Conservatives’ List of Grievances Against the 2016 GOP Establishment

/0 Comments/in , /by

It’s time once again to celebrate our nation’s birth with a reminder to read the Declaration of Independence.

If you spend any amount of time searching for great deals on summer items at the much-hyped Fourth of July sales, you have the time to put yourself back in time when, after decades of abuse, the American colonies proclaimed that they would govern themselves, drawing from the consent of the governed.

The document itself is not that long, but it can be tedious document for some to read, what with all the arcane language. It should be noted, however, that if you tried to read any of the bills Congress has foisted upon us in modern times, the Declaration is at least self-explanatory and instructive.

Some of the great things about reading the Declaration is that every word has such definable meaning, each sentence is carefully constructed, and the manner in which the Founders communicate independence is backed up by a long list of “Facts” to be “submitted to a candid world.”

I’m told the legal term for this list is a “bill of particulars,” in which perhaps a prosecutor would lay out a case against someone charged with a crime or crimes, but that’s neither here nor there as long as you know when you read the list, it backs up the case for independence.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people …”

You don’t have to read long into the Declaration for your mind to worry about what we’ve become. Are we “one people?” Shall we dissolve “political bands?” Do we believe in “unalienable Rights?” Has government become so far off and detached from the people that it can’t possibly “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?”

Isn’t what the Left is doing when they act on anything a direct repudiation of everything in that document? Yes, I believe so, and it has Americans hopping mad.

Yet, when you read the list of grievances, you come to realize just how bad it was for the colonies in 1776. The Brits allied with murderous natives who wiped out entire families. At the time of the signing, the colonists and the British had been in open war for over a year, Bunker Hill had been fought, and some great men had died. British soldiers were on the streets and demanded property from the colonists, women were raped, and the King was taking away any rights of the colonists to have representation in Parliament. The colonists were far, far beyond any reason anymore. They had to either fight for independence, or be slaves to a distant government who abused them and had no respect for human life.

The enemy of the American Patriot is the American Left. They fight for the murder of the innocent, they offer tolerance to the enemy, they destroy every possible pursuit of happiness, they conjure crisis after crisis to reconcile takings of liberty, they relax law and order so street thugs can destroy whole cities, and they take the future away from our children by spending and use their positions in education to destroy their ability to reason.

So, who really stands with the American Patriot? It certainly isn’t the Democratic Party. And while conservatives get thrashed over trashing Republicans, the truth is right now, the Republican Party is held in contempt by the American Patriot because they were put in charge to oppose the Democrats and they instead, went along with them. Republicans have spent numerous recent elections saying, “Hey, at least we aren’t as bad as the Democrats!” And because of that, we have a presumptive nominee who is actually a Democrat.

But with zero intention of making light of the powerful rebuke that the Declaration of Independence was of government tyranny back in 1776, there may be a festering bill of particulars against the leadership of the Republican Party, and how their actions have quite possibly ensured decades of Leftist rule in America.

They have fused their power with their friends across the aisle for their own personal ambition.

They have squandered gains in the House brought to them by the people, and openly mocked their base.

They have pretended at opposition to the fundamental transformation of America, implementing each and every insult to the detriment of the people.

They have given lip service to the United States Constitution, refusing to restore the balance of power among the branches.

They have made solidarity with the Chamber of Commerce whose mission is to create a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

They have silenced conservatives within the party, going so far as to defeat them in general elections by standing by Democrats.

They have increased the debt exponentially upon the president’s orders.

They deal with swarms of lobbyists to fuse government and business, destroying the American entrepreneur.

They have surrendered the treaty power.

They have surrendered the power of the purse.

They have openly described their tactics as show-votes for the praise of their constituents.

They have refused to fight the nationalization of healthcare, and have embraced it.

They refuse to fight for the Right to Life and by doing so, insured the Democratic upper hand on the issue, insuring more death of innocent lives.

They have acquiesced to the president’s illegitimate amnesty decree, thwarting the rule of law.

They have repeatedly tried, void of the consent of the governed, to impose amnesty and give up security on our borders.

They have guilted the base into giving them more power, yet continued to work against the powers of the constitution.

They have made a charade of the election process, promising to stay in line with conservative America to get elected, then abandoning all pretense of servitude once elected.

They have lost all principle to the overwhelming attraction of raw power, and have a delusional belief in their own lies.

They will not hold the president and his overreaching administration accountable and rebuke those who will.

They have redefined the meaning of the word, “compromise” to mean “surrender.”

They have high praise for Democrat lawmakers and scorn for conservative challengers.

They accept the language of the Left and embrace the demolition of the Second Amendment.

They have made a mockery of Congress by refusing to gather sufficient political capital for impeachment.

They have dragged their feet on the Benghazi investigation, and when finally called on a special committee, have allowed the administration to circle the wagons.

They have given decreased our military at a time when warring nations see us as weak.

They rail against conservatives who reach an audience unafraid to take part in their own civics, because information has become their greatest enemy.

They have saved their most vitriolic and vengeful political rhetoric for conservative challengers, and would never dream of treating the Democrats that way.

They have offered up our daughters to fight the enemy in case of draft.

I’m sure many could add to this list, and expand on the fact that GOP leadership will pay zero attention to the reasons why the party is in its death throes. What will become of the organization is anyone’s guess, but the way it is set up right now is playing into the hands of the enemies of America, and it has to stop.

We, therefore, the base of the crumbling Republican Party, the true defenders of the great United States of America, its lifeblood and its soul, solemnly publish and declare that a complete destruction of the Republican Party by the foolishness of their own actions culminating in the nomination of a Democrat, is fully the fault of the leadership, and is what they have strived for ever since the American public woke up to the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. (For more from the author of “Conservatives’ List of Grievances Against the 2016 GOP Establishment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Clinton Bodyguard Exposes New Scandals That Could Alter Election

/0 Comments/in , /by

Former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne feels it’s his “patriotic duty” to inform the public on the risks of voting for another Clinton administration.

In his new tell-all book Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate, he details multiple incidents during Bill Clinton’s time as president that are particularly troubling.

The book goes into length about numerous scandals that took place and how even members of the White House staff were expected to “look the other way” when it came to questionable behavior.

Byrne details one such incident that happened on Christmas. A steward caught President Clinton making out in the Map Room with a blonde TV reporter. That reporter turned out to be Eleanor Mondale, daughter of former Vice President Walter Mondale. Everyone was expected to sweep the incident under the rug and pretend it never happened.

Byrne has nothing nice to say about Hillary Clinton, either, referring to her personality as “volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else.” She allegedly threw a Bible at a secret service agent, resorted to screaming fits when she didn’t get her way, and expected staff to meet her every whim.

“I always avoided eye contact when she was on the warpath,” Byrne said. “She would explode in my face without reservation or decorum.” He noted that many agents went crazy from the stress and restored to alcohol, drugs and prostitutes.

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has used the book as a useful tool to elevate his campaign. But it’s been reported that Clinton has tried to get TV news networks to avoid giving Byrne any airtime. Unfortunately for her, the book has been rising on the Amazon bestseller list.

Byrne has some simple advice for those who are voting in November. “We all remember — or should remember — what a Clinton White House was like,” he said. “If we board that time-machine for a return trip — it’s our fault.” (For more from the author of “Former Clinton Bodyguard Exposes New Scandals That Could Alter Election” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

As Congress Returns, Democrats and Republicans Clash Over Gun Control

/0 Comments/in , /by

House Republican leaders are planning to hold a vote this week on legislation intended to bar some suspected terrorism suspects from buying guns.

The bill, whose language is backed by the National Rifle Association, is part of an “anti-terrorism” legislative package the House is considering in response to the terrorist attack June 12 at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

While Republicans have been reluctant to pursue any legislation that can be construed as gun control, backers of this proposal insist it achieves the delicate balance of preventing those suspected of having terrorist ties from buying weapons—while preserving their right to due process.

“I have not met a single member of Congress who is in favor of terrorists being able to buy guns or explosives,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y., one of the sponsors of the gun measure.

“Unfortunately, Democrats have tried to make it out to be an issue where just one political party is in favor of terrorists not being able to purchase guns or explosives, and that’s absurd,” Zeldin told The Daily Signal in a phone interview on Friday.

“This isn’t a debate over whether terrorists should be able to purchase guns or explosives,” he added. “This a debate over whether there should be due process for Americans.”

After the Orlando massacre, House Democrats staged a sit-in of more than 24 hours demanding action on gun control.

Still, based on early reaction, it appears Democrats won’t support the Republican-backed proposal because of concerns that the “probable cause” standard required by the bill is too difficult to achieve.

Senate Democrats have already blocked the same legislation.

“Republicans are again putting the NRA ahead of their responsibility to keep the American people safe,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said of the Republican proposal in a statement.

One gun-rights group, Gun Owners of America, described the GOP’s move as a “cave-in.”

The Republican measure, which is based on the language of Zeldin’s Protect America Act, would permit the Department of Justice to deny a gun purchase to someone who is being investigated as a known or suspected terrorist, or has been investigated in the last five years.

Law enforcement, however, would have to obtain a court order to prevent a terrorist suspect from buying a gun, and the government would have three business days to prove it has enough evidence of terrorist activity to block the sale.

If the government does successfully prove the suspect “will commit an act of terrorism,” the sale is blocked. If it doesn’t, the government has to pay the legal costs of the suspect, and the sale can go through.

The suspect is also granted an automatic right to a hearing, and to an attorney.

Democrats believe the three-day window is too short to prove probable cause, arguing the legislation will have little functional impact.

Zeldin counters that the government should have to face a high standard of proof considering the government’s terrorist watch lists are controversial. Individuals do not have to be charged with a crime to be placed on the lists, and many don’t know they are on them.

“The Department of Justice already knows who these individuals are and already has evidence collected, so the burden should be on the government to demonstrate probable cause that an individual is a terrorist instead of making an American demonstrate that they’re not a terrorist,” Zeldin said. “That’s the way it has always been in our country and the way it should be.”

Democrats prefer a bill first introduced in the Senate that would bar guns from being sold to suspected terrorists who are on the FBI’s “no-fly” and “selectee” lists.

The House has its own companion version of that bipartisan bill. Under those bills, someone on the no-fly and selectee lists who is blocked from buying a gun can appeal that decision. A court has 14 days to decide on the appeal.

The NRA opposes those bills.

Democrats are framing Republican leadership’s decision to bypass a vote on that bill in favor of Zeldin’s legislation as the GOP bowing to the NRA. Zeldin tried to downplay the NRA’s support of his proposal.

“This isn’t the NRA bill,” Zeldin said. “Members of Congress wrote this bill, not the NRA. I don’t think members should make their determination as to whether or not to vote for or against the bill based on any outside groups support or opposition. It should simply be based on the merit of the proposal and the reality it keeps us safe.” (For more from the author of “As Congress Returns, Democrats and Republicans Clash Over Gun Control” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FBI Flagged This Congressman as a Terrorist. Here’s Why He Opposes a New Gun Ban.

/0 Comments/in , /by

Waiting on a routine flight from Sacramento back to Santa Barbara, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., discovered he was a terrorist. Or at least that’s what the FBI thought.

McClintock was clearly more of a frequent flyer than radical extremist. But a classic case of mistaken identity, not ties to terrorism, landed him on the FBI’s no-fly list.

A well-known state senator at the time, McClintock was left stranded at the Sacramento International Airport about 10 years ago. He couldn’t fly home under his own name.

Pointing to gaffes like the one that grounded McClintock a decade ago, Republicans now warn of serious constitutional consequences that could occur if Democrats ban suspects on the no-fly list from purchasing guns.

“If your fundamental constitutional rights can be withdrawn at a bureaucrat’s whim” without due process, McClintock argues, “then the Bill of Rights means nothing.”

Democrats in Congress disagree.

After an Islamist-inspired gunman murdered 49 people at a nightclub in Orlando, Democrats launched an effort to close what they characterize as “the terrorist loophole.” They want to block suspected terrorists on the no-fly list from buying guns—legal purchases that President Barack Obama describes as “insane.”

“Congress has become complicit in these murders by its total, unconscionable, deafening silence,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said after a filibuster topping 14 hours. “This doesn’t have to happen, but this epidemic will continue without end if Congress continues to sit on its hands.”

Branding their legislation as the “no fly, no buy” bill, Democrats have already held multiple press conferences, filibustered the Senate, and hijacked the House floor. That effort has quickly raised questions about the little understood no-fly list, which is not public information.

After 9/11, the FBI became responsible for monitoring the Terrorist Screening Database, commonly known as the terrorist watch list. The anti-terror database includes records of individuals known or reasonably suspected to have engaged in terrorism.

It splits into two subsets with different travel implications at the airport, the selectee list and the no-fly list. After undergoing additional security, a selectee still may travel within the U.S. An individual on the no-fly list, however, cannot board a plane.

The government keeps the size of the list secret and won’t say who’s on it, arguing that increased transparency would be counterproductive to counterterrorism.

“Disclosure of an individual’s inclusion or non-inclusion in the Terrorist Screening Database or on the no-fly list,” a spokesman for the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center told The Daily Signal, “would significantly impair the government’s ability to investigate and counteract terrorism, and protect transportation security.”

That secrecy left McClintock flightless. But when he tried to find out more, the conservative recalls, “that’s when the experience got really weird.”

He describes his exchange with officials as something surreal out of a Kafka novel:

McClintock: “Why am I on the list?”

Official: “We can’t tell you.”

McClintock: “Well what criteria did you use?”

Official: “That is classified.”

McClintock: “How can I get off that list?”

Official: “You can’t.”

Eventually he managed to remove his name from the list but only after the California Senate spent months working with federal officials to clear his name.

The government had confused him, McClintock later learned, with a known terrorist in the Irish Republican Army.

McClintock has never visited Ireland, though. And, the California conservative adds with a laugh, he is “not now and never have been” associated with any insurgent Irish independence movement.

But he’s not the only lawmaker who has been marked as a potential terrorist.

Then-Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., was famously flagged by the no-fly list in 2004 while trying to travel from Washington back to Boston. It took weeks, The Washington Post reported, for officials to fix the error.

For anyone who lacks the connections enjoyed by members of Congress, getting off the no-fly list can be even harder. That requires starting a redress process with the Department of Homeland Security to petition the FBI to reexamine its records.

But that can take years, warns Hina Shamsi, director of the National Security Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It can be very hard for people who lack resources and knowledge of the system to even begin to know how to challenge it when it is so unfair,” she told The Daily Signal.

The ACLU argues that the FBI’s no-fly list violates constitutional due process safeguards because the government does not provide individuals the reasons for their placement on the list, the basis for the decision, or an appeal in a court of law.

While the group supports “reasonable gun regulation,” Shamsi explained, the ACLU opposes tying gun control to “an unfair, error-prone, and discriminatory watch list system.”

That’s made the traditionally liberal ACLU an unexpected ally of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Republicans last week defeated a measure, in both the House Appropriations Committee and on the Senate floor, that would have prohibited the sale of guns to suspected terrorists. GOP lawmakers insist that Congress should focus efforts on equipping law enforcement to fight terrorism instead.

“People have due process rights in this country,” Ryan scolded Democrats afterward, “we can’t have some government official just arbitrarily put them on a list.”

Before the House went into recess for the Fourth of July break, Ryan warned that he would block any vote on legislation that he believes strips away constitutional rights without due process.

Still, Democrats are promising to renew their push for the “no fly, no buy” legislation when Congress returns July 5. (For more from the author of “FBI Flagged This Congressman as a Terrorist. Here’s Why He Opposes a New Gun Ban.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Cruz: Scrubbing Documents Threatens Homeland Security

/0 Comments/in , /by

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was on the attack Thursday as he took Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to task for laundering intelligence and counterterrosim documents to ensure words such as “Jihad,” “Muslim,” and “Islam” never appear.

Johnson tried to argue with Cruz and denied there was an effort to “purge” the Obama administration’s documents of the words Cruz cited. He lectured Cruz that saying ISIS was connected to Islam works to the advantage of the terrorist group.

“You’re entitled to give speeches other times,” Cruz said. “My question was if you were aware that the information has been scrubbed.”

Cruz also refused to quietly tolerate Johnson’s contention that the scrubbing of documents to avoid words such as “radical Islam” was, as Johson said, a “semantic difference.”

“When you erase references to radical jihad, it impacts the behavior of law enforcement and national security to respond to red flags and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur,” Cruz said.

The two then locked horns over the Fort Hood shooting of 2009, in which 13 people were killed and more than 30 wounded. .

Cruz asked Johnson if it had been a “mistake” not to respond to the “red flags” about shooter Nidal Hasan,

“In one minute, I couldn’t begin to answer your question,” Johnson said.

“Pick anything,” Cruz replied. “Pick one thing, sir.”

“You’re assuming that the federal government in advance of the attack on Fort Hood saw all these different red flags. That’s not correct,” Johnson said.

“Is it true or false that the Obama administration knew before the attack that Nidal Hasan was communicating with Anwar al-Awlaki?” Cruz asked.

“How are you defining the ‘Obama administration,’ sir?” Johnson said.

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Cruz responded.

“The entire Federal Bureau of Investigation? I can’t answer that question sitting here,” Johnson answered.

“The answer is ‘yes’ and it’s public record, sir,” Cruz said, ending the discussion.

“Johnson can deny it all he wants, but it seems pretty clear the Obama administration has bent over backwards to ensure the Muslim community is spared any hurt feelings by their refusal to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism as the main threat facing our nation right now,” wrote Michael Cantrell on Allen B. West.

“The fact that official documents would be scrubbed of such references due to our culture’s obsession with political correctness is a sad commentary on the times we inhabit,” he added. “Until we as a nation are ready to admit radical Islam is a true threat to our national security, the proper measures will not be taken to dismantle terror groups who want to wipe out our way of life.” (For more from the author of “Cruz: Scrubbing Documents Threatens Homeland Security” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Judge Pirro on Why Hillary Won’t Be Indicted for Her Emails

/0 Comments/in , /by

Judge Jeanine Pirro reacted this morning to the news that Attorney General Loretta Lynch will defer to non-political subordinates on whether to bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server.

The expected announcement comes after Lynch met privately with former president Bill Clinton, widely seen as a potential conflict of interest in the case.

The New York Times reported that Lynch was planning this course of action for months.

Pirro said that Clinton is not going to be indicted in the email case because of the series of events that the charges would trigger.

“The reason she will not be indicted is because her first witness as a defendant in a criminal case is the President of the United States. Why? Because Hillary Clinton emailed President Barack Obama. He knew she had a private email server. So he is complicit. And they will not allow a constitutional crisis where the President of the United States knew about the risking of security of the United States,” said Pirro. (Read more from “Judge Pirro on Why Hillary Won’t Be Indicted for Her Emails” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DOJ Walks Back Lynch Comment That She’ll Follow Prosecutor Lead in Hillary Email Probe

/0 Comments/in , /by

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch made news late this week when said she would accept the recommendations of the FBI and career prosecutors concerning whether Hillary Clinton’s email practices broke federal law. But a Department of Justice (DOJ) spokesperson has now walked that statement back, suggesting Lynch could overturn any recommendations.

“They all expect to receive and accept the recommendations,” Melanie Newman told Yahoo News when asked about the roles Assistant Attorney General for National Security John Carlin and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates might play in any DOJ decisions about former Secretary of State Clinton. But Newman also said the recommendations will not dictate that process. “It is unlikely there will be such a circumstance” where career prosecutors are overruled. “But, obviously, that possibility exists,” Newman said, adding, “The AG is the ultimate decider.”

Lynch has been under bipartisan criticism for meeting privately with former President Bill Clinton for 30 minutes on her airplane. Bill Clinton’s wife has been under FBI investigation for months related to whether she violated federal law as Secretary of State, yet Lynch says she and Clinton made small talk about their grandchildren and other matters of little consequence.

On Friday, Lynch admitted she made an error. “I certainly wouldn’t do it again because I think it has cast a shadow over how this case will be perceived,” The Daily Caller reported her saying.

Lynch said she would rely on career prosecutors for what course should be taken. “Then, as is the common process, they present it to me and I fully expect to accept their recommendations,” she said.

Lynch also said that while she would not recuse herself from the Clinton findings — “A recusal would mean I wouldn’t even be briefed on what the findings were,” she explained — she does not “have a role in those findings or coming up with those findings … I will be briefed on it and I will be accepting their recommendations.”

Newman’s comments, however, indicate Lynch could override recommendations from career prosecutors. Whether she will — and what role if any President Obama may have in the decision-making process — is the question of the hour. (For more from the author of “DOJ Walks Back Lynch Comment That She’ll Follow Prosecutor Lead in Hillary Email Probe” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Could Facebook and YouTube’s New Anti-Terror Software Censor Conservatives?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Bad news, extremists. Facebook and YouTube have announced that they are updating their software to automatically remove content deemed to be “extreme,” by which we can only assume they mean videos associated with terrorist groups or other violent individuals. The goal is to make the spread of hate and violence more difficult via these popular internet channels, which is undoubtedly a laudable goal. Yet I can’t help wondering whether this policy is wise, even in the unlikely event that it will be successful.

Until now, these sites have relied on users reporting objectionable content, in order to ensure that inappropriate content is not allowed to remain publicly available. Apparently, not enough users were outraged about ISIS-related content to complain. At least, that would be the implication. And while’ it’s easy to see efficiency advances in automating this process, it also raises some new questions.

The biggest one for me is, how do these algorithms decide what counts as “extremist” and what doesn’t? By removing the element of human judgment from the equation, it’s hard to see how a piece of software can know enough to distinguish a video that should be taken down from one that is making a satirical or political point. Machines are notoriously bad at detecting sarcasm and irony, for example.

Of course, the specifics of the algorithms to be used are being kept a closely-guarded secret, for the simple reason that extremist groups who know what they’re looking for can disguise their videos to avoid the filter. That’s a reasonable explanation, but it doesn’t answer the concerns about pulling down perfectly legitimate content by mistake. And even if the program is perfect and does only identify what its masters consider “extremist,” what’s to stop them from using that power to designate conservative, tea party or libertarian organizations as among those too hot for TV?

We know that Facebook has a bad history with political bias. We also know that the FBI considers anti-government sentiment to be extremist, by which measure I must certainly be on a list somewhere. To what extent is this policy change going to protect people, and to what extent will it be used to suppress unpopular but legitimate opinions? That’s my worry.

Now of course, Facebook and YouTube are both private companies, meaning they have the right to remove any content they don’t like, for any reason whatsoever. It’s their site and they get to choose what goes on it. Fair enough. But The Hill describes these companies as responding to “pressure from President Obama and European leaders.” What sort of pressure are they reacting to, I wonder. When government gets involved, there is usually a pretty strong distinction between a company policy freely chosen for benefit of the users and shareholders, and one chosen because of threats, whether explicit or implied, of government retaliation.

The internet has always been a haven of free speech, where anything goes and nothing is over the line. This is a double edged sword. In order to allow meaningful political dissent, you also have to allow hateful, indefensible things said by potentially violent people. I think the benefits of such a system outweigh the drawbacks by rather a large margin. But if the web’s most powerful companies start engaging in automatic, unthinking censorship of speech they find offensive, we may be in danger of losing the greatest forum for free thinking and new ideas in the history of mankind. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. (For more from the author of “Could Facebook and YouTube’s New Anti-Terror Software Censor Conservatives?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Witness in Email Probe Seen Leaving Clinton’s House on Day She Met With FBI

/0 Comments/in , /by

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s former chief of staff during the time Clinton was Secretary of State was spotted leaving Clinton’s residence on the same day Clinton was interviewed by the FBI about her email scandal.

Cheryl Mills, who has been called as a witness in the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server, was seen on video leaving Clinton’s home at about 10 a.m. No explanation was given for why a witness in the investigation would be meeting with Clinton.

Earlier this week, former President Bill Clinton held a private meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch — a meeting that has been criticized as giving the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Clinton was interviewed by the FBI for over three hours Saturday. A statement noted the interview was voluntary, which meant she was not subpoenaed, but gave no details of what Clinton said.

In speaking to NBC later, Clinton said: “I’ve been eager to do it, and I was pleased to have the opportunity to assist the department in bringing its review to a conclusion.”

It is a crime to “knowingly” mishandle classified information other than through secure government channels or to permit the practice by “gross negligence.”

On Saturday, Clinton repeated what she has said in the past.

“I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified,” she told MSNBC.

Clinton’s interview with the FBI sparked reactions, coming as it did only three weeks before her expected nomination at the Democratic National Convention.

Trump followed that with a bit of rumor not confirmed by media accounts Saturday night.

The Republican National Committee said Clinton “has just taken the unprecedented step of becoming the first major party presidential candidate to be interviewed by the FBI as part of a criminal investigation surrounding her reckless conduct.”

The Clinton interview was hailed as a sign the FBI is near the end of its investigation. Writing for the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza noted that from here on in, the “when” matters almost as much as the “what.”

” .. if there is an indictment or even a harsh scolding in which the Justice Department implies Clinton knowingly and purposely skirted the law, the timing of all of this starts to matter. A lot,” he wrote Saturday.

“The closer the announcement comes to the start of the Democratic convention, the harder it is for Clinton to control. Clinton’s goal throughout this investigation has been to insist that she is totally innocent in this, that the entire email ‘controversy’ is a Republican witch hunt enabled by the media,” Cillizza wrote.

“If, suddenly, the Justice Department of a Democratic administration shattered that story with just days left before the convention, the negative momentum it would cause might make it tough for Clinton to recover. There would be doubts bordering on panic about ‘What It All Means for Clinton’ going into the fall campaign, and she would have very little time to turn the story back in her favor,” he added. (For more from the author of “Witness in Email Probe Seen Leaving Clinton’s House on Day She Met With FBI” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Source: Hillary Clinton to Be Interviewed by FBI TODAY

/0 Comments/in , /by

While most Americans will be enjoying barbecue and fireworks this 4th of July weekend, Hillary Clinton will be fielding questions from the FBI.

Clinton is scheduled to meet Saturday with agents investigating her use of an private email server while secretary of state, The Daily Caller is reporting. Their source believes the interview will take place at Clinton’s Washington, D.C., home, and was scheduled for the holiday weekend to attract minimal attention. The presumptive Democratic nominee has no campaign activities scheduled for Saturday.

Interviewing the former secretary of state is believed to be the final step in the probe into whether Clinton mishandled classified information. “This is most likely the last piece because you don’t interview the principle subject until you have everything,” a former top ranking FBI official told The New York Post.

Some of Clinton’s closest aides, including confidante and deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin, have already sat down with the Feds, while the technology professional who helped set up the private server, Bryan Pagliano, has testified under an immunity agreement. CNN has reported Pagliano also turned over documents and other materials.

News that the FBI will be interviewing Hillary comes hours after U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that she will accept the recommendation of “career prosecutors and the FBI director” when determining whether to prosecute Clinton. While some have suggested a criminal indictment is unlikely, putting Clinton’s fate in the hands of FBI director James Comey could spell trouble for the scandal-plagued candidate. Twenty years ago, as Time magazine profiled in March, Comey was part of the Whitewater investigation team looking into her and her then-President husband:

In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

Clinton was not indicted back then. But once again, Comey is investigating mishandled documents, blocked investigators, patterns of concealment and the destruction of documents on the part of Hillary. And this time the call whether to push for prosecution is his.

Both Hillary’s pending interview and Lynch’s statement that she’ll stick with the FBI recommendation presented regarding Hillary, time curiously with the still-growing uproar over Lynch’s mysterious recent meeting Monday with Bill Clinton. Lynch herself admitted Friday it was not something she would do again. But even as the Attorney General sought to put out the fire over the chat, further details sent the flames wider.

Christopher Sign, an anchor for the Phoenix station that broke the story, said Thursday night that FBI officials didn’t want any record of the supposedly social visit. He set the scene for Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, “She arrives, some people step off of her plane, the former president steps into her plane. They then speak for 30 minutes privately, the FBI there on the tarmac instructing everybody around, ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones.’”

Meanwhile, Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge reported Friday that FBI agents involved in the Clinton investigation are “livid” over the meeting. The agents are not just angry over the optics. They say that because the Bureau is concurrently investigating corruption allegations against the Clinton Foundation, that Bill Clinton himself is a potential witness.

As Loretta Lynch said today, the tarmac conversation “casts a shadow” over the FBI investigation. (For more from the author of “Source: Hillary Clinton to Be Interviewed by FBI Saturday” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.