Editor’s note: The Blackberry story, that Patsy alludes to in this essay, is Pulitzer Prize material. Easy pickins for a willing researcher. I’ll include a link at the bottom of the page if you are curious enough to indulge yourself.
[Note from author Patricia Reed: This was first written and posted on Facebook in late 2017 or early 2018. This is a "look back" for people out there who have short memories, or just were not paying attention at the time. Why is all of this still relevant? Well, there is sort of a pattern emerging....a pattern of one power-center covering up for another power-center, and ultimately the whole thing being covered up by the so-called news media. Maybe none of that matters. But it does lead to many people dying needlessly, and many people having much of their lifetime earnings stolen from them by smiling, polite thieves and thugs. If those things do not matter, I guess I do not know what does matter.]
Sometimes a clean record means you are clean.
Sometimes it just means both you and the record keeper are dirty.
As President Trump's first year in office draws to a close, a recurring theme recurs (as recurring themes so often do) in the “mainstream" media, as well as in talking-point factories like Occupy Democrats: Eight years of Obama-- no indictments let alone convictions, no scandal even! One year of Trump-- a skeleton in every closet! See? So there! Many of the purveyors of this “factual comparison” are disingenuous, to say the least. But some poor innocent souls truly believe it. Their childlike faith is touching, but woefully misguided. So let's try to give them a foot-hold in the real world.
For starters, let's take that “accidental” meeting between Obama's attorney general Loretta Lynch, and first-gentleman-to-be (loosely speaking) Bill Clinton, on a lightly used runway at a small airport in Arizona... a meeting we wouldn't even know about were it not for a local journalist who was too young and insignificant to have been corrupted yet. Even Secret Service agents had been ordered to keep their distance. Cameras, phones, and recording devices were confiscated. Why?
Gee, let's see. We know it couldn't have been to cover up criminal behavior, because these were “Mr. Clean” Obama's people. Maybe just a prank? Admittedly an expensive one in every sense. A security test? Musta been something like that. It could not possibly have been because a felony was being committed. After all, these people worked for "Mr Clean" Obama. Months later, however, the Obama Justice Dept. was still stonewalling a Congressional committee that had subpoenaed documents relevant to the meeting. Why? Finally, some documents were released. They were heavily redacted. Why?
Fast-rewind to Benghazi. Secretary of State Clinton destroyed tens of thousands of emails relevant to the case. Why? She also had several Blackberries smashed to smithereens, obviously so that their data could never be recovered. She had the hard drive of her main server swiped with Byt-bleach data remover several times to ensure that data recovery would not be possible.
Of course, all of that constituted major, major Obstruction of Justice, a criminal felony. And of course she got away with it, because it turned out that the Justice Dept, by then stuffed full of Obama appointees, was thoroughly corrupt. And so were the "news" media.
During the months leading up to Benghazi, the consulate staff there had repeatedly requested additional security. Not only were all their pleas either refused or ignored, but their security was actually REDUCED. (That'll teach 'em to ask for help!) Days before the attack, Ambassador Stevens sent an urgent, classified, private cable addressed personally to Secretary Clinton. It was, sadly, his final plea.
Initially, Clinton testified (under oath) that she had never seen, or even been informed of, the cable-- which would have been extremely strange. When reminded that her initials were on the cable, she changed her story from “I didn't know” to, basically, “I didn't care.” She explained that she often initialled documents without actually reading them! (But I thought the whole purpose....) Why didn't she actually read that one? Because, according to her, security wasn't her lookout!! (Imagine the uproar if a Trump appointee gave such “testimony”...)
It also happened that Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey and Central Intelligence Agency Panetta had both testified in another hearing that both of them had NOT ONLY RECEIVED BUT ACTUALLY READ Stevens' cable. Awkward! We were now required to believe that the cable had been taken seriously enough to be actually read by both the head of the entire American military and the head of the entire American intelligence community, yet was not serious enough to need to be read by the person it was actually addressed to. Either that, or Clinton was lying when she said she did not read it, in which case she committed the crime of perjury... or she was telling the truth and had indeed not bothered to read it, in which case she was an reprehensibly ruthless administrator who refused to protect the lives even of the people who worked for her.
Oh yeah, there is one other possibility: Both Dempsey and Panetta were lying for some reason, and poor Ambassador Stevens' last desperate plea to save him, was basically tossed in the circular file by ALL of Obama's top security and state dept appointees. I don't believe that. I believe they read the cable, and so did Clinton. And then she tossed it into the circular file. Because she had already decided that Stevens' life had to be sacrificed on the altar of her future presidency (which she considered all but wrapped up, and did not want to be unwrapped). Why did neither Dempsey or Panetta intervene? Presumably they were ordered not to do so....
We've only scratched the surface of criminal behavior in the Obama administration in this brief article. There was Fast and Furious (gun running), the IRS scandal (politicizing and weaponizing the IRS), the VA scandals (fraud, negligence, and involuntary manslaughter at VA hospitals), the Al Sharpton protection-racket scandal, the Bo Bergdahl traitor-ransom scandal, the nonenforcement of Constitutionally-validated immigration law scandal, and the now-emerging Iran collusion and Uranium One scandals. I'm forgetting a few, but it's a start.
Of course, if you simply can't handle all that, the mainstream media is your friend. Because they can't handle it either. So both you and the mainstream media can (for a while longer) keep living in dreamland. While you're there, give my regards to the unicorns and the friendly dragons.
Editor’s note: Here’s a teaser for those still interested in the Blackberry story: LINK