Breaking Hillary email scandal: open rebellion at the FBI

by Jon Rappoport

8:03PM ET, October 29, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

Sources: NBC News, Gateway Pundit

NBC is claiming it took the FBI until today to obtain a warrant to search the thousands of emails in the Weiner sexting case, in order to see whether they also impacted the Hillary scandal. The Dept. of Justice and Obama are fuming over FBI Director Comey’s announcement that he is reopening the Hillary case.

As I indicated yesterday, Comey has been feeling big-time pressure from his own agents. Some had sent him letters of resignation, others flat-out refused to talk to him—all because he’d let Hillary off the hook the first time around. There was open rebellion at the Bureau.

That is no small thing. When the highest law-enforcement agency in the country is riddled with conflict, when work-a-day agents are suddenly siding with the Truth, against their own boss, the whole show is threatening to fall apart. If it did, who knows what else would fall out of the hopper? The FBI is famous for slanted investigations, cooked evidence, grossly incompetent lab work, and secret infiltration of groups protesting against the government.

If a few current agents dared violate their non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, and suddenly went public about the first phony Hillary investigation (and who knows what else), the Bureau would blow up. And along with it, the Dept. of Justice would be nakedly exposed as well.

One disclosure leads to another. A few defecting agents lead to more defecting agents.

These possibilities, as much as anything else, pushed Director Comey over the edge, and he grabbed the opportunity the Weiner case afforded, and reopened the Hillary case.

Re the Hillary campaign, the Dept. of Justice, and Obama, the FBI has gone rogue. Its honest agents have staged their own kind of coup.

Stay tuned…

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

FBI reopens Hillary email probe: why did it take so long?

by Jon Rappoport

October 29, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)

File this one under: “Come on. Really?”

The elephant in the room: HOW LONG HAS THE FBI KNOWN that new Hillary emails require reopening the probe in her handling of classified materials?

On or about September 23—over a month ago—the FBI announced it was looking into the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, which involved a 15-year-old girl.

Suddenly, now, FBI Director James Comey states that, as part of this investigation, his people have found emails from and to Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, Hillary’s closest aide—and these emails appear to be pertinent to the Hillary email case.

Therefore, Comey says, the FBI is reopening that case.

Really?

It took a month to discover that some emails in the Weiner scandal MIGHT BE relevant to Hillary’s use of a private email server, and her criminally negligent exchange of classified material?

Comey says he can’t predict how long it will take to find out whether the new investigation will turn up anything useful.

This sounds very much like another FBI effort to stonewall the public and let the election move ahead as planned.

Imagine what would have happened had Comey announced, three weeks ago, that he was reopening the Hillary case. A huge shadow and cloud would have been thrown over her campaign.

Obviously, Comey is under major pressure from his own FBI investigators, who were outraged when he refused to recommend prosecuting Hillary the first time. He couldn’t get away with sweeping this new finding of Hillary emails under the rug, the second time.

Thus, Comey had to reopen the investigation—but he could delay it. He could make the announcement so close to the election that no grievous indictment against Hillary would be filed before November 8th.

The last thing his boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, will do is question the timing (delay) of his announcement.

Comey appears to be trying to satisfy the relevant parties—his own investigators and Hillary and her campaign bosses.

Again, the Weiner investigation began a month ago. It took that long to come across the Huma Abedin emails and see they MIGHT have some relevance to the original Hillary investigation?

A month ago, a few hundred FBI investigators could have told Comey, “Guess what? Anthony Weiner is married to Hillary’s closest aide. Let’s gear up and look for Huma emails right now…” This was no mystery. A green FBI agent, in his first week on the job, could have seen it.

Then, with an automated tech search, Huma’s name would have come up in minutes.

With a combination of further automated searches and FBI desk jockeys on the case, key contents of Huma emails would have been unearthed quickly. And then—stop everything. Shift gears and get back into the Hillary investigation.

A month ago, in a day or two, that’s exactly what would have happened.

Under the posturing Comey, the FBI is throwing more and more dirt on its own face.

Scandals on top of scandals on top of scandals.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

Inside the FBI: agents’ outrage at Hillary email decision

by Jon Rappoport

July 13, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

—You’re an FBI agent. You sit and watch television night after night, as a Presidential candidate who should have been brought up on felony charges, and thereby disqualified and scuttled, moves through the land and makes promises about what she’ll do as the next leader of the nation. You sit and watch, deepening your grasp on how the system actually works—

How much blood is boiling among FBI agents?

Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS News investigative reporter, has the story:

“Many people at the FBI are outraged, but cannot speak out,” one insider told me,” Attkisson writes.

We’re talking about FBI Director James Comey’s recommendation that Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted in her email scandal. This, after thousands of hours of FBI work scouring the emails connected to Hillary’s illegal private server.

Here are several other comments FBI professionals made, off the record, to Attkisson, with my remarks in parentheses ():

“It appears to me they made a deal not to record [the key FBI-Hillary] interview.”

(This failure, as I wrote, means the interview is lost forever. No stenographic transcript was executed, either. FBI agents’ notes on the interview are useless. They can never be used against Hillary as ironclad evidence in a court of law.)

“Director Comey seems to have taken on responsibilities far beyond the FBI’s purview—he assumed the duties of the Agent, US Attorney and Grand Jury.”

(Indeed he did. He functioned as FBI Director, Grand Jury, Attorney General, and appellate judge. In this last role, he knowingly misinterpreted the Federal Penal Code, which clearly states that gross negligence in the handling of classified material is a crime, regardless of intent. Hillary was, at the very least, grossly negligent. FBI Director Comey acknowledged this.)

“It appears no Grand Jury was empaneled for this investigation. This is absurd, Grand Juries are used in nearly all criminal investigations.”

“Even in the most straightforward of cases, the time span between a target interview [of Hillary] and prosecution opinion [on whether to file charges] takes weeks, not days. If a good interview were conducted [with Clinton] on Saturday, there would have been leads or other new pieces of information to verify or investigate prior to any conclusion to the case.”

(In other words, the fix was already in.)

Attkisson: “During his Congressional testimony, Comey indicated he didn’t look into Clinton’s false statements. He said he needed an additional ‘referral’ or formal request [from Congress] for the FBI to investigate whether she committed perjury under oath to Congress. ‘This makes no sense,’ said a career agent. ‘It is normal practice that if you came upon evidence of a crime different than the one you were originally investigating, it was fair game.’”

(There is no need to wait for a request to investigate from Congress.)

You can bet many people at the FBI are boiling over after Director Comey’s recommendation that Hillary not be charged and prosecuted.

Level of Bureau morale now? Too low to measure.

How would you feel, if you’d spent months uncovering multiple breaches of the law, all of which your boss admitted were quite real—and then he turned around and said the suspect—a Presidential candidate—was innocent?

It’s your job to prove serious violations occurred, and you did, in a case that would have been the highlight of your career, to say nothing of supporting a little item called justice; but then your work was flushed down the drain.

The next time a case even vaguely approaching the magnitude of this one is tossed in your lap, how much commitment are you going to be able to marshal? You’ll know your facts and findings could well be deemed irrelevant, because the person at the top of your food chain is doing politics, not law. He’s essentially working for players who aren’t in your agency. He’s breaking the law, but you can’t touch him.

Your paycheck feeds your family and pays the rent. You want to do the right thing, but you’re trapped. You joined up for honor, but that ideal is off the table.

Your colleagues at work, who feel their own outrage, advise you to keep your mouth shut and move straight ahead, if you want to hold on to your job and grab a promotion somewhere out in the future. That’s what they’re doing.

So you’re living in a culture of corruption.

How does that sit with you?

You’re not naïve. For years you’ve known government is riddled with corruption and lies. But this time, it hits you. Personally. You’re paying the price. You did something honest and important, and suddenly it was transformed into nothing, and you have to pretend all is well.

You’re an FBI agent. You sit and watch television night after night, as a Presidential candidate who should have been brought up on a felony charge, and thereby disqualified and scuttled, moves through the land and makes promises about what she’ll do as the next leader of the nation. You sit and watch, deepening your personal knowledge of how the system actually works.

You’re a federal agent, and once upon a time you thought you had signed on to work for the good of the Republic.

You’re learning, when the chips are down, you’re actually laboring for an extended crime family.

How does that sit? How does it feel?

Are you going to decide you were an idiot for believing in a ideal above and beyond gross personal advantage?

Are you now going to go over to the dark side, and look for ways to grease the wheels of your career?

Or are you, against long odds, somehow going to find a way to stick to your derided principles?

As you sit and watch the news of this Presidential campaign, night after night, that’s the question you ponder, trying to see a way through the darkness.

Where is the dawn?

Of course, you and a few of your colleagues, who were intimately involved in the Clinton investigation, could decide to go public. On the record. You could find a media outlet somewhere that would listen to you. You could turn over your notes of the Hillary interview, and you could swear on a stack of bibles that those notes are an accurate reflection of the proceeding. You could explain your other findings. Perhaps, in all her emails, you found criminal connections between Hillary’s State Department and the infamous Clinton Foundation. You could tell the whole truth. You could take that giant step. You could cause a national uproar. You could make your own federal case.

This, too, is going through your mind as you sit in the darkness.

Looking for a way out.

People have told you that, in life, some choices are hard.

But you didn’t really believe these choices would be yours.

Now they are.

You’re sitting in the dark, you’re flying solo.

Looking for that way out.

“I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

At the end of your academy training, at your graduation ceremony, you took that oath, and as at every graduation, by long-standing tradition, the oath was personally administered by, of all people…

The Director of the FBI.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

One more clue that the fix is in

by Jon Rappoport

July 11, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

It’s unthinkable—but not surprising—that the FBI didn’t record their interview with Hillary Clinton.

We’re told the FBI has a policy, in most cases, of not recording interviews with suspects. If true, this case and this suspect should have been vital exceptions.

Among other matters, the Presidency of the United States is at stake.

Numerous press reports reveal that the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton was not recorded.

The interview took place just prior to FBI Director Comey recommending no prosecution for Hillary in the email scandal.

The New York Times: “Mr. Comey said he did not take part in the interview of Mrs. Clinton last Saturday. Five or six agents carried it out and provided a summary to him. She was not under oath, but he quickly noted that ‘it’s still a crime to lie to the F.B.I.’ There was no transcript.”

There was no transcript of the Hillary-FBI interview.

There was no recording.

FBI agents merely took notes.

These notes are typically boiled down and summarized later in 302 Forms. Of course, we don’t know what was contained in the notes or the 302s. And we’ll never know, because the FBI will never release them.

FBI Director Comey wasn’t even there during the Hillary interview; he simply read the 302 Forms. Then he made his decision not to recommend prosecution.

It’s impossible that the 302 forms provided Comey with a detailed analysis of all the complex questions and answers required in this investigation.

In other words, the FBI Director, in making his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary, was flying blind. It was his choice—he decided to fly blind. And he decided not to be present at the interview. He wanted to maintain personal distance and deniability.

But it gets worse. In any possible follow-up investigation of this email scandal, Hillary Clinton’s own words, from her interview, will be gone. Gone forever.

Therefore, she would be able to challenge every note taken by every FBI interviewer and every Form 302 by saying, “That was a misinterpretation of what I said.” As we know, the Clintons are experts in wheedling and parsing and evading—otherwise known as lying.

Everything I’ve written so far in this article was well understood by the FBI Director, his investigators, and interviewers—before the interview with Hillary ever took place. None of it was a mystery.

Therefore, there was conscious FBI intent to eradicate/omit the interview. It was no accident, no slip-up.

There was intent to demolish the entire interview by failing to record it or make a stenographic transcript.

That intent to destroy evidence—and then destroying it by omitting it, should be a crime, a felony.

Testifying in front of Congress the day after he recommended no-prosecution, Director Comey was adamant in insisting the FBI investigation was carried out in-house, and there was no collusion with any other person or department outside the Bureau. Even if that’s true, Comey is blowing smoke, because under his supervision, the most crucial moments of the investigation—the Hillary interview—were left to blow away in the wind.

Any lies Hillary told, any obfuscations, any evasions, any refusals to answer—gone forever.

She was the target of the investigation, the suspect. Of all the people FBI agents interviewed, she would be the one whose exact words should be preserved. And they weren’t.

The FBI’s purpose in omitting the whole interview is clear: Hillary Clinton had to escape prosecution. She had to be protected from incriminating herself.

In Comey’s testimony before Congress, he admitted there were at least four lies Hillary told at some point in the investigation. Taken together, as anyone can see, they constitute a prosecutable crime:

* When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.

* When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.

* When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.

* When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.

In the FBI interview, did Hillary admit to any of these lies?

Did she try to squirm out of them, and in the process obviously reveal her guilt?

Did she bluntly refuse to answer questions about those lies?

Did she bluster and bloviate, in an effort to hide those lies?

Were the FBI interviewers overly polite? Did they grant her absurdly wide latitude and permit her to mouth vague generalities? Did they fail to press her for precise answers? Did they treat her with fawning respect and deference? Did they rig the whole interview to let her off the hook?

We’ll never know—courtesy of the FBI. On purpose.

If Comey had insisted the Hillary interview would be recorded, then, if Hillary had refused to sit down and submit to questioning, Comey could have used the refusal to announce it was a tacit admission of guilt on her part. He could have done what any honest law-enforcement officer would do. But he avoided that whole prospect, and therefore he was actually the person making a tacit admission:

His job was to exonerate Hillary and free her to continue her run for the Presidency.

That’s what he did.

It’s worth remembering that Hillary’s husband Bill was impeached, in part, because he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. In that instance, his false statements were on the record.

But not this time. Not with this Clinton.

This time, there was no record, no oath, no independent prosecutor, and the FBI and the Department of Justice were on her side, backing her up.

Hillary hit the sweet spot.

Unabated, her pursuit of her dream job now moves on.

Her dream, the country’s nightmare.

A gift from the FBI.

Silently condoned from above, by the number-one law-enforcement official in the land, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

And from the work-a-day Congress and mainstream reporters, we get nothing. No serious attempt to go after Comey on the failure to make a record of her FBI interview. No attempt to show what that failure really implies.

We only get the silence of the lambs.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.