Skip to content
Breaking News Alert EXCLUSIVE: Jim Banks Demands White House Surveillance Logs To Vet Contested J6 Testimony

Not Even Watergate Had As Much ‘Forgettery’ As The FBI’S Clinton Report

Share

The FBI has traditionally been politically agnostic, but that all changed when, on a Friday before the long Labor Day weekend, the FBI released a summary of a three-and-a-half hour interview it held with Hillary Clinton.

Such releases comprise an old political trick to combat leaks that embarrass a politician. They let it off its leash when most Americans are not paying attention to the news. News outlets, especially those carrying water for an administration, often decide not to give what’s made public much coverage at all.

This time, however, the trick exploded, injuring the FBI, its Director James Comey, and Clinton. The summaries indicate she suffered from an intense bout of selective amnesia due, she says, to a concussion she suffered in 2012. The FBI did not record this meeting nor administer an oath to tell the truth, which violates two “normal protocols,” former FBI assistant director James Kallstrom told Megyn Kelly.

Clinton allegedly said she would have refused to be interviewed if it were recorded, which is odd. If she was going to be honest, a recording should have been no problem. But then she has a penchant for maximum opacity on what a growing number of people consider her illegal acts.

The clearly political data dump even has mainstream newscasters at their limits, especially when considering Bill Clinton’s impossibly unethical visit to Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s plane right before Lynch announced she’d not investigate Hillary. This has all become a political scat storm for Hillary Clinton, endangering her campaign.

Importantly, it’s also angered Julian Assange, who appears to have moved up the timetable of his first “batch” release of incriminating documents on his site WikiLeaks. He told Sean Hannity, “We might put out some teasers. I don’t want to promise anything because we want to see how the formatting goes. We might put out some teasers as early as next week.”

Hillary Clinton’s Sudden Memory Loss

In the summaries it is clear Hillary Clinton has turned the verbal shrug into an art form after many years of practice. Most troubling about her responses to FBI agents’ questions wasn’t just her alleged inability to recall the answers, but also the interviewers’ lack of follow-up. They just let her slide, a fact Kallstrom claims has enraged his contacts inside and outside of the bureau.

Normally, FBI interviewers will first ask a question directly. If the person being interviewed says she doesn’t recall, the agents adapt and rephrase the question in various ways until they jog the subject’s memory and elicit an answer. Instead, Hillary made the agents look like the Keystone Cops rather than the smart, highly polished interrogators FBI agents usually are. Simply stated, she was let off the hook on between 30 and 40 important questions.

The good news is that those of us who do keep following the news on long weekends can catch critical mistakes. First, let’s set up the case with some critical examples of her forgettery from the summary.

“CLINTON could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to [the] State [Department] via reciprocity from her time in the Senate.”

“CLINTON could not recall any briefing or training by [the] State [Department] related to federal records or handling of classified information.”

“CLINTON was aware she was an Original Classification Authority (OCA) at State.”

“CLINTON could not recall how often she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by State.”

“CLINTON could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined” (emphasis added).

“CLINTON recalled being briefed on Special Access Program (SAP) information, but could not recall any specific briefing on how to handle information associated with SAPs” (emphasis added).

“CLINTON was certain she signed an agreement memorializing her access to SAP material, but she could not recall specific details.”

“When asked what the parenthetical ‘C’ meant before a paragraph within the captioned [CONFIDENTIAL] email, CLINTON stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order” (emphasis added).

“CLINTON could not say for sure if the parenthetical ‘C’ is used for portion marking classified documents.”

“CLINTON stated she did not know and could only speculate if [the parenthetical ‘C’] was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”

Now put these side by side with what Hillary told the press aboard her shiny new airplane on September 5. Obviously feeling herself free from legal jeopardy, despite having spent two-thirds of a year as an anti-press hermit she managed to find the press pool in the aft section of her new plane.

When asked about the FBI’s report and her understanding of classification, the plug blocking her memory suddenly shot from her brain, and what gushed out of her mouth was antithetical to the “I dunno” answers she gave the bureau: : “I went into the Department of State understanding classification,” she boasted, perhaps to belie any concerns she suffers from dementia. “I’d been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for years before I was secretary of State. I take classification seriously. The fact I couldn’t remember certain meetings whether or not they may have occurred doesn’t in any way affect the commitment I had and still do have to the treatment of classified information” (emphasis added).

Therein lies a head-fake and subject-switch methodology she has become so adept at using that fools her supporters all the time. She starts off sounding as if she’s going to answer the question du jour, then manages to wind up with something completely unrelated: “The fact I couldn’t remember certain meetings.” Meetings? She was questioned about classification, not meetings. But this time, the press wasn’t fooled.

Comparing Conflicting Answers and Assertions

“CLINTON could not recall when she first received her security clearance…”

“CLINTON could not recall any briefing or training by State.”

“CLINTON could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined.” “CLINTON could not recall a specific process for nominating a target for a drone strike…” “When asked what the parenthetical ‘C’ meant before a paragraph within the captioned [CONFIDENTIAL] email, CLINTON stated she did not know and could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order” (emphasis added).

‘CLINTON could not recall when she first received her security clearance…’

Until the 2008 election, any candidate who had demonstrated such remarkable memory lapses, obvious misstatements to the American people, and abject lies Hillary has told those investigating her many scandals (you need a supercomputer to keep tabs) would have bowed out of the race in disgrace long ago. But not Clinton. Why?

Hillary Clinton is a metaphorical “made woman,” and messing with her or Bill could result in utter destruction for the life of any accuser, especially women Bill has sexually abused or anyone attacking Clinton. In other words, she’s like a Mafia don.

Assange Asks the Questions Comey Won’t

Here is where Assange shone during his discussion with Hannity. He held up a document with the (C) classified designations all over it. He then proudly pointed to Hillary’s signature at the bottom of the page. Obviously annoyed about her patent lie, he told Hannity WikiLeaks has 22,000 cables (State Department communiques) and other documents with the (c) designation on them, all sent to Clinton.

The FBI investigation concluded she had 13 Blackberries, an iPhone, and perhaps five iPads, so the ‘convenience’ ruse made it to the trash can months ago.

“It’s absolutely incredible for Clinton to lie,” Assange said, his Australian accent sharp and clipped. “She is lying about not knowing what that is,” Assange pointed. “It’s disturbing that James Comey goes along with that game.”

The assertions that her brain had been addled by her concussion just don’t wash, and Assange, already prepared to pull back the curtain on Hillary Clinton, clearly has an axe to grind. So do some prominent players in the mainstream media. ABC’s Martha Raddatz recently put major pressure for answers on a rattled Tim Kaine, Clinton’s hapless running mate.

When Raddatz asked, “Don’t the American people deserve a better explanation?” Kaine insisted they have gotten one. He asserted the FBI’s notes clearly show why Comey felt he did not have a case to prosecute. Kaine then unwisely repeated the claim that Clinton had used only one device as secretary.

It seems lying is infectious in the Hillary Clinton campaign, because Hillary has Kaine fibbing on her behalf. The FBI investigation concluded she had 13 Blackberries, an iPhone, and perhaps five iPads, so the “convenience” ruse made it to the trash can months ago. Even more troubling, while aides smashed some of these devices with a hammer to dispose of them, others have disappeared, as has a laptop computer with all of Clinton’s emails on the hard drive. It was allegedly put in an envelope and sent out to oblivion via the U.S. Postal Service. It is nowhere to be found.

As the press asks more and more questions, it appears Wikileaks is prepared to unleash a veritable blizzard of emails, cables, and other documents from the DNC, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Hillary’s campaign, and even the Clinton Foundation, documents Assange assures us he has.

What they post may likely once again illustrate that Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar and criminal. If she should win the current presidential election, a sitting president cannot be arrested, but she can be impeached. We could wind up following Brazil’s lead—and this is only the beginning.

This article was edited to remove speculative comments about the Seth Rich case, which should not have been included in the original piece. The Federalist regrets the error.