This would be getting to be really boring if it was not so disgusting.

Another week, another evidence of corruption or, at the very least, extreme incompetence.

The FBI released the investigation file on the Clinton e-mail matter.

Here is my take on it:

  1. For an investigation that took a year, releasing 58 pages is shockingly dismal. Why is no one asking where is all the rest? What the @&$! were all these 150 rumored agents doing for a year? Even if it were only 15 agents, the same question arises.
  2. Specifically, where are the notes on the interview with Bryan Pagliano. I know that I keep harping on this one but the fact that they are not there (at least no one is commenting on it) and the fact that he is the only one that pleaded the 5th and received immunity indicates to me that “something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”
  3. The inept and weak level of the interrogation as is apparent from the FBI’s own notes is shocking. This was a clear attempt to NOT get a result from the interrogation. Indeed, it sounds more like a job interview—the FBI investigators seeking to be interviewed for a future job by Clinton.
  4. The timeline in itself (which, although I commented on it in my previous post, Hillary and the E-mails, is important enough to repeat) is indicative of the corrupt, yes corrupt, nature of the FBI investigation:
    • After a year of investigation, Clinton was interviewed for 3.5 hours on a Saturday 2 days before the 4th of July holiday; part of a long weekend.
    • There is no accurate transcript of the interview, just hand written notes by the agents. So all these movies where you see the police record their interview with any suspect, these are all fake. The FBI still lives in the time before tape recording was invented. I think that is about 100 years ago…
    • The Director of the FBI could not find time in his busy, long 4th of July weekend to participate in that interview. I guess he knew the result was pre-ordained and that the interview would reveal nothing.
    • The same busy director, fresh from his holiday break, came back on Tuesday the 5th and by 9:00 am was already fully briefed about the 3.5 hours interview that occurred 72 hours before while he was away, had the time to consider his recommendation AND prepared his remarks so that he could go out and give a 20 minutes press announcement concluding with the recommendation not to indict. He sure had a busy morning on the 5th.
  5. In spite of all of the above, the picture emanating from this interview is either one of a totally incompetent Secretary of State or an abject liar—one or the other, or both. Her need to rely 30-40 times in a 3.5-hour interview on the tried and tested “I do not remember” strategy (in various iterations) is shocking. In litigation circles it is common for judges to instruct juries that when they consider the credibility of any witness they can rely on and infer from that witness’ level of “memory loss” (i.e. the more time the witness “miraculously” fails to remember things, the less reliable that witness can be considered to be). If this doctrine is applied to Clinton, then she clearly is totally unreliable, i.e. a liar.

The bias in the media is at unprecedented levels and I will write a specific post on that, but given that bias, this clip from CNN 360 hosted by Anderson Cooper where liberal guest and George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley “skewers” Hillary Clinton tells you that even a liberal conviction anchor like Cooper could not ignore her awful performance. It is worth seeing the entire clip.