I have found, over the years, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy to be an honorable and experienced protector of the Constitution, and of America. It was therefore with mild dismay that I read his recent article at National Review: The FBI’s Defense of How the Clinton Interview Was Conducted Is Full of Holes.
Before parsing McCarthy’s article—and it will be a rather brief parsing—a brief review of how corruption works, in the most corrupt presidential administration in American history, is in order. Why? Because McCarthy is explaining why the FBI and its director have no integrity, after writing this:
But I am hardwired to presume the FBI’s integrity. Thus, no matter how much irregularities in the Clinton investigation have rankled me, I’ve chalked them up to the Bureau’s being hamstrung. There was no chance on God’s green earth that President Obama and his Justice Department were ever going to permit an indictment of Hillary Clinton.
Prior to the Clinton e-mail scandal—interesting how we have to differentiate between Clinton scandals; there are so many, with many yet to come—I too generally presumed the FBI’s integrity. To be sure, there was the occasional exception, but those were primarily attributable to the fact that the FBI has to hire exclusively from the human race. But now, the presumption must be that the FBI is tarnished and untrustworthy, perhaps permanently.
Corruption begins at the top:
Premise: There was no way President Obama and the Democrat establishment, including the Congress, were going to allow the Democrat nominee to be indicted. Many of them hate her with a passion. Many of them wish all manner of calamity to befall her, but this was about power and privilege. It was about money and ruling over others.
With this is mind, how would this mandate be carried out?
Department of Justice: Eric Holder was a man of flexible character. He was more than willing to run the DOJ as a racist enforcement arm of the Obama Administration. Violating, rather than upholding, the law was his reason for being. Therefore, when he left, it was essential his replacement be equally flexible. Barack Obama found that quality in Loretta Lynch. The Democrat establishment knew precisely what they were getting in Lynch. Without her—or someone ideologically just like her—in place, the mandate would fail. In other words, the Attorney General of the United States of America had to be a person without integrity, a person willing to violate their oath of office, a person willing to do Barack Obama’s bidding regardless of how unethical or illegal it might be. Furthering the progressive agenda in all of its intentions depended upon it.
Lynch had nothing to fear. She was protected all the way to the top of the government and beyond. Who is going to prosecute the Attorney General? And even if that somehow happened, she’d be pardoned in the inevitable coming blizzard of Obama pardons that will descend on his way out the door. That’s why meeting with Bill Clinton to talk about their grandchildren—those in power must still be laughing about that one–was a symbolic slap in the face of honest Americans. Both of those infinitely flexible people were showing the American people they don’t matter, their betters can do whatever they want without fear of consequences. The law is for the little people.
It was also essential the DOJ attorneys involved in the case were equally flexible. Each and every one was carefully picked. It’s entirely possible Lynch–no administrator or supervisor–had to tell them what to do. Because they shared Lynch’s and Obama’s belief system, they would know. They would do whatever was necessary to quash an indictment. Even if, by mistake, an honest prosecutor was assigned to the team, they would know what was required merely by the beliefs and reputations of the others assigned.
None of this was left to chance. Since taking office, Mr. Obama has been careful to staff the DOJ with his kind of people. Did he know he would need to rescue Hillary Clinton at some point in the future? It’s possible, but unnecessary. The right people—ethically flexible people—would know what to do.
The Media: As Ben Rhodes said, they know nothing. He would know, for he too knows nothing, but cynically imagines himself superior to all other Americans. They too needed no instruction, no prompting. They would protect the progressive criminal enterprise because they are an integral part of it. No matter what, they’ll still gaze at Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or any other “Dear Leader” with the loving eyes of a faithful lap dog, the “base spaniel fawning,” about which Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar.
The Congress: Democrats, with few exceptions, are members of the thinly veiled criminal enterprise the contemporary Democrat party has become. They benefit in many ways from subversion of the Constitution and abuse of the American people. Republicans may make a few perfunctory noises about the law and ethics, and grandstand for the cameras in the occasional committee hearing—seeing Director Comey indignantly proclaim he was not a weasel was as perversely amusing as its necessity was tragic and damaging to our Republic—but, with few exceptions, their primary concern is keeping power, and perhaps one day ruling the rubble their capitulation will inevitably produce.
The FBI—the Boss: James Comey might have become flexible because he was concerned about the constitutional and national stability implications of a presidential candidate prosecuted, and if elected, convicted and imprisoned. He could not, of course, admit this, leading to his utterly absurd and convoluted statement exonerating Clinton. One might think this honorable, but it amounts to betraying the Constitution in favor of the political fortunes of Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party. Where’s the honor in that?
He might be the victim of blackmail. Perhaps the Clintonites or Obamites have something on him, something worth violating his oath of office, sinking the integrity of the FBI and abandoning any hint of personal integrity. This too could explain his actions. Or he might simply be another flexible progressive operative able to be stealthy until recently.
If Comey fell under the first two possibilities, the only ethical, honorable course would be to resign and expose the criminal pressures on him to subvert justice. If reality is the final option, we can expect him to do exactly what he has done and continues to do. For this scheme to succeed, for every progressive crime to remain unpunished, he has to remain exactly where he is: with the rest of the weasels.
The FBI–The Grunts: There are certainly flexible administrators, supervisors and agents in the FBI, but they tend to be few in number. The FBI’s reputation for general integrity and non-partisanship is well earned and zealously maintained, at least by its non-flexible employees. This means it would be difficult to staff the Clinton investigation entirely with flexible agents, and there are indications that at least some so assigned were very unhappy with what they were required to do, and with what they were prevented from doing.
Surely they knew their superiors were violating procedure—at the least—and likely, violating the law. Surely they knew their superiors and some fellow agents were obstructing justice. Couldn’t they, like Director Comey, take the honorable course: resign and expose the corruption?
They could, but remember everyone involved in the investigation was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement. Consider what that means. FBI agents all have security clearances. They are presumed, by the positions of trust they hold, to be trustworthy. They never have to sign non-disclosure agreements because FBI regulations require confidentiality. The mere fact they were required to sign such an agreement might have told every honorable agent they were about to be expected to be dishonorable. Or they could merely have thought this an unusually sensitive investigation, and they would be expected to behave honorably, as always. If so, that was a mistake.
An individual agent with sufficient time in could have retired, but only if they kept their mouth shut, and one can be certain they would have been threatened with prosecution, loss of pension, etc. if they retired during the Clinton investigation. If they retired without saying why, what good would they do? The FBI would lose an honest, experienced agent, and the public would be no wiser.
But agents without sufficient time in, who were working toward a pension to support themselves and their families, agents with all the monthly bills everyone faces, had the choice of absolute integrity—which would result in prosecution, loss of pension, financial ruin, and possibly worse for themselves and their families, or simply keeping quiet. True, they would be disillusioned, but they would have a much better idea of who they could trust in the future, and who to avoid like the plague. After all, they always knew there were flexible people around, and they knew who some of them were. Now they know a great many more of them. By remaining, perhaps they could do at least some good in the future, maybe even restrain flexible agents to some degree. For people that want to keep the FBI ethical, this would be a real issue.
To keep their appointees in line, Mr. Obama holds the threat of firing. Though his appointees know he won’t get tough with America’s enemies, he is ruthless with his internal political enemies. To keep their jobs and retain and wield power over the lives of others, progressive crime bosses/agency heads willingly break the law and abuse others. Of course, they wouldn’t be in those jobs if they weren’t more than willing in the first place. The Democrat denizens of Congress are outspoken and ardent supporters of such crimes and abuses, or, with the whimpering help of Republicans, aid and abet them through their lack of courage, their faux-outraged play-acting, or their fecklessness. Finally, at the bottom of the hill down which truckloads of feces roll, are the grunts who do the bidding of their overseers, or who find themselves transferred to a hardship post, at best, or hounded out of their careers, if they’re not outright fired. It’s hard to fault otherwise honorable people for supporting their families or doing what they can to avoid becoming a burden on taxpayers in their dotage.
Back to Andrew McCarthy. His indictment of the FBI is compelling:
“In a nutshell, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department permitted Hillary Clinton’s aide Cheryl Mills — the subject of a criminal investigation, who had been given immunity from prosecution despite strong evidence that she had lied to investigators — to participate as a lawyer for Clinton, the principal subject of the same criminal investigation. This unheard-of accommodation was made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law.
Yet, the FBI and the Justice Department, the nation’s chief enforcers of the federal criminal law, tell us they were powerless to object.
Comey is certainly serious about it.
But, you see, in this investigation — unlike every other major criminal investigation in which the government tries to make the case rather than not make the case — the Justice Department declined to convene a grand jury.
Regarding this highly irregular dereliction, there appears to have been no FBI pushback. In fact, Director Comey told the committee that it is often easier in a complex case to acquire evidence by striking informal agreements with defense lawyers.
Virtually everything Comey, a former federal prosecutor—he knows the law—said about the FBI investigation of this case is absurd. As McCarthy said, all the FBI had to do was convene a grand jury—that’s done by the DOJ–and through the lawful subpoena/warrant process, they could have seized any evidence, including cell phones, laptops, servers, you name it, they needed to make the case. Even without a grand jury, if there is probable cause–and there certainly wans in this case–search warrants are easily obtained. The FBI and every other law enforcement agency do it every day. Instead, they pretended they had to have the willing cooperation and consent of the Clintonian criminals they were “investigating” to gather evidence. This is why they gave so many immunity deals, and ignored the evasions and lies during so-called interviews–it’s a federal crime to lie to an FBI agent.
And that’s another issue. Comey has claimed the FBI has nothing to do with granting immunity; that was all up to the DOJ. He’s correct in that DOJ attorneys make such final deals, but they rely on the investigators—the FBI—to provide them with every bit of information they need to make such decisions. It is FBI agents who must tell the DOJ prosecutors that they need an immunity agreement and why. And as we now know, it’s the FBI willingly assists criminals in destroying evidence, denying it to the Congress. The only other possibility is the FBI is too stupid to know that criminals and their lawyers are playing them.
Immunity agreements are never done unless they will yield very specific information vital to furthering a prosecution, information that cannot be obtained in any other way. This information is known in advance prior to the granting of immunity. If someone thus immunized doesn’t produce what they agreed to produce, the deal is off and they’re on the hook again.
Cheryl Mills, the Clinton minion that was not only a target of the investigation, complicit in the destruction of evidence, was allowed to represent Hillary Clinton during her faux FBI interview, one of many lawyers sitting in on that posterior-covering session. That too is grossly improper:
Finally, as Shannen Coffin has pointed out, Mills was not just violating an ethical rule. Her representation of Clinton runs afoul of federal law. Section 207 of the penal code makes it a crime for a former government official to attempt to influence the government on behalf of another person in a matter in which the former official was heavily involved while working for the government. It was against the law for Mills, as an attorney, to attempt to influence the Justice Department’s consideration of the case against Clinton.
I couldn’t agree more with Director Comey that the FBI is the world’s greatest law-enforcement agency. I just think that when Cheryl Mills tried to walk into Hillary Clinton’s interview, the FBI should have enforced the law.
Take the link and read the rest of McCarthy’s article. In essence, he does exactly what Comey did to the American people: he lays out a case worthy of indictment, and then pronounces the FBI perhaps a little negligent, but essentially innocent.
Is the FBI “the world’s greatest law-enforcement agency?” James Comey surrendered that accolade when he covered up for and pardoned Hillary Clinton, and Andrew McCarthy, normally a straight shooter, has allowed his past relationship with Comey to cloud his judgment on that point. Whatever Comey was in the past, now, he’s just another gutless bureaucrat that allowed himself to be corrupted by the Clintons, people who corrupt virtually everyone with whom they come into contact. In so doing, Comey has mightily contributed to the destruction of the FBI and the rule of law.
Oh, and when the Director of the FBI feels compelled to deny he’s a weasel, he’s a weasel. I’m sure Mr. McCarthy knows this general rule of weasel identification as well.