The answer is, when the FBI investigation in question is being politically influenced and is not there to find the truth, but to cloud and hide the truth.
But why would they do that? Because people that live and play in “the swamp” together tend to stick together.
In the case of Hillary Clinton’s email “investigation,” anyone with any knowledge or potential evidence involving the matter were given immunity deals or cut some other kind of “deal” with the FBI.
Here is our cast of characters:
Cheryl Mills, former Clinton chief of staff.
Bryan Pagliano, a tech expert who set up Clinton’s email server.
Paul Combetta, another involved computer specialist.
John Bentel, then-director of the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management.
Heather Samuelson, Clinton lawyer and aide.
Huma Abedin, top Clinton personal aide.
Much has been said about this “investigation,” and various people have tried to spin information this way and that way.
All I know is, if everybody involved with an investigation has a “get out of jail free” card, what’s the point?
If nobody did anything wrong here, why did they all feel compelled to plead the fifth, then ask for and receive immunity from criminal prosecution in this case?
Then we have the “investigation” into the Clinton Foundation for possible financial crimes and influence peddling.
This is a very convoluted case, but let’s try and make it as simple as possible:
It is alleged that the State Department was put in the service of the Clinton Foundation during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State.
For some reason, numerous foreign entities “donated” tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation. I guess they were all just big hearted and trusted that the Clintons would use their money for deserving causes.
Anyway, Obama’s Justice Department (Loretta Lynch, et al) and high level FBI officials (Dir. James Comey and Deputy Dir. Andrew McCabe), threw speed bump after speedbump and roadblock after roadblock at the FBI agents actually trying to gather information in this matter.
Why? Let’s “connect the dots,” as liberals love to say.
Loretta Lynch was appointed U.S. attorney by President Bill Clinton.
Bill was of course the husband of the subject of the FBI’s investigations (Hillary). Lynch met with Bill in a plane parked on an Arizona tarmac days before the announcement that Mrs. Clinton would not be indicted.
Based on a November 2016 article from “The National Review” by Andrew C. McCarthy, it was also Lynch’s Justice Department that:
- refused to authorize use of the grand jury to further the Clinton e-mails investigation
- 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
- agreed that the FBI would destroy the computers following its very limited examination.
They would have you believe that because Mrs. Clinton was not motivated by a desire to harm national security she could not 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 Hillary Clinton “exonerated.”
(Note: The operative criminal statute does not call for proof of intent to harm the United States, however. It merely requires proof of gross negligence, which would not even seem to be a question in this case.)
Now, back to the Clinton Foundation.
Again, per “The National Review” and Andrew C. McCarthy: While Hillary may not have been motivated to harm our national security, she was motivated to conceal the give and take between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation. That was the real objective of her home 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.
Were it not for the Clinton Foundation, there probably would not be a Clinton e-mail scandal, but somehow the Clintons managed to make sure these two were “investigatively” disassociated from one another.
Another incredible factor in the “investigation” was that Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving President Obama guilty as well.
That’s right. As a result of their search on Anthony Weiner’s/Huma Abedin’s laptop, it was discovered that Barack Obama was using a pseudonym to conduct communications over Hillary’s non-secure e-mail system. This was a major security breach.
Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card. Any possibility of prosecuting Hillary Clinton was tanked by President Obama’s conflict of interest here.
It has been reported, though not officially confirmed, that Huma Abedin retained some of the deleted e-mails of Hillary Clinton’s in a folder marked “life insurance,” and cut a deal with the FBI.
So, there you have a very short and condensed version of what I, and many others, believe took place here. Are you suffering from CSES yet (Clinton Scandal Exhaustion Syndrome)? They hope you are. That’s part of the plan.
It is pretty obvious that, during the election, the Obama Administration was protecting Hillary Clinton from accountability or responsibility here at all costs, in an effort to keep their rigged system in Washington in place. It was a “swampy” CYA operation all the way around.
Thanks to Donald Trump winning the election, a lot of these questionable actions are coming to light. These “swamp” varmints don’t like light being shined on them. They prefer to remain anonymous, unaccountable and untouchable. If Hillary would have won the election nobody would have been the wiser and “the swamp” would be growing instead of being drained, little by little.