7/13/16

A lot has been written in the last few days regarding the FBI director’s press conference and congressional appearance relating to his decision to recommend no indictment of Hillary Clinton in the e-mail saga. Comey clearly indicted Clinton’s actions and behavior as illegal and then recommended that no criminal indictment take place due to “lack of intent.”

There are few things that surprisingly got very little attention:

  1. Bryan Pagliano
    The role of Pagliano in this saga has not been mentioned at all during the last few days and this is astonishing. Pagliano is the IT specialist whom Clinton insisted would be appointed by the State Department (SD) soon after she was appointed. He is the only person in this mess who pleaded the 5th AND was granted immunity by the FBI. So? What about him?I always found it strange that the Secretary of State (SoS), who is probably amongst the top five most important persons in the entire US system of government, would stoop to get involved in such a low level personal decision. So why did Clinton insist on his appointment, what was his role, why did he take the 5th and what did he say once given the immunity?

    I am going to digress here for a little while:

    Throughout the Iran controversial nuclear discussions that led to the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action I kept saying that the notion that we had to enter into this so-called agreement or otherwise Iran would develop a nuclear weapon within three months etc. is simply nonsense. I repeatedly suggested and speculated that the real issue for Iran is not developing a weapon, which they could do then as they can now, but the development of a delivery system. And that it is that issue and that issue alone that has stopped Iran from actually developing the weapon. Having a nuclear weapon is no good without the ability to deliver it to your enemy. I maintained then and still do now that by signing the agreement the world has given Iran the time and resources to quietly develop such a delivery system and that once they do, NOTHING will stop them from becoming a nuclear weapon state in such a short time that no one will be able to stop them. Therefore, the whole agreement was a sham. Yet no one discussed that issue. Time and time again I was hoping and waiting for someone to raise this most prevalent of issues but no one did. So was I wrong? It made a lot of sense. It fit perfectly into all the known facts. I kept asking myself if there are things that I did not know or did not understand. Well, shortly after the agreement was signed a lot of attention was suddenly brought to the fact that North Korea is working hard to achieve a delivery system. Suddenly it became clear to everyone that having a nuclear weapon is worthless unless you either have an aircraft that has even a remote chance of being able to penetrate into your enemy territory (neither Iran nor NK have those) or a missile that can deliver it (BOTH Iran and NK have ballistic missiles). The problem with missiles is that the capacity of a missile to carry a nuclear weapon due to weight and volume is limited. It seems that in order for a nuclear weapon to be effective it requires either significant weight and volume to allow for nuclear reaction to occur OR—and this is the critical part—it has to be constructed using some pretty sophisticated technology and is usually then known as a Hydrogen bomb. Miniaturizing a macular weapon but still allowing it to produce a nuclear explosion is a challenge. Experts were aggressively denying that NK has that ability. Iran and NK have been cooperating on all matters relating to nuclear weapons and delivery systems for years. So if one does not have this technological knowhow it is more than likely that the other one does not have it either; thus, no credible delivery system. So I was vindicated. The real issue—the ONLY relevant issue—was indeed that of the miniaturization of the weapons in order to be able to put it on a tip of a ballistic missile. NOTHING else mattered and that was the ONLY barrier that kept Iran from going nuclear. Which still left the question: Why did NO ONE raise that issue and call the emperor naked?

    Coming back to the question at hand, if I was right then about the 800-pound gorilla and for some reason it was not being discussed, is it not logical that I am right again? I think I am.

    So here is my explanation for role of Mr. Pagliano:

    No one can connect a computer, let alone a server, to a classified e-mail system without authorization. That is how you keep the system secure. POTUS cannot send me, a regular person, an e-mail from his secured e-mail system (I am sure he wants to do so quite regularly, alas…). So how would the SoS do her business with so many officials of the US government—starting from POTUS downwards—if her computer/device was not connected to the secured e-mail system? Or, a better question in these circumstances: How did she get it connected without all these pesky IT officials asking all these really annoying questions and demanding that the security specialist authorize that connection before they activate? Hey, presto: let’s appoint our own man as the IT specialist and he will take care of it.

    That is the ONLY explanation that fits the fact pattern discussed above.

    But surely if this is the case, that is the mother lode of “intent” right? That is premeditation-type intent. It was planned, it was thought out, barriers were discovered, and plans were put into action to overcome them. What more can one ask for in terms of intent?

  2. Timeline
    Director Comey defended passionately and dramatically his claim of independence in making the decision. In spite of his aggressive posture on this matter, I do not believe him. I am not claiming that he outright lied. But I am sure that if the question would have been asked with a bit more finesse rather than the stupid narrow way it was asked, he would have had a much more difficult time denying an element of collusion here. Consider the timeline:

    • June 28th: A supposedly impromptu 20-minute meeting on the tarmac of Phoenix airport between Attorney General (AG) Lynch and former president Clinton. According to the AG, during the meeting the two “primarily” discussed personal issues. If it was PRIMARILY personal, what was the secondary topic of discussion? The AG is a VERY skilled and experienced attorney, and has been in the political arena for many years too. These are EXACTLY the type of people who know how important EACH word is. Remember the famous phrase: “depending what the meaning of the word is, is” ? That remains a Clinton special of old. Now we have the AG using the word “primarily.” I am sure that her use of it was very carefully judged. I want to know what was the secondary subject discussed.
    • June 30th: The NY Times quoted a leak from the Hillary Clinton campaign to the effect that Clinton will positively consider reappointing Lynch to be her AG if elected.
    • July 1st: In another leak—this time sourced to FBI—the indications are that no indictment will be forthcoming.
    • July 1st: Also on the same day, AG Lynch appears in an Aspen Institute (by the way, non-partisan my A…) and states that the above mentioned meeting was a mistake and because of that she will, in all probability, accept whatever recommendation the FBI makes regarding indictment.
    • July 2nd: This was a Saturday; part of a long weekend for July 4th. The long awaited interview for Hillary Clinton by the FBI takes place. We are told that the interview was about 3.5 hours and took place at FBI headquarters. There are two amazing elements of this interview:
      1. There is NO transcript of the interview. Just notes taken by FBI agents, and… drum roles…
      2. FBI Director James Comey, who we were assured all along was taking this investigation—the most important explosive investigation the FBI is handling—personally, well he was not in attendance. He did not deem it important enough to be present. Maybe he was on a 4th of July vacation. Due to lack of transcript, he had to rely only on the notes taken to review.
    • July 5th at 11:00 am: Fresh back from his well-deserved break for the 4th of July, Comey appears before the press. He starts by declaring that he consulted no one (outside the FBI) and that no one at the Justice Department is aware of his decision etc. I can only say that if this statement is true it is an irresponsible and unprofessional way to conduct yourself. For sure he had to advise his superior at the Justice Department of his conclusion before telling you and me about it. It is unbelievable and sounds like a case of “thou doth protest too much.” He then proceeds for 15 minutes to describe what seems to be an indictment of Hillary Clinton, exposing multiple lies—bare faced lies, not subtle ones—that she made to the public and declaring her actions to be “extremely careless.” He then proceeds to recommend no indictment due to lack of “intent.”
    • July 5th at 4:00 pm: President Obama goes on stage with Hillary Clinton for their first joint campaign event.

    Now, if someone wants to tell me that this timeline is all a coincidence, my response to them is that “I have a bridge to sell you.”

    This timeline is simply too perfect to be anything other than coordinated and pre-ordained. However, to be clear I NEVER thought that the Clintons and the rest of the corrupt progressive political machine are stupid. They are VERY sophisticated. So I do not for one second think that Comey coordinated or discussed his recommendation in so many words. They would not do that. They are far too experienced to make such a mistake. Which is why Comey was able. in a ferociousness and stilly-eyed, to deny it when he was asked a simple question by a naïve Republican congressman. Had the question been more nuanced along the lines of:

    • Have you discussed the status of the investigation with the AG or her staff in the last week?
    • Were they aware that the Clinton interview would take place on Saturday?
    • Why did you deem it not important enough to be present?
    • Was that not a signal to everyone concerned that you are going to recommend no indictment?
    • How were you able to make the decision so quickly after the interview given that it was a holiday?
    • Did you know before the interview that you are going to recommend no indictment?
    • Were you informed prior to the event that the president plans to endorse Clinton?
    • Did you think it was a problem?
    • Did you advise anyone that you thought it was a problem?
    • Did you comment to anyone that you do NOT think it is a problem?
    • Were you aware that the first joint campaign event was on Tuesday the 5th?

    I posit to you that on all or most of these questions director Comey would have had a much harder time responding and would have had to resort to using evasive and no-answer responses to avoid telling the truth. The point is that coordination does not have to be overt. People that work with each other in politics for many years understand body language, winks, and innocent comments. Very rarely will you find a “smoking-gun” and asking questions about a potential “smoking-gun” just allows these people to deny it and strengthen their case.

  3. Attorney General Loretta Lynch
    Her appearance in the judicial committee yesterday on the subject of the Hillary Clinton investigation was simply shameful. It was a classic case in political partisan disingenuous performance. In a meeting where she was asked questions by Republicans for about, say, 2 hours amounting to, say, about maybe 125 questions she responded about 100 times, I repeat ONE HUNDRED TIMES by not answering:

    • I cannot comment on that.
    • It would be inappropriate for me to discuss.
    • I refer you to Director Comey.

    This was frustrating and disgusting. This from the top law enforcement officer of the United States, which is supposed to have the sanctity of the law and “the law is blind” mantra in front of their eyes and clearly in front of their partisan loyalty.

    I do not understand why she was allowed to hide behind the notion that it is not appropriate for her to discuss her considerations in closing the investigation. I understand, and even that only sort of and to a limited degree, why an AG needs not to comment on an investigation while it is proceeding. But once she declared it closed, why can’t she share with us the considerations that led to the decision? That is EXACTLY what judges do when they publish a detailed opinion on any decision that they made, it is what almost all other agencies of the US government do when they decree a certain ruling or similar. Why should she not explain herself? Why is it inappropriate? She did not even say that it is confidential, as it is not anymore. Why did NONE of these stupid Republicans ask her why not? After 10 such refusals? 50? 100??? How many will they take and simply move on? What is her justification to refuse to answer these questions?

  4. Competence V Criminal
    In his efforts to vindicate his “recommendation” (which was pre-adopted, on a blind basis by the AG; how convenient) not to indict Clinton, Director Comey had to do verbal/legal summersaults, or put a “lipstick on a pig.” How else do you justify such an appalling irresponsible behavior in breach of so many US laws? By calling what is clearly gross negligence—extreme carelessness—or by declaring that there was no intent where everything seems to have been pre-ordained with intent all over it. One of the ways Comey resorted to is to suggest that Hillary Clinton, a person who was in public life surrounded by classified information issues for 25 years, “showed surprising lack of sophistication” when it comes to understanding how to handle classified information. That is from one of the very few government officers appointed by the president to be a classifying authority. In other words, she had the job of deciding what is classified and what is not in her department. This lack-of-sophistication argument, however, comes on top of over-reliance on her “team” to perform duties that are hers by law, such as making sure that the facility in Benghazi had a good enough level of security (which it did not because her team decided not to provide it—an issue that was supposed to be decided by her personally), such as leaving the situation room on September 11, 2012 when the fate of the ambassador was still unknown, nor the safety of the US compounds in Benghazi reestablished and telling her team, “I am going to bed. Call me if you need me.” It paints a picture of incompetence. That on top of the fact that she has ZERO accomplishments of note in ANY of her public positions, especially as Secretary of State; I am beginning to wonder if Comey was right. Maybe she is simply incompetent in the extreme?I am not sure what is better for the President of the US to be: a criminal or incompetent. To make life easy, in the case of Hillary Clinton it is both.

Overall, this is a deeply disturbing episode but unfortunately only an episode in the continuing chipping away of law and order and public honesty, integrity, and standards that occurred under Obama by the extreme partisan ideology of the end justifies the means.

It is the total corruption of the US system of governance orchestrated by Obama and his minions and allowed to pass by the most incompetent, lazy, and corrupt media.