“Obama admin blocked FBI probe of Clinton Foundation corruption” Washington Times


" … the Obama administration rejected requests from three FBI field offices that wanted to open public corruption cases involving the Clinton Foundation and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton."  Washington Times


It is no wonder that Comey would not comment on this in his testimony before Congress about Servergate.  pl  



This entry was posted in As The Borg Turns, Justice, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to “Obama admin blocked FBI probe of Clinton Foundation corruption” Washington Times

  1. DC says:

    Yet another example of how the political views of public officials can support and even advance public corruption enabled by the Party members. Their Soviet comrades-in-thought would be proud. If there were ever a time when fair-minded public officials were available to serve the nation, we need them now.

  2. Bill Herschel says:

    “In July 2016, the U.S. Air Force stated they would not release the estimated cost for the B-21 contract with Northrop Grumman. The Air Force argued releasing the cost would reveal too much information about the classified project to potential adversaries. The Senate Armed Services Committee also voted to not publicly release the program’s cost, restricting the information to congressional defense committees.[13]”
    Which is worse? Every dollar for the B-21 is a taxpayer dollar, but the taxpayers don’t get to know nothing.
    The Clinton Foundations dollars? Fat cats around the world lining up to buy access and favors. Sounds like free speech to me.
    Oh, and the Clinton Foundations? Peanuts compared to the B-21. Peanuts. The B-21 might be showcased a few times to bomb our numerous adversaries world wide, but if they ever get more than a couple of runs I’d be amazed.
    And Trump! The parrot would not do more for an almond that he for a commodious sucker.

  3. turcopolier says:

    Bill Herschel
    The B-21 matter is irrelevant. The Clintons are not USAF. They must obey the law. You are seeking to justify public corruption with a sophistic political argument. pl

  4. jdledell says:

    To give more background on this issue, the DOJ investigated the Clinton Foundation a year ago as a result of the book “Clinton Cash” and found the accusations unfounded. In response the the current request for an investigation, the DOJ rightly or wrongly determined the request was more political than substantive.
    Was there favoritism? On the surface it appears so but none of us knows the substance of the FBI reasons to investigate. For 20 years Clinton has been investigated more than any woman in the history of the U.S. and so far has escaped relatively unscathed. I suspect Clinton is a very smart lawyer and she takes things right up to the edge of illegal and improper but never steps over the line. In short – she is sleazy smart.

  5. TV says:

    What is sad – and sort of funny – is the myth of the DOJ “career professionals.”
    The DOJ has been a Democrat party adjunct for a long time.
    And the FBI – Famous But Incompetent.

  6. jonst says:

    This kind of thinking, really, is the ultimate Clinton weapon. “we’re not as a bad as that nut/crook”, whatever> True enough Bill, true enough.

  7. different clue says:

    Was the Attorney General at that time still Eric Holder? Or was it Barbara Lynch by then?

  8. morgan says:

    Amen, colonel, amen!

  9. eakens says:

    A family member was once a victim of online fraud, and the perpetrator was continuing to defraud others. I called the local field office and had several interactions via telephone and email with a “special agent”. The individual certainly does not represent the whole of the FBI, but his amazingly high level of incompetence makes me wonder to this day how he achieved the title of FBI agent.

  10. Bill Herschel says:

    Justify is a big word. I prefer emPHAsis. The electorate is the audience at a Dance of the Scumbags. “We came, we saw, he died [giggle].” I don’t think Ted Bundy could do better than that. Neither Clinton nor Trump should be President. It’s just that to use the word you use to describe sorting out jihadists, ultimately, consciously or unconsciously, the electorate is going to perform a personal triage on the flaws of the candidates. I forget the name of the surgeon, but when Connolly and Kennedy came into the Emergency Room he took one look at Kennedy and said, “That man’s dead.” Trump is dead.

  11. turcopolier says:

    bill Herschel
    You are justifying her n what I see as her as yet unindicted crimes. The electorate will judge? Bullshit! The whole Borgist apparat including the media are campaigning against the fool. pl

  12. I’d like to see a good, in-depth journalistic exposé of just one of these pay to play allegations rather than the generalized public corruption allegations. Perhaps the Uranium One shenanigans would be a good place to start.

  13. Bill Herschel says:

    You are saying that Democracy does not exist in the United States. Pretty forcefully too. That goes way, way beyond a demand that Clinton be indicted for her crimes. It’s a different topic.
    The flip side of that is that I could work day and night and fail to justify her crimes. For me, her crimes start with what she did in Ukraine and Syria.

  14. Edward says:

    It isn’t obvious to me that the B-21 corruption is a worse problem. Hillary Clinton is running for president. If she auctions off U.S. policy to foreign governments or corporations then that seems worse to me then the admittedly astronomical sums wasted by the military. Remember the S&L scandal? That was a many billion dollar disaster caused by “contributions” of ONLY several hundred thousand dollars to Rostenkowski (sp?) on the banking committee. If Clinton starts wars because of this corruption that is a worse problem. If she fills the government bureaucracy with political lackeys who can’t do their job and are corrupt then that is the mother of many problems such as the Flint water crisis. Even if the B-21 problem were worse, why do we have to put up with this?

  15. turcopolier says:

    Bill Herschel
    What we now have is “democracy” managed by the Borg. pl

  16. different clue says:

    The Twisted Genius,
    Such an investigation would probably require reading all thirty thousand emails to search for the relevant emails in order to analyse them along with the events they may touch on.
    Since the NSA probably has all those emails, along with everything else they have, one wonders whether Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch should launch a FOIA suit against the NSA to get those emails. And make them available to those parts of the press which still adhere to McClatchy Standards. Or perhaps a “secret snowden” is preparing even now to stealth-release them to Wikileaks. Perhaps a “secret snowden” already has.

  17. Erik von Reis says:

    There’s nothing in the article except a statement from a Trump spokesman. What is the source of this info?

  18. Old Microbiologist says:

    The law on contracting is only valid if applied. Take for example, the government Obamacare website, which was steered to a foreign (Canadian) company at the behest and personal gain to a close friend of Michelle Obama. This is now costing tax payers over $2 billion dollars to establish which is ridiculous for a web site (my wife is a web designer of note so I have some clear idea of this process and actual costs involved). In fact an easy and cheap solution would have been to require insurance companies to add these functions to their own already up and running commercial websites at their own expense (being the actual beneficiaries of Obamacare). That is just one example of these kinds of cronyism derived corruption. Hillary is far worse. Yet, the DoJ which has the responsibility to uphold the law has been circumvented by the current administration to prevent any prosecutions (the list is long and Hillary is just one example). It extends far beyond that though and literally trillions are unaccountable in DoD. I believe it is a morass which is impossible to delve into now. A true Gordian Knot.
    I find it interesting that so much uproar over Trump’s second amendment reference. I think he meant it the way they said as it clearly (especially if you read the Federalist Papers) that the right to bear arms includes the right to overthrow a tyrannical government. If Hillary gets in and all her cronies continue the Obama policies or worse, then we will have in fact a tyrannical government and one which it’s leadership is above the law. I do not hold any illusions though that Trump will change things though. But, I see a death spiral happening to the US and the eventuality of its demise looks closer every day. Should the markets collapse (and now leverages are over 150%) it cannot be recovered without a financial reset making the dollar worthless everywhere. Marx clearly describes this phenomena which is inherent to capitalism and we are way overdue for a reset which typically happens every 30 years or so but hasn’t for a very long time. The strain gets larger as the deficits increase and will break despite everything. The only possible solution is yet another world war which we hear the drum rolls for daily now.

  19. Old Microbiologist says:

    Putin very clearly told Fareed Zakaria in June there is no democracy in America. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBTBBNOtbhM

  20. Balint Somkuti says:

    Or rather an oligarchy.

  21. Dubhaltach says:

    In reply to Bill Herschel 12 August 2016 at 09:30 PM
    “You are saying that Democracy does not exist in the United States. Pretty forcefully too.”
    Weeeeeeeeel let’s start with the fact that it’s a republic with democratic elements.
    Then from there we can move on to the fact that the democratic elements are managed by an oligarchy.
    This “managed democracy” isn’t quite the same thing as the Russian version of managed democracy but I invite you to think long and hard about the fact that your “democracy” is in the same territory as the Russian Federation’s.
    There’s an argument, not one I accept, that only small countries – places like Switzerland, or any of the Nordic Countries, or Ireland, can really be democratic.

  22. LeaNder says:

    Off topic: Basic legal knowledge, should be obligatory knowledge, as far as education is concerned. …
    result of the book “Clinton Cash”
    I am a bit hesitant of this type of “entertainment”. But yes, the extend of communications between State and Clinton Foundation caught my attention too. If it wasn’t a communicative trap, that is. 😉

  23. turcopolier says:

    “a communicative trap” What would that be? pl

  24. LeaNder says:

    Sometimes I vaguely wonder about the difference between “the Borg” and the media-Borg Karl Kraus, the “the master of venomous ridicule” fought at his time.

  25. turcopolier says:

    The Founders and Framers of the Constitutional and over all governmental system of the United States never intended that the US should be an unlimited democracy. They created a republic ruled by oligarchs chosen from among the well to do and/or landed in the belief that these were responsible people with a stake in the public goo and order. All the leftist nonsense today about “to form a more perfect union,” is IMO s deliberate misreading of the intention of the framers. What they meant was that they wanted a more effective form of government than had existed under the Articles of Confederation. The phrase has NOTHING to do with creation of a Rousseau inspired earthly utopia. NOTHING! The country remains a union of the states. This fact is an embarrassment to the utopianistas and they have constantly tried to destroy that fact through propaganda and such devices as the commerce clause of the constitution and the 14th Amendment. pl

  26. turcopolier says:

    It is NOT the case that the best and brightest moved to the coasts. You should get out more. That kind of sentiment is what “the people” are rebelling against. pl

  27. morongobill says:

    Unfortunately the Federalist Papers appear to not be offered on HRC’s

  28. crf says:

    The government may have learned its lesson from the first Snowden. It may be that any set of people investigating Clinton would be well vetted, and also be subject to strict information sharing conditions, such as designating the computers they would be allowed to use to communicate with each other, and carefully limiting access to physical evidence.

  29. Haralambos says:

    Col., with all due respect, I think you mean “good” not “goo,” but the typo works as well. Our federal system does gum up at times, and it is messy at times, but I think the founding fathers and framers (yes, all men, I am aware of that)did a better job than our contemporaries could do.

  30. turcopolier says:

    It was obviously members of the FBI who leaked this story, so precautions are not working and will not work. BTW the story is about the refusal to allow them to investigate at all. pl

  31. turcopolier says:

    Yes. “Good” was intended but I belong to the Mark Twain school with regard to proofreading, i.e., that it is a labor best assigned to small minds. I know that is un-German of me, but alas … pl

  32. Lesly says:

    This is not an outrage contest.

  33. rakesh says:

    FBI federal bureau of incompetence

  34. turcopolier says:

    IMO that is unfair. The FBI, like all Executive Branch institutions is subject to the will of the president. If he tells them not to investigate, they cannot, but they resent it and as a result leaks like this occur. pl

  35. turcopolier says:

    No? Why not? pl

  36. Lesly says:

    Col., I think you’re addressing me. Bill’s comment is misdirection. It’s your blog but on the whole I think whoever we elect to authorize, and profit from, wasteful government spending is more important than the program itself. There is little point in getting charged up about nepotic sinecures if we elect an exceptionalist willing to draw Russia right up to the nuclear line.

  37. turcopolier says:

    Oh, for god’s sake, you think cost overruns in DoD are more important than defense itself? What “nepotic sinecures?” pl

  38. mlaw says:

    Is the Washington Times a “reliable source?”
    The original article says that there already was an investigation and they found nothing, and the latest complaint was deemed “political” i.e. politically motivated I am troubled by the “global Initiative” stuff as well, but having known a few FBI and Justice Department folks, I can tell you that they would in deed indict their Mothers, they are by and large not “liberal” at all, and if there were actual political influence they would burn the place down.
    No political figure, or political appointee is going to order them not to investigate, perhaps not to indict on tortured grounds, but never not to investigate.

  39. turcopolier says:

    “but never not to investigate” Absolute horseshit! They do it all the time. The federal police and intelligence agencies are often told not to write papers on a particular subject or not to file an investigative report because the administration of the day does not want to hear the argument or be forced to act. Have you ever worked for the federal government? There is nothing easier than for the DoJ to let it be known to the FBI that they don’t want something investigated. The FBI has many times tried to pin the tail on the AIPAC donkey and force them to register as an agent of Israel. they are simply told to desist. Conversely they force the FBI or other federal police to investigate things they think are a waste of time. In the intel world the same thing happens. Remember von Rumsfelds OSP that was created for the purpose of ramming falsehoods down the throats of the IC? A reliable source? that is more nonsense. Have I not told you people many times that sources and info must be evaluated separately? Ah, but you ar eprobably a Clinton propagandist. pl

  40. Lesly says:

    No. I don’t.
    The kind of sinecures OM mentions in his response to Bill.
    My first comment was directed at Bill.

  41. HDL says:

    “Have I not told you people many times…”
    There’s an expression that covers situations like this:
    “I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you”

  42. different clue says:

    Which is why it would take a “secret snowden” to jailbreak NSA’s treasure trove of Clinton’s deleted emails and get them to wikileaks or somebody else beyond the reach of pro-Clinton vetting and coverupping.

  43. Fifth Columnist says:

    Trump is the last person any of you should have empathy for regarding media coverage. This is a guy who doesn’t believe in bad press as long as everyone is talking about only him.
    Who’s fault is it that the more people see him on their tvs the more they don’t like him?
    Hillary is unethical and borderline criminal and yet the white grievance voters and racial agitators put all their eggs into the crazy basket.
    No one made Trump say things that are batshit crazy. There is no silent majority of right-thinking people out there who are going to save him from himself. But do go on with Hillary health conspiracies and complaining about the media.

  44. MRW says:

    Every dollar for the B-21 is a taxpayer dollar…
    No, it’s not. Total federal tax revenues for 2015 were $2.8 trillion. The US federal government created $60.8 trillion in new USD.
    You need to familiarize yourself with the US Treasury’s Daily Treasury Statement. It’s the federal government’s checkbook. https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/index.html. Sept 30th is the last day of the fiscal year. Here is 9/30/2015: https://www.fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=15093000.pdf
    Only your state and local taxes pay for goods and services.

  45. Jack says:

    Let’s face it our system has become deeply corrupt. IMO, it has gone so far that we can’t correct it in the short term. As the DoJ, FBI and law enforcement in general as well as the judiciary continue to fall deeper into politicization there is no easy reversal. People will get more cynical as the rule of law falls apart and we devolve fully into a banana republic system where the rich and powerful are above the law, while the law is applied harshly on the “little people”.
    The pay-to-play payola schemes and the revolving door are too lucrative and entrenched in how the elites amass wealth and power. They can’t be reformed until we get to revolution. The elites will do whatever they can to retain their ability to extract maximum benefit and also have the ability to act with impunity.
    The Borg Queen is untouchable now. She can and will act with impunity. Bill will become Mr. 5% as Zardari was when Benazir was the prime minister of Pakistan. We will be a full fledged banana republic and will show them how to take it to the next level. There will be no Chinese wall between the Clinton Foundation and the Borg Queen’s administration. The White House will be open to the biggest bidders who funnel their influence peddling cash through the Foundation.
    What happens when SCOTUS rubber stamps legislation essentially negating the 2nd Amendment? What happens when the Borg Queen escalates in Syria and Ukraine at the behest of the ziocon and Saudi donors? What happens when the “hillbillies” are made examples of at the behest of the SJWs?

  46. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    The Daily Caller had a post up two days ago asserting that USDAs are going ahead with investigations of the Clinton Foundation et al in spite of DoJ/DC trying to turn them off. Been busy on other stuff the last few days and haven’t had time to follow up whether this is a one-off or other sources are on this as well.

  47. jdledell says:

    different clue – My understanding is this hit Lynch’s desk shortly after she was sworn in.

  48. MRW says:

    Well, well, well. Published this past week. From the recently released hacked Clinton emails. Is this kind of intervention in foreign affairs illegal, or just unsavory?
    WikiLeaks’ Email Exposes Billionaire Globalist Soros as Hillary Clinton’s Puppet Master

  49. MRW says:

    I thought democracy was the the rule of majority, and a republic was ruled as a nation of laws.

  50. turcopolier says:

    A republic is not necessarily a democracy. pl

  51. Edward Amame says:

    They’re looking a gift horse in the mouth. You’d think the right wing press would be salivating at the thought of a HRC presidency. There’s been a multi-years multimillion-dollar cottage industry devoted to attacking them.

  52. morgan says:

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for such an investigation–by the MSM? You must be joking.

  53. TV says:

    People get the government they deserve.
    As long as …well…90% are lazy, indifferent and worthless (voting for “free” stuff), the “elite” will enrich themselves.
    The sheeple;a significant number are (somehow) figuring this out and want Trump – anyone – to end it.
    A similarly significant number (academics, public employees, unions) live off the crumbs from the Borg and do it’s bidding.
    They’re not going to change ANYTHING.

  54. TV says:

    A large bag of salt needed.
    US Attorneys are on the front line of the borgist “elite.”

  55. turcopolier says:

    What would you have me do? pl

  56. MRW says:

    That’s what I thought.

  57. morgan says:

    I’m not sure. I agreed with you on your comment to Bill Herschel and I thought the TTG’s wish for an investigation by the media was wishful thinking at best. I think you should carry on as you have been doing in the past. Your views laced with a healthy dose of skepticism and your experience over time has provided you with tools few men possess. I think you use them wisely as well as judiciously. I don’t know what the VMI term for carry on is, but continue to follow it.

  58. turcopolier says:

    I will persist for a while. Cadet argot seems to be ever changing. When I was there sometime before the final cooling of the earth’s crust, the phrase would have been “drive on!” This was somewhat equivalent to FIDO! pl

  59. morgan says:

    Your readers will continue to be well served.

  60. morgan,
    You’re right about the chances of the MSM, either as an abstract notion or an industry, to do such an investigation is nil. But it is never the MSM that does this kind of investigative journalism. It’s one or a few reporters and a supportive editor with the passion to dig and lay it all on the table that do the job. The rest of the MSM just reprints the story. Maybe a historian and a retired detective could do it. I refuse to believe that we are all just complacent sheep willing to take what’s dished out to us or a pack of howler monkeys flinging feces and screaming at the top of our lungs in futile rage.

  61. Edward says:

    I am wondering if the Clinton machine might try the following strategy to escape its email problems; suppose there are a group A of scandals that could probably be successfully prosecuted and a group B that could not. Allow the FBI to investigate group B but prevent them from pursuing group A.

  62. J says:

    Because of both Comey and Lynch, and the very odd non disclosure statements that the FBI agents involved in the investigation of Hillary’s emailgate were required to sign, the FBI has lost all credibility in the eyes of a large swath of the American citizenry.

  63. LeaNder,
    An interesting question. On another thread, I mentioned that I had tried to make some sense of bits of Kraus’s extraordinary First World War drama ‘The Last Days of Mankind’, as a result of knowing slightly a Czech Jewish (ethnically, he was brought up a Roman Catholic) Germanist, J.P. Stern, who referred to him in a notable short book he wrote on Hitler.
    As I said then, when we had Richard Perle on a satellite link from Washington on a programme we were making back in 1986, he reminded me of one of the ‘civilian militarists’ who infest Kraus’s extraordinarily panoply of characters. I felt the same again while reading extracts from the Michael Morrell interview.
    One of Kraus’s concerns, I think it is fair to say, is with how a language gone dead paralyses the faculty of imagination. A paralysis of imagination seems to me a critical feature of the contemporary ‘Borg’.
    It is precisely this aspect which does indeed awaken fears that Hillary and her like could get us into situations which really ran out of control, as happened in 1914.
    How far the mentalities are similar and different, and how far what Kraus said about the worlds of 1914 might illuminate those of today, seems to me a matter worth thinking about.

  64. morgan says:

    I hope you are right, but I personally wouldn’t wager on it happening anytime soon. By the way, I’m a person that looks at life from the perspective of the glass is half empty–in short a pessimist.

  65. John Minnerath says:

    If our Republic survives this assault on its principles and rule of law it’ll be a miracle.

  66. different clue says:

    Thanks. I remember reading on Naked Capitalism about how Lynch used her goverpost prior to being Attorney General to abort and prevent the prosecution of one or more Very Big Banks for Very Big Crimes. She helped one or more of these banks get off with a “cost-of-doing-bussiness” fine. And of course Holder did the same thing when he was AG.
    So Lynch was made AG on the basis of the good work she did and the more good work she was expected to do in coverupping for OverClass Corruption at the very highest levels. So when as AG she decided not to prosecute or even investigate-further activities of the Clinton Foundation, she was doing the coverupping she was installed into the AG position to do on behalf of the OverClass Axis of FIRE sector- DC FedRegime corruption.
    And yes . . . the Clintons are master shysters . . . skilled in bending the law till it cracks without quite breaking. They are much smarter than Nixon ever was in that regard. I wonder if Hillary studied all the details of the Nixon Coverup when she worked for the relevant Watergate Committees . . . so that if she ever needed to do a Clinton Coverup herself someday, she would know how to do it right.

  67. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Here’s the link to the Thursday, 2016-08-11 story on which the WT story is based:

  68. Swami Bhut Jolokia says:

    How unfortunate there’s no substance in the Washington Times articles. All they’ve done is repeat allegations made by one side in a political contest. A side that is not known for its honesty in such matters.

  69. LeaNder says:

    Can you tell me more about the Perle exchange and context? 1986? was that for BBC?
    Michael Morrell did not register on my synapses. Recent interview posted somewhere around here? The Charly Rose interview at the bottom.
    I have read Stern’s book by the way. … Although a German translation, maybe the original wasn’t as easily available?

  70. LeaNder says:

    sorry Pat. Invented on the fly. I do keep wondering about items/details that for one reason or another leave imprints on my mind, without any type of further knowledge about the larger context. That’s what I meant.

Comments are closed.