January 26

 THE CHRONOLOGY LINKING HRC EXONERATION TO BARACK OBAMA.

Obama and Clinton had many classified emails between them over her private, non-secure email account. The President refused to disclose the email chain citing executive privilege. If Clinton had been criminally charged those emails would have been in the spotlight and would have revealed complicity in Clinton’s conduct.

On July 5 2016, Comey held a press conference where he described HRC criminal conduct. He said she was guilty of extreme carelessness, tantamount to gross negligence, a criminal offense for a Secretary of State…but no charges filed because of no criminal intent.

In May 2016, Comey drafted a letter exonerating HRC before she was ever interviewed. He must have been acting on orders from Loretta Lynch, AG. The FBI does the investigation, the AG determines if there is criminality in them.

A passage on June 30 2016, Comey memo included an “email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary.” It was later replaced by “the President” with “another senior government official.” The effort to spare Obama from any incrimination was scrapped because it would have triggered a Congressional investigation so it was decided to give HRC the entire blame and then exonerate her.

In March 2015 the Obama administration was in panic. The Benghazi investigation was going on and Congress wanted to see her emails. Obama denied having any different knowledge about them as found out “the same time as everybody else learned it through news reports. Obama was confident that the alias he used in at least 20 of his emails would not be discovered.

Higher-ups in his staff knew differently.

Obama covered his tracks by invoking Presidential privilege which was cloaked as the principle of confidentiality. The Media played along with the explanation. He was able to sidestep disclosure and he didn’t have to use the term Executive Privilege which had dark Watergate connotations. Claims of executive privilege must yield to demands for disclosure of relevant evidence in criminal prosecution.

No problem if there is not prosecution.

President Obama claimed he learned of the Clinton private server through the press was not going well. All but the Left media didn’t buy off that he didn’t know some of HRC’s correspondence to him was on a private unsecured server.

April 2016, Obama, in a nationally televised interview, made clear that he did not want Clinton indicted. Her violations were not intentional. Obama’s analysis was the stated view of the chief executive. If, as was sure to happen, his subordinates in the executive law-enforcement agencies conformed their decisions to his stated view, there would be no prosecution.

Lynch ordered FBI director Comey to change the terminology from “investigation” to “a matter”. It aligned well with the Clinton campaign rhetoric.

Within a few weeks, even though the investigation was ostensibly still underway and over a dozen key witnesses — including Clinton herself — had not yet been interviewed, the FBI began drafting Comey’s remarks that would close the investigation.

On June 27, Lynch met with Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, on an out-of-the-way Arizona tarmac, where their security details arranged for both their planes to be parked. Lynch’s employee detail was asked to leave the plane, leaving the two to them alone for 45 minutes.

On July 1, amid intense public criticism of her meeting with Bill Clinton, Attorney General Lynch piously announced that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI director and career prosecutors made about charging Clinton. Of course, she did: It was understood by all involved that there would be no prosecution. (Later texts between Page and Strozk reveal this play act by Lynch was disingenuous.)

Fearing this just might look a bit choreographed, the FBI promptly amended Comey’s planned remarks to include this assertion (which he in fact made on July 5): “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.”

On July 2, with the decision that she would not be indicted long since made, Mrs. Clinton sat for an interview with the FBI, something she’d never have done if there were a chance she might be charged. Clinton, not under oath, did the interview without Comey and with no notes taken during the interview.

The farce was complete.

All cleaned up and sanitary: no indictment, meaning no prosecution, meaning no disclosure of Clinton–Obama emails. It all worked like a charm . . . except for the part where Mrs. Clinton wins the presidency and the problem is buried and never spoken of again.

Voila’. there it is……

SLUGGO