Yet More Evidence That the Hillary Clinton Investigation Was a Sham

Another day, another Strzok/Page revelation.

If Attorney General Jeff Sessions and/or Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein does not hurry up and appoint a special prosecutor to look into the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation, they are going to have a public revolt on their hands. Same goes for the Justice Department’s investigation into Russia. Because with every passing day, it becomes more and more obvious that something stinks about both of these high-profile inquiries. The U.S. law enforcement community has been caught with its collective pants down, and there is no permanent solution that includes sweeping it all back under the rug.

The text messages exchanged between FBI Agent Peter Strzok – a prominent member of the investigations into both Clinton and Trump – and his mistress, FBI lawyer Lisa Page have already revealed the extent to which both officials were biased. Unbelievably so. And while none of the messages yet revealed prove that the two were acting in bad faith…they certainly point in that direction. Enough so that, when these texts are taken in context with everything else we know about these investigations, there is more than enough evidence here to require an independent review.

The latest bombshell? According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, one of the text messages exchanged between the two FBI lovers shows that, because they thought Clinton would be president, they were likely thinking about “pulling their punches” in regards to her case.

“One more thing: she might be our next president,” Page wrote on February 16, 2016. “The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”

“I called Bill and relayed what we discussed,” Strzok replied, likely referring to FBI counterintelligence chief Bill Priestap. “He agrees. I will email you and [redacted] same.”

In an interview with Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, Rep. Trey Gowdy said Thursday that this was proof that something was seriously amiss within the halls of the FBI. “This, I think, is the unvarnished truth of how they viewed both her, him, and the investigation and how they wanted it to turn out,” he said. “Keep in mind that all of this is done before she was ever interviewed. So the fix was in, unfortunately, before they even interviewed the target of the investigation.”

If some of the FBI’s and DOJ’s top investigators were willing to fudge the details when it came to exonerating Hillary, would they not be willing to do the same when it came to nailing Trump to the wall? How, under these circumstances, can the American people take either of these investigations seriously?

About Admin