Thanks to the release of the IG report on Thursday we know that Barack Obama had direct contact with Clinton on private email server.
FOX News reported:
President Obama was one of a select handful of individuals who had “direct contact” with Hillary Clinton on her private email account, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz indicated in his bombshell report Thursday on the Clinton email probe.
In a footnote, the DOJ watchdog notes that “FBI analysts and Prosecutor 2 told us that former President Barack Obama was one of the 13 individuals with whom Clinton had direct contact using her clintonemail.com account.“
But the Obama DOJ hid this from the American public.
In fact, the Obama Deep State scrubbed Obama’s name from the FBI report on Hillary Clinton’s email investigation.
100% Fed Up reported on this stunning revelation from the IG report.
Via Twitchy.Scandal-free president had name scrubbed from James Comey’s report on Hillary
Thanks for a Friday night news dump last September, we knew that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was emailing back-and-forth with President Obama using her private email address routed through her homebrew server. Don’t worry about national security, though: Obama used a pseudonym that not even Huma Abedin knew, so it was all very secure.
That fact came up Thursday with the release of the OIG report, but with a new twist: according to the report, Clinton “used her private email extensively while outside the United States, including from the territory of sophisticated adversaries,” but the fact that she was corresponding with the president was scrubbed from James Comey’s exoneration.
David French tweets screenshots from the IG report:
Well, at least we know they didn’t change evidence, destroy evidence and obstruct justice due to bias. Whew!
The Deep State has many skeletons in its closet to hide and covering up for Obama the Fink
We knew he had to have communications with his SOS interesting how the information can be altered for “historical reasons”.
Is Director Wray “Deep State” Can we trust him?
How bout I.G.Horowitz?
Other than Nunez AND Trump is there anyone we can trust? Pretty damn scary.
Obama is caught in yet another huge lie and the left doesn’t even take notice. Why, it’s almost like they EXPECT it.
@Richard Wheeler: Trust no one.
What if we are 100% correct, what should be done.
@kitt: “We”? Trustworthy? What is “we” saying?
How bout those born agains Pence and Sessions—they’re quoting The Bible–gotta be OK–right?
I know who—RT
@Richard Wheeler: non answer, if the FBI intentionally flubbed the Clinton investigation because they believed and wanted her to be POTUS what should happen? This IG report has nothing to do with Nunes or Sessions, this all went down under Barry.
@kitt: My question was —who is this potentially all knowing “we” that I’m supposed to believe?
The I.G. report does not reach the same conclusion as you do. Neither does Director Wray–do you want them fired? Are they Deep State? Have you found a “Deep Throat?”
I got it Kitt—-you are ‘we’ Burriss as well?
@Richard Wheeler: Read the document who ever wrote the conclusion did not write that same report and believe the people in the investigation were behaving professional and unattached, and most likely the report was sanitized.
We… those that are calling BS if not political what was the motivation? Bribes? Some took them from the media are we to believe they didnt also take them from the perp? Read it Rich just read it. Remember this has nothing to do with DT its the behavior of the FBI agents and attorneys that never were on the streets, cushy office elite.
@kitt: Notice how massive malfeasance running rife through FBI and DOJ leadership draws no interest from liberals? Now their only defense is word games. Notice how it is impossible to receive an answer to simple questions? That is cowardly and only reveals the guilt they know they share as long as they deny and enable it. Keep trying for an answer… you’ll only find frustration, for the answer tells the liberal more about his failed ideology than he wants to know.
There was no bias, but the FBI has to conduct training to make sure there isn’t any.
@Deplorable Me: We are going to have to wait to see what is going to happen with this, the IG has no prosecution power, there is some pretty huge bombshells in this report, and some that make you laugh, the “You Promised this wouldnt happen” text sent a day after the election sure sounds like a child that didnt get what they wanted from a parent. Im guessing that exchange was Page and McCabe, the Agent saying they were crying tips the scale to a woman, then going off on Trump voters in Ohio calling them retarded, now thats professional as those voters are paying her salary.
The future training solution reminds me of Comeys no reasonable prosecutor conclusion.
safe link
@Kitt: Yes, we watch Wray to see what actions he takes. Firing Strzok and Page should be a no-brainer, as they have brought great dishonor and suspicion upon the FBI. Comey and McCabe are already gone, so there’s not a lot the FBI can do there, unless they want to prosecute leaking classified information (something they don’t seem to interested in doing).
We’ll see.
@Deplorable Me: I think Wray is caught up in this, too. If he fires people who know his part in these proceedings, they likely will squeal. Then everything will unravel.
@Randy: Hard to say. He may be trying to shield the FBI from the full disgust Obama heaped upon it yet determined to correct the issues from the inside out. That, at least, is the best case scenario. We’ll see.
If the FBI admitted that bias played a large part in letting Hillary skate and the harsh raking over the coals Trump is getting, then anyone that ever lost a judgement against the FBI or DOJ can have their case reopened and re-litigated, claiming there was bias at play.
Claiming there was no bias certainly is not rebuilding confidence and trust.
Sounds like obstruction of justice to me
@DrJohn: If they get the original draft of this report to compare gross negligence with extreme carelessness the draft that didnt go through a month of sanitizing, redactions and softening of language, along with the names of the editors, the case of obstruction should be a cake walk, Wrays conclusion of no political bias is refuted in the report itself, and may have been written well before he had the report in hand. I find no bias I find extreme bias.
@kitt: They all thought Hillary was going to win. They had all been working toward that end. No one wanted to miss an opportunity to curry favor with the Bitter Queen for fear of drawing that famous wrath.
My question is, why would they support someone whom they feared would exact revenge upon them for merely doing their job? Perhaps that was the overriding fear which replaced their commitment to doing their sworn duty. This tells you as much about Hillary (and the threat she posed to our liberty) as it does about those who replaced dedication to justice with surrendering to persecution.
@Deplorable Me: They were all indoctrinated into the weaponized ideology, great gains in 8 years where the letter of the law was only as they interpreted it, it did trickle down into the rank and file and infect many of the ABC departments. The corruption began long before but ran amok during the last admin with blessings from the top. Lets not forget Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Lavoy Finicum, the government lying about snipers at the Bundy Ranch, over a disputed 80 K in grazing fees. Then the compliant Media portraying the Citizens for Constitutional Freedom as terrorists, no less than 9 undercover Agents infiltrating the group when they were at the Bird Sanctuary.
@kitt: Those incidents were in support of government policies, as misguided as they were. What we see now is manipulation, abuse of power and weaponizing of our institutions to support and promote socialism. It is terrifying how close that came to success.
Which raises the question, why would the Russians work to aid the defeat of Hillary? She was their best hope of continuing to undermine capitalism. I’m still less than convinced. If they DID do things that aided Trump, they cut their own throats and the Russians are much smarter than that.
Putin didn’t know DT from a bag of beans–neither did the rest of the world.
Putin hated HRC because she called him out on his fixed illegitimate election
DT CONGRATULATED HIM
@rich wheeler: Putin knew HRCs motivators Cash, money, moola and dough, easily manipulated, you are right he didnt know DT from a hill of beans. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Despite accusations still no leaks on the Russian stuff from the internet that cinched DTs win they have shifted to the old anti-semetic it was the joos. http://www.chicagotribune.com/…/sns-201712051333–tms–amvoicesctnav-a20171205-20...
Need more evidence he has nothing?
@kitt:
Not only greedy and always looking for a payday, but stupid in how she handles classified information. Imagine how much the Russians learned from her open door policy of handling State Department classified information and how they salivated at the thought of her handling military and cyber secrets. Yeah… they worked against having her elected. Sure they did.
Hmm… Trump congratulated Putin on his election. Obama promised Putin via Medvedev that he would bend over backwards (or frontwards, as the situation warranted) to accommodate him, as he did in Syria. Now, which do the liberals have the most problem with?
@Deplorable Me: They are very “flexible”
Giuliani suggests Trump may pardon Manafort after Mueller’s probe
And how is this not attempted witness tampering?
@Greg: How is attempting to get witnesses for your defense witness tampering? Mueller just bulls the court into making sure Manafort cannot possibly build his own defense.
@Greg: What do you think about Obama lying about being aware of Hillary’s secret, private, unsecured email server and actually contributing to the problem with it?
When does someone just under indictment get jailed? All theater, all witch hunt.
Mueller put improper pressure on people to lie for him about Trump and Trump promises that if they don’t lie, he will protect them. Trump is playing Mueller’s game by Mueller’s rules. Sorry, but you don’t get all the advantages. If you aren’t going to play fair, don’t expect anyone else to, either. That’s why following the laws is so important; otherwise, it results in chaos.
@kitt:
Convincing liberal judges who view the Constitution as an impediment to act extra-Constitutionally in support of a liberal cause is not that difficult.
@kitt, #26:
Mueller would like Manafort tell everything he knows as a cooperative witness, and would likely offer immunity or the prospect of a much reduced sentence in return.
Giuliani is suggesting that Manafort reveal nothing and cover for Trump, in return for which he might receive a presidential get-out-of-jail-free card.
The offer of such a quid pro quo arrangement would be witness tampering—an offer to buy a witnesses silence. The fact that no one seems particularly shocked that such a thing has been openly suggested by one of Trump’s lawyers speaks volumes about this administration’s level of corruption.
@Deplorable Me, #27:
What I think is that neither Obama nor Clinton are the focus of multiple investigations.
Improper pressure, as in uncovering crimes he can prove they committed, and offering them leniency for testifying about what they know?
That’s the way criminal organisations are normally taken down. It’s standard operating procedure. Mueller is doing it by the book. Giuliani realizes that Manafort likely has some very dangerous secrets. If he talks, all hell could break loose.
Manafort probably shouldn’t be relying on a pardon from a President who might be impeached before he can provide one—especially not knowing what Mueller already knows. Cohen may have already flipped. Other insiders could have already stuck deals.
@Greg:
OK, sit down and brace yourself; I’m going to slam you with a wild concept. What if there is NOTHING to reveal? For over a year, Obama conducted illegal surveillance, there’s been Congressional investigation and this Mueller circus has gone on for over a year with NO indication of even a reason to SUSPECT Russian collusion. Maybe… JUST MAYBE… you people are wrong.
Well, we watched as Hillary and her gang destroyed devices and evidence and no liberals raised any suspicions, so we are used to shock. What is shocking is that you liberals seem to believe that the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing is a sure indication that something wrong has been done and more people have to be persecuted to uncover it.
Well, actually they are. See, this is what the Trump investigation is all about; protecting Obama and Clinton and steering attention away from it. Had the FBI done an unbiased job of investigating Clinton, she would never have been the candidate. Instead, the FBI redirected its attention to trying to prove nonexistent Russian collusion. Yes, it involves them very much. So, what do you think about Obama lying about using Hillary’s unsecured, private, personal email for State Department business? Also, what do you feel about the accommodating style employed to investigate Hillary compares to the bare-knuckles, cut-throat, take-no-prisoners style employed against Trump?
What do they know? Is there something Mueller KNOWS they know and, if so, why doesn’t he act on that? No, he is trying to get them to LIE and fill in some of his blanks he has to prove something against Trump.
No it isn’t. That’s not how the FBI investigated Hillary. If Mueller was following that procedure, he would have granted immunity to Manafort, Papadopoulos and General Flynn, allowed them to sit in on each other’s interviews, allowed them to destroy all their devices with pertinent information on them and erase any other information.
There you go… the GOAL. The brass ring. What all this theatrical witch hunt is about. Democrats know they can’t defeat Trump at the ballot box, so try and abuse and persecute people to LIE in order to create a premise on which to try and impeach him. You are betting all you have on a fantasy.