View Full Version : Hillary Walks On Email Scandal - Jon Rappoport

11th July 2016, 00:09
This came out July 6th. Rappoport beautifully illustrates the way things work, or rather, how Hillary "worked it".

Hillary Walks On Email Scandal

By Jon Rappoport

Little-known fact: Hillary Clinton is a Quantum Physics genius with a specialty in Time Manipulation.

We'll get to that in a minute. But first, FBI Director Comey's absurd exoneration of Hillary in the email scandal. The law states, of course, that gross negligence in handling and transmitting classified materials is enough to warrant prosecution for a crime, and it can carry up to ten years in prison. (Federal Penal Code, Title 18, section 793[f].) The quality of the intent behind the negligence has nothing to do with the law. Good intent, bad intent, neutral intent. All irrelevant. Comey knows that.

His statement about the diligent and exceptional investigation by his people at the Bureau is fluff and window dressing. It all came down to his recommendation to his boss, the Attorney General. And there Comey revealed his own intent:

Hillary is too big to fail.

She was grossly negligent. The FBI confirmed that.

But Comey said that because Hillary showed no intent to cause harm, she should walk. Baloney. Again, intent is irrelevant, according to the law, which states:

"Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer---Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." (Title 18, section 793[f], Federal Penal Code)

That section of the law was written to cover gross negligence. It's the only standard. Period. Got it? That section of the law was written for the express purpose of setting aside the question of intent behind the negligence---so that intent couldn't be used as an excuse for not prosecuting.
This whole stage play is a backwards farce. First of all, the decision about whether to prosecute is, guess what, at the discretion of the Attorney General, not the FBI. Who cares what the FBI recommends? Especially in public, in front of television cameras.

Does a city DA automatically mirror the cops' recommendations when he makes up his mind about prosecuting a suspect? No. The cops hand over their evidence, and the DA makes his call. Take the case to court or not.

Attorney General Lynch's statement, a few days ago, about following the FBI's recommendation is ridiculous. It's like saying, "They're doing my job for me. I'm not here. I'm a non-entity."

The fix is obviously in. The players in the farce (Lynch and Comey) performed their roles so badly they should have been doing dinner theater in Florida. Maybe the half-awake senior citizens would have bought their act.

"Hi folks, I'm Jim Comey, FBI Director. We found a ton of gross negligence in the Hillary case, but we decided not to prosecute. It's not our job to decide that one way or the other, but we thought we would decide anyway. We're as honest as the day is long."

"Hi folks, I'm Loretta Lynch, Attorney General. I spoke with Bill Clinton the other today at the airport, and the family's fine. Everybody's fine. I'm supposed to decide, ha-ha, whether to prosecute criminals, but in this case, I'm letting the FBI decide. You want to know why? Because if Comey laid out his ton of gross negligence and then said it was up to me, everybody would have realized I should prosecute her. So we let Comey act as cop and prosecutor. You know, so we could get the whole thing over with, in a few minutes."

Comey lays out the evidence, which is a slam-dunk for prosecution, then publicly recommends no prosecution, while at the same time he interprets federal law. And he interprets it as falsely as possible. I guess he's an appellate judge, too. Cop, prosecutor, judge. Triple play.

Why didn't they just cart out a giant Disney character to announce Hillary was free? Goofy or Pluto.

So now let's move on to Hillary herself, and her career of getting away with everything under the sun.

---Recall her Benghazi testimony before Congress? She said, at this point, what difference does it make?

It's not just that she brushed off the whole thing, it's the time scale. It's as if, in her mind, she was being grilled a few decades after Benghazi happened. She's saying, it's history, why should we revisit it?

She was on to so many other things, she couldn't be bothered to look back on what was, for her, a dead issue, something a historian might decide to write about. Benghazi was way, way back there. A dim memory that couldn't possibly have any meaning left in it. Why should we talk about the Trojan War here today, in front of an investigating committee? I have other things to worry about. My upcoming campaign for the Presidency. My husband, because he can always cause trouble for us. My advisors, who could screw up. You never know. But Benghazi? Nothing. If I had anything to do with it, you'll never prove a connection. Let's not sit around kidding ourselves. You know and I know nothing is going to come of this. What difference does it make at this point? People don't understand my psychology. I'm two steps into the future at all times. When something is done, it's done, and since I'll never pay for any hypothetical crimes, who cares? It's just public masturbation on the part of my enemies. They've been after me for a long time. They'll never catch me. We invaded Libya and we won. We destroyed the country.

And now she says: The email scandal? My God, that's such old news. Are we still on that subject? Can't you people find something else to talk about? That's settled. It's filed under "unintentional mistakes may have been made but there were no adverse consequences." It's as distant a memory as Monica and Bill, and Bill and his women. Whether I defended him as a loyal wife and a put-upon victim, or whether I actively punished those women; it's simply another imponderable, and historians will take it up and hash it over one day when I'm long gone. Who cares? What difference does it make at this point? The same is true of the Clinton Foundation. Whether our donors were granted favors is simply a matter of speculation, and therefore it has no force, no power as an issue. The mere coincidence or correlation of money and favors adds up to an unprovable hypothesis. Isn't it obvious? There is no smoking gun. There will never be a smoking gun, so let's put that one to rest, too. As a piece of imponderable history. What else do you have? My support, at one point, for the invasion of Iraq? Another ancient war. It happened. It's over. Iraq now presents a new set of problems. Let's deal with those. Wall Street money? Pharmaceutical money? Do you want to dig into that? All I have to say is that I will never allow campaign contributions to influence my judgment. You people just don't understand the concept of time. Once a thing is done, it's in the past. It could be five minutes ago or a century, but you can never bring it back. What difference does it make? I'm looking ahead to the Convention. And with my nomination in tow, I'll launch a very active campaign against my opponent, Mr. Trump. I'm quite confident I'll win the election, and when I'm the next President, everything I've ever done will truly be erased, because the American people will have decided it makes no difference. The people and I will concur on that point.

What difference does anything make? As President, when I issue a decision, it's done. We're on to the next piece of business. I'm the person I am tomorrow. I'm never the person I am today or was yesterday. The way time passes, how quickly it moves, depends on the point of viewer of the observer. Well, my point of view is constantly refreshing itself. I share this trait with people like Bill Gates and George Soros. They invest in the future. The act of putting money to work now is irrelevant. It only matters what happens to that money tomorrow. Space and time are relative, and my process dictates that my actions only have meaning when we see their consequences---by which time I'm already engaged in more important actions, so what difference does it make how the past turned out? The future already exists in an ideal form, and in the future I'm already President. Can't you people see that? All you have to do is see it and admit it. Then things will take care of themselves. When you do see it, you'll understand that whatever we're talking about now makes no difference. Consider Mr. Trump's slogan, Make America Great Again. Again? He wants to reinstate the past. But the past is gone. From my perspective, the past never was. The issues we argue about with reference to the Constitution are misguided. What Constitution? I go farther than claiming it is a living document. How could it exist now when it was purportedly framed in some purportedly ancient period? We fool ourselves when we search for what it was. We write what we write and say what we say and do what we do and legislate what we legislate in the ever-changing now, which is the future. Therefore, if we say there is a Constitution which is being updated, what we really mean is we're inventing it out of whole cloth as we move along. Like money or debt, we're inventing it out of thin air. So what difference does it make? Likewise, what difference does it make what I will do during my Presidency? I will always be out ahead of that. I hope this statement is clear to the Committee and, therefore, we can terminate this proceeding. You're following along behind me, and I'm leading you. How else could it be?

What difference, at this point, does it make?

What possible difference?

So, Mr. Chairman, I feel better, now that I've gotten that off my chest. I feel refreshed. I've clarified how things stand, and how the universe of time and space works. I'm in the future, and all of you are in the past. I already know what you couldn't know. Naturally, therefore, you'll look to me for guidance. It's logical, and if there's one thing I stand for, it's logic. I believe we're done here.

Well, you're done. I'm just getting started.

Original Article and others from Jon Rappoport HERE (www.NoMoreFakeNews.com.)

11th July 2016, 01:06
Not that it makes any difference in the real world, but according to Comey, HRC wasn't guilty of "gross negligence" but she was "extremely careless", and apparently that made all the difference to the FBI.
What difference will that make if she becomes POTUS? Here's what the spokesman for the State Dept. had to say:

11th July 2016, 02:11
The FBI director said his decision not to prosecute was "because Hillary showed no intent to cause harm". The jails are full of people that never intended to murder their victims. Clearly a double standard.

11th July 2016, 08:37
This whole presidential "election", is as usual a total load of B*$$#Hi@
if these are the best options that TPTW can put forwards, well they really are deteriorating fast and soon will go.
Not just TPTB deteriorating either, what about any of the citizens that are actually going along with it all.
There is a thing called madness for sure

11th July 2016, 15:19
FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs July 11 by Jon Rappoport

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

One more clue that the fix is in

By Jon Rappoport

It’s unthinkable—but not surprising—that the FBI didn’t record their interview with Hillary Clinton.

We’re told the FBI has a policy, in most cases, of not recording interviews with suspects. If true, this case and this suspect should have been vital exceptions.

Among other matters, the Presidency of the United States is at stake.

Numerous press reports reveal that the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton was not recorded.

The interview took place just prior to FBI Director Comey recommending no prosecution for Hillary in the email scandal.

The New York Times: “Mr. Comey said he did not take part in the interview of Mrs. Clinton last Saturday. Five or six agents carried it out and provided a summary to him. She was not under oath, but he quickly noted that ‘it’s still a crime to lie to the F.B.I.’ There was no transcript.”

There was no transcript of the Hillary-FBI interview.

There was no recording.

FBI agents merely took notes.

These notes are typically boiled down and summarized later in 302 Forms. Of course, we don’t know what was contained in the notes or the 302s. And we’ll never know, because the FBI will never release them.

FBI Director Comey wasn’t even there during the Hillary interview; he simply read the 302 Forms. Then he made his decision not to recommend prosecution.

It’s impossible that the 302 forms provided Comey with a detailed analysis of all the complex questions and answers required in this investigation.

In other words, the FBI Director, in making his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary, was flying blind. It was his choice—he decided to fly blind. And he decided not to be present at the interview. He wanted to maintain personal distance and deniability.

But it gets worse. In any possible follow-up investigation of this email scandal, Hillary Clinton’s own words, from her interview, will be gone. Gone forever.

Therefore, she would be able to challenge every note taken by every FBI interviewer and every Form 302 by saying, “That was a misinterpretation of what I said.” As we know, the Clintons are experts in wheedling and parsing and evading—otherwise known as lying.

Everything I’ve written so far in this article was well understood by the FBI Director, his investigators, and interviewers—before the interview with Hillary ever took place. None of it was a mystery.

Therefore, there was conscious FBI intent to eradicate/omit the interview. It was no accident, no slip-up.

There was intent to demolish the entire interview by failing to record it or make a stenographic transcript.

That intent to destroy evidence—and then destroying it by omitting it, should be a crime, a felony.

Testifying in front of Congress the day after he recommended no-prosecution, Director Comey was adamant in insisting the FBI investigation was carried out in-house, and there was no collusion with any other person or department outside the Bureau. Even if that’s true, Comey is blowing smoke, because under his supervision, the most crucial moments of the investigation—the Hillary interview—were left to blow away in the wind.

Any lies Hillary told, any obfuscations, any evasions, any refusals to answer—gone forever.

She was the target of the investigation, the suspect. Of all the people FBI agents interviewed, she would be the one whose exact words should be preserved. And they weren’t.

The FBI’s purpose in omitting the whole interview is clear: Hillary Clinton had to escape prosecution. She had to be protected from incriminating herself.

In Comey’s testimony before Congress, he admitted there were at least four lies Hillary told at some point in the investigation. Taken together, as anyone can see, they constitute a prosecutable crime:

When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.

When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.

When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.

When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.

In the FBI interview, did Hillary admit to any of these lies?

Did she try to squirm out of them, and in the process obviously reveal her guilt?

Did she bluntly refuse to answer questions about those lies?

Did she bluster and bloviate, in an effort to hide those lies?

Were the FBI interviewers overly polite? Did they grant her absurdly wide latitude and permit her to mouth vague generalities? Did they fail to press her for precise answers? Did they treat her with fawning respect and deference? Did they rig the whole interview to let her off the hook?

We’ll never know—courtesy of the FBI. On purpose.

If Comey had insisted the Hillary interview would be recorded, then, if Hillary had refused to sit down and submit to questioning, Comey could have used the refusal to announce it was a tacit admission of guilt on her part. He could have done what any honest law-enforcement officer would do. But he avoided that whole prospect, and therefore he was actually the person making a tacit admission:

His job was to exonerate Hillary and free her to continue her run for the Presidency.

That’s what he did.

It’s worth remembering that Hillary’s husband Bill was impeached, in part, because he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. In that instance, his false statements were on the record.

But not this time. Not with this Clinton.

This time, there was no record, no oath, no independent prosecutor, and the FBI and the Department of Justice were on her side, backing her up.

Hillary hit the sweet spot.

Unabated, her pursuit of her dream job now moves on.

Her dream, the country’s nightmare.

A gift from the FBI.

Silently condoned from above, by the number-one law-enforcement official in the land, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

And from the work-a-day Congress and mainstream reporters, we get nothing. No serious attempt to go after Comey on the failure to make a record of her FBI interview. No attempt to show what that failure really implies.

We only get the silence of the lambs.

13th July 2016, 19:28
The FBI director said his decision not to prosecute was "because Hillary showed no intent to cause harm". The jails are full of people that never intended to murder their victims. Clearly a double standard.

True, but she she did make it clear she didn't want her emails available for scrutiny via any FOIA requests.

13th July 2016, 19:39
This whole presidential "election", is as usual a total load of B*$$#Hi@
if these are the best options that TPTW can put forwards, well they really are deteriorating fast and soon will go.
Not just TPTB deteriorating either, what about any of the citizens that are actually going along with it all.
There is a thing called madness for sure

Clearly it's more important this specific candidate (Hillary) gets in. Gone are the days when we at least we're made to believe we had a choice.

I feel sorry for Bernie. It's obvious to me he had no choice in the matter. I was watching their Twitter accounts yesterday. Bernie put out the bare minimum referencing Hillary. Hillary, however, trumpeted-tweeted in quotes just about every pro -Hillary statement Bernie had uttered to make up for it. Telling.

Btw, there's no doubt in my mind that Trump is:

-Controlled opposition
-In place to create racial and immigration chaos to usher in the Police State

13th July 2016, 19:52
Try this for shocking truths