Hillary Would Be In Jail Without Trump
oSegment #584
The information below is no longer speculation, it is substantiated by documents. It is not ancient history and it certainly is not lawfare which the Dems have waged continuously. Trump has up to this point given Hillary a pass. Stone, Bannon,Navarro and Flynn were convicted and all except for Flynn sent to jail for far less.
Emails:
The matter of Hillary Clinton's emails has been the subject of a prolonged and complex controversy, and the question of whether she destroyed emails in violation of a subpoena is a key point of contention.
Here's a breakdown of the facts:
Subpoena and Deletion: A congressional subpoena for her emails was issued in March 2015.1 It was later revealed that an employee managing her server deleted thousands of emails sometime between March 25-31, 2015, which was after the subpoena was issued.2
The Emails in Question: The deleted emails were those that Clinton's lawyers had deemed "personal" and not work-related after reviewing her account.3 Clinton and her campaign have maintained that the deletion was not an attempt to conceal information and that the decision to delete personal emails was made months before the subpoena.
FBI Investigation and Findings: The FBI conducted an extensive investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server.4 In July 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey stated that while Clinton had been "extremely careless," the investigation found no evidence that she or her staff intentionally deleted work-related emails to conceal them.5 He also noted that the FBI was able to recover some of the deleted emails.6
Classification: The FBI's investigation found that some of the emails on the server contained information that was classified at the time they were sent, even though they were not marked as such.7 The State Department's own investigation later found that 38 individuals were culpable for 91 instances of sending classified information to Clinton's private email account.8
Conclusion: In summary, while emails were deleted after a subpoena was issued, the FBI unilaterally concluded there was no evidence of criminal intent to obstruct justice. This was a call Comey made because he felt his boss Loretta Lynch was compromised. There is no precedent for this complete role reversal. When Trump was elected, it was well within the statute of limitations but Trump failed to indict here. Bannon, Stone, and Flynn were indicted by the Dems for far less.
Steele Dossier
The individual primarily responsible for compiling the Steele dossier was Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer specializing in Russia.1 He was the author of the series of memos that make up the dossier.2
However, the creation of the dossier involved multiple parties:
Fusion GPS: This was the Washington-based private intelligence firm that hired Christopher Steele to conduct the research.3 Fusion GPS was founded by former journalists, and they were the ones who managed the project.4
The Clients: The research that led to the Steele dossier was funded by a law firm, Perkins Coie, on behalf of two key clients:5
The Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.6
The Democratic National Committee (DNC).7
It's also worth noting that the initial opposition research on Donald Trump by Fusion GPS was first funded by a conservative news outlet, The Washington Free Beacon, during the Republican primary.8 However, The Washington Free Beacon has stated that its research ended before Steele began his work and that none of its work appears in the dossier.9 The funding for the dossier itself came from the Democratic clients.
During his first term, Donald Trump did take actions related to the Steele dossier and the broader investigations into his campaign's ties with Russia, though not in the form of a direct criminal prosecution of Christopher Steele or other individuals involved in the dossier's creation.
The reasons for this approach were complex and involved the political and legal landscape of the time:
Ongoing Investigations: The Trump administration was itself under investigation for much of his first term. The FBI had opened its own counterintelligence investigation, which was later taken over by the Special Counsel, Robert Mueller. This put the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI in a position where they were investigating the president and his campaign, not the other way around. A president cannot simply direct the DOJ to prosecute a specific individual, as it would be seen as a violation of the department's independence.
Special Counsel Appointment: In 2019, Attorney General William Barr appointed U.S. Attorney John Durham to investigate the origins of the FBI's investigation into the Trump campaign, which included the use of the Steele dossier.1 This was a direct, official action by the administration to look into the matter. The Durham investigation ultimately led to a few prosecutions, but not of Christopher Steele himself.
Focus on Other Issues: Trump and his allies in Congress pursued the matter through public statements, congressional hearings, and declassification of documents. They framed the dossier as the basis of a "political witch hunt" and a "hoax," arguing that the entire investigation was politically motivated.2 The focus was less on a direct criminal prosecution and more on discrediting the investigation and the people involved in it.
Lack of Direct Evidence Revealed: While the Durham report and other investigations did reveal flaws in the FBI's use of the dossier, they did not disclose a direct conspiracy or provable criminal offenses by the authors that would have held up in court. The information in the dossier was often based on "rumor and speculation," making it difficult to prosecute its author for creating it.3 The prosecutions that did occur were for lying to the FBI, not for creating the dossier itself.
In essence, while Trump and his administration were vocal and active in their opposition to the dossier and the Russia investigation, the legal and institutional barriers prevented a direct, presidential-ordered prosecution. Trump’s own administration namely Barr, Durham, and the intelligence community blocked Trump.
Durham Report’s Classified Annex - Trump was Right from Day One
The decision to classify portions of the Durham report, specifically the annex, was made by the intelligence community and the Department of Justice to protect sensitive information. Classification is a standard procedure for documents that contain national security information, and in this case, the annex contained details that could compromise intelligence sources and methods.
The intelligence community, Bill Barr, FBI, and Durham are all complicit in this coverup
The declassified portions of the Durham report and its annex have provided significant insights into the origins and conduct of the FBI's "Crossfire Hurricane" investigation into the 2016 Trump campaign.1 The main takeaways from these documents include:
Roster of agency heads at the time the Durham Report was completed and its annex left classified.
Durham submitted his final report (with annex) to Attorney General Merrick Garland on May 12, 2023. That’s the moment when the classified appendix was transmitted under seal. Here’s who was in charge of the relevant agencies at that time:
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Attorney General: Merrick B. Garland (confirmed March 2021 – present in 2023).
Durham, as Special Counsel, reported to Garland. Garland received both the unclassified and the classified portions.
Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI)
Director of National Intelligence: Avril Haines (sworn in January 2021 – present in 2023).
Haines oversaw classification decisions for materials originating within the IC and coordinated declassification disputes.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Director: Christopher A. Wray (sworn in August 2017 – present in 2023).
Wray’s FBI was a major subject of Durham’s report and had equities in the classified annex.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Director: William J. Burns (sworn in March 2021 – present in 2023).
CIA-originated intelligence is widely believed to have been included in the annex, which kept it classified under Burns’s agency authority.
✅ So at the moment the annex was classified and withheld from public release (May 2023): These are the department heads that are complicit in conspiracy against Trump
DOJ → Merrick Garland
ODNI → Avril Haines
FBI → Christopher Wray
CIA → William Burns
Would you like me to trace it back further to when Durham was first appointed (2019–2020) under Attorney General Barr — i.e., the lineup of officials who would have first set classification on materials Durham later compiled? That might help clarify whether the annex’s classified status originated under Barr-era officials versus Garland-era officials.
Lack of Predication: The report concluded that the FBI lacked a proper basis to open a full investigation into the Trump campaign.2 According to the report, the information they had was "raw, unanalyzed, and uncorroborated intelligence."3 It found no evidence that the government possessed any verified intelligence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia at the time the investigation began. That’s it …the FBI lacked proper basis? If they are not dishonest, then it is OK to be incompetent?
Confirmation Bias: The report highlighted that the FBI exhibited "confirmation bias," which led them to disregard or ignore information that contradicted the premise of the investigation.5 It stated that the bureau's handling of the Trump probe was a "noticeable departure from how it approached prior matters involving possible attempted foreign election interference plans." What? you get no more comments other than it was a “noticeable departure”?
Disparate Treatment: A key finding was the difference in how the FBI handled the Trump investigation compared to other politically sensitive matters, including one involving the Clinton campaign.7 The report found that the FBI failed to investigate intelligence suggesting a "Clinton campaign plan to falsely tie Trump to Russia," while simultaneously using a dossier funded by the Clinton campaign to obtain surveillance warrants on a Trump campaign associate.So is it reasonable to get a pass when using a fake dossier to commit election fraud… aided by the FBI and intelligence community. Remember the CIA head of station in the UK was Gina Haspel who was complicit and later became director of the CIA
Reliance on the Steele Dossier: The report reiterated that the FBI relied heavily on the Steele dossier, a document funded by the Clinton campaign, to secure a FISA warrant to surveil Carter Page.9 It found that the FBI did not and could not corroborate any of the substantive allegations in the dossier. Apparently it was then reasonable to be incompetent.
Limited Criminal Charges: While the report was highly critical of the FBI's conduct, it resulted in very few criminal charges.11 The most notable conviction was a guilty plea from a former FBI lawyer for altering an email related to the Carter Page FISA application.12 The two other cases that went to trial resulted in acquittals. How could you come to these conclusions with the information included in the classified annex of the report?
In essence, the declassified report and its annex paint a picture of an investigation that was initiated on insufficient grounds and was subsequently plagued by flaws in judgment and procedure by some within the FBI.14 The report, however, did not find evidence of a grand conspiracy against the Trump campaign by senior law enforcement officials.15
Trump has up to this point given Hillary a pass. Stone, Bannon,Navarro and Flynn were convicted and all except for Flynn sent to jail for far less.
This is not ancient history. The revelations from the declassified Durham Report Annex are brand new. It appears that Trump has now decided to play by Dem rules.
Obama
Obama did not like in late 2016 that his intelligence community had low confidence in the Russians having interfered with in 2016 election in favor of Trump. During his December 9, 2016 meeting he ordered a change in direction which subsequently became the foundation for the investigations during Trump’s first term.
Not ancient history this is very new and the result of the efforts of Patel, Bongino, Bondi and others.
Trump has up to this point given Hillary a pass. Stone, Bannon,Navarro and Flynn were convicted and all except for Flynn sent to jail for far less.
Clinton Foundation
Allegations of corruption and wrongdoing have been leveled against the Clinton Foundation for years, particularly concerning potential conflicts of interest and "pay-to-play" schemes during Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State.
Here's a breakdown of the key points:
Pay-to-Play Allegations: Critics and political opponents have alleged that donors to the Clinton Foundation received special access or policy favors from the State Department while Hillary Clinton was in charge. A 2016 Associated Press report found that a significant portion of private individuals who met with Secretary Clinton had donated to the foundation. This led to accusations that donations were a way to buy influence.
Foreign Donors: The foundation has faced criticism for accepting donations from foreign governments and individuals, raising concerns that these donations could be used to influence U.S. foreign policy. For example, a donation from the government of Algeria was scrutinized for its timing and potential motives.
Investigations: The Clinton Foundation has been the subject of multiple investigations.
The FBI and federal prosecutors opened inquiries into allegations of financial crimes and influence-peddling.
The Justice Department, under the Trump administration, conducted a separate two-year investigation.
Some reports indicate that these investigations, including those by the Trump Justice Department, found no evidence of wrongdoing. However, some sources suggest that internal conflicts and political pressure may have played a role in how these investigations were handled.
Foundation's Defense and Transparency: The Clinton Foundation has consistently denied any wrongdoing, stating that the allegations are politically motivated.
The foundation maintains that the Clintons do not receive any salary or personal income from the organization.
It points to high ratings from independent charity evaluators like Charity Navigator and CharityWatch as evidence of its transparency and effective use of funds.
The foundation has released its financial reports, tax filings, and other documents to demonstrate its commitment to accountability.
Conflict of Interest Concerns: Regardless of the legality of the foundation's actions, critics argue that the optics of a charity run by a high-ranking government official and accepting large donations from foreign entities created an undeniable appearance of a conflict of interest. The foundation itself implemented changes in 2016 to address these concerns.
Ignoring the obvious potential charges above, Trump has given Hillary a complete pass on the Clinton Foundation. Trump has up to this point given Hillary a pass. Stone, Bannon,Navarro and Flynn were convicted and all except for Flynn sent to jail for far less.