How the FBI reached decision on Clinton investigation … Clinton forces should have only one hand clapping … So far as we can now tell, the country in this instance has been well served by a leader and an FBI that has been diligent, hard-working and fair … The FBI seems to have gotten this one right. –David Gergen, CNN
David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN and “White House adviser to four presidents,” has written an editorial explaining why the FBI’s decision not to prosecute Hillary was “diligent and fair.”
He also makes the point that Clinton forces should not be enthusiastic about the FBI’s decision because she “could still lose in the court of public opinion.”
Gergen has appeared to us to have a touch of mental illness about him ever since we saw him confronted by Alex Jones in a video about his Bohemian Grove affiliations back in 2006, HERE.
The “illness” manifests itself in an absolute lack of understanding – an almost pathological dissociation – about how to respond to what Jones is asking.
First he attempts to defend the Grove and its loony rituals. Then he accuses Jones of being dishonorable for “trespassing.” Finally he lectures Jones in a furious tone about his journalistic ethics.
It is quite a show.
In this article, Gergen seems calmer. But no more accurate.
Let’s examine his points. He explains, for instance, that Hillary should not look on the lack of indictment as a real victory.
Moments after FBI Director James Comey spoke, social media lit up with bitter accusations from Trump supporters and others that the system was rigged … Indeed, the more one studies the Comey statement, the more scathing it becomes — and the more suggestive that their decision on prosecution was a close call.
Comey meticulously disassembled the narrative that Clinton has been constructing for months. Gergen is most appreciative of Comey’s rigorous truthfulness in this regard.
And Gergen himself, sternly recites the reality of what Clinton did. She lied about almost every facet of her private server and the classified material stored on it.
He also says that Comey is obviously “revolted” by what Clinton did and that the same revulsion will be shared by much of the public.
It was a very close call, Gergen explains.
Gergen is convinced, or claims to be, that had a few more incriminating items turned up, Comey would have acted.
In fact, the “silver lining” of the investigation is that it was pursued “without fear or favor.” Comey “is regarded as a straight shooter by both sides of the aisle.”
Gergen is not alone in his evaluation of the close call that Hillary had. He cites a Washington Post reporter, Jacob Gershman, who has come to the same conclusion.
“What is obvious is that to have a decision turn on such fine differences means that the FBI investigators themselves must have thought this wasn’t an easy case to resolve.”
The Clinton folks walked “right up to the edge of the law.”
Yes, and certainly – if convinced – Comey would have indicted her and handed the Justice Department a live grenade that would have blown up the Attorney General and likely Clinton too.
And then her Foundation.
And the Democratic Party.
And apparently Obama as well.
We doubt it. In fact, having now absorbed much of Gergen’s article, we find it incomprehensible.
There is the same “disconnect” that we noticed during his confrontation with Jones.
Gergen’s points are wrong or exaggerated, but he seems to believe that if he states them, readers will be persuaded. The mere words have such persuasive resonance.
Much of the disconnect actually comes from a lack of frame of reference. He doesn’t bother to tell you that intelligence agencies – and the FBI is a quasi-intelligence agency – were created by banking families several centuries ago.
At first they were informal networks but then, eventually, the costs were laid off on various nations. (That’s the way it always works.)
These intel agencies still apparently work for their initial founders, but they are organized in such a way as to conceal their true affiliations.
This would explain why intel agencies so often seem to be working at cross purposes with the nations they supposedly serve.
This Hillary decision is a good example. Not only did she commit numerous “crimes,” but she also works for the same people that Comey and Obama work for.
Hillary has been tapped to extend Obama’s legacy into the next four-to-eight years, just as Obama extended Bush’s policies.
This is why we believe that Hillary likely will win the presidency. This is why Comey had to make sure she would remain unscathed.
In a week, no one will remember Comey’s “scathing” evaluation of Hillary’s actions. They’ll only remember the obvious: She was acquitted.
Comey will be continually attacked over his decision and his reputation as a “straight shooter” will be undermined.
In any event, Comey is not a straight shooter. He works for an organization that carries out globalist goals under the disguise of being an American police organization.
In fact, the FBI is very obviously anti-American and has been from its probably unconstitutional founding. Hoover’s various pathologies made for great theater but ultimately contributed to a massive undermining of American freedom.
The FBI in fact is a relentlessly totalitarian organization that has as its goal the enforcement of ill-conceived legislation using all sorts of invasive and disgusting tactics: wiretapping, illegal deals with witnesses and even, apparently, the overt manufacturing of terrorist incidents to burnish its image and further terrify the American public.
A final note.
In an article entitled, “FBI Resignations: Where Are They?” Karl Ushanka reminds us that there was much speculation that many FBI agents would resign if Hillary was acquitted.
“Where are the FBI agent resignations?” he asks. “Knowing the difference between right and wrong and the importance of having strong moral principles .. are universal values at the FBI. Integrity also comes into play when you see a wrong.”
Conclusion: Well, we agree with Mr. Ushanka’s general statement but we do believe he has mis-characterized the FBI. We will be surprised if there are many resignations. It is a fairly thuggish organization dedicated to internationalism, corporatism, propaganda and show trials, a facility that has tortured the American people for three-quarters of a century. God-willing, as it continues to stumble in this Internet era and its manipulations become more publicly exposed, its influence will wane and it will begin to fall apart much as the KGB and the STASI finally did.