FBI DIRECTOR COMEY BLATANTLY LIED TO AMERICA TO PROTECT HILLARY~MAKING A MOCKERY OF INDEPENDENCE DAY

FBI DIRECTOR COMEY BLATANTLY LIED TO AMERICA TO PROTECT HILLARY

Published on Jul 6, 2016

Zero Hedge stated “ What is shocking is that the FBI director was clearly ignoring the US code itself, where in Section 793, subsection (f),"Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", it makes it quite clear that intent is not a key consideration in a case like this when deciding to press charges, The US code states

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

Then Comey said this, "we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

Comey’s statement is nothing less than a plea of bureaucratic incompetence. A tactic utilized by the Obama and Bush Administrations on a regular basis. All the FBI had to do was check their own records, as I’m sure they did. Almost exactly a year ago, Bryan H. Nishimura, pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, precisely what Hillary Clinton was charged with.

In Her Own Words: Hillary Is Guilty As Hell!

Published on Jul 6, 2016

Crooked Hillary contradicts what FBI Director James Comey said about her in a press conference. Meanwhile most Americans are furious at the FBI's announcement that Hillary Clinton will not face criminal charges.

Hillary Clinton vs. James Comey: Email Scandal Supercut

TRUMP: ‘ON NOV. 8, HILLARY WILL PAY FOR HER SINS’

"The voters are going to end her lying"

BY ADAN SALAZAR

SEE: http://www.infowars.com/trump-on-nov-8-hillary-will-pay-for-her-sins/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton is “guilty as hell” and is set for judgement by American voters come November 8, GOP candidate Donald Trump declared Wednesday.

Speaking to Breitbart News about the FBI’s decision not to recommend charges against the former secretary of state, Trump slammed the investigative process as “rigged.”

“It’s a totally rigged system,” Trump said about FBI Director James Comey’s announcement Tuesday.

“She was guilty as hell. She’s guilty as can be. You look at what went on and it’s just point after point after point where she’s guilty, including the missing 30,000 emails. 30,000 emails were wiped clean! The server, there’s so many other aspects on which she’s guilty—and there’s so many other people who were guilty for far less. This is a tremendous miscarriage of justice.”

Trump went on to say that despite the FBI’s failure to bring federal charges against Clinton, voters will have a chance to try her in the court of public opinion in the fall.

“Yes, she lied to Congress. She lied to everybody,” Trump stated. “That’s what she does is she lies, and then she gets away with it. But the voters are going to end her lying. It’s going to come to a conclusion on Nov. 8.”

“She told tremendous lies,” Trump said.

Commenting on the House Select Committee’s ongoing investigation into Benghazi, Trump also said he believed the committee can recommend charges be filed against Clinton.

“I think the Committee would have the option to do that, certainly,” Trump said.

“She will fail. And listen, on Nov. 8, she will pay for her sins. She will fail.”

_______________________________________________________

RIGGED GAME - MAKING A MOCKERY OF INDEPENDENCE DAY

SEE: http://www.newswithviews.com/McLean/chip130.htm; 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

By Chip McLean
July 7, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

The announcement came July 5th. The FBI is recommending no charges to be filed against Hillary Clinton in the email scandal.

This is shocking. It’s also not surprising.

Donald Trump has been echoing what many of us have been saying for some time now about our government and justice department – it’s rigged.

What makes this so especially egregious in the Clinton case is that the FBI made the announcement the very day after Independence Day…A day when we celebrate the founding of our nation and the constitutional principles it was predicated upon.

Surely Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams, Washington et al are spinning in their graves.

Our founders deserved better than this. They risked their lives along with many others in order to found a nation upon which liberty and justice would reign supreme. Blood was shed and thousands of lives were lost in the revolution – and later wars – in order to preserve our unique constitutional republic.

Now after eight years of a closet communist community organizer’s “fundamental transformation” of what was once a great nation, we have been reduced to the level of cronyism one would find in a third world banana republic – except that would be to insult the integrity of banana republics.

The transformation into a politically correct, multicultural cesspool is nearly complete – along with a multi-tentacled “big gubmit” behemoth that is ready, willing and able to squash all dissent under the force of what it calls “law”.

The law of the founders would have easily landed Hillary Clinton behind bars many years ago for any one of the numerous scandals and shady dealings of the Clinton Crime Family.



The “law” today seemingly exists to stifle free speech, religion and the middle class. This “law” applies only to the opposition and “the little people”. The Clintons have always considered themselves to be above the law, and somehow they always seem to avoid any consequences for deeds that would involve incarceration for an average American.

Hillary’s illegal email server was designed to keep prying eyes off of the disreputable financial goings on of the Clinton Foundation. Millions of dollars from foreign interests have passed through the foundation that were apparently used to gain favor and access to our government. In addition to concealing what many say amounts to a money laundering racket, our nation’s security has been severely compromised.

And after all of that - from FBI James Comey: “No recommended charges”.

This coming the day after Independence Day…and “coincidentally” a few scant days after Bill Clinton delayed a plane for 25 minutes in order to speak to Loretta Lynch.

Lynch and Slick Willie say they didn’t talk about Hillary’s email case – they talked about “grandchildren”. Right…Bill stopped a flight to talk to Lynch about the grandkids.

That’s their version…here’s my version:

Bill tells Lynch that if she drops the whole matter, when Hillary is elected Lynch will remain as AG, or maybe even become Secretary of State. Lynch passes the word to FBI director Comey along with assurances he’ll be able to remain as well. All the while Obama - who needs Hillary to win in order to preserve his tattered “legacy” (Trump would rip it asunder) - nods with approval over all the quid pro quos.

At this point, anyone with at least a room temperature IQ knows the fix is in.

There is only one way to reclaim this republic. Donald Trump must continue to press on about how crooked that “Crooked Hillary” really is. He must do this to the point that enough of the normally apathetic electorate wakes up and goes to the polls in record numbers like they did in the primaries.

Understand that the opinion polls are rigged as well. There are far more Trump supporters than are counted by the MSM polling methodologies. What we the people must do is show up for the one poll that counts.

GOVERNMENT CLAIMS POWER TO CONTROL CONTENT OF SERMONS~AND ENFORCE GENDER NEUTRAL BATHROOMS AT CHURCHES

GOVERNMENT CLAIMS POWER TO CONTROL CONTENT OF SERMONS

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/government-claims-power-control-content-sermons-2/; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is being sued for claiming it has the right to control the content of church services that are “open to the public.”

The lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Fort Des Moines Church of Christ is part of a nationwide battle against the implementation of President Obama’s declared foreign-policy priority in his final year in office: “gay” rights.”

At issue in the Iowa case are state mandates that protect “transgender rights.” Among them are allowing men to enter women’s shower rooms, dressing rooms and restrooms if they say they are women, and banning statements in meetings “open to the public” that “might cause individuals to believe that they are unwelcome because of their perceived gender identity”

The lawsuit charges the mandates violate the U.S. Constitution’s protections for free speech, religion, expressive association, due process and the right to peaceably assemble.

Named as defendants are commission members Angela Jackson, Patricia Lipski, Mathew Hosford, Tom Conley, Douglas Oelschaleger, Lily Lijun Hou and Lawrence Cunningham, and city of Des Moines Executive Director Kristen Johnson and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.

The commission did not respond to a WND request for comment.

The complaint, filed this week, is clear.

“This is a civil rights action to stop the commissioners and the executive director of the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, the Iowa attorney general, and the city of Des Moines from compelling an Iowa church to communicate government messages to which it objects and from forcing the church to use its building in violation of its religious beliefs.”

It explains the commission believes its interpretation of state law allows it “to force churches to allow individuals access to church restrooms, shower facilities, and changing rooms based on his or her gender identity, irrespective of biological sex.”

The commission’s interpretation was made clear in a guidance released in response to the question of whether or not the transgender-discrimination requirements apply to churches.

“Sometimes,” the commission said, “Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to bona fide religious purpose. Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions. (e.g. a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public).”

Explained the complaint, “The commission’s interpretation grossly misunderstands the religious purposes and beliefs of Plaintiff Fort Des Moines Church of Christ.”

The church holds worship, religious services, Sunday School classes, Bible studies, youth-oriented activities, annual vacation Bible schools, Easter activities, Christmas pageants and other ministry events based on its religious beliefs.

“As a result, there are messages, practices, and activities that the church would not sponsor, host, or otherwise communicate because those messages, practices, and activities would violate the church’s understanding of God’s truth. The activities that the church allows in its facility must be consistent with the church’s understanding of God’s truth, and must not present a message that contradicts the church’s understand of God’s truth.”

As “biology, chromosomes, physiology, and anatomy” all give evidence of the “maleness or femaleness … designed by God,” the church believes it must provide for the “immutable trait from which springs the natural and healthy desires for physical privacy and modesty in states of partial or full undress, such as in restrooms, showers, and changing rooms.”

Not only does the commission’s “open restrooms” mandate violate the church’s rights, “the language of the act and the city code are broad enough to include within that prohibition sermons, theological expositions, educational speeches, newsletters or church worship bulletin text, or other statements from the church and its leaders.”

“The church’s minister desires to preach sermons addressing God’s design for human sexuality and the church’s beliefs about ‘gender identity,’ but reasonably fears that if it were to do so it would violate the act’s and the city code’s speech ban,” the complaint explains.

The lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions “restraining all defendants … from enforcing or applying” the law to the church. A final resolution would be a declaratory judgment stating the application of the mandates to churches violates the Constitution.

ADF explained that “all events” at the church have a “bona fide religious purpose.”

The organization explained: “The speech ban could be used to gag churches from making any public comments – including from the pulpit – that could be viewed as unwelcome to persons who do not identify with their biological sex. This is because the commission says the law applies to churches during any activity that the commission deems to not have a ‘bona fide religious purpose.’”
‘Foundational’ principle

Holcomb said churches “should be free to teach their religious beliefs and operate their houses of worship according to their faith without being threatened by the government.”

“That is a foundational First Amendment principle,” she said. “Churches have always been protected from government intrusion, and they still are. They have a firmly established freedom to teach their beliefs and set internal policies that reflect their biblical teachings about marriage and human sexuality. One can hardly imagine a more obvious unconstitutional invasion of the state into the internal affairs of the church.”

Holcomb told WND and Radio America, “Frankly, I can’t imagine a more unconstitutional intrusion of the state into the church than when the state starts trying to dictate to a church how it must or must not preach about its beliefs or use its worship facility. This is something that should be deeply troubling to every American.”

WND reported Friday that a federal judge appointed by President Obama killed a Mississippi law – hours before it was set to take effect – that would have protected the religious freedom of clerks and businesses that refuse to participate in same-sex marriages.

In his 60-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves, who previously had ruled against any elements of Christianity in voluntary events to honor students, stated that the law, known as the “Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act,” or H.B. 1523, is unconstitutional and would “diminish the rights of LGBT citizens.”

“The state has put its thumb on the scale to favor some religious beliefs over others,” Reeves said, according to CNN.

“HB 1523 does not advance the interest the state says it does,” he continued. “Under the guise of providing additional protection for religious exercise, it creates a vehicle for state-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. It’s not rationally related to a legitimate end.”

State attorneys plan to appeal Reeves’ ruling, according to the Associated Press.

As WND reported, Judge Carlton Reeves, who was nominated by Obama in 2010, once punished a school district for allowing a voluntary prayer at an optional awards ceremony.

His actions as a judge triggered a decision to ban a school band from a halftime show at a football game because as part of its musical presentation, it included the melody from “How Great Thou Art.” Columnist Todd Starnes at Fox News said the judge may issue an order, but the people may not necessarily bend to his whim.

He reported the people decided “a message had to be sent to the likes of Judge Reeves.”

Message to the judge

“And what they did – would become known as the musical shot heard around the world. During halftime of Friday night’s game – a lone voice began to sing the forbidden song. ‘Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee,’ the singer sang. Brittany Mann was there and she witnessed the entire moment of defiance,” Starnes wrote.

“We were just sitting there and then one by one people started to stand,” she told Starnes. “At first, it started out as a hum but the sound got louder and louder.”

Soon “hundreds” were singing.

“At that moment I was so proud of my town – coming together and taking a stand for something we believe in,” she told Starnes. “It breaks my heart to see where our country is going – getting farther and farther away from the Christian beliefs that our country was founded on.”

WND previously has documented a Big List of cases in which government rulings have removed religious rights from Christians.

Missouri State University, for example, dismissed a student from a counseling program for expressing opposition to counseling same-sex duos.

In Iowa, Gortz Haus Gallery and bistro owners Betty and Richard Odgaard were sued by a homosexual duo.

In Texas, David and Edie Delmore, who own a bakery, were approached by Ben Valencia and Luis Marmolejo about a cake for a “gay wedding.” They declined, referring the potential customers to other bakers. Subsequently, they claim their home has been vandalized and their son has been threatened with rape by a broken beer bottle.

One business even was attacked for answering a hypothetical question on the issue.

Family owned Memories Pizza in Indiana came into the crosshairs of homosexuals when an owner was interviewed by a local TV station in the aftermath of the adoption of the state’s religious freedom law. Responding to a reporter’s question, the owner said that while her restaurant serves “gays,” her Christian faith wouldn’t allow her to cater a “gay wedding.” The restaurant immediately became a focal point of outrage toward the law, with threats of death and destruction, causing the owners to shut down their business.

Not necessarily legal

In two recent cases, judges forced Christians in the workplace to violate their beliefs.

In one case, the U.S. Supreme Court left standing a lower court decision that Washington state pharmacists who are Christian must violate their faith to practice their profession, forcing them to provide abortion drugs. The second decision came from a federal judge – Reeves – who determined county clerks in the state must violate their faith to hold their office.

The Supreme Court’s move alarmed Justice Samuel Alito, who warned there was evidence that the “impetus for the adoption of the regulations was hostility to pharmacists whose religious beliefs regarding abortion and contraception are out of step with prevailing opinion in the state.”

In the Mississippi ruling, Reeves said clerks in the state cannot cite their religious beliefs to excuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to homosexual duos.

Such a dispute already had been litigated in Kentucky, where Judge David Bunning reached the same conclusion, ordering Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to violate her faith. When she declined, Bunning abruptly jailed her with no due process.

But Kentucky’s legislature simply adopted a provision protecting clerks’ religious rights, and Davis asked that the federal case be closed.

In Mississippi, however, not even action by state lawmakers was sufficient for Reeves, who ordered not only that clerks be required to provide services that violate their faith, they must be given “formal notice” of the requirement that they violate their faith.
Read more at http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/07/government-claims-power-to-control-content-of-sermons/#KEYv9bzZbBSWZJGk.99

______________________________________________________

SEE ALSO: http://christiannews.net/2016/07/07/iowa-challenged-over-concerns-churches-banned-from-speaking-living-beliefs-on-gender-identity/

State tells Church - men shall use your Women's Showers
& your sermons shall be gender-inclusive

Protecting Religious Freedom Against
Emerging Threats

CHUCK BALDWIN: AN OPEN LETTER TO FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY

CHUCK BALDWIN: 

AN OPEN LETTER TO FBI DIRECTOR 

JAMES COMEY

SEE: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/3483/An-Open-Letter-To-FBI-Director-James-Comey.aspx; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday reported that his office recommends that no charges be filed against Hillary Clinton despite saying that he found “evidence” that she “might” have violated the law pertaining to classified information when she was Secretary of State. Here is the way Breitbart.com covered the story:

“Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) director James Comey said Tuesday at a press conference that he will not recommend an indictment against Hillary Clinton, though he found ‘evidence’ that she might have violated laws pertaining to the handling of classified information.

“Comey announced a number of conclusions that support the findings of Breitbart News’ coverage of the Clinton private email scandal, including that she sent and received information on her private server that was classified. Comey said that 110 of Clinton’s emails were classified at the time they were sent.

“Comey said that ‘although there is evidence of potential violations,’ no reasonable prosecutor would take on the case.

“Comey at least shared details about that damning evidence.

“He also said that seven of Clinton’s email chains contained ‘Top Secret’ information.

“‘That is excluding any later up-classified emails… None of these emails should have been on any unclassified system, but the presence of these emails is especially concerning,’ Comey said.

“‘There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position… should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that information,’ Comey continued.

“‘There is evidence that they were extremely careless,’ he said, referring to Clinton and her aides.

“Comey also noted that individuals in a similar situation would not necessarily be let off the hook with no charges, but would probably face penalties. ‘But that’s not what we’re deciding now,’ Comey said. ‘We are expressing to Justice our view that no charges be made in this case.’

“Comey said that ‘no outside influence of any kind was brought to bear’ on the investigation, even though Attorney General Loretta Lynch recently held a secret meeting with President Bill Clinton.

“Comey said the investigation was conducted in an ‘apolitical and professional way… I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.’

“Then he walked off.”

See the report:

FBI Director James Comey: We Will Not Indict Hillary Clinton Even Though There Is ‘Evidence’ Of Violations

As a result of Director Comey’s reprehensible decision, here is my open letter to him:

Dear Mr. Comey,

Do you not realize that public distrust and disgust with the U.S. federal government is at its highest level since this nation was founded? And are you not willing to admit that there are very good reasons why so many Americans feel the way they do about their federal government?

We have watched the federal government cover up fiasco after fiasco. We have watched as our public servants in Washington, D.C., have allowed the privileged class (mostly those in the employ of the federal government) to walk away scot-free from crime after crime--crimes that had any of us ordinary people committed, there would have been absolutely no mercy shown us.

Sir, I believe you have attempted to conduct yourself honestly and admirably throughout your long and celebrated career with the FBI. You have the respect and admiration of the vast majority (if not all) of the agents who serve under you. Many of us very much respected the way you stood on the Constitution and rule of law when President G.W. Bush tried to bully you into executing warrantless searches and seizures and you courageously refused to do so. And we were depending on you to once again speak truth to power and stand upon your oath to the Constitution as you examined the misdeeds of Secretary Clinton.

But you let us down. You failed the agency, the American people, the Constitution, the rule of law, and even yourself. You are better than that, and you know it. I’m really not sure how you are going to live with yourself after all of the years of priding yourself as being a man of character, honesty, and integrity. The Clinton crime machine has claimed another victim: James Comey.

You said, “No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.” You must know that almost no one outside the Clinton political machine believes that. And even they don’t believe it; they just don’t care. You have provided more reason for many Americans to say what they have been saying since Ruby Ridge and Waco: “The rule of law no longer applies to the power elite inside the Beltway.”

As you know, in 2015 General David Petraeus “was sentenced to serve two years on probation and to pay an $100,000 fine . . . for sharing classified information with his biographer and lover, Paula Broadwell."

"Petraeus, who resigned as director of the Central Intelligence Agency in November 2012 after the relationship became public, avoided jail time as part of a plea deal. Prosecutors agreed to not send Petraeus to jail because the classified information was never released to the public or published in the biography of him that Broadwell wrote." (Source: CNN)

Yet everyone knows that the classified material that Hillary Clinton carelessly left unprotected (at the very least) did indeed make its way not only into the public but also into the hands of our enemies. And there is no doubt in any objective mind that Hillary’s crimes resulted in the deaths of Americans overseas, including Benghazi. And this is not to mention the fact that the evidence to which you alluded proves Ms. Clinton committed perjury. And, as you know, there are thousands of Americans in prison today who are there for that same crime.

Plus, every single day across this great nation, prosecutors at every level prosecute people with evidentiary material that is far more circumstantial than the evidence you found against Ms. Clinton. You know this to be true. With the utmost respect, to suggest that no reasonable prosecutor would take on the case is downright laughable. The only reason that a prosecutor would not take on a case like this would be because of the fear of political and even vocational retaliation.

In your public statement you acknowledge that individuals in a similar situation would not necessarily be let off the hook with no charges but would probably face penalties. Sir, by your own admission, you have acknowledged that you have provided special treatment for Ms. Clinton.

From the creation of our Declaration of Independence, which we celebrated the 240th anniversary of this past Monday, our country was dedicated to being “a nation of laws, not men.” Granting special favors to officers of the Crown was one of the many reasons that our thirteen colonies fought a bloody revolutionary war to break free from Great Britain. But you know all of this.

You were given a position (by God and the American people) that has the authority (and responsibility) to show the world that America is still a nation of laws and not men, that the U.S. Constitution and rule of law is still held sacred in this country. But you brought disgrace to that position and made a mockery out of that uniquely American doctrine held sacrosanct from the days of our Founding Fathers.

Do you realize how difficult you have made it for patriotic Americans throughout the country? Whether you realize it or not, there are hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of American people from all walks of life who daily put their lives on the line for liberty and truth as much as any of your agents do. In fact, we help make America safer for your agents. We stand behind the rule of law. We oppose the militant hotheads who would use any misstep or misdeed by your agency (and other federal agencies) as an excuse to inflict bodily harm against the representatives of the federal government. We believe in the divine principles of Natural and Revealed Law. We are men and women of peace. We are willing to stand beside your agents as they serve the people in defense of our constitutional liberties. We believe in law and order. Whether you understand it or not, people like us are the last line of defense between your agents and those who believe that they are a law unto themselves and who refuse to acknowledge the laws of Nature and Nature’s God. And now you have slapped all of us in the face and made our jobs so much more difficult. Plus, you have made it much more difficult for your own agents and given fodder to those who are bent on lawlessness.

A majority of the American people (from both ends of the political spectrum) feel betrayed by their own government. And now you, Sir, have joined the seemingly ever-burgeoning cabal of betrayers.

I realize had you chosen the valiant and honorable course and rightly recommended that criminal charges be brought against Ms. Clinton that the Attorney General--the partisan lackey that she is--would have in all likelihood ignored your recommendation. You may have even experienced political and vocational retaliation yourself. But at least yours would have been the honorable part. Plus, know that many of your fellow Americans have suffered (and still suffer) such retaliation for being true to their convictions. So, you would have been in good company.

History will one day reveal the corruption of the Clintons. And as history has revealed the honesty and integrity of those brave men in Colonial America who were willing to stand courageously against corruption within their own government, so you, too, had the opportunity to have had your name forever inscribed among the august body of patriots who were willing to show the world that America is still “a nation of laws, not men.”

Mr. Comey, count me deeply saddened by your betrayal. I expected more from you.