3487 The Truth About The Hillary Clinton FBI Investigation and James Comey’s Announcement
On Sunday November 5th, FBI Director James B. Comey announced that despite new evidence and information the FBI has not changed the conclusions that were expressed in July regarding charges against Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Stefan Molyneux breaks down several important points that many seem to be missing and exposes the misleading statements within James Comey's latest announcement.Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/Comey-AnnouncementFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
Hi everybody, Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
Hope you're doing well.
You'll probably be doing a lot better after you listen or watch to this truth about the Hillary Clinton FBI investigation currently swirling between various polls of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Congress, the American public, voters, and basic principles of law, morality, and justice.
As you've probably heard, FBI Director James Comey today released the following letter.
I write to supplement my October 28, 2016 letter that notified you the FBI would be taking additional investigative steps with respect to former Secretary of State Clinton's use of a personal email server.
Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation.
During that process, we reviewed all of the communications that were to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.
Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.
I am very grateful to the professionals at the FBI for doing an extraordinary Amount of high-quality work in a short period of time.
All right.
So let's parse this out.
Let's get some facts.
Let's get some background.
Let's get some perspective on this.
Now, first of all, the convening of FBI agents last year to investigate Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server was Well, they thought it was well worth a criminal investigation.
But the head of that investigation quit after six months because he felt that they were being blocked.
The investigation was going what is called sideways, which means it's not getting kind of serious attention and resources.
So, for instance, DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that this investigation into Hillary Clinton would not work in conjunction with a federal grand jury.
And this is pretty bad, almost fatal to any government criminal case.
So in criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ, they can't...
Issue subpoenas for testimony or tangible things.
Only grand juries can do that, and there was no grand jury.
And without a grand jury, the FBI is going to have a pretty tough time convincing a federal judge to issue search warrants, so they were kind of stymied.
When the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton for a couple of hours, she told them she couldn't remember a bunch of stuff because head injuries and so on.
And they were skeptical.
So they said to Director Comey, listen, we really want to get her medical records to find out if she's on the up and up about this head injury and so on.
And he said no.
And then some FBI agents did a pretty shocking thing, which they reached out to people in the intelligence community and said, hey, can you guys get Clinton's medical records so we can show them to Comey to find out if she's telling the truth about these head injuries?
Because, you know, the NSA can access pretty much anything that's stored digitally.
And as soon as he got wind of this, what did Comey do?
Well, he, next morning, headed them off with this news conference.
And he said, well, Clinton can't be indicted because, okay, she was extremely careless, but not reckless.
Extremely careless, but not reckless.
And I guess they're relying on people not having a strong enough vocabulary to know that extreme carelessness and gross negligence are kind of the same thing, at least in my opinion.
And the case was considered by many in the FBI to be fairly overwhelming.
The FBI did acknowledge that Hillary Clinton sent and received more than 100 emails that contained state secrets.
And they were all removed from their secure venues by Clinton.
She knew what she was doing.
She told subordinates to sort of whitewash out markings of secrecy and told people to strip the headings and send a fax unsecured.
So it seems...
Like it was kind of an open and shut case, but of course that's not how it went down.
Because there's this thing that's been invented called intent.
It's not just invented, but it's not enough.
Now the real dirt here, in my opinion, would have been in Uma Abedin's emails, right?
So if you're in charge and you want to do something wrong, you've got to instruct a subordinate to get it done.
You won't be sending them emails.
I mean, Hillary Clinton was trained as a lawyer.
She knows that you don't write down bad things you're going to do.
And so...
Now, the important thing to recognize here, and this is something that Chelsea Johnson from Got News has pointed out, That this is not complete, right?
This is a review of emails sent to or from Hillary Clinton while she was Secretary of State.
Not her subordinates, not after she was Secretary of State, and so on.
So that's kind of important.
And it's a very...
So the letter that reopened the investigation was because of this new cache of 650,000 emails.
This letter today...
It clears her with regards to a very limited portion of these new emails.
Now, some people, of course, have been saying, wait a minute, it took them, what, 18 months to review a couple of tens of thousands of emails?
How on earth could they do 650,000 emails, what, in a week or so, a week and a half?
Well, you could actually theoretically do that.
that.
I've done some programming of Microsoft Office programs, and you could write a program that would say, you know, here are all of the emails from one Outlook file, go to another Outlook file and say, here are all the ones that are duplicates, and you'd only review the ones that weren't duplicates to and from Hillary Clinton.
So it might just have been a small subset that they reviewed.
And I think that's fairly, fairly clear.
So what has been revealed in this letter, in my opinion, is that what did Comey say?
He said, well, we've not found any smoking gun in the subsection of emails that we reviewed over the last week and a half or so.
So it's true.
I'm sure they have not found any email which clearly displays intent with regards to bypassing security or mishandling security.
So they didn't find an email where Hillary Clinton said, delete all the emails now!
We're under subpoena or...
Or, um, yeah, set up a home server so I can bypass Freedom of Information Act request, right?
They didn't find anything like that.
And that's what they were looking for.
And because they didn't find anything like that, I assume in this subsection of emails that they're going to continue.
And of course, nobody expected that they would find something like that if that's the standard of proof that is required.
I don't, I mean, there's a guy who took a selfie in a sub and ended up going to jail.
Um...
Did he have intent?
I mean, it seems unlikely.
And does it really matter?
I mean, 83% of people polled say that Hillary Clinton is guilty of illegal or unethical acts.
That's a lot.
Interestingly enough, that's a lot larger than the number of people who are going to be voting for her.
So what that means is that a significant portion of people who believe that Hillary Clinton is guilty of illegal or unethical actions are still going to vote for her.
What is wrong with you people?
Hey, maybe we'll find out come Tuesday.
Now, if James Comey's intent was to make an announcement that would best enable a media smokescreen about criminal investigations into Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and her associates, it's hard to imagine that he could have crafted a better statement.
So this is what CNN said.
FBI clears Clinton again!
Alternate said, case closed.
FBI director once again clears Hillary Clinton in reopened email probe.
The Guardian said, FBI director, new Hillary Clinton emails show no criminal wrongdoing.
Slate, FBI has finished reviewing new emails and Hillary Clinton is cleared.
Again.
BBC, FBI, no criminality in Clinton emails.
Just, by the way, I can't believe that that's a strong endorsement.
Couldn't find any criminality in the email, so why don't you be president?
Huffington Post.
Clinton cleared.
Bureau bungle.
Telegraph.
Hillary Clinton.
In the clear, as FBI announces it has not changed mind on charges.
Washington Post.
James Comey totally botched the last ten days of the campaign.
New York Times.
Emails warrant.
No new action against Hillary Clinton, FBI director.
Says.
And, um...
Yeah.
Now, there is, of course, a strong speculation that Comey made the original announcement because there was a revolt within the FBI. The agents thought that they had a good case, and he was saying that they didn't.
And, you know, this kind of announcement would be the best way to sort of back out of his earlier statement with the least damage to Clinton, should he have been politically pressured.
Of course, there's no proof of that, but if that might conceivably...
have happened now the case is not closed the case was never closed the case was not reopened the case was not closed and remains open at the moment they have a lot more emails to go through and you know if Uma Aberdeen wrote to someone else Hillary told me this well then they wouldn't find that in this round if it wasn't to or from Hillary but they may find this in the future And, you know, by creating this category called intent, you know, they've said, well, we can't...
Unless she's done something ridiculously stupid and talked about criminal intent in a recordable format, which she wouldn't do, she's fine.
And, you know, again, I'm no lawyer, but as far as I understand it, in the law, intent does matter, but it doesn't absolve you.
Like, if someone kills someone when they didn't mean to, it was an accident, but they were negligent, Careless?
Well, isn't that manslaughter rather than murder?
You still go to jail.
It's just less, right?
Intent doesn't mean you get off the hook completely.
I mean, if you're texting while you drive and you crash into someone's garden, then you're still liable for repairing it even though you didn't mean to.
No intent, but it still doesn't mean you're off the hook.
Anyway, maybe the law is just beyond me, but that's what it would seem to me from a sort of rational standpoint.
So, yeah, that's the reality.
There are no smoking gun intent indicators in the email sent to her and from her while she was Secretary of State.
It's kind of a limited bag of things that is going on.
But of course, you know, all the people on the left and Hillary supporters are like, vindication, she's free, she's fine, nothing happened and all that.
So, there are some challenges.
What I, from my outside perspective, would view as very significant conflicts of interest with regards to this investigation.
So, let's have a look at some of these, shall we?
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is...
was heading up the Hillary Clinton private server email investigation.
Now...
Interestingly enough, McCabe's wife decided to run for office, and as a brand new political candidate, now brand new political candidates don't normally get a whole lot of money, kind of outside chances, but as a brand new political candidate, Deputy Director McCabe's wife received up to $675,000 in political donations from a Democrat political action committee, a PAC, which was run by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe.
Okay, so, kind of on the ends there.
Now McAuliffe is a long-time close associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and one-time chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
You've got to get this trifecta here, right?
So this guy, whose wife received a huge amount of money from a pack run by one of Bill and Hillary Clinton's best friends and long-time close associates, is supposed to be investigating Hillary Clinton.
Come on, people!
I mean, you're supposed to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
This is a direct conflict of interest, in my opinion.
Oh, man.
You know what you do?
You say, oh, you know, I can't possibly investigate this woman.
My wife received a huge amount of money from a pack run by this guy who's really good friends of hers.
That would be a big conflict of interest, so I'm going to have to recuse myself.
But no!
Didn't happen.
Why?
Why?
This connection here is so troubling.
Members of the Congressional Oversight Committee asked McCabe to supply documents detailing his wife's financial dealings with her campaign.
Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said, It seems like an obscene amount of money for a losing race.
There are outstanding questions regarding a possible conflict of interest into this case.
Really, people?
The FBI, with countless employees, you can't find one person to head up this investigation into Hillary Clinton, whose wife didn't receive huge amounts of money from a pack run by the guy who's best friends with Hillary Clinton.
Not one person out there without this maybe kind of appearance of conflict of interest.
Nothing out there?
Come on!
Oh.
Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik.
So, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik are in clear control, obviously, of the Department of Justice.
Which also includes, of course, Clinton-specific cases and requests.
You know, like, hey, any chance we could work with a grand jury on this?
Hillary Clinton, Campaign Manager John Podesta and Assistant Attorney General Kadzik are close friends.
Going back...
Decades they met at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, and Kancic represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky scandal during Bill Clinton's term.
Don't worry everyone, that was just another Clinton scandal.
Throw it on the pile!
That eclipses the very sun itself at noon.
Now Podesta was accused of getting Monica Lewinsky a prestigious job in an attempt to cover up her sexual relationship with Bill Clinton.
WikiLeaks, now we only know this as far as I understand it because of WikiLeaks' release.
WikiLeaks released a John Podesta email titled Peter Kadzik from September 2008.
Quote, Willing to help?
Fantastic lawyer.
Kept me out of jail.
I'm sure Christine knows him.
Wants to help.
Think he would be an excellent vet lead.
Emails released by WikiLeaks show that Katzik and Podesta have dined together multiple times since the start of the Clinton email investigation.
In May 2015, Katzik's son even asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.
So you see here, Assistant Attorney General, good friends, going back decades with Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, and his son, Katzik's son, even asking Podesta a job on the Clinton campaign.
Is there any potential conflict of interest here?
Any possible crossover of objectivity and self-interest and collusion and friendship with regards to objectively investigating this case?
Well, I'll leave you to unriddle that one, Batman.
Katzik was also hired by billionaire fugitive Mark Rich in an attempt to win a pardon from then-president Bill Clinton.
A report by the House Oversight Committee found that Katzik was specifically hired because of his close connections with John Podesta, who was then Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff.
According to Forbes, quote, In 1983, Rich was indicted on 65 criminal charges, including tax fraud and racketeering.
He was accused of having evaded at least $50 million.
In federal taxes.
The potential punishment was steep.
If Rich had been convicted, he could have been given consecutive life sentences in prison.
Even though his name had appeared on the FBI's most wanted list alongside Osama bin Laden, Rich was pardoned in 2001 by then-President Clinton.
After the pardon, it was alleged that the President had given into political and donor pressures which were influenced by donations made by Denise Rich.
Mark's ex-wife to the Democratic Party and other entities.
According to USA Today, Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, was a wealthy Democratic donor who made a $450,000 donation to Clinton's Presidential Library Foundation and more than $100,000 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign.
See how this...
This kind of works.
What's the price?
Well, maybe she just really liked libraries.
You know, really, really into libraries.
Likes the peace and quiet, the green lampshades, the bulky attendants.
I mean, maybe she's just really, really into libraries.
Or maybe it was just a complete coincidence that all this money flows from Mark Richards' ex-wife into Clinton's presidential library, Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, and then, by golly, guy gets a presidential pardon.
Fascinating.
Just amazing how all of this stuff seems to tie together in ways that are blindingly obvious.
Now, right before FBI Director James Comey made his original announcement regarding the Hillary Clinton email investigation, Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on an airplane in Arizona for 39 minutes.
Hey, you know how, you know, it often happens.
I think we've all been there, right?
You know, you're just, you're walking around an airport tarmac and you see a friend of yours on a private plane.
You're like, hey, how's it going?
Face-to-face would be great.
I know we could call, we could Skype, but, you know, face-to-face would be fantastic.
I think Trump said, you know, he's been flying privately for decades.
He's never had someone just drop by.
But this is what happened.
Now, Lynch and Clinton claimed that they only spoke about golf, grandchildren, and their travels while on the private plane.
Now, The Clinton-Lynch connections go way back.
In 1999, Bill Clinton appointed Loretta Lynch to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York.
And Loretta Lynch was also a litigation partner for about eight years at a Washington law firm which worked with Bill and Hillary Clinton.
So...
Can a brother get at least four degrees of separation?
Three?
Two?
One?
No, we're just going to go with one degree of separation for this objective and impartial view into the inner workings of Washington justice.
It is widely speculated, and of course we'll put the links to all this below, it's widely speculated, that during the conversation Clinton told Lynch that she would be kept on as Attorney General during a hypothetical Hillary Clinton administration in exchange for political protection from the FBI. So, here's what I think you need to know.
First of all, FBI sources have reported with 99% accuracy, they believe 99% accuracy, that Hillary Clinton's server was hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies and that information had been taken from it.
This is egregious.
This is horrendous.
This is precisely what these laws are designed to prevent this kind of behavior, but here's the important thing.
Even if you think Hillary Clinton was completely innocent, even if you're one of the 17% of people who don't think she did illegal or unethical things, okay fine, she's a wonderful person, she's great, but she's compromised, if this 99% guess from FBI sources is true.
Because five foreign intelligence agencies, at least five, Have material with which they could potentially blackmail her with, or threaten her with, or in some way control her behavior.
So she's compromised.
And we have one of the top Democrats in the emails released by WikiLeaks complaining, oh, well, Chelsea Clinton used Clinton Foundation money to pay for her $3 million wedding.
That's not what a charity is for!
I mean, I assume whoever married her was because of charity, but perhaps a topic for another time.
But this is the level of morality within these inner circles, within these Democrat circles.
You know, we'll put a link to this below.
It's pretty jaw-dropping.
President Obama just told illegal aliens, criminals, ah, there's not going to be any negative consequences for you if you vote.
I mean, this is encouraging people who are already criminals to break the law and illegally influence the US election.
Oh, hey, Hillary, I think we may have found illegal tampering of the elections.
You think it's Russia?
It's a little closer than that.
I mean, just imagine.
Imagine if Trump did that.
Imagine if Trump was being interviewed and said, well, what about white felons who want to vote?
And he says, yeah, pretty much you can go ahead and vote illegally.
Don't worry.
Once I get into power, you won't be prosecuted.
There won't be any negative consequences for you voting illegally, so go for it.
I mean, people would go completely mental.
But President Obama basically tells illegals, yeah, there won't be any negative consequences if you go and vote.
Secret.
Don't worry about it.
This is what Trump is talking about that the system is rigged.
And this is why the drain the swamp mentality is there.
Like, drain the swamp, let's find out what's at the bottom.
Spirit cooking.
Let's just drain the swamp, because they don't have anything on Trump.
At least they don't have anything left on Trump.
I mean, the stuff that's been invented, the stuff that's been pulled, and some of the stuff that they have, they've just thrown everything at Trump.
They've got nothing left on him.
And so the system is rigged because everyone has something on each other and they're all in this muck together, but Trump is not.
Ride in, white horse, clean up the corruption in the town.
I mean, there's nobody else who can do it.
Nobody else is coming in from the outside without all of the puppet strings of historical compromises with which to move him around the way that people want.
And this is the important, I think, the important takeaway.
This is saying that they haven't found a smoking gun of intent in a subsection of the emails sent to and from Hillary while she was Secretary of State.
Not her subordinates, not other stuff, not anything out there.
All they've reviewed is the emails.
Maybe there are pictures, maybe there are documents, maybe there are PDFs.
I don't know.
We don't know.
We don't know what's on this hard drive.
Residue, I think, from Anthony Weiner, but let's hold our nose and step over that particular body on the road.
So, a small subset of emails.
They say they haven't found any smoking gun.
Hey, but there are still four other investigations going on, right, into what's going on.
See, there were five separate FBI investigations.
I guess one has been put on hold for now.
They haven't found anything, as they report.
And there's other crazy stuff that's coming out.
Do you know, there are reports that Hillary Clinton asked her maid to print out her emails.
Print out her emails.
I'm pretty sure her maid does not have very high security clearance.
This means that the one who wants to become President of the United States knows less about how to hit Control-P than her maid and thinks it's a great idea to have the maid print out this stuff.
Sure.
Why not?
She seems trustworthy to me.
Okay.
Comey's letter today says they reviewed a small portion of the 650,000 emails while Hillary Clinton We're Secretary of State to and from Hillary Clinton, small subsection, and did not find a smoking gun of intent.
Nobody expected them to.
It's not a big shock.
But there are all these other emails.
Emails from subordinates.
Emails after...
She was Secretary of State.
Does she hold on to any classified documents which she's supposed to surrender after she leaves the post?
That could be interesting.
I don't know.
Maybe they'll come up with some magic shield call intent for those things too.
I don't know.
But...
There's a lot of stuff to go through.
And he's only talking about emails.
What if there are PDFs, documents, spreadsheets, text files, you name it, what's out there.
That's not quite as easy to do a search function on those and compare.
So there's a lot of stuff still to go through.
This does not mean she's magically transformed into an angel of integrity.
Does not mean that at all.
Recognize that.
Of course the Hillary people are like, she's exonerated, she's free, nothing happened.
Little tiny portion where they didn't find the smoking gun that nobody expected them to find anyway.
It's okay.
It's okay.
The wheels of justice I know turn slowly and at certain points it seems like they're going in reverse but you have an option.
You have an option coming up oh so very soon.
Because this is just one out of the five.
Five investigations involving Clinton's inner circles or their closest relatives, right?
We've got Anthony Weiner, Uma Abedin's estranged husband, and his sexting, reportedly, of rape fantasies to a 15-year-old he knew was underage at the time.
Of course, there's this handling of classified material by Clinton and her staff on this private email server, and that's diminished for the moment.
Ah, questions about whether the Clinton Foundation was used as a front for influence peddling.
Let me go out on a limb here.
Let's go way out on a limb here.
The Clinton Foundation is doing stuff completely illegal.
Completely and totally illegal.
This is according to the expert Charles Ortel.
I've had three times on this show.
We'll link to those show below.
Listen to what the man has to say.
Completely illegal.
Intent doesn't matter with that stuff, as far as I understand it.
Whether the Virginia governor broke laws about foreign donations.
Whether Hillary's campaign chairman's brother did the same.
I don't know.
What also came out recently was that Clinton's received a million dollars from Qatar.
Failed to disclose it.
Seems kind of important.
Seems like something you promised to tell everyone about, but didn't.
So.
It seems at the moment Hillary Clinton is too big for the legal system to handle.
Too big to jail.
So, what are you going to do?
Well, she can only be defeated at the ballot box.
She can only be defeated by putting someone into power who has no conflict of interest, they've got no skeletons on, no dirty stuff that he can be nailed for, and then let the investigation proceed from there.
It's the only thing that can be done, in my opinion.
And Let me just say one last thing.
Get this off my chest.
It's really bothering me.
So, 83% of you think that Hillary Clinton did something illegal or unethical.
She doesn't just have 17% support.
There's a lot of you out there who really think she did something illegal or unethical and you're voting for her anyway.
Maybe you've just avoided this information.
Maybe you're wishing it away.
I don't know.
If you vote for her, and things go to hell, as they will, trust me, I was around in the last one, last Clinton presidency.
She's probably not going to make it through her term anyway.
I mean, she'll just get impeached and all this sort of stuff, right?
But if you do vote for her, and she gets in and she stays in, things are going to go to hell.
They will.
They'll go to hell.
And I will have no sympathy for you whatsoever.
Now, you may not get up in the morning giving a damn about my sympathies for you or not.
But I'm telling you, I got a pretty big megaphone here now.
We just passed half a million subscribers.
Thank you, everyone, so much for your kind support of the show.
You can do that at freedomainradio.com slash donate.
Really, really appreciate it.
But, you know, getting a pretty big platform out here right now.
And I'm not going to have any sympathy for the people who vote this way.
For the consequences that are going to come down on you for elevating this kind of person to that kind of power?
Next stop, Venezuela.
Next stop, collapse.
And that stop, you will be crying out for sympathy.
You will be crying out for help.
And I and everyone I can convince this way will have no sympathy for you because you will have done it to yourself with full knowledge of everything that had happened and everything that was likely to happen and all the warnings known to mankind.
You will have done it to yourself.
And there is no power in the universe that can morally stop and step in and prevent these consequences from accumulating to you if you act in this way.
