I am writing this post early on Saturday October 29th. I suspect there will be regular developments to this story.

The news broke at about 1:00 pm on Friday: the FBI is again reviewing the Clinton e-mail issue. That threw the election campaign into a tailspin.

The official version, according to a letter sent by the director of the FBI to Congress (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/28/us/politics/fbi-letter.html?_r=0), is that, in connection with an unrelated investigation, the FBI uncovered e-mails that could be pertinent to the Clinton case and is, thus, reviewing it. The FBI at this stage cannot assess whether or not this material is significant. The only reason given for sending this astonishing and highly unusual advice to Congress is due to Comey previously stating that the investigation was completed. In an internal memo sent by Comey to the FBI staff (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/29/exclusive-comey-memo-to-fbi-staffers-says-election-timing-required-disclosure-renewed-probe.html) there is a very significant additional comment. According to Comey: “…I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record.“

The semiofficial version is that the FBI found thousands of e-mails—some say tens of thousands—in a personal device shared by Huma Abedin (Hillary’s closest and most trusted adviser) and Abedin’s now-estranged husband, the appropriately named Anthony Weiner, who is under investigation for the sex crime of sexting with a minor.

There has never before been an election were the media has gone from being biased and supplicant, which they always are, in favor of Democratic nominees and office holders to being fully conscripted and fighting at the front in the trenches against the Republican nominee. The media assault on Trump is simply without precedent.

Given the above, the liberal media is in an all stations attack/spin mode. The target of their growing attacks is Comey. Seeing these efforts is funny and pathetic but mostly tragic as a statement of how low the media in this country has stooped.

CNN, in the space of a 2 minute-report, managed to make the following points:

  • Clinton was surprised by this development
  • Clinton turned the table on the FBI by demanding immediate and full disclosure
  • The FBI cleared Clinton of wrongdoing
  • The e-mails are not to or from Clinton (Comment: Really? How do they know? Thousands of e-mails from Abedin, Clinton’s most trusted and closest advisor, and not one to or from Clinton? How likely is that?)
  • It is likely that most of these e-mails are not new. IE they are copies of prior e-mails seen before (Comment: And the FBI director was not aware of this small “unimportant” fact?)
  • The FBI is not sure that there is any significance here (which they mentioned 3 times in that brief report)

In a different broadcast, Andersen Cooper 360, the slimy “legal analyst” Jeffrey Toobin, ashen faced repeated time and time again that last “fact.” Saying that it could turn out to be nothing and on and on.

CBS is now reporting that there are 1,000 e-mails, a fairly accurate number… and that the FBI has not yet obtained a warrant to review them, which sounds really stupid.

There are two basic versions making the media rounds: the majority version which states that the FBI does not know what they have found; and the minority version which states that Comey would not have taken the unusual and controversial step of disclosing this investigation (most investigations are carried out without being disclosed until they are over) because there is something big there.

As a side comment, it always amazes me how the liberal media hides aggressively behind the notion that we do not know the facts whenever the news does not suit their prescribed notions, but jump to conclusions immediately without any reason or fact when it does suit them. Ferguson anyone? Or why is it OK to accept a priori an unsubstantiated claim by a woman about an event that took place 30 years ago? Why is that credible and is given saturation-coverage by the media, yet an act by the director of the FBI is neutral without any ability to draw logical assumptions from it as we do not have the “facts”?

Another twist promoted by many in the media is that Comey is trying to make amends with Republicans in Congress for his egregious mishandling of the initial investigation into the Clinton e-mail debacle. That version does not make any sense whatsoever. After he leaned over backwards to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt and bent every FBI rule to its absolute limit to let her get away with it for a year, now that, to all accounts, she is on the verge of becoming the new president he suddenly is seeking to make amends with Republicans who are most likely to be on the losing side of these elections? And he is doing it by breaking all rules of protocol of the FBI, against strong objection from his boss at the Department of Justice? This makes zero sense.

Here is my take on the situation:

  • If it turns out that Comey made the decision to go public with the renewed investigation 11 days before the presidential elections—an act that he was not obligated to do, indeed, he was nearly obligated to NOT do—without having a pretty good idea of what the new evidence contains and implies, he should be fired. After the elections, that will be pretty easy to achieve whoever wins. Comey managed the amazing fit of being hated and disrespected by both sides of the political game, and deservedly so.
  • The suggestion that Comey heard about the existence of the new evidence for the first time on Thursday and made the decision then and there is absurd to me. Any executive of any minimal stature faced with such a difficult situation would have demanded more information before making this most difficult of decisions: to go public or not to go public. Nothing would have changed if he sent his letter out on Monday. The FBI could have spent the additional 72 hours investigating the new information, throwing 100 agents into it in order to decide if this new evidence is significant or not.
  • Unless Comey knows already that the preponderance of the evidence is heavily weighed, and by a wide margin, towards a likely indictment of none other than Hillary Clinton, he should not have made the existence of this renewed investigation public.
  • In spite of long held (well prior to July 2016) deep reservations about Comey, I always and still do believe that he is a very competent, able and experienced executive. Based on that, I have to assume that this is a very serious situation and that the evidence is very damning.

So what can it be?

  • Can it be many Department of State e-mails, which were not given back to DoS? No, that is far, far from getting to the threshold of indictment.
  • Can it be additional classified e-mails? No, same as above. We already know that Clinton, in Comey’s words, was “extremely careless” in handling classified information, so nothing new here.
  • Can it be a clear indication of “intent”? No. The media and politicians have either misunderstood Comey’s point regarding lack of intent when he cleared Clinton of wrong doing in July or spun it for their own cynical use. What Comey was saying was that she mishandled classified information but that she did that without the intent to mishandle them or “traffic” in them. My view of Mrs. Clinton is as low as it can get but even I do not think for one second that the purpose behind her mishandling of classified information was even remotely that of “selling” it to a foreign country. Nonsense. Which is why we will not see a clear proof of that.
  • Can it be a “smoking gun” for the quid–pro-quo regime of the Clintons, their pay to play rules; in other words, a clear indication of bribe? I doubt that very much. As I mentioned in prior posts, these people are very adept at not leaving clear proof of quid-pro-quo. They do not need to. Their reputation precedes them. These things are never done in writing. I would be shocked if this is it.

So what can it be? Here is my speculation. There is at long last a Clinton confidant, albeit an indirect one, that is in the know of things and is willing to “sing,” willing to cut a deal with the FBI to save his own skin. That is the only logical explanation that I can come up with to justify Comey’s unprecedented move.


The sleazeball Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin’s disgraced, abandoned ex-husband (practically).

Why would he be willing to cooperate?

Here is a man that, until about 4 years ago, was considered one of the up and coming bright stars of the Democratic Party. Young, with strong rhetorical skills, a progressive from New York and connected via an umbilical cord to the strongest power center of the Democratic Party, Clinton Inc., through his marriage to Hillary’s most trusted and closest confidant.

This man could, and I bet did, imagine for himself a brilliant career trajectory, probably even ending in the White House in 15-20 years, and why not?

So, from the weathering heights of the top of the political world within 4/5 years and three sexting scandals he is now a man:

  • With zero chances of any political career, having lost the first career by his first sexting scandal AND messing up his big come back (the USA is a forgiving place, especially when you show contrition and your wife stands by you) as a result of his second sexting scandal.
  • Who is the butt of jokes world ‘round, especially giving his most fitting name.
  • Who lost his wife who stood by him through TWO sexting scandals but could not take the third one—and good for her.
  • Who, by losing his wife, also lost his connection to the corridors of power and glamour.
  • Who lost his parental rights due to sexting while his baby was sleeping next to him (as was seen in some of those sexting pictures)
  • Who is under FBI investigation for sexting with a minor and most likely will have to serve a prison term and be registered as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

It is obvious to me that this jerk would sell his soul and, clearly, would be willing to testify against Clinton Inc. in consideration of not going to prison.

It is also likely that, having been around Huma Abedin for so many years, he has heard and seen enough to proffer a big juicy “bone” to the FBI.

This is the only thing that I can think of that can connect all the dots here and make sense by giving Comey enough confidence that an indictment of Clinton is likely. Any other explanation simply does not meet the threshold of justifying the act of making this investigation public.

This has clear elements of a Greek tragedy on the one hand and divine retribution on the other. Just think about it: the biggest political dynasty of our time (and the most corrupt) brought down by a penis sexting pervert.

I do not know if this will swing the elections to Trump, but if it does not then God knows that this country is beyond salvation.

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, we are likely to see a number of things in the next few years:

  • An ugly investigation and indictment of a president while in office
  • A pardon—no doubt in my mind
  • An impeachment trial in Congress
  • Quite probably a President Tim Kaine

P.S. It is now Sunday night and there are already few developments:

  • Sources are suggesting that there are 650,000 e-mails. No joke. I mentioned above that CBS was saying that there are 1,000 e-mails. Just to show how much nonsense all these programmed intentional “sources” use to create the “fog of war”
  • If that insane number—650,000—is correct, then these e-mails must go back many more years than the 2009 start of the infamous “server.” How does Weiner happen to have all these decades of his wife’s e-mails stashed on his computer? I would not put it behind this wretched human being to have systematically copied his wife’s e-mails without her knowledge over the years just in case he one day needed leverage. This is just the way that a disgusting politician of his type would think.
  • Other sources are now saying that Comey and other senior FBI executives knew about the information for a week or two already. At least about the metadata. While this strengthens what I said above, I wonder why they waited so long to get a warrant to allow them to look at the actual e-mails themselves.
  • A pundit suggested that the FBI cut a deal with Huma Abedin for her to “sing” (that is the term used by that pundit) about her knowledge of Clinton to avoid going to prison for mishandling classified information and lying under oath. Just shows you how shallow these pundits are. Huma Abedin will not “sing” on Clinton. First, she is way too loyal and, second, she is confident that she will be pardoned by a President Clinton. She may change her tune if Clinton loses the elections, but at that stage the whole thing will be so much less important.
  • CNN, in one oblique, short reference mentioned that Weiner is cooperating with the investigation. daaa