Was the FBI’s Hillary Decision Fixed?RUSH: “FBI Agents Believe ‘Inside Deal’ Happened in Clinton Email Probe.” This is the Washington Examiner. Sarah Westwood is the journalist. The story actually hit last night. There are two of them here. First one is this.
“FBI agents are reportedly skeptical of the law enforcement agency’s decision to close the Hillary Clinton email investigation without recommending criminal charges. Agents told the New York Post that they ‘believe there was an inside deal put in place’ after Attorney General Loretta Lynch met privately with former President Bill Clinton.”
We were waiting for this. We were waiting for leaks from agents of the FBI who had participated in the investigation. According to the Washington Examiner: “Investigators were reportedly forced to sign unusually extensive nondisclosure agreements that would prevent them from speaking publicly about the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email use.”
Agents in Clinton Case Had to Sign Non-Disclosure Agreements
RUSH: By the way, these are the only two stories. You don’t find this in the Politico. You don’t find it in the New York Times. You don’t find it in the Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS. The second story is in the New York Post. John Crudele. “In an unusual move, FBI agents working the Hillary Clinton email case had to sign a special form reminding them not to blab about the probe to anyone unless called to testify.
“Sources said they had never heard of the ‘Case Briefing Acknowledgment’ form being used before, although all agents must initially sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance. ‘This is very, very unusual. I’ve never signed one, never circulated one to others,’ said one retired FBI chief. An FBI agent currently on the job admitted, ‘I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange.'” Not surprising, is it? It fits right in with what a lot of people suspect was going on.
Even the New York Times Condemns Ruth “Buzzi” Ginsburg
RUSH: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, by the way, even the New York Times raked her over the coals for what she has done, what she has said about Trump. But the question is: Is anything gonna happen to her? She has violated — blatantly violated — what is known as Canon 5 of the official judge handbook. My words. Canon 5 essentially says: You do not comment on anything that could end up coming before you.
You don’t comment on current political issues or events because you are compromising your own ability to be a judge. The things that she’s saying about Trump and moving to New Zealand? I mean, what if a contested election causes another recount that ends up before the Supreme Court? Or what if Trump wins and wants to come along and do away with Obamacare? She’s forever tainted here.
She cannot render a decision anymore that is not going to be considered political and suspicious, precedent or otherwise. It isn’t gonna appear to be objective. I think now that she’s done this, every judicial nominee from this day forward needs to be asked about it. “Do you agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg?” and just throw back at this nominee everything she has said. “What do you think about cases? We all know you think about cases. We all know that you judges have opinions. Well, she’s told us what hers is. What are yours?” Force it out of ’em from now on. I think it’s an opportunity.