--- DIRTY COPS & THE BIG LIE Pt. 1 ---
15th September 2017

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm a felon, not a political pundit. But in America these days politics are all the rage and everybody seems to have an opinion on the subject. Politics also seems to be dividing the country. Being that I'm in prison, nobody really much cares about my opinion, political or otherwise. But The Spinners of Fate somehow saw fit to give me a blog with this federal prison number, so I am in the unique position of being able to pontificate from my penal perch on a plethora of positions whether they be political or purely passe.

The subject matter of this blog coincidentally happens to be about the law enforcement agency that prosecuted me-the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). As I previously pointed out in a blog back in 2015 titled CHIEF EXECUTIVE ROBBER (that was about the CEO of Bank of America Brian Moynihan), I feel certain, individuals and institutions such as the FBI do not much appreciate a convicted criminal whose sitting in prison pointing out their criminal behavior. I feel that. My answer to them though would be, then don't commit crimes and place yourself in such a glaringly hypocritical position as to give some literate convict a chance to point it out.

Being that a lot of the readers of The Bank Robber's Blog are in Europe, the U.K., and even places Down Under, I'll take just a second to point out that the FBI is considered by many to be the preeminent law enforcement agency in America, and hence, prosecutes only "Federal crimes." Crimes that involve federal land, agencies, or property, military crimes and crimes that happen on Indian reservations, and crimes that involve some type of interstate activity such as commerce or kidnapping. Each of the 50 states in America have their own constitutions, laws, police agencies, and prison systems and are sovereign unto themselves. However, there is something in the federal constitution called "The Supremacy Clause" which means that, at the end of the day, sovereignty or no sovereignty, the feds are going to do as they please.

A high percentage of FBI agents have law degrees, and because of this, they consider themselves to be a cut-above the average beat cop. In my tenure as riff-raff, I've been treed by both state and federal law enforcement, and truth be told, the feds are a cut-above. When the feds come at you they don't take prosecutorial potshots hoping for a conviction. When they come at you, they usually have a rock-solid case. This is why their conviction rate is upwards of 95%.

But graft and dishonesty do not discriminate, no matter of an individual's or an institution's pedigree, nor does the willingness to lie, scheme, or cheat require a college degree. It doesn't matter whether or not the dishonest cop is a rookie patrol officer or they're the Director of the FBI. A dirty cop is a dirty cop.

Former FBI Director James Comey and his #1 subordinate, Assistant Director Andrew McCabe are a quintessential example of this premise. They are both dirty cops. They have both been fired and removed from power recently and are unable to cause anymore damage, but they have yet to held fully accountable for the litany of crimes that they committed under the guise of their authority and the color of their offices. But sooner or later, the worm turns for everybody. There is a very good chance that they will both end up being indicted and that even more senior people than them will be implicated. Yes, I'm talking about former President Barack Hussein Obama, although I'm not delusional enough to even begin to think that a former U.S. President would ever be indicted. I'll get back to Obama in a minute though.

The fact that a Director of the FBI (and his top assistant) have turned out to be corrupt is quite extraordinary. So are the crimes that they are alleged to have committed. What were these crimes? Several, including perjury and fraud, as well as illegal wiretapping and surveillance. All of which were done for one stated criminal purpose (See federal RICO statue at 18 USCA 1961): Simply put, they weaponized the U. S. Justice Department and the FBI in order to promote one Presidential candidate over the other with the hope of rigging the Presidential election in Hillary Clinton's favor. And their plan almost worked. Had their candidate won, they would've never been caught and no one would be the wiser. But fate can be fickle, especially when it involves felons.

Former President Barack Obama is a charismatic and intellectual individual who left office with a personal approval rating of well over fifty per cent. However, he was without a doubt the worst President of my lifetime and did more to divide this country both racially and politically than any President has since Abraham Lincoln. This opinion may be a little hard to swallow coming from somebody with my background and personal history, but the facts of my background do not diminish Barack Obama's dishonesty and willingness to weaponize and use government agencies for his own political purpose, something that is obviously not only unethical and disallowed, but also very illegal. I only point out Barack Obama's complicity because Former FBI Director Comey did not create his crimes in a vacuum; he carried out the wishes of his President. Do you know what they call such people who cooperate in this type of diverse workplace harmony? They call them codefendants.

There is no getting around the fact that the past American Presidential election ended up offering two candidates that are polar opposites. One was a Republican and one was a Democrat; one was a man and one was a woman; and one was a globalist and the other a nationalist. In the eight years that preceded the 2016 American Presidential election, politically speaking, President Obama took the country all the way to the left. He and his administration chose to focus on highlighting (and attempting to legislate) the rights of 1/10 of 1% of diverse minority groups instead of being primarily concerned with how the other 99.9% of the country felt. There is nothing wrong with cultural diversity. In fact, cultural diversity is the bastion of our American society and what makes America great to begin with.

But true diversity is not about division and divisiveness; it is about inclusion, not exclusion. Barack Obama's model of diversity is actually a repolished and rebranded version of racism. One that favors the minority this time around. At the end of the day though, Barack Obama's version of diversity is the new segregation. But cultural diversity existed long before Obama showed up, and will be here long after he's gone. Obama's problem is that he was not only a True Believer of his political ideology, but that he also felt it necessary to demonize and ascribe ugly labels to those who did not agree with him. Here's a good example.

The Obama administration promoted transgender rights and an individual's right to self-identify their gender and use whichever public restroom they chose. And he took this small demographic of individuals and made their wishes more important than non-transgenders. America is a democratic republic, but at the end of the day, the majority still rules. He seemed to have forgotten this. In trying to force the wishes of the one tenth of one per cent onto society (a lot of times through the courts), he disregarded the feelings of the other 99.9%. This is called "Identity Politics" and Barack Obama is a master at it. Part of the playbook of identity politics is to also label anybody who disagrees with your position as a racist, bigot, or a homophobe. Most people in the united states take no issue with how a person identifies their gender or sexuality. But when some big hairy guy with a beard named Bob, who now has decided to call himself Ginger, wants to use a public restroom at the same time as your 10 year old daughter, it becomes an issue. And rightfully so. Being in favor of traditional marriage or bathroom rights does not make a person a homophobe. But Obama, and Hillary Clinton would have you believe that it does. Which brings us to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was the impetus for Obama and James Comey's criminal actions.

If Hillary had been a good Presidential candidate, there would have been no reason for Obama, Comey, and the Attorney General (at the time) Loretta Lynch to lie and cheat. But unfortunately, while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State under the Obama administration, she had a bad habit of picking and choosing the laws that she wanted to follow. This is one of the ways she did this.

While Hillary was the Secretary of State under Obama she broke the national security protocol (and the law) of her office by creating a private email account and then doing government business through this account. The "Why" hasn't yet been revealed, but in transmitting more than two dozen "Classified" emails through her personal account, she committed a crime. A crime that had recently gotten the head of the CIA General David Patreaus fired from his job and then prosecuted. This was Hillary's mistake; Hillary's crime. Legally speaking, her criminality was both simple and transparent and her culpability was something that a first year law student could spot. Then, in a another stunning display of her inept criminality, she chose to compound things by wiping the hard drives of her computers with a software called Bleach Bit so the FBI couldn't get the information that it was seeking from them. She even went as far as taking a hammer to her BlackBerry phone so the feds couldn't recover its data. The jury has long been in that I was no master criminal (as a miscreant, I preferred impulse to intellect), but I feel it necessary to take this opportunity to point out just how unsmooth of a criminal Hillary was in her attempts to obstruct justice. The actions by her that I've just described are egregious enough to get anybody in America indicted. Anybody but Hillary, that is. Why? Keep reading.

By all press accounts (back when the press used to report news and not opinion), there was no love lost between Barack and Michelle Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. But, as they say, politics make strange bedfellows and both Obamas ending up tirelessly campaigning for Hillary in her run to be President. The reason for this was simple. Obama wanted to preserve his legacy. He knew that if Donald Trump got in the White House that all of the policies and procedures that he had enacted as President would be reversed. His legacy would disappear like dust in the wind. Kind of the way that it has done over the last year had Trump has reversed a lot of Obama-era regulations and edicts, one executive order at a time. President Obama knew that popular or not, first female President or not, that the country was not going to elect somebody who was under indictment as they ran for office. He had to make sure that that did not happen. So to serve his own self-interest (see ego), he attempted to put the fix in. In the end, all of that Harvard education, charisma, and chest-beating about his integrity was for naught. Instead of letting Hillary play the hand that she had been dealt, Obama decided to deal from the bottom of the deck...

Jeffrey P. Frye
murderslim.com
Bank Robber's Blog
bankblogger.weebly.com
@bankblogger2