The election caught most political pundits, media networks and Clinton supporters off guard. Many firmly believed polls that predicted a decisive Hillary Clinton victory. What the pundits and networks failed to do was factor in the true purpose behind FBI Director James Comey’s puzzling intervention in the closing days of the Presidential campaign.
Undoubtedly, the most surprising event preceding the election was the October 28 letter by FBI Director Comey that Clinton was once again under federal investigation. The FBI had learned from a sexting investigation of disgraced congressman, Anthony Weiner, that one of his computers was shared with his wife, Huma Abedin, deputy chair of the Clinton campaign. It contained emails between Abedin, Clinton and others sent during her tenure as Secretary of State.
This was relevant to the FBI investigation of Clinton which had been closed earlier in July. Comey’s letter to the heads of different Congressional Committees informing them of the re-opening, rocked the Clinton campaign and led to 11 days of the worst press experienced by Clinton during the entire campaign.
Then on November 6, only two days before the election, Comey once again called off the investigation, and lifted a cloud of uncertainty from the Clinton camp. Her supporters expressed a huge sigh of relief and believed the road to the White House was wide open once again.
Most were bewildered by Comey’s puzzling behavior. Why did he say anything in the first place if there was nothing sufficiently incriminating in the Weiner/Abedin emails to change the earlier July decision to close the investigation?
Clinton supporters were angry at Comey, and believed he had blatantly interfered in the election to help the Trump campaign. Republicans, including Trump himself, criticized Comey for once again protecting Clinton.
Former Clinton insider, Larry Nichols, offered another criticism of Comey that helped understand Comey’s puzzling behavior. Comey, according to Nichols, was running a psychological operation of misdirection, to help the Clinton campaign by steering the mainstream media away from the more damaging Wikileaks disclosures that were occurring.
While there is great appeal in Nichols explanation, certainly Alex Jones thought so, I don’t believe Nichols is correct.
The damaging nature of many of the Wikileaks disclosures have been succinctly described by Abby Martin in a November 5 video (see below). While the Wikileaks disclosures certainly had damaging information about Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta, they had little directly implicating Clinton herself. After all, Clinton could simply sack Podesta if she needed to do damage control in the closing days of her Presidential campaign.
Understanding the real purpose behind Comey’s bizarre behavior requires….
Read the rest of the article here