by Earl P. Holt III
Clearly, in America there are two systems of justice, one for prominent leftist traitors and another for everyone else. This outrage didn’t begin at Chappaquiddick. Illustrating the situation are two noteworthy criminal investigations of recent vintage.
The first is the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server by the FBI and Justice Department. The second is the criminal investigation of General Michael T. Flynn for supposedly lying to the FBI. Both investigations were run by FBI Agent Peter Strzok, the FBI’s head of Counter-Intelligence and prolific author of smart-phone texts.
When the scandal involving Clinton’s private e-mail server was reported by the Jews’ Media, her server was subpoenaed by the FBI pursuant to an investigation. Yet, rather than secure a warrant and immediately seize it, she was given a “grace period” of a full year to sift through its contents, allowing her the opportunity to delete 33,000 incriminating e-mails.
She also confessed to destroying that server, her smartphone and the smartphones of her staff, in an obvious attempt to destroy all other incriminating evidence. Her smartphone would have provided evidence of Hillary’s crime of mishandling Classified Documents on an unsecured system. It would also have exposed the sale of her office in return for hundreds of millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Family Crime Foundation while serving as Secretary of State.
When was the last time the FBI allowed a suspect in a criminal case to sift through the evidence of their guilt and then — with impunity — destroy whatever incriminating evidence they could find? Anyone else would be facing multiple counts of federal charges of destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice, but this kind of thing was routine during the Obama Administration.
Likewise, Jim Comey — the dirty cop serving as Obama’s FBI Director at the time of Hillary’s e-mail investigation — drafted the document that exonerated Hillary Clinton of her many crimes TWO MONTHS BEFORE SHE WAS EVER INTERVIEWED BY THE FBI. The “fix” was clearly “in” before the investigation even began.
In addition, when Hillary was first interviewed by the FBI, she was not placed under oath. Moreover, half a dozen of her staff were shown the courtesy of being allowed to sit in on her interview and observe it — instead of being “sequestered” — so each of them could get their stories “straight.”
The investigation ended when FBI Director Jim Comey granted Hillary Clinton an “exoneration” at a press conference on July 5, 2016. The FBI is an investigatory agency and not a prosecutorial agency, so Comey did not have the authority to exonerate Clinton. Moreover, he ignored massive evidence of her guilt that had surfaced during the course of the investigation, and the FBI later destroyed evidence of her guilt in the form of those missing e-mails — found elsewhere — while in their “protective” custody.
In contrast to the way Hillary Clinton was treated by the FBI and Justice Department, look at the manner in which General Michael T. Flynn was treated during his THREE YEAR legal inquisition by the identical people who “handled” Hillary Clinton’s investigation.
On January 24 of 2017, Peter Strzok and another FBI agent met with General Michael Flynn but intentionally neglected to inform him that he was under investigation. Since Flynn was President Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor (NSA,) the meeting was made to appear as if it were a routine “courtesy call” to Flynn by Counter-Intelligence agents at the FBI.
The FBI focused on a phone conversation Flynn made to the Russian Ambassador, Sergey Kysliak on December 22 of 2019. By all accounts, as President-electTrump’s incoming NSA Director, such a call by General Flynn was a routine “courtesy call,” and considered one of the obligations of his office.
FBI agents questioned General Flynn about his call to Kysliak, while already knowing its contents after having “intercepted” it: They then set a trap in order to charge Flynn with lying to them for any statements he might make in his interview that happened to differ from the transcripts of the Kysliak call.
Among other things, the FBI hid from General Flynn the fact that he was the target of a criminal investigation, a clear violation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda versus Arizona. Even murderers and rapists get their Miranda Rights read to them.
The FBI also declined to show General Flynn the courtesy of handing him a transcript of his call to Kysliak, that would have allowed him to refresh his memory during the interview. Suspects are often provided a copy of relevant documents and given the opportunity to reconcile any differences with later statements. (They gave Hillary Clinton the courtesy of letting her sift through her e-mails without supervision.)
FBI agents did not believe Flynn had lied to them in their January 24, 2016 interview based on their later written statements and their sworn testimony. Nevertheless, Flynn was charged with a violation of 18 USC 1001 and vigorously prosecuted by attorneys from Robert Mueller’s Office of the Special Counsel.
It took two years to emerge, but Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe testified in an Executive (closed) Session of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that “the two people who interviewed [Flynn] didn’t think he was lying,” a conclusion stated in the original FBI 302 Report that was submitted after the interview, but which is now conveniently missing.
After spending $5 Million on his legal defense after being charged with lying to the FBI about the Kysliak call, General Flynn was then coerced into pleading guilty to misrepresenting his conversation with Kysliak. Flynn pled guilty only because he was bankrupt, and the FBI had threatened to target his son with the same bogus perjury charges Flynn had fought for a year without success.
Yet, according to the Supreme Court, any violation of USC 18, Section 1001 must involve a “material” fact that would tend to “influence decision-making by the decision-making body to which it is addressed.” Whatever misstatements General Flynn may have made to FBI agents — even outright lies — THEY NEVER COULD HAVE UNDULY INFLUENCED THE FBI, SINCE THE FBI ALREADY HAD THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPTS OF THE CALL!
It is probable that General Flynn — not knowing that the FBI interview was anything more than a courtesy call — may have lied to the FBI about the contents of the Kysliak call. After all, the FBI was being run by operatives of the “deep state,” whom Flynn had vowed to clean out. More importantly, the FBI does not have the authority to “vett” President Trump’s National Security policy, and Flynn had no obligation to accurately divulge new Trump Administration policies to the FBI.
Flynn’s heroic new attorney, Sidney Powell put it more bluntly: “There is no world in which Flynn’s statements to the agents in the scenario of this rank setup were material to any ‘investigation’.”
Enormous volumes of exculpatory evidence were withheld from Flynn and his attorney by the FBI and Justice Department. As those materials were slowly and grudgingly released over the past two years, the FBI’s and DOJ’s prosecutorial misconduct became as obvious as General Flynn’s innocence.
Flynn’s innocence has become evident to everyone except the NIGRO judge on the case, a Clinton appointee. In May of 2020, the Justice Department finally was forced to withdraw from the case, but the judge has vowed to continue Flynn’s persecution because he is corrupt, dishonest and a tyrant. (It would be interesting if he turned out to be one of the FISA judges who granted warrants to spy on Trump and everyone associated with him.)
At one point, the FBI was so determined to destroy Flynn, they actually considered charging him under an entirely different criminal statute, the Logan Act, a law that has never had a successful prosecution in its 221 year history because it is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Clearly, anyone with the intellect of a potted plant can recognize that there is a great deal of difference between our two systems of justice when applied to potential transgressors. If you are a leftist traitor, you get a free pass: Yet, even the innocent aren’t safe if they don’t worship at the altar of Marxism or its political manifestation as the so-called “Democrat” Party.