Certain sorts are claiming that Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s recent report upon the FBI’s “handling” of Hillary Clinton’s #MailGate scandal showed that the FBI had no noticeable bias in favor of the failed presidential hopeful. But, no bias agianst President Trump and in favor of Hillary? Sure, if you either tip your head and squint or are of the sort who’s views are already skewed to the Left. 😉
Essentially, in 100s of pages of torturous legalese – with all the specific, most often abstruse to the general public, language inherent in such documents, IG Horowitz has set forth his opinion that, while various key investigators harbored anti-Trump, pro-Clinton bias, and even made statements indicating thier intention to act on that bias to prevent Donald Trump from becoming POTUS, the DoJ’s Inspector General’s office could find no evidence in in emails, text messages, instant messages, or documents that proved the FBI made decisions with an improper purpose or took measures which amounted to criminal action.
Yeah, tip your head and squint, people. Tip your head and squint.
There But For The Grace Of Deplorable Went America
As should in all likelihood be fairly obvious, I’m a supporter of President Trump. That being said, I wouldn’t have been too bothered by any candidate that defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 elections. What mattered, and still matters to me, is that horrid, corrupt, arguably insane, immoral slag was not installed as the President of the United States.
Yes, the first, glaring thought that comes to my mind whenever I’m forced to hear or think about Hillary is that there but for the grace of we Deplorables went America.
President Trump has “accused” Obama of having wiretapped his telephones and data connections at Trump Tower during the 2016 election cycle. The President’s allegation, made as it was through Twitter, lit the internet on proverbial fire. The Lamestream Enemedia wasted no time is deriding the President’s claim and Obama’s spokesman, Kevin Lewis quickly fired back with a denial of any wrongdoing on the ex-President’s part.
Of course, these denials are almost Clintonian is their use of facts that don’t necessarily – depending on what words and terms mean – lead to the truth.
The facts of the matter are that the FBI did twice seek to gain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) court warrants to wiretap Trump’s communications and those of several of his advisers. The first attempt in June, 2016 was denied. The second, narrower request, now focused on a server in Trump Tower, in October, 2016 was granted.
So during the 2016 elections the FBI did conduct surveillance of Trump’s assets in Trump Towers, i.e., they did wiretap him, though this may have been limited to electronic communications and did not included telephony, which i what most of people still think of when wiretapping is brought up.Â So, for the purposes of the truth and culpability, it comes down to the Clintonian question of what words and phrases mean, a particularly form of verbal tap-dancing that Obama has always been quite skilled at.
The FBI is ultimately under the authority of US Attorney General, during the time frame in question an Obama Appointee. So whether or not the wiretapping was done by the Obama Administration comes down to where you draw the line around the term “Obama Administration” and from whom exactly the order ultimately came from.
As to whether or not Obama “had” Trump’s assets tapped, that is a matter of great and fruitless conjecture. Obviously, Obama didn’t formally order the surveillance operation. No POTUS can formally and legally order such surveillance except in very limited circumstances that didn’t apply in this case. That, however, doesn’t address an informal, verbal order, suggestion, or spoken lament – Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest? – that Obama might have made to AG Loretta Lynch.
Then, we come to “had” vs. “known of” and “approved.” Personally, I find it hard, though not impossible, to lend credence to the idea that the FBI would undertake such a very, very sensitive operation – as proven from the fallout thereof – without walking it up the chain of command to get at least verbal approval for it. Hence, it seems very unlikely to me that Obama wasn’t both apprised of the planned investigation of the opposing party’s presidential candidate and given the chance to quash it before it started.
One thing about Hillary, she never looks behind her – only decades behind her enemies when she’s looking for a non-issue to hand off to her media. She doesn’t notice or care about the vast, reeking cloud of: scandals, lies, corruption, electoral malfeasance, and almost comically common occurrence of unusual deaths of people problematic to her that is choking the American people.
No, Hillary is laser focused on the Presidency. She keeps her on the prize with singularity of focus of a sociopath, knowing in her mind that the means justify the ends when the end is what she desires.
You would think that the image above aptly described how the DNC was dealing with having Hillary Clinton as the Nominee for POTUS. You would likely expect the image to be a near perfect allegory for a DNC strategy meeting about the 2016 elections.
The sad irony is that such expectations are unfounded and in all likelihood erroneous. Given the DNC’s control over- or hegemony with the Lamestream media and the fact that Hillary’s campaign is predicated upon gender politics, and that the Blacks don’t fight their traces, such meeting are actually unlikely to have happened.
Even sadder is the likelihood that, if such a meeting occurred, it was the RNC holding it, not the DNC. Given their fear of Donald Trump – or any other “interloper” – they’re the ones most likely to have been trying to figure out how to sell Hillary to the voters. 🙁