Here's a reason Trump needs to be elected:

Posted on: October 26, 2016 at 08:28:01 CT

Maybe he can do something about this blatant obozo and FBI corruption and perversion of justice.




From Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre To Comey's Stockholm Syndrome

Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal proved to be his undoing. Will Hillary Clinton's email scandal have the same impact?

Each new revelation brings Hillary Clinton's email scandal closer to Watergate. Reports that FBI and DOJ personnel strongly disagreed with FBI Director James Comey's unilateral absolution enlarge Clinton's scandal to include the appearance of a cover-up. In place of Nixon's infamous Saturday Night Massacre, we now have Comey's Stockholm Syndrome.

Last week, FoxNews.com reported on what mainstream media ignored: FBI Director Comey's improper decision to subvert Hillary Clinton's prosecution for her email scandal. Quoting a "high-ranking FBI official," among the federal personnel involved in the investigation "the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted."

News that the decision to not prosecute was purely a "top-down decision" adds another layer to mounting evidence that Clinton's exoneration was predetermined. Despite hosts of irregularities severely hampering them — including excessive immunity agreements; a secret meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Comey's boss; nondisclosure agreements forced on investigators; and the destruction of laptop computers containing evidence — investigators believed the evidence warranted prosecution.

Comey's July 5 pre-emptory announcement was more a bombshell to investigators than Americans, who remain relatively uninformed on Clinton's scandal. They are hardly to blame. Rather than the standard process — where the mainstream media ask questions, investigators seek answers, and prosecutors act on evidence — here information must seep out through less formal channels.

Even under such limitations, the picture emerging evokes another bombshell: Watergate's watershed moment — Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre.

On Saturday, Oct. 20, 1973, President Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox. By day's end, Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckleshaus had resigned and Cox was fired.

These actions enraged Congress and the public. They also proved to be Nixon's undoing. Watergate would drag on, but Nixon could not hang on. Facing certain impeachment, Nixon resigned 10 months later.

From opposition to Nixon's attempt to derail an independent investigation, four decades later we find Comey seeking to do essentially the opposite. Washington has learned much about handling scandal in 43 years. Therefore, Clinton's email scandal is coming to look like a photo negative of Watergate — the same picture, just reversed.

Without media coverage, no oxygen exists to inflame scandal. So the trick is to not attract it by taking action after the fact, as Nixon did trying to stop an independent special prosecutor. Far better to keep the investigation in-house all along — with the FBI director, who works directly for the president's AG.

Absent an independent investigation, results can be comparatively closely held — again choking off media coverage. In Clinton's case, only through informal channels – private organizations' subpoenas, conservative journalists, WikiLeaks, etc. -- has information emerged. In Watergate, the incriminating evidence — the Nixon tapes — was turned over; in the email investigation, Comey agreed to widespread immunity and destruction of laptops with evidence.

Interestingly, there is one thing we cannot compare when it comes to these episodes four decades apart: their origin.

We know Watergate was a minor burglary gone awry, but magnified into unprecedented scandal by a cover-up that came to include the president. Do we know the real motivation of Clinton's email case?

In simplest form, Clinton had a private email server in violation of the law, common practice and common sense. Far more important is "Why?" Why would Hillary Clinton have gone to such great lengths to have an impermissible private account? Why once discovered were such lengths taken — now involving people inside the Obama administration – to prevent independent investigation?

From the many questions Clinton's email scandal provokes, two basic answers arise. They involve risk and reward.

When Clinton decided to use a private email account, so obviously impermissible and unacceptable, was there a reward so great as to make it worth the risk? It is hard to imagine so, but it begs the question.

Or was Clinton so sure the Obama administration and the mainstream media would protect her — regardless if caught — that the risk of political damage was thought to be negligible?

The crucial difference between Watergate and "Emailgate" is the role reversal of culprit and exonerator. In Watergate: Ford was seeking office, but had to rescue Nixon as he left office. In Emailgate: Obama is leaving office, but had to rescue Clinton as she seeks office. The difference rests on accountability to voters and is huge.

We do not know the answer to Emailgate's most important questions. Clinton and her allies have worked hard to ensure that questions will never be asked, let alone answered. Perhaps they will remain successful. Yet, one thing is clear: Clinton's email scandal once seemed the purview of conspiracy theorists; increasingly, it takes a Clinton loyalist to not see a conspiracy.

Young served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001-04 and as a congressional staff member from 1987-2000.