I’ve you’ve been searching in the Wall Street Journal for the most significant story pertaining to American politics in months, if not years, you would not have found it. Not on the first page, not on the back page, not anywhere. While the headline ‘Trump Attorneys Lay Out Arguments Against Obstruction-of-Justice Probe to Mueller’ was picked for front-page status, a far more consequential, trust-rattling story was apparently deemed not newsworthy.
America’s leading newspaper for conservatives chose not to report yesterday’s revelation that former FBI Director James Comey chose to exonerate Hillary Clinton before the FBI investigation had concluded. Comey did not even wait for the FBI to speak to Hillary Clinton, her many aides with knowledge of the email server’s setup and maintenance, or several other witnesses critical to the outcome of an honest investigation.
Yet, as the revelations uncovered by testimony given to the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed, the ‘investigation’ into Hillary Clinton was not an investigation at all. It was a charade, an obligatory undertaking by the FBI, an institution whose leader clearly had no intent of uncovering the truth. His intent, as his inexplicably premature conclusion that Clinton was innocent of all charges proves, was to clear her name and provide immunity to potentially damaging witnesses before their testimony could be used against her.
Before outlining Comey’s potential motives for such a blatant cover-up, excerpts from a letter sent to current FBI Director Christopher Wray by Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsay Graham help provide more context to Comey’s willful negligence. Graham and Grassley begin their letter to FBI Director Wray with a summary of their primary concern:
‘According to the unredacted portions of the transcript, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership.’ (Townhall)
The issue is clear-cut, but Graham and Grassley added a sentence that emphasizes just how egregious Comey’s decision was:
‘The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.’
Because, after all, it is the job of the FBI to gather facts then make determinations about guilt or innocence. What other possible consideration, if not the facts, could be weighed when determining whether Secretary Clinton broke the law by using her private email server to transmit classified information on a routine basis?
However, when the conclusion to an investigation is predetermined by the head of the FBI, the facts are, quite simply, irrelevant. It is only the determination of the compromised FBI director, and the reasons which he has for arriving at such a predetermination, that remain relevant.
In their letter, Graham and Grassley provide excerpts from an interview with Jim Rybicki, Director Comey’s Chief of Staff during the period in which he was residing over, and clearly solely guiding, the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s conduct as Secretary of State. So, while a Google search of ‘Comey Hillary exoneration’ yields predictably dishonest headlines such as ‘Trump Again Lashes Out at Comey’s Handling of Clinton Investigation,' know that claims of ‘exoneration’ were provided by none other than Comey’s own Chief of Staff.
Rybicki explained Comey’s justification for his ‘forward-leaning’ decision to draft an exoneration statement in April or May, despite Hillary Clinton being ultimately interviewed in July. Somehow, Comey seemed to know where the ‘investigation is headed’:
Rybicki: “to say, you know, again knowing sort of where – knowing the direction the investigation is headed, right, what would be the most forward-leaning thing we could do…”
To most FBI Directors, the most ‘forward-leaning’ thing to do would be to conduct the interviews as quickly and thoroughly as possible. Comey, apparently preoccupied with the need to update the public, compromised the investigation itself as a result, concluding before fact-gathering that Hillary Clinton would be let off the hook by the FBI. And, Rybicki confirms that Comey sent around a memo admitting as much.
For good measure, the senators continued to nail down the picture of Comey as a man who, despite posing as an investigator, exposed himself as an invaluable asset to the Clinton camp, and in turn whatever chances Hillary still had at becoming President.
Q: “I guess, based on what you’re saying, it sounds like there was an idea of where the outcome of the investigation was going to go?”
Surely Comey and Clinton supporters will say some form of ‘all he is saying is that they had enough evidence to know that Clinton would be determined not to be guilty.’
But that hits precisely on the point: based on who the FBI had interviewed in May/early April, or more precisely who they had not spoken to– including Clinton, the subject of the investigation– there is no way that Comey could have reached such a determination honestly. It is, quite clearly, a breach of his duties as FBI Director to reach a conclusion in lieu of facts yet-to-be-gathered, and to share that conclusion with colleagues was outright idiotic and self-sabotaging.
And yet, Comey has the gall to maintain time and again that Russia was the party involved in election meddling. It would seem that defying honest and transparent practices, not to mention the basic tenets of FBI investigative protocol, in order to shield a candidate from potential legal consequences amidst an ongoing election would qualify as meddling in the democratic process, no?
Comey’s predetermined decision to exonerate Clinton certainly had more influence on public perception of Clinton’s wrongdoing than any Russian ‘influence’ campaign did. Which begs the question: why was Comey so willing to stick his neck out for Hillary Clinton, completely betraying the responsibilities of the FBI Director? Why was he willing, in the wake of his firing, to speak so openly against Trump, repeatedly calling into question his sanity and motivations?
Many have pointed to a London-based bank, HSBC, as the center of the ties between Comey and Clinton, and as an explanation for long-suspected and now-confirmed favorable treatment towards Clinton by the former FBI Director. According to the Clinton Foundation website, funding from HSBC to Clinton Foundation affiliates and the CF itself is routine. The Guardian reported in 2015 that the Clinton Foundation had received $81 million from clients of HSBC.
The trouble with HSBC is that it is not your local, FDIC-insured Wachovia or Bank of America. It has established a reputation that is inextricably linked with corruption, and cartels.
HSBC has been the target of investigations into potential large-scale money laundering, an activity which many have accused the Clinton Foundation of engaging in as well. HSBC is under investigation currently, but it is far from the bank’s first brush with the law. Apparently, money laundering is a practice which HSBC has found difficult to give up:
In 2012, ‘British banking giant HSBC agreed to pay a record $1.92 billion settlement…after a broad investigation by U.S. federal and state authorities found the bank violated federal laws by laundering money from Mexican drug trafficking and processing banned transactions on behalf of Iran, Libya, Sudan and Burma’. (USA Today)
HSBC: Official Bank of the Sinaloa Cartel, Middle Eastern Unidentifiables, and The Clinton Foundation. It has quite a ring to it.
As far as banks go, HSBC is as dirty as it gets, which should make ties to the Clinton Foundation unsurprising to those who know what the ‘foundation’ is truly all about. But where, you may be asking, does James Comey come into the picture?
Look no further than HSBC’s own website, which proudly published a release in 2013 stating that none other than James Brien Comey, Jr., former U.S. Deputy Attorney General, would be joining its board:
While the announcement states that Comey would be paid the equivalent of approximately $162,000 dollars annually by HSBC over the 10-year contract, the bank is not exactly known for honesty when it comes to its accounting practices. Surely Comey received a sweeter deal than the official record states.
Because, after all, why would a former Deputy Attorney General, who would only two months later be appointed as Director of the FBI, sully his name and create a conflict of interest by receiving a fairly modest salary from a bank which has admitted laundering money for the cartels, and god knows who else?
Why, of all banks, would Comey lend his ‘expertise’ to HSBC?
For that matter, what ‘expertise’ could a lawyer provide to HSBC? While tips on how to evade the legal parameters which presumably govern money laundering practices would seem the obvious reason, it would also seem that the utility of a man who would become Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation less than two months after being appointed to the HSBC board spans further than mere legal advice.
How, in light of his affiliations with an admitted money-laundering financial institution, was Comey even confirmed as FBI Director in the first place? His decision to associate himself with the bank was proof positive of poor judgment, at best. At worst, it is a conflict of interest with massive domestic and global implications.
And, in light of evidence that Comey chose to derail the investigation into likely criminal behavior by Clinton– the woman whose ‘foundation’ has received countless millions from the HSBC bank, the board of which Comey sits on– it is impossible not to see the dots connecting. Obviously, the minutia of specific tit-for-tat, more obvious motives, and direct evidence remain to be found.
But if you do not take seriously these basic connections, at this point you are being willfully ignorant:
HSBC is a bank which has admitted to accepting countless deposits and withdrawals by cartels, nefarious foreign agents, and others. They paid nearly $2 billion for these crimes in 2012, and are once again under investigation.
The Clinton Foundation has received at least $81 million from HSBC clients, and routinely cites HSBC as a player in funding for the Clinton Foundation and its associates, on its own website.
James Comey was appointed to the HSBC board, paid a salary– and likely much more than that salary– less than 2 months before being appointed FBI Director by the Obama administration, for which Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
Now, evidence has emerged that Comey was never going to fully investigate Clinton, and that she was virtually guaranteed to get away with her crimes, which were committed under the eyes– kept wide shut– of James Comey himself.
It all makes far too much sense to ignore, and these dishonest, democracy-subverting connections are playing out in front of our eyes.
When it comes to the lack of reporting on the latest revelation about Comey, especially in the case of the Wall Street Journal, one has to wonder how far the HSBC reach goes. The massive financial institution was able to pay nearly $2 billion, no sweat shed, in 2012. As a bank proven to accept illegal funds, the massive amounts of dirty money it holds in its reserves is unfathomable.
It is a huge story, and it is a story with profound implications for America and the world’s stability and future. A sitting Director of the most powerful investigative body on the planet is also on the board of one of the most corrupt banks known to man.
And yet, it seemingly goes unreported by even the most right-leaning of mainstream outlets. The great irony of Comey’s extremely favorable treatment of Clinton coming to light is the reality that the investigation was meant to reveal whether the President, not James Comey, had obstructed an investigation into his dealings with Russians.
Yet, once again, it is revealed that Democrats’ allegations levied against Trump are true, but not of Trump. They are true of the Democrats, who– led by Hillary Clinton– have been found to engage routinely in corruption which is beyond the pale of what Americans consider ‘corrupt.' And, the shady dealings have permeated the head of the FBI, who at this point appears nothing more than a shill for HSBC, Hillary Clinton, and the Democratic Party.
Which begs the greater question: Just who can we trust?