Fresh proof the FBI’s Hillary email probe was a joke … Yet another surprise revelation suggests strongly that the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail mess was anything but a by-the-book investigation. House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said he learned only Friday that the Justice Department gave immunity deals to Clinton’s former chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, and two other aides. That brings to five the number of Clintonistas who got a pass in exchange for testimony and/or information.
-New York Post
The FBI’s erosion of reputation – taking place this very day and minute as a result of the Clinton email mess – could not have happened to a more deserving operation.
For 75 years, the FBI has terrorized the American public with increasing vigor and brutality. Much of the FBI “crimes” it focuses on – insider trading and the like – weren’t even thought to be criminal a few decades ago.
It is increasingly clear that the drug-dealing prosecuted by the FBI takes place at the highest levels of America’s political office. Enough has been reported (certainly in the alternative media) about Clinton/Bush/CIA cocaine or heroin dealings to generate what may be a believable profile of these operations.
When it comes to white collar banking crime, the American public is increasingly skeptical about the engine of the industry – central banks themselves.
Generally speaking, there are lingering and expanding questions about whom is being prosecuted (for what) in finance, banking and drug crime.
When it comes to terrorism, there is significant skepticism, especially among the alternative media, as to whether incidents are being staged to give the FBI something dramatic to do.
And now come high-profile reports in major New York newspapers calling a major FBI investigation a “joke.”
But it is not the investigation that is a “joke” but the FBI itself. Somehow people seem to have forgotten the “hair evidence” fiasco that came to light in 2013.
Here from the Guardian:
In July 2013, the FBI admitted that the foundations of what it called “hair comparison evidence” – a technique that its agents had used in hundreds of criminal cases nationwide and spread through the training of state-based detectives potentially through tens of thousands of other cases – were scientifically invalid. A preliminary review of the FBI’s follicular flaws found that:
-Microscopic hair analysis could not scientifically distinguish one individual to the exclusion of all others.
-Statistical weight could not be given to comparisons to suggest a likelihood that the hair derived from a specific source.
-Expert witnesses should not cite the number of hair analyses they had conducted in the lab to bolster the idea that they could definitively state that a hair belonged to a specific individual.
Tens of thousands may have been put in jail mistakenly based on hair evidence that some in the FBI knew to be false. Exactly how many lives were ruined is not clear as the FBI has surely never published a definitive account.
In fact, this is part of the problem. The FBI is generally not held to account in any single aspect of its operations.
In bluntest terms, the FBI performs a function similar to that of the 20th century KGB. It creates high-profile “criminal cases” to reinforce elite memes. For instance, banking elites are currently fixated on creating a “war on terror.” The FBI is charged with finding and arresting terrorists to buttress this narrative.
Almost all of the terrorists that the FBI has arrested in the recent past have significant questions attached to them. There are cases to be made probably for every one of them that the individual is either nor responsible for the incident or was incited and supported by the FBI in such a way as to bring the episode to fruition.
This is how Western democracies operate today. They are run primarily by banking interests that create narratives intended to drive certain economic and sociopolitical results. The primary enforcers of these narratives are intel agencies like the Mossad, CIA, MI5 and MI6 and of course the FBI.
The nexus of control probably resides in London’s City and thus in a sense one can argue that the West is already under one functional umbrella when it comes to control.
The trouble with this system is that it is secret. The FBI for instance, masqueraded as anti-criminal operation for a long time. Today it defines itself mostly as a state-security facility.
The problem the FBI is facing has little to do with self-definition and much to do with credibility. The FBI like other intel agencies throughout modern history loses considerable credibility if it is seen as an organ of state bureaucracy rather than an independent and unbiased entity of national justice.
Unfortunately for the FBI, this era of Internet information continues to be unkind to its reputation. Whether it is illegitimate hair evidence, terrorist suspects that are FBI supported or – now – a major investigation into Hillary’s emails that seems to be compromised and corrupted at every turn, the FBI is reeling from endless public relations disasters.
Intel operations when they are seen as corrupt begin to resemble agencies of oppression. Once the authoritarian yoke cannot be justified, the public’s mood can harden significantly. The FBI is currently in a delicate position. Its recent past provides little that is admirable and much that is questionable or illegal – including its furtive expansion abroad.
This latest disaster, featuring Hillary, is effectively stripping away the one argument the FBI could make regarding its broader behavior: It was making everyone equally miserable.
Now, as the Hillary fiasco continues to bleed into the mainstream media (and there are many reasons it is doing so) FBI execs face the worst of all worlds. The difficulty is not one that can be fixed via blackmail or using the famous FBI files as leverage against “enemies.”
The problem is simpler and more profound than that. More than half of Americans adults believe Hillary ought to have been prosecuted for her recent email misdeeds, but the FBI claimed there was no case. Unfortunately, information now trickling out shows that the FBI was careless with immunity and did not do a thorough-enough job of investigating available evidence.
In other words, it purposefully botched the job. Even worse for the FBI is that Hillary’s case is a political one, which means it will receive extraordinary coverage- and the flaws in the “prosecution” will be painstakingly delineated.
What will begin to emerge is the profile of an agency protecting the most powerful of American citizens. The ramifications of this public perception are not tolerable to the FBI.
The FBI can get away with many things but not with being seen as less than evenhanded. Strip away the faux mask of judicial blindness and the reality of the FBI as a brutal enforcer of elite authoritarianism comes clear. That above all else is not tolerable. It spells the end of the FBI as a functional police force. Stripped of rhetorical justification, it has nothing but intimidation to fall back on. And that’s not enough, not ever.
For this reason we suspect FBI director James Comey – who has a prior relationship with the Clintons – will have to resign. The FBI is going to have to cast its recent actions as aberrations in order to survive.
Conclusion: Perhaps the easiest way to survive while retaining at least shreds of critical credibility is to blame the mess on a single individual who perverted the actions of an otherwise reputable facility. That doesn’t sound comforting for Comey but it may be the easiest way for the FBI to recover in the short term. In the long term, given the FBIs exposure to a variety of Internet truths, probably nothing can save it – in its current form anyway.