The Clinton Sleaze Factor: How They Are Too Big To Touch

(@) clintonWhen Bill Clinton boldly bolted aboard the airplane carrying Unites States Attorney Loretta Lynch he did so without interference from those FBI agents who were on the tarmac waiting for her to disembark from her airplane which had just landed. They stood aside fearful of confronting him.

There was no prearranged meeting. He walked passed them with his own protectors the members of the Secret Service. The only response from the FBI agents was to protect Bill and their boss Lynch by telling all present no photographs and no cell phones. The meeting was to remain secret. All these government employees had been co-opted by Bill into his diabolical scheme to compromise the U.S. attorney.

Bill clearly knew that it was inappropriate to meet with Lynch at this point. It was within a week of his wife Hillary being questioned by people who worked for Lynch. He was doing this with the consent of Hillary and without fear of any of the government employees telling of the meeting.

Once he was on the plane he was able to meet with Loretta Lynch in a one-one situation, perhaps her husband was present, or maybe he, like all the agents stepped out to give them their privacy. What was it that went through Lynch’s mind seeing him enter the airplane? She had to be intimidated by him. After all, he was the one who gave her the job in the U.S. attorney’s office and he was the husband of the person most likely to be elected president in November. She could not be rude even though she should have been.

He immediately, when the coast was cleared which happened while the pleasantries were being exchanged, broached the matter that brought him on board. It was the upcoming session that Hillary was to have with members of Lynch’s attorneys in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI agents that worked for them. The questions to be asked at this meeting about Hillary Clinton’s use of her private server concerning her emails would be conducted by the DOJ attorneys who work for Lynch.

Obviously they discussed how that meeting was to take place. This discussion did not even have to be an attempt by Bill Clinton to interfere with the proper manner in which that was to be done by seeking from Lynch an agreement over certain things that would happen. Whether he got the agreement he wanted we do not know for sure but it is likely that he did. We know that because five days after Bill met with Lynch Hillary underwent the questioning.

Lynch might be a totally on the level person. But look at the position Bill put her in when he attempted to interfere with the investigation. He had committed a federal crime in doing that. But he knew that there was no way Lynch could ever charge him with this. For her to bring charges against a former well-backed president with powerful friends would end her chances of further government benefits forever.

Bill meeting with her even in the highly unlikely sense that it did not openly involve a discussion of the upcoming questioning of Hillary was clearly meant to send her a message that she was finished if anything adverse came of it for Hillary. He gave her the message: “if Hillary is hurt then you hurt yourself. You are finished.”

There was another side to the message. “You take care of her and she will take care of you.” That is why he needed to deliver it personally to make that guarantee.

What’s in it for Lynch if Hillary is exonerated is exactly what she would lose if Hillary is indicted. Bill wanted to make it absolutely clear she knew this. She could continue as US attorney, she could get a seat on the Supreme Court, or even a coveted seat on a federal court of Appeals, if she cooperates; she loses the chance if she doesn’t.

Bill did commit a crime. His bold meeting with Lynch within a week of his wife’s questioning could be for nothing else other than an attempt to influence the federal investigation of his wife. No matter what was discussed his one-on-one with the United States Attorney was intended to bias the questioning in Hillary’s favor.

18 U.S.C. sec. 152 provides: (c)Whoever corruptly— (2)  otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Look for Hillary to get a pass, (this was written before we knew she did), Loretta Lynch to get a good job, and Bill to continue his Slick Willie sleazy ways since he is too big to touch.

 

22 thoughts on “The Clinton Sleaze Factor: How They Are Too Big To Touch

  1. FBI director Comey wore out his tap shoes with that performance.As a prosecutor you are on one side or the other.I could almost sense his discomfort in making that call.

    1. Oh, but he protested that he was honest, that the Bureau of Injustice is honest, that the whole thing was honest, and that his “reasonable prosecutor” person – whoever the hell that is – told him that it was all honest.

      See? It’s the Federal Bureau of “Honesty”.

      Where some people are more equal than others, and some people are above the law, especially if they commit huge crimes in an arrogant fashion.

      Because, after all, they’re “for the children.” That’s the magic phrase that gives them a free pass to commit any crime they want.

      Honestly.

  2. Well, Matt, you called it – Comey bent over for the Klinton Krime Family.

    I really did think that Comey was a stand-up guy. I really did not think that he would bend over for the Klintons, not on a huge series of crimes like this, where national security went to hell all for the arrogance of Miss Lardbutt Klinton White Trash.

    But after that performance, in which he protested too much about the “honesty” of the Federal Bureau of Injustice – the barf bag came out.

  3. Keep digging into Epstein. He is the epitome of a mocky self-entitled bourgeois. Glorious Leader and Big Bill visited his luxury pad, frequently, to participate in Epstein’s well orchestrated debaucheries. These well-heeled plutocrats laugh at the common man and hold the opinions of the proletariat to no account. As long as bourgeois conformism is the credo of the land they need not fear retribution. No law can touch them. We have only the dialectic to confront them with their contradictions.

    All power to the dialectic!

  4. Matt – not directly related to this posting – but definiteily of interest to you. Silverglate is taking your message on Ortiz to the national audience. Too little too late – but it is refreshing to see him call attention to O’Brien and Schwartz and all the other lives she has ruined and ended. Too bad he didn’t Mention Cathy Gregg.

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_577a7ddce4b09b4c43c0e29a

  5. Matt, I’m sorry, but letting Killery off the hook is unbelievable.

    Here’s another thing I don’t understand – why is the deletion of emails not obstruction of justice? Comey, bending over for Klinton, said that – her lawyers – deleted the email after a “review.”

    That is another unbelievable statement.

    I’m sure you know white collar criminal defense attorneys. As soon as an investigation is launched, I believe standard instructions are to —- preserve —- evidence, not to destroy. That includes making copies of everything – hard drives, phones, notebooks, etc.

    I don’t understand why there is not an element of obstruction of justice/destruction of evidence here.

  6. This was not Comey’s first time brooming a Clinto case:

    Prosecutors Clear Clintons In Clemency of 4 Hasidic Men
    By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
    Published: June 21, 2002

    Federal prosecutors said yesterday that no criminal wrongdoing was committed when President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of four swindlers from a Hasidic enclave in New York State that voted overwhelmingly for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    James B. Comey, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a two-sentence statement that he had closed his investigation of clemency granted to the four men from New Square, N.Y.

    Mr. Comey said he would continue the investigation into the more than 170 other pardons and clemencies Mr. Clinton granted on his last day of office, including the one that has drawn the most ire: a pardon for the financier Marc Rich, a commodities trader who fled the country in 1983.

    The New Square case also drew attention because of its mix of the Clintons, New York ethnic politics and suggestions of vote-trading.

    The four men, convicted of bilking the state and federal government of tens of millions of dollars, were prominent members of New Square, a reclusive Rockland County village. The village leaders’ aggressive courting of the president and Mrs. Clinton before and after the 2000 Senate election raised questions of whether the men’s sentences were reduced in exchange for votes.

    ”The investigation was closed because we thoroughly investigated and determined it wasn’t appropriate to bring charges against anybody in the case,” Mr. Comey said at a news conference on an unrelated case. ”I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.”

    Mrs. Clinton, who had denied any improprieties, would not comment.

    Mr. Clinton was quoted by The Associated Press as saying: ”I’m certainly not surprised. There was never any reason to believe anybody had done anything wrong, even in the first place. So I’m not surprised. I think the facts speak for themselves.”

    A spokeswoman for Mr. Clinton said he would have no further comment.

    In the investigation, Rockland County Democratic Party records were seized and politicians and community members testified before a grand jury. Prosecutors never disclosed what crime they suspected, but legal experts said possibilities included bribery or some kind of voter fraud.

    The four New Square men were convicted in 1999 of bilking government aid programs and funneling the money back to the yeshiva in their community of 7,000 people, about 30 miles northwest of Manhattan. Mr. Clinton reduced by several months the federal prison terms of the men, Benjamin Berger, David Goldstein, Kalmen Stern and Jacob Elbaum. They were released from prison this year.

    The mastermind of the scheme, Chaim Berger, 76, a founder of the village, was returned to the United States from Israel last summer. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced last month to six years in prison and ordered to pay more than $11 million in restitution.

    Mrs. Clinton met with leaders of the community in August 2000 and again, with Mr. Clinton, in December 2000 after the election. New Square voters gave her 1,400 votes to 12 for the Republican candidate, former Representative Rick A. Lazio. Mrs. Clinton’s aides have said clemency did not come up in the August meeting and, when it was raised in the December meeting, she offered no comment.

    Rabbi Mayer Schiller, a spokesman for David Twersky, the spiritual leader of the village, said yesterday that the community was happy the investigation was over. ”I think at this point it is best not to cast aspersions upon the intent of the entire investigation, and let us put this past us,” he said.

  7. Here are a couple of thoughts: Comey was grandstanding. He should have passed the Bureau’s recommendations along to his superiors in the Justice Department without any publicity whatsoever. He acted unprofessionally, and as a result, he’s wound up with the worst of both worlds. He’ll never get any kind of appointment from any future Democratic or Republican president.

    I’m surprised Matt doesn’t have a single word to say about Comey in this post. The FBI director must be part of the conspiracy, right? He’d have to be working closely with the Clintons, Loretta Lynch and, one presumes, Obama, to successfully orchestrate the plot to keep Hillary Clinton from being indicted. I haven’t even mentioned the work of numerous conspiracy minions, including Lynch’s deputies and the FBI agents (we are told) who were warning one and all in the area, “no photographs, no cell phones.” Were these warnings were intended to distract attention from the meeting between Clinton and Lynch, or have I fallen off the conspiracy bandwagon here?

    By the way, here’s a solid summary of the problem with Carmen Ortiz from the Huffington Post:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carmen-ortiz-us-attorney-marty-walsh-prosecution_us_577a7ddce4b09b4c43c0e29a

  8. Off Topic:
    Today, Howie Carr published some FBI reports allegedly contained in his FBI file.
    They are not remarkable documents because they make passing mentions of Carr. The substance of the FBI reports are astonishing because they disclose the FBI’s relationship with the media in general. In fact, the documents present substantial proof of what Matt deduced long ago, Do Not Embarrass the Family. Everything else is OK, just don’t do that.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/media/2016/07/06/Howie%20Carr%20FBI%20file.pdf

  9. If you read the FBI documents linked above and/or the Huffington Post article linked by Dan C above, keep in mind the role of the free press in the US.
    The free press was given constitutional protections so it could safely criticize and scrutinize the government on behalf of the citizens. instead of protecting citizens from the government, it’s apparent that the press has joined the government and abandoned the citizens. The press clearly makes more profit by choosing a Carmen Ortiz over an Aaron Schwartz. It seems the founding fathers underestimated the power of the profit motive to make the press abandon its solemn constitutional obligation to serve the citizens. The US has this inherent flaw that erodes our freedom. Nobody can say anything about it without being indicted by the government, smeared by the press, or both in concert. Sad.

    1. The Killery Hildebeast hits just keep on coming.

      The Cackling Hag in a Pantsuit refuses to talk about the email servers.

      Instead, in typical Klinton Krime screaming attack mode, she is lashing out at Trump and everyone else.

      Oh – she’s got surrogates out there now blaming a “group” of people who are out to “get her.” It’s not that she has not a shred of ethics or good in her, it’s not that she is blind ambition nailed to a ruthless viper mentality without any conscience – it’s just that people are out to “get” poor Billary.

      One wonders why Killery the Kriminal has to scream and lash out so much.

  10. To continue the Killery hit parade:

    In 1996, William Safire called Killery a congenital liar – which she is – and when you look at it, she is not shy about destroying records (emails) and obstruction of justice:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html

    Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.

    Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

    ============================

    One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

    Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

  11. I’ve only been back here sporadically since Whitey’s trial. This website has been invaluable in exposing the depth of the fbi corruption dating all the way back to the 50’s/60’s… which is why I’m not shocked in the least about current events. What exactly do you expect when corruption is unfettered for at least half a century?

    1. Laz:

      It may go back even further than you suggest but it seems recently it is more obvious and open especially since the era of Clinton. I expect that there would be outcry against it at some point. I never expected to see two such corrupt people contesting for the presidency. All I can do is point it out. The more the people tire of it the better the chances are it will eventually be confronted.

      1. You guys are too gloomy. Really. Cheer up! Let’s not blame the FBI (and the Clintons) for everything. Just sayin’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *