents the message that they should not press too many requests for the voluntary surrender of items the owners would not want to part with — and no one wants to give up personal laptops and smartphones. If a request made by an agent was denied, the agent could have no confidence that the Justice Department would back him.

Second, the Good Ship Clinton overflows with lawyers. It is also very close to the Obama Justice Department (many Obama-administration lawyers were once Clinton-administration lawyers). Lawyers know that the FBI worries about being accused of violating attorney-client privileged communications. They also know that the Obama Justice Department is indulgent of extravagant claims about what the attorney-client privilege shields from disclosure. Lawyers’ devices are thus a big hassle for agents, and they no doubt shy away from asking for them unless it’s patently necessary (as it was, for example, with the laptops of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, since those computers were used to store and vet all of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails). And when you start shying away from seeking access to the computers of important subjects (such as Mills) because you don’t want to deal with lawyer complications, it becomes much easier to rationalize not seeking the devices of other subjects. Once it is established by habit that obtaining computers is not a priority, you stop asking.

Third, it’s never good to compartmentalize an investigation. In this case, the classified e-mails investigation has apparently been severed from the Clinton Foundation investigation, as if they were completely separate and unrelated. When obviously related matters are joined together, there is a broader basis to demonstrate probable cause that evidentiary items, such as computers, are relevant and should be seized. But that advantage is lost when what should be one investigation is divided into two or more. If you are an agent investigating the classified e-mails case, you are not going to make efforts to acquire a computer that might be very relevant to the Clinton Foundation investigation but only marginally tied to the classified-information probe. When an investigation is artificially carved up, agents do not see the big picture: Things that ought to be acquired end up falling through the cracks.

Fourth and finally, there is the enervating effect of working on an investigation that agents strongly suspect is not going to result in charges. Even as the agents on the classified-information investigation gradually assembled compelling evidence, they had to know that the president and the Justice Department were very unenthusiastic about the case. President Obama talked the investigation down, going out of his way to say Mrs. Clinton would never do anything to harm national security. Justice Department officials leaked the same message to the press.

Put yourself in the shoes of FBI agents who witness things they’ve never seen before: subjects of the investigation given immunity from prosecution and then allowed to appear as lawyers for other subjects; Justice Department lawyers more accommodating of defense lawyers than of FBI agents; witnesses who lie to the FBI given immunity rather than being arrested and squeezed for cooperation. The agents see the handwriting on the wall that their hard work is going to come to nothing. An agent no doubt asks himself: “Why should I push to acquire this computer? If DOJ wanted me to have it, they’d let me subpoena it; if they wanted to make the case, some of these suspects would already be in cuffs.”

This is an understandable attitude, but it’s not an acceptable one. The FBI is not just the nation’s premier investigative agency; it is also our domestic-security service. Wholly apart from whether a computer contains evidence that can be used to prosecute a case, that computer has become a threat to national security if — as a private device that is not hardened against espionage and operates on networks that are not hardened against espionage — it is likely to contain classified information. Even if no one is indicted, the hacking or dissemination of the intelligence on the computer could damage national security.

The reports of the FBI’s investigation that have been made public indicate that there could be dozens of computers and other communications devices which may be storing classified information, but which the FBI has neither seized nor made plans to try to obtain. If that is true, it is inexplicable. That the Justice Department and senior FBI officials have adopted a theory that undermines prosecution of crimes involving mishandling of intelligence is beside the point.

It also raises another question: Is the Abedin/Weiner laptop the last one? Or will late discoveries continue to rock Camp Clinton and roil our politics?

Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

‘Validly Predicated Investigation’: Reports Prove FBI ‘Aggressively Investigating’ Clinton Foundation For Potential Pay To Play Crimes

Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP

Spencer Platt/Getty Images/AFP

Breitbart, by Matthew Boyle, November 2, 2016:

NEW YORK CITY, New York — A pair of reports out on Wednesday evening from two of the nation’s biggest broadcasters brings gloomy news for the already hurting presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton: The FBI has been “aggressively investigating” the Clinton Foundation for a year.

All of this comes as a third report, from the Wall Street Journal, walks through how “secret recordings” have “fueled” the FBI’s criminal investigation into the Clinton Foundation—a separate but parallel probe from the Hillary Clinton email scandal.

Pamela Brown, CNN’s Justice Department correspondent, announced on air on Wednesday:

My colleague Evan Perez and I have spoken to more than a dozen officials and agents and have learned that agents in the FBI wanted to aggressively investigate the Clinton Foundation several months ago. Earlier in the year, the Justice Department told the FBI essentially you don’t have enough evidence here for predication to get more tools such as warrants and subpoenas. ‘Go back and see what else you can dig up.’ We are told that after the Clinton email probe initially wrapped up in July that those agents wanted to continue their work on the case and again DOJ said ‘you don’t have enough evidence here to really investigate’ and so things are sort of on hold and this has sort of caused tensions to flare in the FBI and the Department of Justice. Some of those agents feel like those roadblocks are politically-driven.

WATCH PAMELA BROWN’S CNN REPORT ON CLINTON FOUNDATION CORRUPTION PROBE:

Similarly, over on Fox News, Special Report anchor Bret Baier dropped another bombshell on Wednesday night:

Two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation tell Fox the following: The investigation into the Clinton Foundation, looking into possible pay-for-play interaction between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been going on for more than a year led by the White Collar Crime Division, Public Corruption Branch of the Criminal Investigative Division of the FBI. The Clinton Foundation investigation is a ‘very high priority.’ Agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people about the Foundation case and even before the WikiLeaks dumps these sources said agents had collected a great deal of evidence. Pressed on that, one source said ‘a lot of it, and there is an avalanche of new information coming in every day—some of it from WikiLeaks, some from new emails.’ The agents are actively and aggressively pursuing this case and they will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time. 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 Justice Department would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. We are told definitively that has not happened and those devices are currently in the FBI field office here in Washington, D.C., and are being exploited. The source points out any immunity deal is null and void if any subject has lied at any point in the investigation.

Baier also had new information on the investigation—a separate but parallel criminal probe—into Hillary Clinton’s emails. Baier reported:

Meanwhile, the classified email investigation is being run by the National Security Division of the FBI. They are currently combing through former Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop. They have found emails they believe came from Hillary Clinton’s server and that also appear to be new—as in, not duplicates. Whether they contain classified material or not is not yet known, but will likely be known soon.

WATCH BRET BAIER ANNOUNCE THE BOMBSHELLS ON FOX NEWS

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday night also broke a big story on this front.

“Secret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud in Clinton Probe,” read the headline from the Wall Street Journal’s Devlin Barrett and Christopher Matthews, with a sub-headline reading: “Agents thought they had enough material to merit aggressively pursuing investigation into Clinton Foundation.”

“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, people familiar with the matter said,” Barrett and Matthews wrote.

In the wake of Breitbart News Editor at Large and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer’s bombshell spring 2015 book Clinton Cash, the Wall Street Journal reported that FBI agents “using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the foundation.”

Agents wanted to pursue a more aggressive investigation, they reported, but officials at the politically tainted Department of Justice wouldn’t let them. The Wall Street Journalreporters wrote:

Starting in February and continuing today, investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and public-corruption prosecutors became increasingly frustrated with each other, as often happens within and between departments. At the center of the tension stood the U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, Robert Capers, who some at the FBI came to view as exacerbating the problems by telling each side what it wanted to hear, these people said. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Capers declined to comment. The roots of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the strength of the case, these people said, which broadly centered on whether Clinton Foundation contributors received favorable treatment from the State Department under Hillary Clinton. Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn’t think much of the evidence, while investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn’t let them pursue, they said.

But more importantly, FBI agents actually presented the case to prosecutors—after which they were told by officials in the politically controlled DOJ to “stand down.” Barrett and Matthews wrote:

As 2015 came to a close, the FBI and Justice Department had a general understanding that neither side would take major action on Clinton Foundation matters without meeting and discussing it first. In February, a meeting was held in Washington among FBI officials, public-integrity prosecutors and Leslie Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York—Mr. Capers’ office—didn’t attend, these people said. The public-integrity prosecutors weren’t impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar with the discussion said. ‘The message was, ‘We’re done here,’ ‘ a person familiar with the matter said. Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions. Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the offices involved to ‘stand down,’ a person familiar with the matter said.

Most damning for the Clintons, however, is the revelation that according to the Wall Street Journal report, even FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe confirmed that the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation was a “validly predicated investigation” to some people at the Justice Department who tried to shut down the case.

***

FBI Leaks: Clinton Foundation Probe a ‘Very High Priority,’ Will Likely Lead to an Indictment

“Because my former assistant Jim Comey made the wrong decision in July,” Giuliani replied. “You have outraged FBI agents that talk to me. They’re outraged at the injustice. They’re outraged by being turned down by the Justice Department to open a grand jury. They are convinced that Loretta Lynch has corrupted the Justice Department. You’ve got people in the Justice Department  involved in this investigation who were defense lawyers for Clinton people…. This is about as outrageous a corruption of the Justice Department that we’ve  seen.”

Giuliani said that the dissension within the FBI is very real.

“These are men and women who uphold the law. They’re not a bunch of slimy Washington politicians like the Obama administration and the people Clinton would bring in. And the reality is that they are outraged with what they have seen,” the former prosecutor said.

“Mrs. Clinton has violated easily 20 – 30 federal laws,” he continued. “I could outline them for you, I could show you how I could prosecute and convict her.”

Giuliani said that back in July when he read FBI Director Comey’s prosecutorial memo about the email case, “it was just the opposite of what he said.”

He continued, “Every reasonable prosecutor would have prosecuted that case in a second. I’ve won convictions on half the evidence that the FBI had gotten in July, and Jim has an FBI that’s in revolt right now and I think that’s one of the reasons he came out and did what he did to try to control his agents — who after all are true law enforcement people. And what they see is some of the slimiest stuff that we’ve seen in Washington since probably Teapot Dome.”

“This is worse that Watergate,” Giuliani declared. “They’ve corrupted the State Department with ‘pay to play’ and they’ve corrupted the Justice Department. You can’t go much further than that, Megyn.”

Also see: 

In case you haven’t seen it yet:

Clintonworld’s Top 5 Active FBI Investigations

Getty, AP

Getty, AP

Breitbart, by John Hayward, November 1, 2016:

There are enough active investigations of Hillary Clinton and her inner circle to merit a list of the most important ones. In short, just about everyone tied to Hillary Clinton is the subject of a serious investigation. Not all of them were are the beneficiaries of those curious preemptive immunity deals tossed around by FBI leadership, to the consternation of some agents.

1. Clinton Email Scandal: As everyone knows, this supposedly de-railed investigation was dramatically hoisted back onto the rails by none other than Anthony Weiner – the accused pedophile who ended up with a huge trove of State Department emails on his computer, which the FBI seized because Weiner has been sending sexually explicit messages to a 15-year-old girl.

Not only is the Clinton email investigation back on the rails, it’s chugging along at high speed. It was reported on Monday that the FBI has “accelerated its timeline” for reviewing Weiner emails linked to Clinton.

2. The Anthony Weiner Investigation: The poor judgment displayed by Hillary Clinton in allowing vital government emails to slip onto Anthony Weiner’s computer is absolutely breathtaking.

Furthermore, Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin has trotted out the shopworn all-purpose Obama administration excuse that she knew nothing about the situation until she heard it reported on the news. That should disqualify her from ever obtaining any sort of security clearance, if Hillary Clinton had not already rendered information security a joke.

Both Abedin and Clinton could be in legal jeopardy, depending on what emails the FBI finds lurking in the diseased corners of Weiner’s laptop. Weiner himself is absolutely in jeopardy, the kind that puts perverts in jail for long stretches of time. He has every reason to make a deal with law enforcement.

He might have a lot to deal with. How did 650,000 State Department emails end up on his computer? The simplest explanation might be that Carlos Danger (as he once liked to be called) was stockpiling leverage to use against his now-estranged wife and her boss, The Smartest Woman Who Ever Lived.

3. The Clinton Foundation Probe: We’ve learned an FBI probe of the Clinton Foundation for possible financial crimes and influence peddling has been in progress for over a year. As the Wall Street Journal put it, some of the investigators were “frustrated” because FBI leadership seemed “uninterested in probing the charity.”

This is an investigation that could rope in a lot of people in Clinton’s inner circle, besides Hillary and Bill Clinton themselves. Abedin is a player, and so is Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and another key aide, Philippe Reines. Bill Clinton’s old “body man” Doug Band – basically the Littlefinger of Bill Clinton’s financial empire, for you Game of Thrones fans – and even Chelsea Clinton could end up answering some tough questions.

Much will depend on whether the Clinton Foundation is scrutinized in isolation, or whether charges of influence peddling are pursued, at which point Hillary Clinton’s entire retinue from her days in the Senate and State Department would have reason to feel nervous.

4. The Podesta Brothers: Most of those WikiLeaks bombshells the Clinton media is ignoring with such furious intensity are to, from, or copied to John Podesta, the CEO of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, and probably the most powerful figure in Clintonworld not named “Clinton.”

In one of the latest WikiLeaks revelations, Podesta is caught telling Cheryl Mills, “We are going to have to dump all those emails,” and it would be “better to do so sooner than later.” That sounds ominously like a conspiracy to destroy evidence in multiple federal criminal investigations, depending of course on which emails he was talking about, and what he meant by “dumping” them.

Podesta’s brother Tony, and the brothers’ Podesta Group lobbying firm, are involved in anFBI corruption investigation related to the deposed president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. The allegations boil down to illegal lobbying activities. Former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort also has a company that figures in the same investigation, so people across the 2016 political battlefield get to feel nervous about this one – but Podesta’s pipeline into the Clinton machine means more highly-placed people in her camp could become part of the investigation.

5. Terry McAuliffe’s Campaign Donations: The Clintons’ old friend Terry McAuliffe, currently the governor of Virginia, has been under FBI investigation for over a year by the Public Integrity unit over campaign fundraising and donations. Part of that investigation involves his time with the Clinton Global Initiative.

The events of greatest interest, until now, were some curious foreign donations, but now we’ve got the eye-popping sums of money McAuliffe steered to Virginia state senate candidate Jill McCabe, whose husband just happens to be Andrew McCabe, who just happens to be a top FBI official, and who just happened to end up in charge of the Clinton Foundation investigation.

This controversy doesn’t seem to be fading despite rote denials of impropriety and swift media assurances it was all a big nothingburger. Some of those dismissals are based on Jill McCabe receiving her pile of McAuliffe money before her husband became involved with an FBI investigation of the Clintons, but not all of it was donated before that point, and it hardly strains credulity to assert that the Clinton machine was making down-payments for favors it knew full well it would need later.

There have been calls for McCabe to recuse himself from the Clinton Foundation probe, and House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) has a few questions.

The fascinating thing about these five investigations is not just that so many prominent people from the Clintons’ orbit are caught up in them – the UK Daily Mail suggests a few more, lower-profile names – but that all of these cases could have trails leading to Anthony Weiner’s computer.

It will take a long time to go through all the material of interest, but meanwhile Weiner has suddenly become the key figure in Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. It seems safe to say nobody saw that coming.

Clintonworld is looking like a carload of bandits in a chase film from the 1970s, heading for the state line with pedal to the metal, a swarm of cop cars roaring through the dust right behind them. Can Hillary Clinton and her crew hit the White House in a squeal of shredding tires and win total political immunity before the law catches up with them? Stay tuned for the big finale on Election Day!

Also see:

The Clinton E-mails Are Critical to the Clinton Foundation Investigation

Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Reuters photo: Shannon Stapleton)

Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Reuters photo: Shannon Stapleton)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, November 1, 2016:

The Wall Street Journal’s report that, for over a year, the FBI has been investigating the Clinton Foundation for potential financial crimes and influence peddling is, as Rich Lowry said Monday, a blockbuster. As I argued over the weekend, the manner in which the State Department was put in the service of the Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary is shocking. It is suggestive of a pattern of pay-to-play bribery, the monetizing of political influence, fraud, and obstruction of justice that the Justice Department should be investigating as a possible RICO conspiracy under the federal anti-racketeering laws.

The Journal’s Devlin Barrett buries the Clinton Foundation lede in the 14th paragraph of his report. Even more astonishing are his final three paragraphs:

In September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.”

Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau’s leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Mr. Comey’s disclosure to Congress and setting off the furor that promises to consume the final days of a tumultuous campaign.

Let me unpack this.

Readers are unlikely to know that the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn is not just any United States attorney’s office. It is the office that was headed by Attorney General Loretta Lynch until President Obama elevated her to attorney general less than two years ago.

It was in the EDNY that Ms. Lynch first came to national prominence in 1999, when she was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bill Clinton — the husband of the main subject of the FBI’s investigations with whom Lynch furtively met in the back of a plane parked on an Arizona tarmac days before the announcement that Mrs. Clinton would not be indicted. Obama reappointed Lynch as the EDNY’s U.S. attorney in 2010. She was thus in charge of staffing that office for nearly six years before coming to Main Justice in Washington. That means the EDNY is full of attorneys Lynch hired and supervised.

When we learn that Clinton Foundation investigators are being denied access to patently relevant evidence by federal prosecutors in Brooklyn, those are the prosecutors — Loretta Lynch’s prosecutors — we are talking about.

Recall, moreover, that it was Lynch’s Justice Department that:

refused to authorize use of the grand jury to further the Clinton e-mails investigation, thus depriving the FBI of the power to compel testimony and the production of evidence by subpoena;

consulted closely with defense attorneys representing subjects of the investigation;

permitted Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — the subordinates deputized by Mrs. Clinton to sort through her e-mails and destroy thousands of them — to represent Clinton as attorneys, despite the fact that they were subjects of the same investigation and had been granted immunity from prosecution (to say nothing of the ethical and legal prohibitions against such an arrangement);

drastically restricted the FBI’s questioning of Mills and other subjects of the investigation; and

struck the outrageous deals that gave Mills and Samuelson immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing the FBI with the laptops on which they reviewed Clinton’s four years of e-mails. That arrangement was outrageous for three reasons: 1) Mills and Samuelson should have been compelled to produce the computers by grand-jury subpoena with no immunity agreement; 2) Lynch’s Justice Department drastically restricted the FBI’s authority to examine the computers; and 3) Lynch’s Justice Department agreed that the FBI would destroy the computers following its very limited examination.

As I have detailed, it was already clear that Lynch’s Justice Department was stunningly derelict in hamstringing the bureau’s e-mails investigation. But now that we know the FBI was simultaneously investigating the Clinton Foundation yet being denied access to the Clinton e-mails, the dereliction appears unconscionable.

It had to be screamingly obvious that the Clinton State Department e-mails, run through a server that also supported Clinton Foundation activities, would be critically important to any probe of the Foundation. Consider, for example, the issue of criminal intent, over which much has been made since Director Comey stressed the purported lack of intent proof in recommending against an indictment of Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information.

I believe, to the contrary, that there is abundant intent evidence. The law presumes that people intend the natural, foreseeable consequences of their actions: When you’re the secretary of state, and you systematically conduct your government business on private, non-secure e-mail rather than the government’s secure servers, you must know it is inevitable that classified information will be transmitted through and stored on the private server. Still, even though Clinton’s misconduct was thus willful and grossly negligent, no sensible person believes she was trying to harm the United States; the damage she did to national security was an easily foreseeable consequence of her scheme, but that damage was not what motivated her actions.

In such circumstances, it is a common tactic of defense lawyers to confound motive and criminal intent. Every criminal statute has an intent element (i.e., a requirement to prove that conduct was knowing, willful, intentional, or grossly negligent). Prosecutors, however, are virtually never required to prove motive. To be sure, they usually do introduce evidence of motive, because establishing a motive often helps to prove intent. But motive can sometimes confuse matters, so proving it is not mandatory.

A common, concrete example is helpful here: the guy who robs a bank because he is strapped for cash and his mom needs an operation. Although it was not the robber’s purpose to petrify the bank teller, proving that he had a desperate need for money helps demonstrate that his theft of money was quite intentional — not an accident or mistake. So even though we can all agree that our bank robber did not have a motive to do harm, his benign motive does not absolve him of guilt for the bank robbery he fully intended to commit.

Yet, such absolution is exactly what Comey offered in claiming there was insufficient proof of criminal intent to charge Clinton with mishandling classified information.  It was a rationale that echoed public comments by President Obama and Lynch’s Justice Department. They would have you believe that because Clinton was not motivated by a desire to harm national security she cannot have intended to violate the classified-information laws. It is sleight-of-hand, but it was good enough for Democrats and the media to pronounce Clinton “exonerated.”

Now, however, let’s consider the Clinton Foundation. While Clinton may not have been motivated to harm our national security, she was precisely motivated to conceal the corrupt interplay of the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. That was the real objective of the home-brew server system: Mrs. Clinton wanted to shield from Congress, the courts, and the public the degree to which she, Bill, and their confederates were cashing in on her awesome political influence as secretary of state. That is exactly why she did business outside the government system that captures all official e-mails; and, critically, it perfectly explains why she deleted and attempted to destroy 33,000 e-mails — risibly claiming they involved yoga routines, Chelsea’s wedding, and the like.

While knowing the purpose of the private server system may not advance our understanding of the classified-information offenses, it greatly advances our understanding of the scheme to make the Clinton Foundation a State Department pay-to-play vehicle. Consequently, the Clinton e-mails generated in the course of this scheme are apt to be highly probative of  public-corruption offenses.

With that in mind, let’s go back to the Journal’s account of why Loretta Lynch’s EDNY prosecutors have blocked the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigators from examining the Clinton e-mails found on the laptop computers of Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson:

Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

The Journal’s report says the FBI’s Clinton Foundation team was “dissatisfied” with this explanation — as well they should have been. The grants of immunity and limited-use agreements were disgraceful for the reasons outlined above. Significantly, however, the limitations imposed on the classified-information investigation should not, in the main, be binding on the Clinton Foundation investigation. Of course, the immunity grants to Mills and Samuelson must be honored even though they should never have been given in the first place. But those agreements only protect Mills and Samuelson. They would not prevent evidence found on the computers and retained by the FBI from being used against Hillary Clinton or any other possible conspirator.

Clearly, that is why agents on the FBI’s Clinton Foundation team wanted to get their investigation out of the EDNY’s clutches and move it to the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York (my office for many years, as well as Jim Comey’s). The SDNY has a tradition of relative independence from the Justice Department and a well-earned reputation for pursuing political-corruption cases aggressively — a reputation burnished by U.S. attorney Preet Bharara’s prosecutions of prominent politicians from both parties. Alas, the Clinton Foundation agents were said to be barred from “prosecutor shopping” by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe — the official whose wife’s Virginia state senate campaign was infused with $675,000 in cash and in-kind contributions by political committees controlled by Governor Terry McAuliffe, a notorious Clinton fixer and former Clinton Foundation board member.

Because of Democratic and media furor over Director Comey’s reopening of the Clinton e-mails investigation last week, the FBI is now under enormous pressure to review tens of thousands of e-mails stored on the laptop shared by Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner. The point is to hound the bureau into announcing before Election Day (seven days from now) whether any new classified e-mails have been found. If none are found, this outcome will be spun as yet another “exoneration” of Hillary Clinton.

Here, however, is the real outrage: Beneath all this noise, Loretta Lynch’s Justice Department is blocking the FBI from examining Clinton e-mails in connection with its investigation of the Clinton Foundation — an investigation that is every bit as serious.

Were it not for the Clinton Foundation, there probably would not be a Clinton e-mail scandal. Mrs. Clinton’s home-brew communications system was designed to conceal the degree to which the State Department was put in the service of Foundation donors who transformed the “dead broke” Clintons into hundred-millionaires.

At this point, the reopened classified-information investigation is a distraction: Under the Comey/DOJ “insufficient intent evidence” rationale, there would be no charges even if previously undiscovered classified e-mails were found on the Abedin/Weiner computer. Instead, what is actually essential is that the FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigators get access to all the thousands of Clinton e-mails, including those recovered from the Mills and Samuelson laptops. The agents must also have the time they need to piece together all the Clinton e-mails (from whatever source), follow up leads, and make their case.

No one seems to notice that they are being thwarted. Hillary hasn’t even been elected, but already we are benumbed by Clinton Scandal Exhaustion Syndrome.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Don’t Be Fooled: Hillarygate Probe Is Now a Formal Federal Criminal Investigation


American Thinker, by James G. Wiles, November 1, 2016:

The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal both reported on Monday morning that an FBI warrant application to a federal judge over the weekend for permission to search Huma Abedin’s emails and laptop had been granted. The application was made on the basis of the Clinton email investigation. Necessarily, that application (as required by the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment) would have been supported by FBI affidavits.

This new fact is a development of immense potential significance – both for Mrs. Clinton personally and for us as American citizens. It is also unprecedented in American history.

At a minimum, it enables us to pierce the thick cloud of black ink and disinformation released over the weekend by Team Hillary and which is being widely misreported in the current news cycle.

The FBI agents had to make this warrant application because their existing Fourth Amendment search authority was on the basis of Anthony Weiner’s (unrelated) suspected misconduct with an underage girl. That investigation was already a grand jury matter. However, that grand jury’s authority – which is supervised by a federal judge — did not authorize the Bureau to pursue information which might be pertinent to the inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was Secretary of State. Making that application, under standard DOJ protocol, required approval from Main Justice. In this case, the assistant attorney in charge of the Criminal Division, if not the attorney general.

Since the application was made, it’s safe to conclude that the Criminal Division at Main Justice authorized the warrant application. Thus, at a minimum, the senior leadership of the Justice Department is not as unanimously condemnatory of FBI director Comey’s letter to Congress on Friday as media reports would lead us to believe.

It also explains why Director Comey issued his letter to Congress. The reporting tells us that the FBI’s decision to make a warrant application to the supervising judge of the Weiner grand jury triggered Mr. Comey’s decision to notify Congress. Having promised Congressional leaders (perhaps unwisely, since he was not required to do so) that, if the Bureau uncovered new evidence relating to Hillarygate which required further inquiry, he would so notify them, he proceeded on Friday to keep his word and do so.

Now he’s being condemned by the Democrats and the MSM for not saying why. We’ll get to the reason why he’s not in a minute. But, first, the granting of the warrant application means several important and new things:

1) A federal judge supervising a grand jury has now made a finding, based on FBI affidavits which present evidence gathered during the preliminary Hillary inquiry (the one which the FBI director stated had been closed back in July), that there’s probable cause to believe that a federal crime was committed in connection with Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server.

We still, however, don’t know what crime(s) are suspected to have been committed. Or by whom.

2) The FBI can use this new grant of grand jury authority to investigate Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for the first time to issues subpoenaes to obtain testimony from witnesses and compel the production of documents and things. The Bureau and DOJ can, furthermore, use the judge’s probable cause finding to support further warrant applications.

This means that, if DOJ authorizes it, a United States attorney now has the ability for the first time to put subpoenaed witnesses before a grand jury. There, without their lawyer in the room, they may be questioned under oath by a federal prosecutor. If the witnesses take the Fifth – and the witness’s lawyer is allowed to sit outside the grand jury room and be consulted by the witness before answering a question, they can be immunized and, if they still refuse to testify, a judge can jail them indefinitely until they change their mind.

Huma Abedin, according to prior reporting, received a grant of immunity during the FBI’s preliminary investigation. During the first Clinton presidency, Clinton allies chose jail over cooperating with the federal grand jury investigating both Clintons.

We may get to see if a new generation of Clinton allies are willing to do the same.

3) The liberal media’s reporting that the Hillarygate email server investigation has not, in fact, been “reopened” is totally false.

Why?

Because, not only is the probe reopened, it has been upgraded and expanded. It has been upgraded from a preliminary inquiry to a formal criminal investigation with grand jury power. That also means that, at least at the level of the federal grand jury itself, assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to that grand jury are now for the first time formally involved.

In other words: the Beast is now fully awake.

4) This weekend’s development potentially escalates the threat to Mrs. Clinton. While several other procedural steps and processes are necessary, it is a federal grand jury, not the FBI,  which issues indictments. The FBI — using the the grand jury to obtain testimony, conduct searches and compel the production of documents and things – investigates crimes. The U.S. Attorneys, acting though the grand jury, charge and prosecute those persons whom the grand jury finds probable cause to believe have committed those crimes.

5) This weekend’s development also means that, for the first time in American history, a candidate for President of the United States is likely now a subject/target of a federal grand jury investigation.

These facts now enable us to analyze and dispel Team Clinton’s attempts to lay down a thick fog of misdirection over the scene.

Here it is: Mrs. Clinton’s demand that the FBI be “transparent” is pure posturing — spinning to the max (which Mrs. Clinton, as the most criminally investigated presidential candidate in U.S. history, well knows). Younger readers, please take note: this is not, to put it mildly, Hillary Clinton’s first rodeo.

Not for the first time, Mrs. Clinton is being totally disingenuous with the voters (and the media). She is also making FBI director Comey into her personal punching bag. And she’s doing it because she knows that the director can’t fight back.

In this, Mrs. Clinton is simply repeating a tactic which she and her catspaw Sidney Blumenthal used to good effect during the Whitewater, Travelgate, and Monica Lewinsky investigations in the 1990s. And that tactic worked.

It’s called grand jury secrecy. Now that Hillarygate is, for the first time, a grand jury investigation, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) prohibits the FBI and prosecutors from saying anything about “matters occurring before the grand jury.” Their lips are sealed.

Team Hillary’s lips, however, are not. They are neither federal prosecutors nor “agents of the grand jury.” So, Mrs. Clinton and her spokesmen — unlike the federal law enforcement officials they’ve been targeting all weekend — are free to tell us everything they know.

Let’s see if they do. A reporter should ask them.

And, in the meantime, let’s not bother to hold our breaths.

If Hillary really wants “transparency,” let her release the FBI’s warrant application for permission to search Huma Abedin and Mr. Weiner’s emails for evidence relating to whether Hillary’s use of a private server violated federal law. Huma’s lawyers likely have it. If not, they can certainly get it.

Huma, of course, is also free to release the emails too.

That’s why Hillary’s demand for “transparency” by the FBI is moonshine. She damn well knows the feds can’t do it.

She also now knows that the threat level against her has just been upgraded to ORANGE.

William Safire and Christopher Hitchens, thou shouldst be living at this hour!

Top 7 Charges Hillary Clinton Could Face While President

head-of-hillary-ap-640x480

Breitbart, by John Hayward, October 31, 2016:

What scandals might the American people find themselves dealing with in Hillary Clinton’s Administration if she slides into the presidential home plate, trailing a cloud of controversy?

Let us be honest about who suffers from presidential misbehavior—it’s the American people who pay the price, including the literal price of the expensive investigations. The odds of justice actually catching up with Hillary Clinton dwindle to almost zero if she gains the White House. She might have to sacrifice an aide here and there, but if the political system of 1998 couldn’t remove her husband from office for blatant perjury, it’s hard to imagine what could possibly bring The First Woman President down in the even more corrupt and confused political system of 2017.

That being said, here are a few lingering legal headaches Clinton could face:

1. Perjury: Why not start with a blast from the Clinton past? Hillary Clinton signed documents testifying that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department, on orders from a federal judge, under penalty of perjury. We already have indisputable proof she violated this sworn statement… thousands of times.

The cloud of false statements under oath surrounding Hillary Clinton is thousands of times thicker than the one around Bill. Democrats seem to have found a hidden clause in the Constitution that says Clintons can never be prosecuted for perjury, but Madame Secretary is really stress-testing that particular privilege of Clintonhood. One would think the federal judiciary had some interest in establishing that sworn documents must be taken seriously.

2. Obstruction of Justice: Bill Clinton’s primary motive for committing perjury was to obstruct justice—it was the second count in his impeachment. (The justice he was obstructing was a sexual harassment suit from Paula Jones, at a time when liberals insisted sexual harassment was the most overlooked, under-prosecuted crime in the legal code.)

Hillary’s thousands of perjury counts are also related to the obstruction of justice. She held back documents she didn’t want Congress to see. She subverted the Freedom of Information Act, which is a law, not a lovely suggestion.

Most media timelines of the Clinton email scandal are either incomplete or deliberately obtuse, because they almost never accurately relate how her secret server was discovered. For example, these timelines from USA Today, CNN, and ABC News all get it wrong.

Sharyl Attkisson, who was a participant in the story, has an accurate timeline that makes the important point Clinton-friendly media outlets don’t want to talk about: we know about the secret server because the State Department was sued for failing to respond to FOIA requests. The State Department’s official story is that they were surprised to discover Clinton was withholding thousands of documents on her private computer.

That’s straight-up obstruction of justice, in cases involving multiple federal courts, as surely as Bill Clinton’s impeachable offense of obstructing the Paula Jones suit. Clinton may become untouchable if the American people allow her into the White House, but the lawsuits don’t evaporate, and neither do the angry judges.

3. Bribery: After the FBI set off a headline earthquake by re-opening the Clinton email investigation, we learned that several other FBI investigations of Clintonworld have been quietly in progress for some time. One of those investigations is digging into bribery allegations against the Clinton Foundation. The FBI agents working on these cases were reportedly very angry that top Bureau and Justice Department officials were pressuring them to drop their investigations.

The most attention-grabbing of these suspicions concerns an FBI official, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife received an inexplicably huge political donation from Clinton bagman Terry McAuliffe, currently the governor of Virginia. The timing of this donation was so convenient that even the Left side of the blogosphere has produced some uneasy speculation that McCabe probably should have recused himself from all things Clinton-related.

Well, he didn’t recuse himself, and the conflicts of interest are so apparent that the lack of a chiseled-in-stone quid pro quo might not be enough to kill this case off. After all, corrupt officials aren’t usually dumb enough to write down their quid pro quo agreements, or repeat them into microphones. The McCabe controversy already has longer legs than most observers expected, when the news first broke.

4. Pay for Play: There has also been recent confirmation that the FBI has investigated influence-peddling allegations against the Clinton Foundation, which was so obviously used for that purpose that it’s funny to watch Clinton apologists insist nothing can be proven in a court of law. Some of the most vigorous infighting within the Bureau reportedly concerns whether pay-for-play investigations should move forward.

WikiLeaks has exposed emails from Clinton insiders that openly discuss how the Foundation was part of a network that steered millions of dollars to “Bill Clinton Inc.” Even longtime members of the Clinton syndicate professed themselves troubled by these operations. They were also unhappy with arrangements like Hillary Clinton’s agreement tospeak in Morocco after a $12 million donation to the Clinton Global Initiative.

It’s entirely possible that more documentation about these suspicious Clinton Foundation dealings will come to light after the election, especially if some of the people Clinton took money from grow upset with her. It’s downright dangerous to have a President with so many strings attached.

5. Illegal Use of a Nonprofit Organization: There are many laws governing the management of charitable organizations, generally intended to prevent them from becoming money-laundering operations, ripoff operations, and vehicles for political influence peddling. The Clinton Foundation and its galaxy of related operations may eventually find itself answering some questions about compliance with those laws, assuming the IRS decides to stop focusing its efforts on hassling mom-and-pop pro-life groups and kitchen-table Tea Party outfits. If the Foundation is ever held to account for any other impropriety, charges of abusing a nonprofit should be part of the legal package as well.

6. Racketeering: Former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy has recently observed that Hillary Clinton’s abuse of the State Department looks an awful lot like a “racketeering enterprise,” which could trigger the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1971, more widely known as RICO. McCarthy explained:

Under RICO, an “enterprise” can be any association of people, informal or formal, illegitimate or legitimate – it could be a Mafia family, an ostensibly charitable foundation, or a department of government. It is a racketeering enterprise if its affairs are conducted through “a pattern of racketeering activity.” A “pattern” means merely two or more violations of federal or state law; these violations constitute “racketeering activity” if they are included among the extensive list of felonies laid out in the statute.

7. Fraud: Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel has been building a case that the “Clinton Charity Network,” as he calls the complete system of Clinton operations, has committed “charity fraud of epic proportions.” In part, he refers to discrepancies between donor accounts and the Clinton Foundation’s books.

Others have pointed out how the Clinton Health Access Initiative has essentially ignoredNew York state law for years, without a peep from Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (who just happens to be part of the Clinton campaign’s “leadership council.”) There are some interesting differences between the paperwork CHAI submitted to the IRS and what it submitted to the state of New York, which has more specific requirements about identifying foreign donors.

In addition to getting a free pass on perjury, the Clintons are traditionally allowed to violate tax laws without penalty, eventually refiling paperwork when “errors” are discovered years after the fact. Another round of whoops-my-bad, no-harm-no-foul “refiling” during a Hillary Clinton presidency would be embarrassing, especially if she’s busy trying to ratchet up taxes on everyone else.

Comey Is Not the One Whose Unorthodox Actions Are Casting a Cloud over the Election

(Reuters photo: Brian Snyder)

(Reuters photo: Brian Snyder)

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, October 31, 2016:

How rich of Hillary Clinton to complain now that FBI director James Comey is threatening the democratic process by commenting publicly about a criminal investigation on the eve of an election.

Put aside that Comey did not say a single thing last week that implicates Clinton in a crime. The biggest coup for Clinton in the waning months of the campaign has been Comey’s decision not to prosecute her — a decision outside the responsibilities of the FBI director and publicly announced in a manner that contradicts law-enforcement protocols. There has been nothing more irregular, nothing that put law enforcement more in the service of politics, than that announcement. Yet, far from condemning it, Mrs. Clinton has worn it like a badge of honor since July. Indeed, she has contorted it into a wholesale exoneration, which it most certainly was not.

Just to remind those whose memories seem so conveniently to fail, Comey is the FBI director, not a Justice Department prosecutor, much less the attorney general. The FBI is not supposed to exercise prosecutorial discretion. The FBI is not supposed to decide whether the subject of a criminal investigation gets indicted. The FBI, moreover, is not obligated to make recommendations about prosecution at all; its recommendations, if it chooses to make them, are not binding on the Justice Department; and when it does make recommendations, it does so behind closed doors, not on the public record.

Yet, in the Clinton e-mails investigation, it was Comey who made the decision not to indict Clinton. Comey, furthermore, made the decision in the form of a public recommendation. In effect, it became The Decision because Attorney General Loretta Lynch had disgraced herself by furtively meeting with Mrs. Clinton’s husband a few days before Comey announced his recommendation. Comey, therefore, gave Mrs. Clinton a twofer: an unheard-of public proclamation that she should not be indicted by the head of the investigative agency; and a means of taking Lynch off the hook, which allowed the decision against prosecution to be portrayed as a careful weighing of evidence rather than a corrupt deal cooked up in the back of a plane parked on a remote tarmac.

Now, suddenly, Mrs. Clinton is worried about law-enforcement interference in politics. And her voice is joined by such allies as Jamie Gorelick (President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general) and Larry Thompson (Comey’s predecessor as President George W. Bush’s deputy attorney general and an outspoken opponent of Donald Trump). Like Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Thompson were delighted by Director Comey as long as his departures from orthodoxy were helping Clinton’s candidacy. But now, as they wrote in the Washington Post on Saturday, they are perturbed by the threat Comey purportedly poses to “long-standing and well-established traditions limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations . . . in a way that might be seen as influencing an election.”

I will repeat what I said yesterday (at PJ Media) about the Justice Department’s received wisdom that the election calendar should factor into criminal investigations:

Law-enforcement people will tell you that taking action too close to Election Day can affect the outcome of the vote; therefore, it should not be done because law enforcement is supposed to be apolitical. But of course, not taking action one would take but for the political timing is as political as it gets. To my mind, it is more political because the negatively affected candidate is denied any opportunity to rebut the law-enforcement action publicly.

The unavoidable fact of the matter is that, through no fault of law enforcement, investigations of political corruption are inherently political. Thus, I’ve always thought the best thing to do is bring the case when it’s ready, don’t bring it if it’s not ready, and don’t worry about the calendar any more than is required by the principle of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.

Now, as I also discussed in that same column, the problem with which we are currently grappling is caused by Comey’s initial flouting of protocol back in July — the one that thrilled the Clinton camp. There should never be any law-enforcement commentary at any time about a criminal investigation in which charges have not been filed publicly. The FBI and Justice Department should resist confirming or denying the existence of investigations; and if (as frequently happens) it becomes publicly known that an investigation is being conducted, law enforcement should still refuse to comment on the status of the investigation or any developments in it.

The public does not have a right to know that an investigation is under way. The subjects of an investigation do not have a right to know whether the investigation is continuing or has been “closed” — a status I must put in quotes because any dormant investigation can be revived at the drop of a hat if new information warrants doing so.

As Director Comey and the rest of us are being reminded, the demands of ethical law enforcement are forever in tension with the currents of partisan politics. In law enforcement, one is always required to correct the record if a representation made to a court, Congress, or some other tribunal is rendered inaccurate by new information. To put it kindly, correcting misrepresentations is not a habit of our politicians.

There is a very good argument — I would say, an irrefutable argument — that Comey should never have pronounced that the Clinton e-mails investigation was closed (in fact, it would have been appropriate if he had made no public statement about the investigation at all). But having made that pronouncement — which, again, Mrs. Clinton was thankful to have and which she has ceaselessly exploited — he was obliged by law-enforcement principles to amend it when it was no longer true. What if he hadn’t done so? Then, after the election, when it inevitably emerged that the investigation was actually open, those who had relied on his prior assertion that it was closed would rightly have felt betrayed.

For now, everyone ought to take a deep breath. All we have here is a statement that an investigation is ongoing. No charges have been filed, and none appear to be on the horizon, let alone imminent.

The Clinton camp is in no position to cry foul about anything. In announcing his recommendation against indictment, Comey not only gave Clinton the benefit of every doubt (preposterously so when one reads the FBI’s reports). He also based his decision primarily on his legal analysis of a criminal statute, which is far removed from the responsibilities of the FBI. Indeed, Comey gilded the lily by claiming that no reasonable prosecutor would disagree with his analysis — which was a truly outrageous claim coming from an investigator with no prosecutorial responsibilities, even if it did not inspire a lecture from Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Thompson on Justice Department traditions.

On the other hand, Comey hasn’t said anything more than that the investigation of the mishandling of classified information by Mrs. Clinton and her underlings remains pending. That is a true statement. Again, it does not mean charges will be filed. Indeed, I didn’t hear Director Comey say he had changed his mind about the requirements for proving guilt under the espionage act. The fact that I think he is dead wrong on that subject is beside the point, since the Justice Department has endorsed his reasoning. So it’s not like the recovery of additional classified e-mails from a Weiner/Abedin computer — if that happens, which we are not likely to know for a while — would automatically result in indictments.

It is fair enough to say that Director Comey should not have started down the wayward road of making public comments about pending investigations in which no charges have been filed. Such comments inexorably lead to the need to make more comments when new information arises. Not that the director needs advice from me, but at this point, he ought to announce that — just as in any other investigation — there will be no further public statements about the Clinton investigation unless and until charges are filed, which may never happen.

As for the election, Mrs. Clinton is under the cloud of suspicion not because of Comey but because of her own egregious misconduct. She had no right to know back in July whether the investigation was closed. She has no right to know it now. Like any other criminal suspect, she simply has to wait . . . and wonder . . . and worry.

There were other worthy Democrats, but the party chose to nominate the subject of a criminal investigation. That is the Democrats’ own recklessness; Jim Comey is not to blame. And if the American people are foolish enough to elect an arrantly corrupt and compromised subject of a criminal investigation as our president, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Also see: