That Barack Obama communicated in 2012—under a redacted pseudonym—with Hillary Clinton on the then secretary of State's permeable home-brew email server and then claimed he did not know of that server's existence until it was reported in the press in 2014 is far more than the usual politician's prevarication.
Since the fish rots from the top—and in this case it stinks to high heaven—the surfacing of this particular presidential lie calls to question the entire FBI inquiry into the Clinton server, an investigation whose credibility was paper thin in the first place and has now completely vanished.
It's time to ask that age-old question: "What did the president know and when did he know it?"
That we do know (as of this Friday's dump) that one of Clinton's own IT workers referred to her then just-announced 60-day email retention policy (who does that?) as "Hillary's coverup operation" almost (but not completely) tells the story in those three quoted words. Even though they say it's not the crime, but the coverup, in this case, it's both.
The seriousness of this crime/coverup—involving the national security of our country—makes Watergate seem like a minor kerfuffle at a sewing circle. If the mainstream media does not investigate this thoroughly, they are unquestionably the court eunuchs many of us have accused them of being. Worse, they are the enablers of the decline of Western civilization. Without a free and honest press -- some of it anyway -- not to mention adherence to the rule of law, such a civilization cannot survive. And the decline can come remarkably swiftly. We have plenty of examples of that from twentieth century Europe.
Does this sound over-heated? You could say so, but how do you avoid the conclusion, given the MSM's passivity, or is it collaboration, that they do not care a whit about the rule of law as long as their side wins?
But not to be entirely negative, I am going to offer some help to the Fourth Estate, since investigative journalism has not, for some time, been their long suit. Fortunately, via the Internet (at least for a few weeks until Obama passes us all into the censorious hands of the United Nations) we have the "wisdom of crowds" to draw upon. Yesterday, the following fascinating comment from one "susanholly" appeared under my column "What Happens When You Can't Trust the FBI and the State Department?" I have no idea who "susan" is or if her conjectures are accurate, but she has given us food for thought. I don't often quote comments at length, but this time it seems worth it:
Monday, June 27, 2016: Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix.
Saturday, July 2, 2016: There’s this shifty FBI interview set-up, with Hillary on a Saturday morning on a HOLIDAY WEEKEND, at the FBI Headquarters in Washington – when LOTS of FBI employees were off (fewer witnesses). The entire interview was jut a charade and Comey is a LIAR – he covered this up. Who was actually present is an interesting question – out of Hillary’s team of lawyers, the FBI redacted ONE name from the notes. It listed David E. Kendall, Cheryl D. Mills, Heather Samuelson, Katherine Turner. The NY Times, back in July, reported that other lawyer as Amy Saharia, but I doubt that is the truth. It makes NO sense to redact her name. The FBI redacted the names of THREE DOJ officials present. Who the heck was present on a Saturday morning, on a long holiday weekend??? It’s a cover-up.
Tuesday , July 5, 2016: In the morning, after this long holiday weekend, FBI Director Comey makes his bizarre announcement that there would be no criminal charges.
On July 2nd, the New York Times reported:
"Accompanying Mrs. Clinton into the meeting were her lawyer David E. Kendall; Cheryl D. Mills and Heather Samuelson, longtime aides who are also lawyers; and two lawyers from Mr. Kendall’s firm, Williams & Connolly, Katherine Turner and Amy Saharia.
Eight officials from the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice conducted the interview, according to a person who was familiar with the substance of the session but declined to be named because the meeting was private. This person characterized the meeting as “civil” and “businesslike.”"
So, when the FBI released Hillary's interview notes, the first paragraph makes no sense at all, when compared to the NY Times report on Juy 2nd. The Clinton lawyer redaction would be Amy Saharia, which makes no sense. Why would the FBI redact her name? She's a nobody in this invesigation and even Mills who was granted immunity is listed. Then there's the FBI/DOJ officials. The FBI Notes list FBI Section Chief, Peter P. Strzok and David Laufman and there are three blocks of redactions, which would seem to indicate 5 FBI/DOJ officials present, compared to the EIGHT mentioned in the NY Times story. Now, if that one very long block of redacted information is more than one name, we are still left with the FBI gave us 2 names of FBI/DOJ people present and the NY Times reported EIGHT. Who are these 6 FBI/DOJ people and why were their names redacted and why on earth redact Amy Saharia's name?
Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch STAGED this charade; they planned it on June 27th on the tarmac in Phoenix.
Back to me.
I'm not sure susanholly is entirely correct that it had to be planned in detail between Bill and Loretta in the attorney general's plane that day. Their meeting was too short and, besides, Lynch and Comey (in cahoots with the White House?) were quite capable of doing the planning by themselves. They already had their marching orders, direct or implicit. Perhaps all Clinton was looking for was assurances his wife wouldn't be carted off and the campaign would go on. Comey might give her a tongue-lashing for cover, but she would be exonerated.
Did Bill give a quid pro quo for that? Who knows? Will we ever know anything close to the whole truth? It's hard to say and may depend on the emergence of a new "Deep Throat" or Julian Assange revealing all in October. One thing we do know—if Hillary Clinton is elected, she will never be able to govern effectively. Only the most credulous will believe anything she says.
And speaking of the credulous who disrespect the rule of law, as I finished typing this article, the news that the New York Times is supporting Hillary Clinton for president was announced. The venerable reactionary institution that gave usWalter Duranty and for many years over-looked the Holocaust informs us in their editorial idiotically lauding Clinton for changing her mind on a variety of issues that her email scandal is passé and now "looks like a matter for the help desk.” They could have a point at least in that regard. As with most help desks, we are definitely being kept on hold.
The NYT has already failed the final test referred to in the headline. But that's less surprising than dog bites man. The MSM, as exemplified by the Times, are the real "bitter clingers" in our society. For them to change would mean total personality disintegration.