Conservative filmmaker behind anti-Obama documentary indicted for violating election law: Dinesh D'Souza, whose “2016: Obama’s America” is the second-highest grossing political documentary of all-time, will appear in the U.S. District Court in New York Friday. D’Souza’s co-producer in “2016” Gerald Molen told FoxNews.com he believes the charges are politically motivated and D’Souza is being singled out by federal authorities for a “selective prosecution.”
How is it possible that D'Souza gets harassed for this, a donation he allegedly made for $20,000, then there are DNC dinners where hundreds of people in an hour donate 45,000 a plate?
J. Christian Adams, in PJ Media, said that Democrats, through unions, have been getting donations in this manner for decades. And yet now that Republicans are trying to access some of the same campaign fundraising methods, Democrats are trying to create rules that allow them to fundraise this way, while denying Republicans the same.
To me it resembles what happened in 2012 to Frank Vandersloot, who made a $1 million donation to Mitt Romney's campaign, and was immediately besieged with harassment, and two IRS lawsuits, on his business and private finances, that even though there was absolutely no wrongdoing on his part, cost him $80,000 in legal fees to defend himself against.
As the Vandersloot case was an attempt to intimidate and cut off GOP campaign finance support, this case with D'Souza is to shut down and intimidate political free speech in documentary media. They are trying to prevent Republican conservatives from having their own counterweight to Michael Moore and other far-left documentary propagandists. It is, again, Obama and the DNC's attempt to abuse control of federal law enforcement, to harass and silence conservative dissent. Just like Vandersloot. Just like the IRS targeting of Tea Party and religious conservative 501 groups.
A conservative group in Hollywood, shrouded in secrecy for fear of a backlash from powerful movie industry liberals, is being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service after applying for tax-exempt status.
Friends of Abe has attempted to stay under the radar and is fiercely determined to protect the identity of its 1,500 members, The New York Times reports.
But now the group has come under the scrutiny of the IRS after the federal agency requested information about its meetings with politicians including 2012 vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan, former Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, and 2012 presidential hopeful Herman Cain, according to anonymous sources who have inside knowledge of the probe.
The report says the IRS has been investigating Friends of Abe — named after Abraham Lincoln — for two years and has had access to its security-protected website containing all the members' names.
Ever since the organization was launched a decade ago, it has endeavored to keep a veil of silence surrounding its members, even banning cameras at events to avoid publication of pictures of its associates.
The Times claims, however, that some supporters, who include Gary Sinise, Kelsey Grammer and Jon Voight, have admitted to their conservative leanings in public.
“It’s a growing movement, and word is getting out that there’s many of us in this business,” singer Pat Boone told The Washington Times in 2008. At the time, he was one of the few conservative stars who spoke openly about the group's existence. “If certain studio execs - hirers and firers - learn that this is a movement and growing, and that some of these people that they hire are of this inclination, these people could be unemployed,” Boone explained.
In 2011, Clint Howard, a conservative actor who is the brother of actor and director Ron Howard, told Newsmax that conservatives are still outcasts who have “trepidations” that their political orientation in a sea of outspoken liberals will sink their careers.
Though he was openly conservative, Howard still stressed that he had to choose his words carefully when discussing politics in Hollywood.
“For years conservative-minded people have been kind of subjected to a lot of — I wouldn’t say bullying, no it’s not bullying,” he told Newsmax. “Conservative minded people have been subjected to a very liberal work place, and it has been frustrating.”
The IRS investigation comes at a time when the agency has been under fire in Congress for targeting groups the tea party movement and other conservative groups over their tax exempt status.
Unlike those groups, Friends of Abe is hoping to win approval from the agency for a status allowing members to claim a tax deduction as long as they do not take part in any partisan political activity.
Jeremy Boreing, executive director of Friends of Abe, told the Times that his organization has "has absolutely no political agenda." He added, "It exists to create fellowship among like-minded individuals."
The organization — whose name is a take on Friends of Bill which consists of people loyal to former President Bill Clinton — was launched in 2005 through an email chain connecting conservatives in the film industry. Although Sinise, best known for his role as Lt. Dan in "Forrest Gump," was the initial leader, he stepped back from his position as the organization grew stronger.
In conversations with the IRS, the group was specifically asked about meetings with Ryan, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, and Republican Los Angeles mayoral candidate Kevin James, who is unrelated to the "King of Queens" actor of the same name.
The agency is also said to have been particularly interested in Cain speaking at a Friends of Abe event in 2011.
Over the past few years, the group has staged events that have included such notable Republican guests as House Speaker John Boehner and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, as well as political strategists Karl Rove and Frank Luntz and conservative commentators Ann Coulter and Mark Levin.
"The IRS would say that if you are inviting only conservative candidates, that’s a problem," Marcus Owens, a former director of the agency's exempt organizations division, told The Times.
So in other words, Carson is fit for posting on a message board. I would think you would have a higher standard for a potential wannabe for the White House.
I'm old enough to remember when only black people called black people "Uncle Tom." Democrats, however, long expanded the category of who can play the race card and on whom. Call them equal opportunity race-card players.
As with black race-card hustlers -- say the Revs. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or any given host on MSNB-Hee-Haw -- white race-card players label others "racist" for the crime of disagreement. As with black race-card hustlers, white race-card hustlers need not name names when accusing someone of "racism." And, as with black race-card hustlers, the mainscream media will not bother to ask the white race-card hustler to identify said racists.
Some examples:
Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y.: When recently asked if his Republican colleagues were racist, Israel responded, "Not all of them, no. Of course not. But to a significant extent, the Republican base does have elements that are animated by racism." "Not all" implies one or more is "animated by racism." He never bothered to name names, let alone what "animated" the racist(s). The host did not ask.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.: Only days ago, the soon-to-retire senator said that he can now speak out about the number of Republicans who oppose President Barack Obama because of his race: "It's an American characteristic that you don't do anything which displeases the voters, because you always have to get reelected here. I understand part of it. It has to do with -- for some, it's just we don't want anything good to happen under this president, because he's the wrong color."
Former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, now a Democrat: Crist recently said that "a big reason" he switched parties was because of the way "some" people in his former party -- Republican -- treated Obama: "I couldn't be consistent with myself and my core beliefs, and stay with a party that was so unfriendly toward the African-American president."
Feminist attorney Gloria Allred, Democrat: After the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Colin Powell and Condi Rice, formerly with the Reagan administration, were considered likely to join the new administration. Allred, who then hosted a Los Angeles radio show, referred to them (not by name) as "Uncle Tom types."
Former President Jimmy Carter, Democrat: He attributed opposition to Obamamcare and other Obama policies to racism. "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama," said Carter, "is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. Racism ... still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."
CNN's Anderson Cooper: When asked by embattled Clippers' owner Donald Sterling whether there's much prejudice in America, CNN's Anderson Cooper replied, "Yes. ... There's institutional prejudice" in addition to the kind "that people have in their hearts." In fairness to Cooper, Sterling did not ask him to name any "institution" -- but it would have been helpful.
The Republicans-hate-blacks narrative remains crucial to maintaining the monolithic 95 percent Democratic black vote, without which the Democratic Party cannot succeed. Economist Thomas Sowell writes, "If Republicans can get just a fourth or a fifth of the black vote nationwide, that can shift the balance of power decisively in their favor." As recently as 1956, nearly 39 percent of blacks voted Republican in the presidential election.
The next time a Democrat or member of media speaks darkly about these anonymous Republican "racists," ask this question: Don't Israel and Rockefeller, currently in office, have a duty to "out" these racists? Why allow known bigots to remain in government? Doesn't morality require Crist, running as a Democrat for his old job as governor of Florida, to identify and help remove these racist elected officials? Aren't these Republican "racists" -- whose IDs are being protected by their Democratic colleagues -- detrimental to the interests of the nation and serving in violation of their oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution? Doesn't this oath mean protecting and defending the rights of all constituents irrespective of race -- and exposing the "racists" who refuse to do so?
Why protect them? Why conceal their identities? Out the SOBs!
But, no. Democrats would rather just brand unnamed Republicans as "racist," no matter how absurd or outlandish the charge. Given this tepid five-year-old "recovery," the Obama-loving/leftist media/academia/Hollywood crowd cannot, during this off-year election cycle, brag about economic growth. So look for more topic-changers like "income inequality," climate change and the eternal struggle against the unknown "racist" obstructionists who sit across the aisle.
Sigh.
Interesting that it is white liberals cited here pulling the race card.
Somehow their often bitterly personal attacks on black conservatives like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Allen West, Tim Scott and others don't register as "racist" or "can't handle a black man" in office.
How uppity it is for them to uphold the Constitution!
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Conservative filmmaker behind anti-Obama documentary indicted for violating election law: Dinesh D'Souza, whose “2016: Obama’s America” is the second-highest grossing political documentary of all-time, will appear in the U.S. District Court in New York Friday. D’Souza’s co-producer in “2016” Gerald Molen told FoxNews.com he believes the charges are politically motivated and D’Souza is being singled out by federal authorities for a “selective prosecution.”
Score another for the selective prosecution by Obama's police state:
But y'know, a group of Black Panthers standing outside a polling precinct, brandishing batons, and addressing whites as "crackers" and threateningly discouraging them from voting, is perfectly OK!
... At the court hearing Tuesday, D’Souza admitted he knew what he did was against the law.
“I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids,” D’Souza said, according to Newsday. “I deeply regret my conduct.”
Brafman added in his press statement: “Mr. D’Souza agreed to accept responsibility for having urged two close associates to make contributions of $10,000 each to the unsuccessful 2012 senate campaign of Wendy Long and then reimbursing them for their contributions. Given the technical nature of the charge, there was no viable defense.”
Berman set D’Souza’s sentencing for Sept. 23.
In addition to capping the amount of jail time D’Souza could face, the plea deal could help minimize attention to embarrassing aspects of the case that go beyond the illegality the author admitted to Tuesday.
Evidence disclosed in pre-trial motions indicated that two of the illegal donations were routed through D’Souza’s mistress, Denise Joseph, and her husband, Louis Joseph.
In 2012, D’ Souza resigned from his post as president of evangelical King’s College in New York following reports that he attended a South Carolina conference on Christian values accompanied by Denise Joseph and introduced her as his fiancee despite the fact that he was still married at the time to another woman.
He later said in a statement he’d been separated from his wife for two years and “had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings.”
Not sure how this is censorship WB. He intentionally did it and admits it. This like many of your other posts here just don't measure up to what you allege. Furthermore in cases like this you obviously victimize the crook because he's a republican.
Lady Justice’s blindfold sometimes slips. No argument about that. But now she has thrown it aside to prosecute — some would say persecute — Dinesh D'Souza, a successful conservative author and filmmaker, on flimsy charges of violating campaign finance law. Whether guilty or not, the fact that Mr. D'Souza has been singled out for prosecution while others skate past freely reveals President Obama’s thumb on the famous lady’s scale.
Mr. D'Souza, a sharp but respectful critic of the president, goes on trial Tuesday in a federal courtroom in Manhattan charged with using “straw donors” to bypass federal campaign finance limits. These are the limits that the U.S. Supreme Court has been finding incompatible with the First Amendment. Nevertheless, prosecutors say Mr. D'Souza arranged for others to donate $20,000 to the 2012 U.S. Senate campaign in New York of Wendy Long, a personal friend. By reimbursing them, they allege, he circumvented the $5,000 legal limit. He faces the prospect of two years in prison for what his lawyer calls “an act of misguided friendship.”
Life in the Third World teaches some people to despise America, but not Mr. D'Souza. He embraced the promise of freedom when he arrived in America as an exchange student from his native India. He found his political home among conservatives at Dartmouth College in the 1980s, and strengthened his convictions at the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution. Unabashed in his faith, he wrote several books of Christian apologetics including “What’s So Great about Christianity?” which made him an icon of the right and a pain in the nether regions of those on the left.
Mr. D'Souza’s relentless criticism of the effect that Mr. Obama and his relentless campaign to transform America into a close semblance of failed cultures elsewhere has put the filmmaker in the prosecutorial crosshairs. He wrote “The Roots of Obama’s Rage” in 2010 and produced “2016: Obama’s America” in 2012, the second-highest-grossing U.S. documentary film ever. He is, say his lawyers, “a sharp critic of the Obama presidency who has incurred the president’s wrath.”
Indeed, four Republican senators wrote to FBI Director James Comey in February, pointing out how convenient it was to use the Justice Department to take out one of the administration’s most prominent critics. The senators quoted Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a liberal who said, “I can’t help but think that [Mr. D'Souza‘s] politics have something to do with it… . It smacks of selective prosecution.” U.S. District Judge Richard Berman swept away such objections last Thursday, saying “the court concludes the defendant has respectfully submitted no evidence he was selectively prosecuted.” It’s clear who’s wearing a blindfold now.
The Justice Department that would imprison Mr. D'Souza for two years for giving unfair advantage to a friend’s political campaign declined to prosecute members of the New Black Panther Party for threatening white voters with nightsticks at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. Moreover, Mr. Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was itself fined $375,000 in 2013 for failing to disclose millions of dollars in contributions and missing deadlines for refunding millions in excess contributions. No one was threatened with prison for that. (That was different, of course.)
Whether Dinesh D'Souza is found guilty or not guilty, there’s scant doubt that in Mr. Obama’s America, Lady Justice has retired her blindfold and pledged her sword to the president.
I'm not saying D'Souza shouldn't pay a price for his actions. Just that in arguably equal or worse situations involving DEMOCRAT AND OBAMA donors, there was not price, and no prosecution.
There can be little doubt that D'Souza was selectively prosecuted in retribution for his vocal exposure and opposition of Obama. Similar campaign finance irregularities to Democrats have not been pursued by Obama's appointed attorneys.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Actually there is doubt about that. Somebody just making accusations doesn't make it so. Bush's justice department was the one that actually downgraded the panther case to a civil one. This would be the same department that had conservatives bragging that they hired another conservative for the "team".
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2014-05-251:10 AM.
D'Souza defends himself, in this wide-ranging interview:
Interesting also how D'Souza's arrest coincided perfectly with the release of his new book and movie documentary. It seems calculatedly timed to discredit him.
He also explains how Barack Obama's "community organizer" skills are from Obama's immersion in the Social Marxist attack techniques of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. And circumnavigating that community organizer euphemism, calls Obama what he truly is, a "resentment organizer".
In unprecedented criticism of the White House, 38 journalism groups have assailed the president's team for censoring media coverage, limiting access to top officials and overall “politically-driven suppression of the news.”
In a letter to President Obama, the 38, led by the Society of Professional Journalists, said efforts by government officials to stifle or block coverage has grown for years and reached a high-point under his administration despite Obama's 2008 campaign promise to provide transparency.
Worse, they said: As access for reporters has been cut off, the administration has opened the door to lobbyists, special interests and “people with money.”
And as a result, they wrote, Obama only has himself to blame for the current cynicism of his administration. “You need look no further than your own administration for a major source of that frustration – politically driven suppression of news and information about federal agencies. We call on you to take a stand to stop the spin and let the sunshine in,” wrote David Cuillier, president of SPJ.
The administration has dismissed similar charges from other journalism groups, notably the White House Correspondents’ Association, but the new letter sent Tuesday provided several examples of censorship and efforts to block reporter access. Among them:
• Officials blocking reporters’ requests to talk to specific staff people.
• Excessive delays in answering interview requests that stretch past reporters’ deadlines.
• Officials conveying information "on background" — refusing to give reporters what should be public information unless they agree not to say who is speaking.
• Federal agencies blackballing reporters who write critically of them.
“In many cases, this is clearly being done to control what information journalists — and the audience they serve — have access to. A survey found 40 percent of public affairs officers admitted they blocked certain reporters because they did not like what they wrote,” added the letter.
In addition to asking for openness, the groups demanded Obama create an ombudsman position to help clear away barriers to news coverage.
“It has not always been this way,” concluded the letter. “In prior years, reporters walked the halls of agencies and called staff people at will. Only in the past two administrations have media access controls been tightened at most agencies. Under this administration, even non-defense agencies have asserted in writing their power to prohibit contact with journalists without surveillance. Meanwhile, agency personnel are free speak to others — lobbyists, special-interest representatives, people with money — without these controls and without public oversight.”
SPJ's Cuillier told Secrets, "I feel this excessive message management and information control are caused by the professionalization of PR in the bureaucracy — in all levels of government."
And, he added, "It is up to journalists — and citizens — to push back against this force. Hard!" Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.
Security expert pulled off flight by FBI after exposing airline tech vulnerabilities: The FBI interrogation came just hours after Fox News published a report on Roberts’ research, in which he said: “We can still take planes out of the sky thanks to the flaws in the in-flight entertainment systems. Quite simply put, we can theorize on how to turn the engines off at 35,000 feet and not have any of those damn flashing lights go off in the cockpit.”
White House Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview: The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.
Wow, good for them.
Yeah I agree. FOX may be right leaning but it wouldn't be good for anyone if they were frozen out. The political strategy the WH is employing is really dumb and it's costing them support.
Why reporters fear Team Obama: Relying on the 1917 Espionage Act, which was rarely invoked before President Obama took office, this administration has secretly used the phone and e-mail records of government officials and reporters to identify and prosecute government sources for national-security stories.
This is almost exactly what communist China did by other means. Hacking into e-mail accounts of New York Times reporters, and tracking who they were in communication with.
We are officially an authoritarian regime now.
In fairness, attorney general Jeff Sessions two days ago threatened to do the same thing to track down leakers, at a press conference saying to leakers on camera "Don't do it", basically because DOJ has ways to cyber-track them back to the source.
The Obama administration began the abuses, and NSA against their will was revealed by Ed Snowden to be collecting the mete-data of every U.S. citizen, recording every phone conversation and every e-mail to be pulled out and sifted through later, if they feel any person is a potential threat. Once that genie is out of the bottle, I guess it's hard for any future administration to avoid the temptation to do the same to find their adversaries.
Again, I dislike what Snowden did and think he's a traitor (giving all that NSA information first to the Chinese, then going to Russia, and now living probably the rest of his life in Russia). But he was accurate in saying this much: "This is the last generation that will even know what privacy is"
Actually I think the mass data collection started under W and it like deficit spending is only a problem when it's a democrat in office. Lying is also just being a colorful bit of character if it's a republican doing it. And the media calling out the lies are attacked as fake. Tsk tsk
I don't see any specific examples of a "lying Republican doing it." The FBI Inspector General's long-awaited report was released today (a Democrat, appointed by Obama) and he did not list one, NOT ONE, Republican making similar Republican-partisan remarks.
The fact is, the federal bureaucracy in FBI, DOJ, State Department, IRS, NEA, EPA, OSHA, ATF, are all Democrat-controlled, and Democrat-abused. They are Democrat-unionized, pay Democrat union dues that overwhelmingly are donated to support and elect Democrat candidates, who once elected, or re-elected, repay the donations with huge benefits to Democrat-unionized employees, who have vastly out-paced public sector salaries and benefits. It also explains why these public sector Democrat employees are eager to do the bidding of their masters and go after Tea Party/Republican/grass-roots religious conservatives in a thuggish and vindictive way.
As demonstrated by the Lois Lerner/IRS abuses. And these same Tea Party/religious conservative/Romney donor Republicans were targeted by IRS to be deprived of 501 tax exempt group status (preventing them from organizing and fundraising for the 2012 election), as well as harassing/intimidating audits of Republicans. And not only by IRS. IRS also shared their information with EPA, OSHA, ATF, and other federal agencies for further harassment. As I detailed in the Lois Lerner topic.
I'm on the record as saying that the Patriot Act under Bush was an unnecessary intrusion on Constitutional freedoms, and that it was not necessary. That all the protection we as a nation needed was enforcement of our existing laws on border security, illegal immigration, background checks, flight training and so forth.
Very early on for a few months, I briefly had an attitude to some degree of "I have nothing to hide" when it came to Patriot Act intrusions on constitutional freedoms. But fairly quickly I saw that a government with the power to violate those freedoms doesn't stop at those who are guilty. As in the Lois Lerner/IRS case, and in the current FBI/DOJ/Meuller abuses make clear, if one political side wants to weaponize those federal powers, it can manufacture crimes to take out their opposition, and innocence and the rule of law be damned.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Comey told Obama that he voted for the other guy in his book. Obama was able to appoint Comey because a republican controlled congress liked him. And the IG report shows that where he deviated from the standard policies and protocols ended up aiding Trump.
Comey told Obama that he voted for the other guy in his book. Obama was able to appoint Comey because a republican controlled congress liked him. And the IG report shows that where he deviated from the standard policies and protocols ended up aiding Trump.
I frankly wonder if anything said in James Comey's book, or frankly anything James Comey says period, is true. He already said his wife was heavily invested in Hillary Clinton winning in 2016, and that all 5 of his children had voted for Hillary. And asked in the same interview if he were a Democrat, to which he answered "If not before, I am now." I take that as a "yes".
Do you understand that someone can be registered as a Republican and still vote Democrat? I think that's a trick used by many bureaucrats in Washington. And many liberal journalists as well. They are truly "Republicans In Name Only."
As for Comey's actions "ended up aiding Trump", over and over in 2016, Comey actions aided Hillary and the Democrats, softpedaling on investigation of Hillary and her aides:
1) delaying investigation of the contents on her computers and cel phones and giving her time to Bleach-Bit away the evidence and smash her FOUR cel phones with a hammer (while comparatively doing midnight raids on Manafort and Chen on the Trump side),
2) NOT forcing Hillary and her aides to be deposed under oath (while comparatively forcing Trump officials to testify under oath, as in the cases of Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Carter Page, George Pappadapoulos, Roger Stone, Michael Caputo, and Sam Clovis, all whom, mostly former millionaires, have been BANKRUPTED by frivolous charges on manufactured evidence, vs. the mountains of evidence that are ignored and not prosecuted on the Clinton side.)
3) Giving Hillary and her aides immunity from prosecution, in exchange for no discosure of evidence or prosecution (as compared to vindictively prosecuting Trump officials to the absolute limit of their powers, and then some!)
The reality is, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page and Ohr (the entire top shelf of executives in the FBI) did everything in their power to legally tear down Trump to make him lose the election, while doing everything they could to obstruct prosecution of Hillary Clinton despite overwhelming evidence, and everything they could to make her president.
On ONE occasion right before the election in late October, Comey re-opened the Hillary investigation and then closed it again before election day, ONLY to cover his own ass, because he was worried that newly exposed facts would otherwise reveal his overwhelming pro-Hillary bias. Comey's July press conference saying "no reasonable prosecutor" would indict Hillary Clinton, allowed her to remain in the election as the Democrat nominee! If Comey had recommended for indictment in July, Hillary never would have remained politically viable in late October 2016. Comey and Loretta Lynch (who secretly met in the same period of days with Bill Clinton on the airport tarmac, and then lo and behold, right after did not indict Hillary) handed Hillary lifeline after lifeline in the months leading up to Nov 8, 2016. And more than that, kept Hillary out of jail in all their endless obstructions of justice.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
The IG report shows that when Comey deviated from standard procedure it aided Trump. Meanwhile folks from the Trump campaign like Rudy have admitted they had agents leaking to them. I would like to see more details about that.
You point to one press conference where Comey re-opened the Hillary investigation in late October 2016.
As I just said in my last post, that ignores the COUNTLESS actions Comey and his corrupt FBI took throughout 2016 on Hillary's behalf, that kept Hillary from being indicted in the first place in July 2016. ALL the uninvestigated avidence on Hillary, ALL the deleted, smashed and Bleachbitted computers and cel phones of Hillary and her minions, ALL the immunity from prosecution handed out like candy the Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin and Jennifer Palmieri, in exchange for nothing.
If Comey had done his job throughout 2016, and especially not given Hillary a free pass in July from prosecution, Hillary would have in a jail cell wearing an orange jump suit by October 2016.
Comey's one action against Hillary re-opening the Hillary investigation in late October 2016, was because Comey had bent over backward to aid Hillary for an entire year (with McCabe, Strzok, Page, Ohr, etc., conspiring with Comey to do so). Comey re-opened the investigation for only a few days in October, only to provide himself cover of not ignoring evidence, to save his own ass. Because he HAD ALREADY ignored so much evidence to protect Hillary from prosecution.
I still find it amazing that Hillary Clinton cheated every whichway to win the election, rigged the CNN debates with the questions fed to her by Donna Brazile and Roland Martin, rigged the primary to win over Bernie Sanders, paid for the fake Russia Dossier to smear Trump, and very possibly been involved in the falsified evidence used by Comey and McCabe to get FISA warrants to illegally spy on the Trump campaign. Comey even sent multiple agents into the Trump campaign with the bait of "Russian dirt" and Russian-seized top secret e-mails that were in truth just fake bait offered by spies for the FBI, and the irony is, Trump Jr., Michael Caputo, Sam Clovis not only didn't take the bait, but reported it to the FBI!! And the FBI (under Comey's orders) didn't investigate what was reported, because it was not Russians, it was their own sting operation! And you say Comey betrayed Hillary?!? Quite the contrary, Comey fell on his sword over and over for Hillary. If not for Comey, she would have been in jail since July 2016.
