Since the release of FBI Director Comey’s Second letter to the US Congress, the presidential elections process has gone haywire, out of control. The bipartisan political apparatus is in crisis.
“I FBI director [James Comey] am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”
Two important questions:
WHO IS BEHIND WIKILEAKS WHICH RELEASED THE EMAILS?
WHO IS BEHIND FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY?
In both cases, we are dealing with powerful interest groups. CUI-BONO?
Has there been a shift in the Corporate Elite’s unbending support for Hillary Clinton? Or are the Elites divided? This is something to be carefully investigated.
FBI Director Comey (image right) did not take this decision on his own. While he was described as responding to pressures from within the FBI, the crucial question is: Who are the power brokers behind James Comey? What mechanism incited him to take that decision?
Does he have a relationship with Trump? Several media have even intimated that Moscow could have been behind Comey’s second letter. An absurd proposition.
The Trigger Mechanism
The trigger mechanism which incited the FBI Director to send a Second Letter to Congress was a report by the Wall Street Journal published four days prior to the sending of his letter to Congress (October 28).
On October 24, the WSJ revealed that “Clinton friend [Virginia Governor] Terry McAuliffe donated money to an FBI investigator’s wife when she ran for office” .
Terry McAuliffe handed the money on behalf of Hillary Clinton:
“Last night’s revelation that close Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe authorized $675,000 to the wife of a top official at the FBI, who conveniently was promoted to deputy director, and helped oversee the investigation into Clinton’s secret server is deeply disturbing…
The fact that this was allowed to occur shows either outright negligent behavior by the FBI or a level of corruption that is beyond belief. The FBI needs to fully address these issues as soon as possible,The Wall Street Journalbroke the story on Sunday. The FBI has been under fire for not recommending indictment against Hillary Clinton.”(Breibart October 24, 2016)
Comey’s decision to send a second letter on October 28 (October Surprise) was triggered by the contents of the WSJ report, pointing to bribery by Clinton and corruption within the FBI.
The donation went to the 2015 Virginia state Senate election campaign of Dr. Jill McCabe, who just so happens to be the wife of FBI official Andrew McCabe who – a few months later in January 2016– was appointed deputy director of the FBI in charge of the Clinton Email investigation. How convenient (See WSJ, October 24, 2016).
The Hillary donation received by Dr. Jill McCabe was not reported. According to official records she received a total of $256,000 dollars in campaign contributions.
Screenshot of FBI Press Release, January 29,2016
Andrew McCabe was Hillary’s Trojan Horse within the FBI.
Upon the release of the WSJ report, FBI Director Comey, responding to internal pressure from within the FBI, with a view to protecting his integrity, decided to release a second letter regarding the Clinton Emails.
His corrupt deputy director Andrew McCabe (image left) who was overseeing the Clinton investigation, sofar has not been fired.
“House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who told The Washington Post this week that Hillary Clinton would face “years” of potential probes if she won the presidency, has asked FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to provide documents about his wife’s 2015 campaign for Senate — a campaign that received financial support from Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D), a close Clinton ally. Chaffetz also tweeted Friday that the FBI would examine new emails related to the investigation into Clinton’s use of a private server.(Washington Post, October 28, 2016)
The trigger mechanism did not originate from FBI Director James Comey’s letter per se. It was the Wall Street Journal, mouthpiece of the US financial establishment, which revealed the fraud and bribery scheme: The wife of the Number Two Man at the FBI Andrew McCabe had received a large sum of money from Hillary Clinton, via the Governor of Virginia.
The timing of this decision less than two weeks before the elections was crucial. But it was ultimately the WSJ (and those behind the release of the report on the Clinton-McCabe fraud) who determined the course of events.
Who on Wall Street was behind the WSJ report on the Clinton-FBI McCabe “bribe”, which served to trigger James Comey’s letter?
The WSJ is owned by the News Corp conglomerate, one of the most powerful global media groups owned by the Murdoch Family Trust.
Rupert Murdoch is a firm supporter of Donald Trump. Murdoch and Trump met several times in course of last months:
The Murdoch-Trump alliance is the result of at least two private meetings between the billionaires this spring as well as phone calls from Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Murdoch’s view, according to those who’ve spoken with him, is that Trump is a winner whom the “elites” failed to take seriously. … In March, Murdoch tweeted that the GOP would “be mad not to unify” behind Trump. (Fox News)
In June, Trump meets up with Rupert Murdoch and his wife Jerry Hall in Scotland
Until recently, the US mainstream media have largely been involved in camouflaging the crimes committed by Hillary Clinton. Are we dealing with an About Turn?
The corporate elites are not monolithic. Quite the opposite. Tthere are major divisions and conflicts within the ruling corporate establishment. What seems to be unfolding is a division between competing media conglomerates, with Murdoch’s News Corp Group (which includes the WSJ and Fox News) supporting Trump and the Time Warner -CNN Group supporting Clinton.
Those who triggered the release of the WSJ report were fully aware that this would lead to a response by FBI Director James Comey, which in turn would contribute to weakening and undermining Hillary Clinton.
According to Donald Trump, This “Is Bigger than Watergate”.
The Clinton Campaign has responded by accusing FBI Director James Casey of breaking the law.
In many regards, the contents of the Huma Abedin Emails (released by the FBI) –which have been the object of extensive media coverage– is a red herring. But there is more than meets the eye. The Second letter pertaining to the Emails opens up a “Pandora’s box” of fraud, corruption, bribery and money laundering.
Sofar the media has concentrated on trivialities with a view to exonerating Clinton. The incriminating evidence of criminality contained in the WSJ report (i.e Clinton money paid to the wife of the Number 2 official in the FBI) is not a media talking point, nor is the fraud underlying the Clinton Foundation’s money transactions.
The second letter by FBI Director Comey came as a Bombshell. Comey’s initiative points this time to the possibility that a candidate to the presidency of the United States be under criminal investigation by the FBI.
This does not solely pertain to the Email scandal, the FBI “has an open investigation into the Clinton Foundation”, which constitutes a hotbed of fraud and money laundering. Moreover, a class action lawsuit was launched against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) “alleging fraud and collusion with the Hillary Clinton campaign”.
Act of Treason: Hillary Received Donations from the “State Sponsors of Terrorism” Who are Funding the Islamic State (ISIS-Daesh)
A former Secretary of State (through here family’s Foundation) receives generous donations from the “State sponsors of terrorism” (Saudi Arabia and Qatar): This is an obvious act of treason by a senior US official and candidate to the presidency of the United States.
Moreover, according to Frank Huguenard(Global Research, May 30, 2016), the initial FBI investigation “has expanded well beyond violating State Department regulations to include questions about espionage, perjury and influence peddling”. The Clinton Foundation as a crony money laundering entity is at the center of the FBI initiative, which could lead to a conviction under RICO racketeering charges:
Here’s what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie McMahon (aka The Energizer). When the official investigation into Hillary’s email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillary’s deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities.
A conviction under RICO comes when the Department of Justice proves that the defendant has engaged in two or more examples of racketeering and that the defendant maintained an interest in, participated in or invested in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. There is ample evidence already in the public record that the Clinton Foundation qualifies as a criminal enterprise and there’s no doubt that the FBI is privy to significantly more evidence than has already been made public.
Under RICO, the sections most relevant in this case will be section 1503 (obstruction of justice), section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement).
As in the case with Richard Nixon after the Watergate Break-in, it’s the cover-up of a crime that will be the Clintons’ downfall. Furthermore, under provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201, the Clinton Foundation can be held accountable for improprieties relating to bribery. The FBI will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that through the Clinton Foundation, international entities were able to commit bribery in exchange for help in securing business deals, such as the uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan. (Frank Huguenard, Global Research, May 30, 2016),
Opposition to Hillary Clinton from within the Armed Forces
There is also evidence of resentment to Clinton from within the Armed Forces. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed their opposition to the adoption of a “No Fly Zone” in Syria, which could lead to a war with Russia. Both the “No Fly Zone” as well as Hillary’s nuclear option “on the table” are the object of debate by America’s top brass. Referring to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran, Hillary said “we will obliterate them”.
If Hillary is elected, inevitably Trump would launch one or more procedures pertaining to fraud at different stages of the election campaign, voting machines, etc. In the words of Donald Trump at a rally in New Hampshire:
“Hillary Clinton’s corruption is on a scale we’ve never seen before,… We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office.”
If elected president, Hillary’s criminal record would haunt her throughout her term in office, leading to the possibility of an impeachment. The presidency would become totally dysfunctional from the very outset, which her corporate sponsors including the defense contractors and Wall Street would prefer to avoid.
National Emergency Measures, Martial Law?
Unquestionably the entire US bipartisan political apparatus is in crisis including US foreign policy, marked by the breakdown of diplomacy, America’s military agenda and the unfolding confrontation with Russia.
While it is difficult to predict what might occur in the wake of the November 8 elections, the unfolding political impasse –coupled with rising geopolitical tensions in Syria, Iraq as well as Eastern Europe on Russia’s border– could potentially lead at some future date to the suspension of Constitutional government under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) HR 1540, signed into law by president Obama on December 31, 2011. Most media have failed to analyze the far-reaching implications of this legislation.
The present impasse in the electoral process is a crisis of legitimacy characterized by the criminalization of the US State, its judicial and law enforcement apparatus. In turn, Washington is committed to a hegemonic US-NATO “war without border” coupled with the formation of giant trading blocks under the TPP and TTIP proposals. This neoliberal macro-economic agenda has since the early 1980s been conducive to the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.
These developments coupled with a potenital constitutional deadlock point in the direction of rising political and social tensions as well as mass protests throughout the US which could lead America at some future date into the application of “martial law”.
There are multiple US “martial law” legislative procedures. The adoption of the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), HR 1540) would be tantamount to a repeal of civil liberties, the surveillance state, the militarization of law enforcement, the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act.
All the components of Police State USA are currently in place. They go far beyond government snooping of emails and telephone conversations. They also include:
Extrajudicial assassinations of alleged terrorists including US citizens, in blatant violation of the Fifth amendment “No person shall. .. be deprived of life. .. without due process of law.”
The indefinite detention of US citizens without trial, namely the repeal of Habeas Corpus.
The establishment of “Internment Camps” on US Military Bases under legislation adopted in 2009 .
The FEMA internment camps are part of the Continuity of Government (C.O.G), which would be put in place in the case of martial law. The internment camps are intended to “protect the government” against its citizens, by locking up protesters as well as political activists who might challenge the legitimacy of the Administration’s national security, economic or military agenda.
The original source of this article is Global Research