The Clinton’s Demise?

“Oh, what tangled webs we weave when at first we practice to deceive.” Wm. Shakespeare.

Are “The chickens are coming home to roost,” at least for the Clinton’s? The awful shenanigans that the Democrats have perpetrated against Donald Trump before his election last November are being revealed for the real criminality they are. Why can’t the DoJ see that? If you grew up in the Watergate era of Richard Nixon, that pales in comparison to Clintons criminality. Remember, Hillary Clinton paid off the DNC’s outstanding debts and in exchange, demanded complete control over the DNC’s money and activities, and got it. Therefore, Hillary Clinton and the DNC are synonymous.

Early in 2017, the Clinton campaign began to suspect their personal attacks against Donald Trump were not working but had instead, actually gave Trump’s campaign more favorable exposure than they intended. At the same time the FBI investigation into Clinton’s mishandling of classified information and ‘scrubbing’ her personal email server was getting perilously effective, at least in the public’s eye. Americans expected justice at last for “crooked Hillary.”

But, the fix was in. At a DC Press Conference on July 5th last year (2016), FBI Director James Comey, just a few days after Attorney General, Loretta Lynch got caught meeting clandestinely with Bill Clinton in Az., shockingly and peremptorily, announced to the world that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Hillary Clinton because the FBI failed to prove “Intent.” He therefore declared Hillary “acquitted” of all charges, while admitting her actions were “extremely careless.” And, here I always thought it was juries that acquitted defendants if they were found not Guilty. So, by Comey’s definition then, “Intent” is necessary to even charge a violation of a federal crime! It didn’t work for Scooter Libby or General Flynn, did it? The end result was, however, the full court press against Donald Trump, i.e.: the Russian Collusion.

Codification of ‘Intent’ as an issue of guilt, hasn’t been written into law except to show pre-meditation of a crime, often associated with homicides or frauds, when witnesses, usually co-conspirators to that crime, “rat out” the principle to save themselves. So, now we ask why were Cheryll Mills and Uma Abaden interviewed by the FBI without benefit of a Miranda warning, or charged with lying, and why did the FBI destroy their laptop computers?  Simple enough, their testimony, and computer evidence, would have proved the premeditation required to show Hillary’s ‘intent.’ For example, if her private email server contained only personal family communications, why did she desperately find it necessary to “scrub” 30,000 messages out of the thing?  Thank God for Anthony Weiner’s computer.

So, when something as egregious as Clinton’s criminal actions and cover-ups, i.e.: obstructing justice by destroying evidence and the illegal use of non classified systems, etc., & etc. (without intent), are exposed, it demands investigation and closes the silly argument of “I didn’t mean to” or “I don’t recall” that Liberals and the rich and famous use to exculpate their crimes. At what point in time did the leadership of the FBI and the DoJ, decide that Hillary Clinton had to be saved at all costs? I believe it all started in January, 2008. One wonders too, if Hillary can say  she will seek rehabilitation services to save herself? Who offers these wonderful services? Prisons do! The “I didn’t mean it” excuse died with the Third Reich. It didn’t work for the Nazi’s when their only excuse for committing atrocities was “I vas only obeying orders,” were quickly followed by either a thirteen step climb up a scaffold or a firing squad. As we are now learning, It was Hillary Clinton’s machine that created the excuses to ensure she would escape simply because she had no ‘intent.’  Anyway, that’s what FBI Director James Comey told us.

Remember, freedom is the goal, the Constitution is the way. Now, go get ‘em! (10Dec17)