In any criminal investigation where the
suspect is not immediately known, the first question usually asked is who would
have the most to gain? As we follow the bread crumbs of the text messages
of Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page and await release of the House Intelligence
Committee’s memo regarding the collusion between the DNC, the Hillary Clinton
campaign, the DOJ, and FBI to interfere with the 2016, ensure the election of
Hillary, and the defeat or impeachment of Donald Trump, the answer to that
question is clear -- one Barack Hussein Obama.
Can it be believed that as key players in the Obama administration
like Strzok and Page, as well as FBI Director James
Comey, Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe, number 4 at Justice Bruce Ohr, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and
many others were linked in a vast criminal conspiracy to keep Hillary Clinton
out of prison and Donald Trump out of the White House, that Barack Obama
was blissfully unaware of all this? Rather, it can be plausibly argued that he
was orchestrating it.
Perhaps not directly or by explicit orders, but rather by
discussing the threat to his legacy Trump represented with his progressive
minions and then simply saying, as crime bosses throughout history have done,
“You know what needs to be done. Do it.”
This scandal did not occur in a vacuum any more than did the
weaponizing of the IRS to target the Tea Party and other conservative groups
before Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign occured in a vacuum. The agencies under
Obama’s control have been politicized before and used to intimidate and destroy
his political opponents
Last September, I argued
that Comey had the fix in for Hillary and we now know that he began
writing his exoneration memo significantly before interviewing Hillary and
other key witnesses. The exoneration memo underwent
key edits in which Strzok, who interviewed Hillary and those witnesses,
some of whom were granted immunity, was involved. But now, as the layers of
this rotting onion are peeled away, it has become clearer that Comey did not
act on his own initiative. This fish is also rotting from the head.
Back in April, 2016, President Obama gave an interview in which
he seemed
to have foreknowledge that Hillary Clinton would be exonerated for her
“carelessness” and did not “intentionally” mishandle classified emails, words
that Comey would use just a few months later:
President Obama said Sunday that Hillary Clinton showed
“carelessness” by using a private email server, but he also strongly defended
his former secretary of state, saying she did not endanger national security,
while also vowing that an ongoing FBI investigation into the matter will not be
tainted by politics.
In an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Obama seemed to
prejudge the outcome of the ongoing inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal,
and he disputed the notion that any of the emails contained classified
information of true importance.
“She would never intentionally put America in any kind of
jeopardy,” he said. “What I also know is that there’s classified and then
there’s classified. There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and
then there’s stuff that is being presented to the president, the secretary of
state, you may not want going out over the wire.”…
“I continue to believe she has not jeopardized America’s
national security,” the president said. “There’s a carelessness in terms of
managing emails that she has owned and she recognizes. But I also think it is
important to keep this in perspective.”
Carelessness and lack of intent were key parts of Comey’s
shape-shifting memo. And we now see how Obama’s pledge that politics would not
taint the investigation was a bald-faced lie. This confidence in her
exoneration was shared by Mrs. Clinton, who also seemed to have foreknowledge
that the fix was in:
The FBI is investigating the matter, and while Mrs. Clinton
has virtually promised she will not be indicted, the scandal still hangs over
her presidential ambitions and fuels the notion -- widespread, according to
opinion polls -- that she’s not trustworthy.
She maintains that no emails in the account were classified
at the time they were sent or received -- though she was initially much more
emphatic, flatly saying she had never handled classified information. She
reiterated last week that, in her view, the federal investigation ultimately
will clear her.
“That is not going to happen,” she told NBC News when asked
if she would be indicted. “There is not even the remotest chance that it’s
going to happen.”
National Review Contributing Editor Andrew McCarthy has long argued thatObama
was the ringleader in obstructing justice in the Hillary email
investigation:
From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash
of the Hillary Clinton-emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call -- not
the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s… The decision was inevitable.
Obama, using a pseudonymous
email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her
private, non-secure email account.
Why would Obama use a fake email account to communicate with
Hillary Clinton? Granted, classified communications between a President and a
Secretary of State are normal, but not via a fake email account. Were they
discussing the fix that was in during her email investigation? McCarthy
suggests just
such a reason:
If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement
would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton -- Obama
emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be
more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of
intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that
Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.
McCarthy notes that among
the edits to the draft of Comey’s memo was one omitting a reference to
President Obama:
This past weekend, in
a letter to the FBI, regarding the missing texts, Senate Homeland Security
Committee chairman Ron Johnson (R., Wis.) addressed some of these revisions.
According to Senator Johnson, a draft dated June 30, 2016 (i.e., five days
before Comey delivered the final version), contained a passage expressly
referring to a troublesome email exchange between Clinton and Obama. (I note
that the FBI’s report of its eventual interview of Clinton contains a cryptic
reference to a July 1, 2012, email that Clinton sent from Russia to Obama’s
email address. See report, page 2.) The passage in the June 30 draft stated: We
also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both
known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her
personal email extensively while outside the United States, including from the
territory of sophisticated adversaries.That use included an email exchange
with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of
such an adversary. [Emphasis added.] Given that combination of factors, we
assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s
personal email account. On the same day, according to a Strzok–Page text, a
revised draft of Comey’s remarks was circulated by his chief of staff, Jim
Rybicki. It replaced “the President” with “another senior government official.”
So not only were edits made to Comey’s draft memo to hide
Hillary’s guilt but also Obama’s involvement. It is worth noting that Attorney
General Loretta Lynch also used a fake
email account under the name “Elizabeth Carlisle” to conduct official
business:
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch went by the alias
'Elizabeth Carlisle' in email she used to conduct government business.
Lynch's pseudonym was confirmed in a
report by the Daily
Caller, which shows Lynch sometimes preferred to use another
name while doing work, just as her predecessor Eric Holder did. The finding
came after several batches of emails were released last week from conservative
watchdog groups who had requested documents from the Justice Department using
the Freedom of Information Act.
Judicial Watch and the American Center for Law and Justice
sought documents related to former President Bill Clinton's meeting with
then-Attorney General Lynch in an airplane on the runway tarmac in Phoenix. The
meeting was scarcely noticed at first, but eventually created a controversy
over possible conflicts of interest about the ongoing investigation by the FBI
into Hillary Clinton's email server.
Fake emails and surreptitious edits to incriminating documents.
From the Strzok-Page text messages we know that Loretta Lynch knew Hillary
would not be prosecuted. That meeting on the tarmac was to tell Bill Clinton
the fix was in, a fix whose impetus came from the White House and an occupant
concerned with both his legacy being erased by a President Trump but also by
his involvement in covering up Hillary’s crimes.
As some have suggested, this is Watergate on steroids. Not only do
we have one party colluding with government agencies to keep its candidate from
being prosecuted for her crimes and preventing the election of the other
party’s candidate, but we also have a sitting and corrupt President using the
powers of his office to subvert an election and hand-pick his successor.
Lock her up. Lock him up too. Lock them all up.
Daniel John Sobieski is a
freelance writer whose pieces have appeared inInvestor’s Business Daily, Human
Events, Reason Magazine and the ChicagoSun-Times among other
publications.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/obama__leader_of_the_deep_state_coup.html