Former FBI General Counsel: Hillary wasn't indicted because we thought she would win the election

Just as many normal Americans thought, the corrupt FBI didn't indict Hillary because of politics.

James Baker said had Hillary won the presidency in 2016, the FBI would have been then forced to carry out a conviction before she was even sworn into office.

“She wins the election, we go to DOJ, and we recommend that they indict her before she becomes president,” Baker said, describing how events would have unfolded should they have decided to proceed with charging her. “That’s not a good place for the country. That’s not a good place for the FBI.”

https://trendingpolitics.com/ex-top..._medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_5134705

Leftists have infested our federal government to the point where politics, not the rule of law, determines their actions.

I truly hope Normal America wins out and indictments eventually come for these corrupt FBI goons and other corrupt Obama administration leftists...

 

History

Founded in 2019, Trending Politics is a hyper-partisan conservative news and opinion website. They fully disclose their bias on the about page as follows: “We provide conservative commentary on the news stories of the day. Studies have shown that 90%+ of the stories about President Trump is negative, so we like to bring the other side of the story to you. With that being said, we aren’t shy to admit we’re biased. The majority of our articles will have a good amount of Pro-Trump opinion weaved into it.”

Enough said. Thread fail.

 

The FBI does not indict. The FBI does not convict. The FBI investigates.
The justice department asks for an indictment and proceeds with the trial; the conviction comes from either a jury or a judge. Neither the Justice Department under President Bush or under President Trump has proceeded with any legal actions against Hillary Clinton. If she has committed crimes why haven't they proceeded?

 

Fair enough. I agree this site is quite partisan, much like the New York Times, Washington Post, Breitbart, CNN or Fox.

On the other hand, doesn't it worry you, just a bit, that one has to visit a rightwing partisan site to actually see the words spoken by the former FBI general counsel? Liberals/progressives/socialists, most of whom live in an echo chamber, will never know a former FBI official noted how the FBI made a political decision instead of following the rule of law.

Do you dispute what Baker actually said, or are you simply going to dismiss it because of its source?

While I despise the leftist New York Times, I still read them to gather information, regardless of how partisan they may be. But then again, that's why many of us on the right are so much better informed than most leftists...

 

Thanks for the correction, you are obviously right. While nobody would expect a Lynch-led DOJ to ever indict a fellow Democrat, the FBI took the extraordinary steps to publicly report on their investigation of Hillary, with James Comey stating her actions didn't lead to an indictable offense. Now we know why the FBI felt that way.

And I think you meant Trump and Obama? Bush is old news.

I'm still puzzled why the Trump DOJ hasn't pursued Hillary or the corrupt FBI agents for their actions before and after the 2016 election. But maybe it will still come...

 

On what criteria are you judging NYT or WaPo? They have been around a long time, and they clearly label opinion pieces as opinion.

The real question is, why does it even matter today? Right wingers keep deflecting to the past. Seriously, I've never seen any presidential administration beat up on the past as much as this one.

 

They clearly slant to the left when it comes to their news reporting. And from their twitter accounts, it is apparent that the majority of 'journalists' who report for those news organizations are clearly partisan in their opinions.

Why does it matter today? Because we are just now hearing from the former FBI official. When leftists comment that the FBI practiced diligence and displayed integrity during the Hillary email investigation - today or 10 years from now - it is essential that those of us who are better read point out that this wasn't the case.

If not for a partisan rightwing news source, liberals/progressives/socialists would never know Baker made these statements. Doesn't it bother you that the partisan mainstream media ignores this? Sadly, most on the left will never know as their reading or experiences never allow them to venture from their echo chamber.

Also, the statute of limitations has not run out yet; technically, Hillary could still be charged federally with her careless handling of classified materials. And many of us believe if the federal government still believed in the rule of law, she would face charges...

 

Let's first begin with the fact this is not a "new" story, which is why you do not see it on the headlines of the major medias'. Of course, if you only read right wing news sites, you would think Baker gave this interview within that past few weeks, but no, this was at least well over a year ago. Sadly, those on the right never really care about those details so long as it conforms to their programmed biases.

From another right wing blogger/journalist:

Stunningly, Ratcliff asks Baker if he still believes Clinton’s mishandling of the classified information is appalling.

Baker answers with one powerful word “yes.”

But what made Baker change his mind by July, 2017. In another back and forth questioning with Ratcliff, Baker states that Comey, along with others, eventually convinced him that they couldn’t prove Clinton’s intentions in mishandling the classified information.

“I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them. And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks and eventually became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt — we, the government, could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she had the intent necessary to violate (the law)…. source​

The Right Wing acts as if she was emailing government secrets to our enemies. She was not, but the hatred Cons have against Hillary prevents them from being able to see any other conclusions, and of course, Trump plays on this to his advantage.

 

I see you found this on SaraCarter.com, which leftists have labeled yet another rightwing website. I don't regularly visit her site, but thanks for pointing out the information was dated.

I obviously need to increase my visits to even more right wing websites if I wish to stay informed, apparently.

And Hillary obviously wasn't emailing classified information to our enemies; she simply allowed them to access it from her desire to conceal her emails from freedom of information requests.

You are aware that this sloppiness and caviler approach to protecting classified material is still considered a serious felony? Many people, including military personnel, have been sent to prison for actions far less egregious acts than Hillary committed.

Does it disturb you, just a tiny bit, that the FBI - according to the former general counsel - allowed political considerations to shade their actions?

 

Read the following:

But their emails: Seven members of Trump’s team have used unofficial communication tools

March 21, 2019 at 11:49 a.m. PDT

President Trump’s objections to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of state were never terribly convincing. He didn’t always seem to understand what she had done, and made claims about how she had deleted emails or wiped her server that suggested, at least, a lack of familiarity with technical details. At times, he claimed that Clinton, his Democratic presidential challenger in 2016, had tried to shield unethical activity by using a personal account. At others, he specifically criticized her for having shared classified material through her personal account.

Generally, though, Trump seemed to understand that nearly any sentence that included “Hillary’s emails” or “Hillary’s illegal server” had the same positive effect on his supporters as any other. It became a shorthand for all of the corruption he and his base saw in his rival’s candidacy.

If Trump’s broad criticism was true, that the use of a private account to conduct official business is suspect — if not illegal — and represents an effort to mask illicit activity, then we have bad news for him: An awful lot of that same suspect activity is taking place in his administration.

On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and daughter Ivanka Trump, both advisers to the president, had used either personal email accounts or the messaging application WhatsApp to conduct official business, according to information from the House Oversight Committee. The latter is particularly problematic because messages are encrypted between users, meaning that unless Kushner and Ivanka Trump stored copies of their messages or the recipients turned the messages over to the government, there’s no way to record what was said.

Kushner’s lawyer told House investigators that Kushner “took images of his communications” on a WhatsApp account, then forwarded them to official accounts. Asked whether Kushner had shared classified information over the app, the attorney replied, “That’s above my pay grade.” according to the Journal report.

Imagine Clinton’s attorney having offered that excuse in July 2016.

It wasn’t just Kushner and Ivanka Trump. The committee learned that former deputy national security adviser K.T. McFarland and former adviser Stephen K. Bannon had also, at times, used personal email accounts for official business. Some of those communications, the Journal reports, dealt with a proposal to send nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. McFarland’s account was through AOL, according to the New York Times.

And these are only the most recent examples. In 2017, the Times reported that other Trump administration officials, including adviser Stephen Miller, former chief of staff Reince Priebus and former National Economic Council director Gary Cohn had all used personal email accounts to conduct official business.

That’s seven officials, past and present, who used personal email accounts: Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Miller, Cohn, Bannon, McFarland and Priebus.

That by itself isn’t illegal, as long as the records are preserved in accordance with the Presidential Records Act. According to House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), Ivanka Trump, at least, may not have been properly preserving all of her records.

The president has had his own issues with using government-preferred communication channels. In May, Politico reported that Trump wasn’t adhering to policies that mandated he swap out his cellphones with regularity, putting his communication at risk. Had Trump shared classified information over his cellphone that might have been intercepted by foreign powers? Well, in May 2017, he shared classified information directly with senior Russian officials in the Oval Office, so it certainly seems possible. [emphasis mine]

It’s important to remember that much of Trump’s criticism of Clinton’s use of a private server was overwrought and politically motivated. Just as much of Trump’s criticism of former president Barack Obama’s golfing was overwrought or much of Trump’s excoriation about the increase in the federal debt. As president, Trump has often not practiced what he preached on the campaign trail.

At times, in fact, it seems as though he’s practicing specifically what he preached against.
​

So, does it not bother you, even a tiny bit, how big a hypocrite Trump really is? Or the fact that he shared intel directly with the Russians in the Oval Office?

 

That ugly skank in charge of the DOJ would never had indicted Clinton she was one of her minions.

 

Why are you bringing Trump into this conversation? We were debating Hillary and the way the FBI and the corrupt Obama administration ensured she did not face charges.

If you wish to discuss Trump and his shortcomings, feel free to start your own thread for discussion; I'm really not interested in playing whataboutisms.

But I'd like to hear your view about the FBI; do you feel they were corrupt and allowing politics to infest their investigation into Hillary's emails?

 

Oh boy! I had to pick myself off the floor with that one. That's a doozy.

'Why am I bringing Trump into this conversation'?

I dunno, why don't you tell me what office does Hillary currently hold?

And the FBI? I can already tell you probably subscribe to that right-wing conspiracy club that believes in the "deep" state. If that's where you want to go, then go without me. I don't buy that bullshit.

 

I'm not a Trump guy, so I'd appreciate you trolling elsewhere with what others refer to as your being infected with Trump Derangement Syndrome. I really don't care about leftists and their 'what about Trump' nonsense they use to deflect from the corruption within the former Obama administration and the Democratic Party as a whole.

I'm simply pointing out that at least one former high ranking FBI official has admitted to his organization ignoring the rule of law for political expediency. If you think that noting this means someone is subscribing to the theory of a deep state, I'm afraid that you are so immersed in a liberal/progressive/socialist echo chamber you can't reason any longer.

There were a cadre of FBI officials who were corrupted by political bias. This is becoming more clear by the day, and I would think even a dedicated liberal/progressive/socialist would be a bit concerned about this. This could easily happen to leftists if a rightwing cabal became influential in the FBI and DOJ - in fact, it had in the 1960s - so try not to be so partisan and shortsighted, my leftist friend...

 

Exactly what do you THINK she should have been indicted for????

 

Then provide evidence of that from a reliable news source, because what you are discussing is indeed part of that right-wing echo chamber that promulgates a deep state conspiracy.

And you have not answered why at this point, after it has already been investigated, why this is of concern TODAY.

 

18 U.S. Code§ 798.Disclosure of classified information

 

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding
now." Comey

So anyone else but Hillary Clinton would have been subject to security or administrative sanctions. Why am I not surprised.

 

Sigh. This is why I become frustrated in debating leftists who rarely leave their echo chamber.

The DOJ inspector general issued a report that led to the firing of a couple agents for their actions , along with others at the DOJ. Please tell me you are aware of this?

I'll provide one - and only one - link; if you allow ignorance to guide your lack of response we're truly wasting each other's time.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/nine-takeaways-inspector-generals-report-clinton-email-investigation

What is lacking, of course, from the IG report (and the lawfare analysis) is more recent statements from some of the players involved, like the FBI general counsel I highlighted in my OP.

The original FBI 'investigation' of Hillary was certainly not a competent investigation; only the most partisan leftist would disagree with this. If the federal government - regardless of whether a Democratic or Republican administration in is power - doesn't follow the rule of law, we're doomed.

I'm curious as to how you disagree with this? Or is simply leftists MUST adore Fed.gov because Big Government good?

 

Why hasn't the Justice Department held itself to equality under the law? Where one man(Comey) lies under oath and skates off, while the other man(Stone) gets sentenced? I don't know, no one knows but frankly it's only done damage to the Justice Department. And for what it's worth, Hillary is now irrelevant, left to live out the rest of her days as someone who tried and failed to be queen.

 

The article I linked to already states Baker's comments, which your article does not.

With that already established, AGAIN I ask, what is the relevance of this TODAY???

If what you are claiming;

Because if that is your issue, then quite honestly, all you are doing is trying to hand out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. This administration is far more corrupt than this one issue from the past.....the only relevance it has TODAY is to further bolster Trump's reelection. So if you are not being partisan, then what is indeed the purpose of re-hashing this old email fiasco. What specifically is the crime you are trying to charge Hillary Clinton with? Because as I have already pointed out, even Baker was convinced the government could not prove intent.

Or to put it more simply, your OP title is wrong.

 

Could be one reason the trump administration hasn’t pushed the issue — as they are doing it as well.

As several others have already pointed out, intent is missing — meaning a conviction wouldn’t have been possible.

 

Actually and ironically James Baker's logic has a ring of sense to it. With a little stretch it is akin to Nixon not pursuing a probable open and shut challenge to the 1960 election because he feared the Constitutional crises it might have created.

 

To the left, honesty is always a failing policy; doesn't fit into their narrative.
Denial on the other hand, is a highly respected policy, even one that is required- lest you be placed in the pillory for all dems to abuse you in public.
We see this everyday- total blindness to there own sins, and proud of it.

 

Name me a media source that is not biased!! CNN, MSNBC, New York times, ect are biased towards liberals, and Fox News, Breitbart Trending Politics are biased towards Conservatives. But that does not change the fact that Hillary Clinton committed espionage, and FBI covered for her. At the same time, the FBI conducted an illegal investigation. The FBI's actions during and following the 2016 elections paralleled GOP's actions during Watergate. They fraudulently obtained FISA Warrants using false and misleading information so they could tap the President Trump Campaign. These illegal actions were not limited to the Clinton Campaign or the FBI. There were actions taken by key members of the Obama Administration to unmask those speaking on the taped conversations.

No matter how you cut it, the Hillary Clinton Campaign, the FBI and members of the Obama Administration committed illegal actions, and they should be held responsible for these actions.