Connect with us

Politics

But There’s No Evidence of a Political Motive

We beg to differ.

Published

on

The unequal treatment at the FBI can he seen in how a Clinton witness got immunity while those associated with Trump get charges.

According to the IG report, there was no political motive that affected the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Do you remember the Clinton witness, Paul Combetta?

Trending: General Flynn Gives Major Endorsement to QAnon Slogan

take our poll - story continues below

Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?

  • Is the Biden Administration Destroying Our Constitution?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Combetta wasn’t charged with anything to convince him to testify. Rather, he was given immunity. How did that work out?

Paul Manafort was actually put in prison yesterday? General Michael Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI under dodgy circumstances. No one was offered immunity.

But the IG reports says there’s no evidence of a political motive!

Andy McCarthy writes in the National Review, “The IG’s Report May Be Half-Baked.”

The IG is going to tell you that while immunity might not have been the best choice, it was a defensible choice — it enabled the FBI to get his testimony faster (i.e., to lie to them in a more timely fashion on the artificially compressed deadline they’d established for closing the case without charges). What is Horowitz not going to consider? That a hundred times out of a hundred, in cases not involving Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy, most normally aggressive federal prosecutors, including Trump-Russia prosecutor Robert Mueller, would have charged Combetta and squeezed him to roll over on his confederates.

Instead, Horowitz says it was a rational decision, so we’re done with that one. Whoa, whoa, wait a second. Was it an appropriate decision? Was it made because they were in a rush to close the case so that Clinton (their preferred candidate) could run against Trump (whom they were determined to “stop”) without the cloud of an investigation hanging over her?

The IG won’t answer that question — not without a canyon’s worth of wiggle room. Utterly biased people may have made manifestly flawed decisions, he tells us, but as long as they were not blatantly irrational decisions, we’re going to call them justifiable and move on. But were the decisions politicized? If a biased person makes a less than optimal decision, isn’t there an itty-bitty possibility that the bias clouded his judgment?

In essence, the IG answers, “Who really knows?” . . . except he says it in a way that enables the FBI to pretend he has found no evidence of bias at all. Observe this gem, from the report’s executive summary:

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative decisions.”

Directly affected? What does that mean? Do the FBI and Obama Justice Department have to stamp the “I’m with Her” logo on Combetta’s immunity agreement before we can say bias directly affected the decision? Could bias have indirectly affected the decision?

Who really knows, right?

Read the full story.

 

 

Politics

Hundreds of Woke Corporations Sign Letter Opposing Election Reform Laws

Hundreds of anti-American, woke corporations have signed onto a letter opposing the election reform laws

Published

on

Hundreds of anti-American, woke corporations have signed onto a letter opposing the election reform laws being crafted and passed in red states. Big companies including Amazon, BlackRock, Google, and Warren Buffett claim to be standing against “discriminatory legislation” that makes it “harder for people to vote.” This, of course, is a flat out lie pushed by extreme leftists. Not one red state is looking to make it harder for anyone to vote. According to the New York Times, “It was the biggest show of solidarity so far by the business community as companies around the country try to navigate the partisan uproar over Republican efforts to enact new election rules.” The Times added: The statement was organized in recent days by Kenneth Chenault, a former chief executive of American Express, and Kenneth Frazier, the chief executive of Merck. A copy appeared on Wednesday in advertisements in The New York Times and The Washington Post. Last month, with only a few big companies voicing opposition to a restrictive new voting law in Georgia, Mr. Chenault and Mr. Frazier led a group of Black executives in calling on companies to get more involved in opposing similar legislation around the country. This is just another example of these anti-American, left-wing corporations working to make an end-run around the U.S. Constitution to force a hardcore, leftist philosophy onto this country. https://twitter.com/dgelles/status/1382293992705028100 Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Politics

POLL: Most Americans Still Believe Democrats and Biden Cheated in 2020 Election

A new poll finds that the majority of Americans still think that Joe Biden did not legally win the 2020 election

Published

on

2020 election

A new poll finds that the majority of Americans still think that Joe Biden did not legally win the 2020 election despite the crack down by Big Tech and the drumbeat from the left-wing media trying to force Americans into believing that Biden won. A new Rasmussen poll finds that most Americans still believe that fraud played a big part in Joe Biden’s “win” last year. Per Rasmussen: Most voters say it’s more important to prevent cheating in elections than to make it easier to vote and, by more than a two-to-one margin, they reject claims that voter ID laws are discriminatory. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that just 29% of Likely U.S. Voters say laws requiring photo identification at the polls discriminate against some voters. Sixty-two percent (62%) say voter ID laws don’t discriminate. The pill adds: “A majority (51%) of voters believe it is likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, including 35% who say it’s Very Likely cheating affected the election.” And… Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe it is likely last year’s presidential election was affected by cheating, a view shared by 30% of Democrats and 51% of voters not affiliated with either major party. The poll was taken of 1,000 respondents on April 11 and 12. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week