Is it Unprecedented to Have News Prior to an Election?
The news or most of the news is talking about the “bombshell” laid out by FBI director James Comey on Friday. They are calling what he did “unprecedented” to drop this 11 days before an election. It’s not unprecedented.
In 1992 George H. W. Bush was running for re-election. He was coming off a recession and the economy was recovering. But there was also the ongoing Iran Contra scandal that had been going on since the Reagan presidency.
On June 16 of 92, fourteen people were brought under indictment by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. One of those was Caspar Weinberger, the former Secretary of Defense. Two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice.
Leading up to election day, Bush was closing the gap between he and Clinton. Ross Perot was also running in that race as an independent but had started to slide when he said that terrorists had threatened his daughters wedding, but he was still a factor in the race.
Four days before the election, Lawrence Walsh brought another indictment of Weinberger. Bush then lost the election. On December 11, 1992 a judge threw out the indictment of Weinberger because it violated the Statute of Limitations and improperly broadened the original charges. Naturally, the Clintons were thrilled and used it to get elected. Comey’s announcement is not unprecedented.
Is it Interfering with the Election or Would it be by not Saying?
The news is now saying that Comey, recently loved by the news and liberals, is doing this without knowing what’s in the E-mails. Hillary got lucky back in July. Comey, for all intents and purposes, exonerated her. It’s even more confusing when you listen to the 15 minute report he gave in his announcement on July 5. He listed all that they had investigated and found and everyone, including his own FBI agents that worked on it, were expecting him to say that he was referring it to the Justice Department for charges. But he didn’t. Despite even saying in his long list that “any reasonable person should have known E-mail doesn’t belong on a personal server”, he said he was recommending no charges.
The FBI, apparently in it’s investigation of former Representative Anthony Weiner, seems to have discovered some E-mails from Clinton’s private server. Apparently, once they discovered the E-mails, they stopped their search and asked for a warrant so they could investigate these previously unknown E-mails. This put Director Comey in a quandary. Does he report it to the committees that were questioning him recently? Does he stay silent and just get his warrants? For some reason, they are not allowed to look at those E-mails without proper warrants.
By announcing that they are reopening the investigation, the charge from the liberals is that he’s affecting the election. But what about the other direction? If he doesn’t announce the investigation, is that not also affecting the election for the other side?
Hillary wants transparency, but she hid her server for a long time. It was only discovered during the Benghazi investigation. That doesn’t sound like transparency.
She deleted 33,000 E-mails days after receiving a subpoena to submit all of the E-mails. That’s not transparent. In fact, it sounds like Obstruction.
Her husband met privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch days before the FBI interview of Hillary Clinton. Camera’s were not allowed to be carried by those in the know. Cell phones with cameras were not allowed. This was a hidden meeting. That’s not transparent.
Now Hillary is calling for Comey to release the E-mails so that the American people can see them before the election. She, of course, doesn’t want them released. She also knows that the FBI can’t release them and hasn’t even looked at them yet. They’ve only seen enough to know that they should re-open the investigation. If Hillary wants them released, she can release them. It seems apparent that while she deleted them from her server, someone had kept them on a personal E-mail account away from the server.
Comey calling for the investigation to be re-opened can have an effect on the election against Hillary. On the other hand, not calling for the investigation to be re-opened because of the election gives Hillary the advantage in the election leaving the people in the dark when they vote.
Clinton’s husband benefitted from a Special Prosecutors indictment in 1992. Apparently, Karma may have her affected detrimentally during the election of 2016.
It’s never a good thing to say one thing and do another. There are so many ironies to this story.
1. Hillary deleted E-mail, but at least one of her people apparently kept it outside of Hillary’s personal server.
2. In the 1990’s the Clinton’s improperly and possibly illegally has 900 FBI files in their possession and now the FBI is re-opening a case they had previously closed.
3. This appears to have come about because of a sex scandal and again, during the 1990’s the Clinton presidency was inundated with sex scandals. Costing Bill $850,000 and his law license. This seems to be about Anthony Weiners sexual deviancy, who is married to Huma Abedin, who is Hillary’s closest advisor and it was the Clintons that played matchmaker getting Abedin and Weiner together ending in a marriage that is now collapsing.
With the Clintons, the best closing line seems to be “Tune in Tomorrow for the continuing saga of Clinton’s sex, lies and E-mails.” What a soap opera. Maybe it could be titled “The Clinton’s. Jail or Impeachment?”
You’re welcome to comment.