“We manipulate the vote with money and action.”

Here is James O’Keefe’s second hidden camera video exposing the dirty works of violent thug groups funded by George Soros. (See the first one, third post below.)

This one is chiefly about rigging elections. They boast they have been doing it – for the Democratic Party of course – “for fifty years”:

Later: One of the election fraudsters recorded here by the Project Veritas camera, Bob Creamer, has resigned from his “responsibilities working with the [Hillary Clinton] campaign” as a result of the publication of the video.

He is the second villain to fall in James O’Keefe’s campaign, following Scott Foval who was fired after the first video  appeared.

Who is ultimately behind the violence at Trump rallies?:

Bob Creamer has visited the White House 342 times since 2009, White House records show. He met with President Obama personally 47 times. 

This is a very important video made by James O’Keefe of Project Veritas (via Breitbart).

America may be about to elect to the highest power a gang of violent crooks as low as any ever bred in a moral gutter. They are using gutter tactics to win this election – and they are boasting of it:

Heard of “bird-dogging”? The video explains what it means.

We particularly savor the words of one Scott Foval, of Democracy Partners and/or People of the American Way, who organizes violent attacks but is a moral poseur, proud of “the way I was raised”.*

And they call Trump a “Nazi”!

* Scott Foval has been fired since this video was released. But he is merely a scapegoat for the people who employed him to do what he did. They will continue with their dirty work.

Half the voters of the United States want an unindicted criminal to be president.

Yet to vote for Hillary Clinton is to vote for

Higher taxes

Higher unemployment

More debt

More terrorism

The discarding of the Constitution

A traitor.

To vote for Donald Trump is to vote for

Lower taxes

Higher employment

Lower debt

Much less terrorism

The upholding of the Constitution

A patriot.

Those who are against Hillary Clinton coming to power but do not cast their vote for Donald Trump will be as guilty of putting a corrupt criminal traitor into power as those who vote for her.

The guilty will also be putting the indicted and impeached criminal Bill Clinton back in the White  House from which he, with his criminal wife, stole hundreds of dollars worth of furnishings.

How can there be any hesitation on the part of any sane voter in choosing which of the nominees should be president? Or any doubt as to which of them would  be best for his /her own interests as well as the interests of the country?

If pollsters are to be believed –

President Obama has attained a high “job approval” rating of late.

Yet

His health care plan has failed miserably.

He has vastly increased the country’s debt.

The number of unemployed has risen beyond calculation under him.

The incomes of workers have dropped.

No one earns anything on their savings.

He has grossly worsened race relations.

He has let hundreds of felons out of prison.

He has diminished the strength of  the US military.

He has encouraged illegal aliens to pour into the US over the southern border.

He has imported tens of thousands of Muslims and refuses to recognize or name Muslim terrorism from which America and the whole world are increasingly suffering.

Every one of the agencies of his government have become deeply corrupted under his leadership.

The Middle East is in flames because of his policies.

Libya is in chaos because he bombed it.

Third World migrants are flooding Europe as they flee from the areas where his policies have caused war and the rise of savage tyrants.

Iran is on the way to becoming a nuclear power due to his efforts.

Russia is preparing for nuclear war again.

He is so disrespected by the Chinese that they wouldn’t even give him stairs to descend from his plane when he landed there, let alone a red carpet or a greeting by the leader of the country.

He has alienated Israel, cold-shouldered Britain, broken his promises of providing defense weaponry to Poland and the Czech Republic.

And that’s only a partial list of the harm he has done to this country.

Yet

His “job approval” has gone up.

What can explain this?

Ed Klein has just published a new book, Guilty as Sin, in which he describes how details of FBI Director James Comey’s investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s illegal personal email server were delivered to the Oval Office in a briefcase by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The Conservative Tribune reports:

In an excerpt of Guilty As Sin, published on Newsmax, Klein says that Comey realized his investigation was being undermined when he saw White House press secretary Josh Earnest indicate during a news conference that the administration had details of the FBI’s investigation:

It was Jan. 29, 2016, and an aide had just handed Comey a printout of today’s White House press conference by Josh Earnest, the president’s spokesman. There, marked for Comey’s attention, was Earnest’s response to a reporter who had asked whether Hillary Clinton was likely to be indicted as a result of the FBI’s investigation into her personal emails.

“Based on what we know from the Department of Justice,” Earnest said, “it does not seem to be headed in that direction.”

Based on what we know!

“How does Earnest know anything?” Comey asked.

Enter Loretta Lynch, who acted as Hillary Clinton’s guardian angel.

Uniformed FBI agents on Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s protective detail had informed Comey that Lynch had locked an armful of documents on the FBI investigation into her briefcase and delivered them to the White House. More than once, Lynch had brought along a Justice Department prosecutor who was working on the Hillary case to brief the president’s staff. These briefings between Lynch and the White House (which Lynch publicly denied because they were unethical) had been going on since Comey’s investigation began in the summer of 2015. Comey was aware, of course, that his criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton was inevitably linked with the highest possible stakes in American politics. If his agents turned up evidence of criminal wrongdoing on Hillary’s part, it would ignite the greatest political firestorm since Watergate. And more likely than not, that would derail Hillary’s candidacy for the White House.”

… Klein’s book could [does – ed] indicate just how deep Obama was willing to go in order to ensure that Hillary Clinton stayed out of trouble.

This is why we can’t have four more years of Democrats making sure that laws aren’t enforced.

All the chief officials elected or appointed to enforce the law, breaking it!

The protection of Hillary Clinton requires ever more defiance of the rule of law.

Now a report at Politico reveals that an accused law-breaker is freed from charges in order to avoid “embarrassing” her:

The Obama administration is moving to dismiss charges against an arms dealer it had accused of selling weapons that were destined for Libyan rebels.

Lawyers for the Justice Department on Monday filed a motion in federal court in Phoenix to drop the case against the arms dealer, an American named Marc Turi, whose lawyers also signed the motion. The deal averts a trial that threatened to cast additional scrutiny on Hillary Clinton’s private emails as Secretary of State, and to expose reported Central Intelligence Agency attempts to arm rebels fighting Libyan leader Moammar Qadhafi.

Government lawyers were facing a Wednesday deadline to produce documents to Turi’s legal team, and the trial was officially set to begin on Election Day, although it likely would have been delayed by protracted disputes about classified information in the case.

A Turi associate asserted that the government dropped the case because the proceedings could have embarrassed Clinton and President Barack Obama by calling attention to the reported role of their administration in supplying weapons that fell into the hands of Islamic extremist militants. …

Turi adviser Robert Stryk of the government relations and consulting firm SPG accused the government of trying to scapegoat Turi to cover up Clinton’s mishandling of Libya.

“The U.S. government spent millions of dollars, went all over the world to bankrupt him, and destroyed his life — all to protect Hillary Clinton’s crimes,” he said, alluding to the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. …

Turi was indicted in 2014 on four felony counts: two of arms dealing in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and two of lying to the State Department in official applications. The charges accused Turi of claiming that the weapons involved were destined for Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, when the arms were actually intended to reach Libya.

Turi’s lawyers argued that the shipments were part of a U.S. government-authorized effort to arm Libyan rebels. …

Turi’s case had delved into emails sent to and from the controversial private account that Clinton used as Secretary of State, which the defense planned to harness at any trial. …

Turi’s defense was pressing for more documents about the alleged rebel-arming effort and for testimony from officials who worked on the issue the State Department and the CIA. The defense said it planned to argue that Turi believed he had official permission to work on arms transfers to Libya

Every time the law is flouted to save Hillary, she is more tainted, more disreputable.

And so are the officials in the FBI and the DOJ who cover her corruption.

It is not unreasonable for immunity from prosecution to be granted to a lesser offender if that person’s testimony – though self-incriminating – can lead to the successful prosecution of a greater offender.

But in the case of Hillary’ Clinton’s multiple and extremely serious crimes, the granting of immunity to all the most important potential witnesses against her was plainly done IN ORDER TO SAVE HER FROM PROSECUTION.

And the intricate plan was also designed to save her from prosecution IN THE FUTURE. The proof of this is that the offender-witnesses who were granted immunity were also permitted to DESTROY EVIDENCE.

Breitbart reports:

The FBI agreed to destroy two Clinton aides’ laptops after granting them immunity as part of a “side agreement”, according to a letter from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte to Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Goodlatte alleges that the FBI promised to destroy the laptops of Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, and Heather Samuelson, an ex-campaign staffer and deputy to Mills, after conducting its search.

Fox News cites unnamed sources in a report saying that the FBI’s search was also limited in scope, in order to “[prevent] the bureau from discovering if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice.” Investigators could not review documents created after January 31, 2015:

The side deals were agreed to on June 10, less than a month before FBI Director James Comey announced that the agency would recommend no charges be brought against Clinton or her staff. Judiciary Committee aides told FoxNews.com that the destruction of the laptops is particularly troubling as it means that the computers could not be used as evidence in future legal proceedings, should new information or circumstances arise.

Committee aides also asked why the FBI and DOJ would enter into a voluntary negotiation to begin with, when the laptops could be obtained condition-free via a subpoena.

The letter also asked why the DOJ agreed to limit their search of the laptops to files before Jan. 31, 2015, which would “give up any opportunity to find evidence related to the destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State”.

Aides expressed shock at the parameter, saying it is especially troubling as Mills and Samuelson already had immunity from the consequences of whatever might be on the laptop.

Goodlatte wrote a scathing series of questions to Lynch on the subject:

Like many things about this case, these new materials raise more questions than answers …

Why did the FBI agree to destroy both Cheryl Mills’s and Heather Samuelson’s laptops after concluding its search? [Emphasis in original.]

Doesn’t the willingness of Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson to have their laptops destroyed by the FBI contradict their claim that the laptops could have been withheld because they contained non-relevant, privileged information? If so, doesn’t that undermine the claim that the side agreements were necessary?

Have these laptops, or the contents of these laptops, in fact been destroyed, thereby making follow-up investigations by the FBI, or Congressional oversight, impossible? …

Why was this time limit necessary when both Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson were granted immunity for any potential destruction of evidence charges?

Goodlatte also demanded to know how many classified documents were found on Mills’ and Samuelson’s laptops.

Beth Wilkinson, a D.C.-based lawyer who is married to former Meet The Press host and Clinton donor David Gregory, reportedly negotiated the “side agreements” for the two former aides. Wilkinson has represented four of Clinton’s aides.

Greater self-abasement is no law-enforcement officer capable of than to lay down his honor and self-respect for a powerful criminal. 

James Comey will be forever remembered as a man who used his position of trust to do just that.

Loretta Lynch is equally compromised, of course. But who expected anything better of her?

In the case of James Comey, who had a reputation as a man of probity, there is something classically tragic about his fall.

Fans of the Clintons like to say that through the Clinton Foundation and its offshoots, millions of lives have been saved, and people will die if the Clintons cannot continue with their great humanitarian work.

In particular the devotees point to the Clinton Health Access Initiative’s negotiating with generic drug-manufacturers to provide low-cost HIV drugs to the Third World.

As always with the Clintons, the truth of the matter has been hidden – and it is peculiarly horrible.

The Daily Caller reports:

Former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) distributed “watered-down” HIV/AIDs drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa, and “likely increased” the risks of morbidity and mortality, according to a draft congressional report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation [DCNF].

The congressional report, titled, The Clinton Foundation and The India Success Story, was initiated by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican and vice-chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The CHAI program to help AIDS victims is considered one of the Clinton Foundation’s most important contributions and is probably its best known initiative.

The congressional report focused on Clinton’s decade-long relationship with a controversial Indian drug manufacturer called Ranbaxy, which CHAI used as one of its main distributors of HIV/AIDS drugs to Third World countries. It also highlighted the work of Dinesh Thakur, a former Ranbaxy employee who became a star whistleblower, permitting the U.S. government to launch a landmark lawsuit against the Indian firm. The company was vulnerable to U.S. prosecution because it also sold its generic drugs on the U.S. market.

Ranbaxy ultimately pleaded guilty in 2013 to seven criminal counts with intent to defraud and the introduction of adulterated drugs into interstate commerce. The Department of Justice further levied a $500 million fine and forfeiture on the company.

“This is the largest false claims case ever prosecuted in the District of Maryland, and the nation’s largest financial penalty paid by a generic pharmaceutical company,” said U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein when Ranbaxy pleaded guilty. …

The Department of Justice stated in its final settlement, “alleged due to the company’s diluted drugs, it ‘subjected patients to increased risks of morbidity and mortality’,” according to the report.

“The question becomes, ‘how many people lost their lives, how many people found it was a false promise’, ” asked [Rep. Marsha] Blackburn in an interview with The DCNF.

The possibility that CHAI distributed adulterated and diluted AIDS drugs to Third World victims could shake the foundations of the Clinton charity and spark a new round of scrutiny in the final weeks of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

It could, but will it? Not if the mass media can prevent it, and that they will certainly try to do.

Blackburn said she planned to deliver the report to the inspector generals at the Department of Health and Human Services and to the Department of State, where Hillary served as secretary of state during President Barack Obama’s first term.

Both those government agencies have been corrupted by the Obama-Clinton mafia. How likely are they to turn on the Clintons now, whatever crimes they have committed?

The congressional study also highlighted the unseemly ties between Bill and two controversial Indian-Americans who have been investigated and sanctioned by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The most troubling revelations concern the Clinton Foundation’s vigorous promotion of Ranbaxy despite mounting evidence the Indian firm had persistently poor quality control and attempted to cover it up through either faulty or fraudulent reporting to the FDA.

It is unclear at this juncture how many AIDS patients received the “watered-down” drugs.

ProPublica estimated that in 2007 alone, the U.S. Agency for International Development allocated $9 million to Ranbaxy and delivered “more than $1.8 million packages”. …

Thakur [the whistleblower] told The DCNF that many of the company’s anti-retroviral drugs were used to stabilize platelet and white blood cell counts in AIDS patients.

“These drugs allow it to stabilize and essentially provide immunity to patients. If the content of the medicine is not what is listed on the label, you will not see the platelet levels or the WBC levels stabilize,” he said.

Ranbaxy’s first public hint of problems occurred in August 2004, one year after CHAI began working with the firm. The World Health Organization reported irregularities involving three Ranbaxy drugs in South Africa, according to the report.

The FDA sent a public “warning letter” to Ranbaxy in 2006 about reported irregularities in the company’s quality control efforts. It concluded that the drugs, which included anti-retroviral HIV/AIDs medications, “show much lower potencies in these batches”.

Although Ranbaxy’s generic drugs are now barred from being sold in the U.S., CHAI and the former president continue to praise Ranbaxy and distribute the company’s HIV/AID drugs to patients abroad.

Bill heaped praise on Ranbaxy in 2013 during a speech in Mumbai, saying, the drugs saved millions of lives.

Neither CHAI nor the Clinton Foundation have announced they severed ties with Ranbaxy. …

The whistleblower tried to meet with CHAI and Clinton Foundation officials, but was only met with silence. …

CHAI was a part of the Clinton Foundation until 2010, when it spun off into a separate entity. The groups still have some overlapping board members and staff, and they continue to operate in close coordination. Bill Clinton, for example, is deeply involved with both organizations.

Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst who has been an outspoken critic of the legal missteps by the Clinton Foundation, claims their separation was “deeply suspect”.

“In the application, trustees of the new entity, including Bill Clinton, falsely claim the entity is not a successor to previous efforts. This is not true. They purposefully obscure the fact that a similar operation called ‘CHAI’ was by far the largest piece of the original Foundation,” Ortel told The DCNF.

The congressional study suggests Bill may have relaxed quality standards in a 2000 executive order.

Suggests? He did just that:

He signed an executive order that, “relaxed intellectual property policy standards”, promising the U.S. government “would not revoke or revise the intellectual property laws of any ‘Sub-Saharan country’ relating to HIV/AIDS medicines or technologies”, the report states.

Profiting from the suffering of helpless people is what the Clintons do. And of course they could do it on an even vaster scale if Hillary were to become president of the United States.

*

Remember the film The Third Man? Harry Lime was in the same rotten business as the Clintons – distributing drugs that didn’t work.

Great movie. The villain Harry Lime played by Orson Welles. Everyone recognized him as a villain.

It’s different now with the Clintons.

There is no bottom.

Breitbart reports:

Bernard Sansaricq, former president of the Haitian Senate, issued a blistering statement condemning the Clinton Foundation, which has been posted at Donald Trump’s campaign website.

Sansaricq’s statement says:

Sadly, when an earthquake rocked the nation of Haiti in 2010, corruption moved in faster than the help so desperately needed. Today, the people of Haiti are still suffering despite the billions of dollars that have flowed into the Clinton Foundation [to help Haiti]. The Clintons exploited this terrible disaster to steal billions of dollars from the sick and starving people of Haiti. The world trusted the Clintons to help the Haitian people during their most desperate time of need and they were deceived. The Clintons and their friends are richer today while millions still live in tents. The world deserves to know where the money went and why help was never sent.

Speaking at a Trump rally last Friday, Sansaricq accused Bill Clinton of trying to bribe him. He said his visa was revoked after he refused the offer.

A person’s emotions and unrevealed thoughts, though they might be suspected, can seldom be proved.

And however aggressive thoughts and emotions may be, they are not in themselves criminal. They may be “sinful” to a Christian, but a crime and a sin are not the same thing. A crime is a deed done; a sin of thought is at worst only a potential crime. Sin is defined by faith, not reason, and faith does not – cannot – subject its dogma to the rigorous examination practiced in secular courts of law.

When a crime is committed, its perpetrator should be punished regardless of what emotions or thoughts motivated him. (Self-defense is an exception as the desire to live and not be harmed is assumed to be universal.)

Some crimes, it’s true, having no obvious or discoverable motive (such as gain), can plausibly be attributed to hate, jealousy, fear, or revenge. And a perpetrator might say that he was driven by the force of an emotion. But still, traditionally it is what he actually did that brings him before the judgment of society and its law.

Yet codes of law do exist that allow strong emotion to be taken into account – as a mitigating not an aggravating circumstance. In France, for instance, the crime passionel – a crime committed out of strong feeling such as, and usually, jealous love – is allowed special consideration for lighter punishment or none. It may be charming to find a place for sentiment in law, for love, or compassion, or “empathy”; but to esteem passion more highly than personal responsibility is to undermine the dependability of the law. The law must be dependably impersonal, objective, impartial, neutral, even-handed or it is not just.

Must be? Increasingly, the political Left – the side of the emotions – favors the idea of treating a defendant leniently if he is “underprivileged”, harshly if he is “privileged”. Obama and his Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor have expressed a preference for “empathetic” judgment – finding according to the personal feelings of the judge. If judges always or often did that, it would be the end of the rule of law. If people permit them to do it, they’re demolishing the house that shelters them.

Some seem to think a judge is right to find for someone with whose opinions he agrees, and against someone whose opinions he dislikes, regardless of the merits of their cases. A British judge, for example, let off vandals who had been proved guilty, because they said they were doing it against the state of Israel which they deemed oppressive, and in sympathy with Palestinians whom they deemed victims of Israeli oppression. Because the judge shared their opinions of Israel and the Palestinians, he acquitted them. If all judges made their judgments on such grounds of personal preference, it would clearly be the end of justice and the rule of law.

Most if not all “hate crime” is attributed to “racism”. As “racism” is an attitude of mind that taints the individual, it is a sin rather than a crime. If it prompts a crime, it is the crime that is wrong, not the attitude of mind or depth of feeling behind it.

But almost everywhere in the Western world, the attitude and feeling are now regarded as more important, more to be condemned, than the actual crime. Since the rise to power of the New Left  in politics, education, and the mass media, “racism” tops almost every other offense.

And yet … It appears that in practice the gravity of the “racist’ offense depends on which “race” is carrying out the attack on which other “race”. Some – like the vandals in Britain – are given a pass on the grounds that they are the more unfortunate. (An extension of the crime passionel idea.)

What is “racism”?

“Racism” has come to mean dislike of a race, a nation, or a religious group. It is not applied – though it applies logically – to a group defined by occupation; say lawyers, or bankers, or the executives of corporations, all of whom are subjected to hate as an entire class.

The FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” But that motivation remains guesswork, dependant on opinion and prejudice, which makes its even application impossible.

If a rule against racism were to be applied evenly, the defendants in the British case would not have been acquitted – and the judge would have been seen as committing a hate crime himself.

But to apply such a rule evenly would be to return to dependably impersonal, objective, impartial, neutral, even-handed justice.

That such real justice looks outdated, signifies that the Left has won. 

*

We have said that judgment needs to be of the crime itself, regardless of its motive.

But are there some crimes for which the only discoverable or imaginable motive is “hate”?

Certainly there are.

And is the hatred motivating the perpetrators of such crimes sometimes a hatred of the race, or nation, or religion of their victims?

Certainly it is.

The worst hate crime in this century – worst in numbers, method, and effect – was what has come to be called simply “9/11” – the bombing of the World trade Center twin towers in New York on September 9, 2001. It was obviously motivated by religious hatred.

We argue that the motive does not excuse the crime. The motive does not make a crime less or more criminal.

But the Left holds that the motive of hate, however it is detected, does make a crime worse.

Any crime done out of hate is worse because of the hatred?

Well, no – comes the reply – not any crime. To conclude that would be logical, reasonable, Rightist.

In the case of 9/11, the argument goes, the hate was justified, because the crime and the hatred were in retaliation for prior crimes of hate committed by “the United States”, and/or “capitalists” involved with trade whose headquarters actual and/or symbolic were the World Trade Center, and/or President George W. Bush, and/or the Right in general.

In fact, many Leftists – or “social justice warriors”, SJWs – go so far as to argue that nothing done by the Left against any of those villains, even if done in a spirit of hate, can be classed as a hate crime, because it is always justified revenge. So the Left and its allies cannot commit a hate crime. For instance, a blow against a Muslim because he’s a Muslim is a hate crime, yes; but a blow by a Muslim against a non-Muslim because he’s a non-Muslim, is not a hate crime. Because Muslims are oppressed, strikes by Muslims are never morally wrong. The same argument applies if the striker is Black, or identified with any group they define as “oppressed”. The chief oppressors are always the United States, capitalists, white men, Israel, conservatives and Republicans.

All “oppressed” perpetrators of avenging attacks are justified by their victimhood. They cannot be accused of hate crimes. They are the eternal victims of hate crime.

And who are the “oppressed”? They are who the SJW’s say they are.

The Roman satirist Juvenal asked: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The guardians themselves – who will guard them?

No one. Nothing. The rot of US government corruption in the age of Obama and the Clintons is discovered to be ever deeper, ever wider. There is no bottom, there is no limit.

Breitbart reports on FBI Director James Comey who, as a top guardian of the law, could single-handedly have saved America (and the world) from the appalling possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency by recommending her prosecution for the high crimes she had committed – and didn’t do it.

What held him back?

It emerges that in his own mind, the Director of the FBI owes a higher loyalty to Hillary Clinton than to America.

A review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.

These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.

When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.

But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year. 

Comey served as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft for two years of the Bush administration. When he left the Bush administration, he went directly to Lockheed Martin and became vice president, acting as a general counsel. …

Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010. According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010. In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department. 

In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings. … HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. …

Breitbart found that James Comey owns the mortgage on his brother Peter’s house. Does Peter Comey also have a connection to the Clintons?

When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey”,  a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website. Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper.

James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing.

DLA Piper is the firm that performed the “independent” audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them.

DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base. DLA Piper ranks #5 on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs. 

So there never was the remotest chance that James Comey, head of the FBI, would recommend the prosecution of Hillary Clinton. And Attorney General Loretta Lynch, head of the Department of Justice, surely knew that perfectly well when she said she would accept Comey’s recommendation, “whatever it was”.

In or out of the White House, the Clintons rule.