Bleeding Edge

SpyGate
This book details the evidence and the reasons behind the recently failed Coup D’Etat against the American Democracy.
============
“This is the most important existential threat that our country has faced since the inception of this Republic” —Dr Churchill
============
This Book was written by Dr Pano Churchill
Copyright 2018
=========
Chapter Thirty
“Civil War 2.0 is coming.”

Now, it’s being reported that damaging information from DOJ’s IG report, that was released last week by Inspector General Michael Horowitz, has been redacted. The entire Appendix No. 2, containing information about Barack Obama’s former AG Loretta Lynch, that was labeled “Law Enforcement Sensitive” has been totally redacted.

Although it was not widely shared, the Inspector General Horowitz’s report on “A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Elections,” contained two Appendices and we now find that the second Appendix was totally redacted and was left completely outside of the report given to Congress and to the People of this country.

When former Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified last year about her decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, she swore she never talked to “anyone” on the Clinton campaign. That categorical denial, though made in response to a series of questions about whether she spoke with Hillary Clinton about remaining attorney general if Hillary won the election, could come back to haunt her.

But now that IG Horowitz has testified that evidence that could implicate Obama’s AG Loretta Lynch in obstruction of Hillary email investigation was actually REDACTED from his report — we have new evidence of Loretta Lynch’s lies and obfuscations.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, which has launched a bipartisan investigation into Lynch for possible obstruction of justice, recently learned of the existence of a document indicating Lynch assured the political director of Clinton’s campaign she wouldn’t let FBI agents “go too far” in probing the former secretary of state.

Senate investigators have combed through a transcript of Lynch’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in July 2016. In retrospect, several of her statements strain credulity. But one in particular stands out, and could present legal problems for Lynch.

During the House Judiciary hearing, Rep. David Trott (R-Mich.) slammed Lynch for failing to recuse herself from the Clinton investigation despite meeting privately with the target’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, a week before the then-attorney general let Hillary skate. Then, referring to rumors of her possibly staying on in a hypothetical Hillary administration, he asked if Lynch had met with anyone on Hillary’s staff during the yearlong investigation, to which she replied: “I have not spoken to anyone on either the campaign or transition or any staff members affiliated with them.”

The committee, however, now knows of a document obtained by the FBI reportedly showing a Democratic operative’s claim that Lynch had privately assured Renteria that the Justice Department “would not push too deeply” into the investigation of Clinton’s private email server, which contained top secret information from the State Department.

And it will press her to explain the discrepancy — along with why she reportedly asked former FBI Director James Comey to leave her office when he confronted her with the document.

Remember when fired FBI Director James Comey explained the Senate Judiciary Committee how he went public about the Hillary email investigation after AG Lorettaa Lynch’s tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton?

Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein admitted that Loretta Lynch’s conduct when she directed Comey to call Hillary’s investigation a “matter” and not an “investigation” makes her feel “queasy” is something we should all remember…

Here are the transcripts from James Comey’s testimony:

“And I — I — I’ve lived my whole life caring about the credibility and the integrity of the criminal justice process, that the American people believe it to be and that it be in fact fair, independent and honest. And so what I struggled with in the spring of last year was how do we credibly complete the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails if we conclude there’s no case there?”

“The normal way to do it would be to the Department of Justice announce it. And I struggled as we got closer to the end of it with the — a number things had gone on, some of which I can’t talk about yet, that made me worry that the department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and declined prosecution without grievous damage to the American people’s confidence in the — in the justice system.”

“And then the capper was — and I’m not picking on the Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who I like very much, but her meeting with President Clinton on that airplane, was the capper for me. And I then said, you know what, the department cannot by itself credibly end this. The best chance we have as a justice system is if I do something I never imagined before, step away from them and tell the American people, look, here’s what the FBI did, here’s what we found, here’s what we think. And that that offered us the best chance of the American people believing in the system, that it was done in a credible way.”

“That was a hard call for me to make to call the attorney general that morning and say I’m about to do a press conference and I’m not going to tell you what I’m going to say. And I said to her, hope someday you’ll understand why I think I have to do this. But look, I wasn’t loving this.”

“I knew this would be disastrous for me personally, but I thought this is the best way to protect these institutions that we care so much about. And having done that, and then having testified repeatedly under oath we’re done, this was done in a credible way, there’s no there there.”

Please remember, that this tear-jerker came when Obama’s second Attorney General Loretta Lynch, had a “spontaneous” meeting on an airport tarmac in the desert, with the husband of the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate to talk about nothing important — maybe about the changeable desert weather.

Methinks that in the middle of the desert in the hot tarmac, and in the privacy of their private airplanes — the husband of Not-Crooked Hillary, one Billy Clinton known for his genuine honesty, met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to ask her to exonerate his wife, merely three months before the general election of 2016. And of course they talked and schemed about how to alleviate the threat of censure and evade legal action against Hillary for her intentional carelessness in maintaining a private server that was roundly hacked by everybody, like a Bangcock hooker, and the classified State Department emails went flying all over the place for all of the world’s intelligence agencies to collect and scan…

Recently when examined by the Senators, Loretta Lynch, dozens of times during the House Committee hearings, simply said “I do not recall” when pressed for sensitive information about her role in the Hillary investigation. And the committee determined that she either “refused to answer or refused to give appropriate response” no fewer than 74 times, during the four-hour hearing.

There are three probable explanations for her behavior here:

1. Either Loretta Lynch lied under oath,
2. Or she never in fact talked to Renteria,
3. Or her categorical denial was meant to later claim that she was merely discussing her post-election role with Billy Clinton.

Either way this comes out — our Justice system has been greatly damaged.

As for Lady Liberty — well she is crying for reasons that are obvious to all those who love Liberty and Self Governance, in our Republic.

She’s crying because she has been gravely wounded again, and again, and again, by those nasty DemonRats, of the Democratic party, who are still playing plantation politics today…

She is crying because the Inspector General of the FBI said that he found “no documentary evidence of bias” in the prosecutorial decisions made during the Hillary Clinton email investigation.

So now that the Left celebrates, and the Right explodes, we ought to be careful what we wish for, because as Aristotle or Socrates would suggest, perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle…

So let’s cut in between the two originals and let’s use arithmetic to manage the right percentages of truth vs fiction, and cover-ups, in order to arrive at the Golden Rule. The golden medium. The golden middle…

But how do you find the golden medium?

Let’s examine the evidence, because there are two smoking guns.

First, Peter Strzok famously texted his illicit lover that “We won’t let Donald Trump’s election happen.” The other is found at 7:36 in Senator John Kennedy’s questioning of the Inspector General. “Most” of the investigative decisions were made in Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice, not in the FBI. Since that body refused to pay any attention to demands by Republican investigative committees, it’s no surprise that the investigation gave her a pass. But how do you prove it?

Inspector General Horowitz admitted that it was likely that various comments, such as Strzok’s text above, indicated bias. But when taken in isolation, he could not identify any prosecutorial decisions that would have come from bias, either for, or against Hillary Clinton. Notice that he did not offer any comment about the aggregate set of decisions. In other words, he did a very narrow analysis that was designed to avoid examining the possibility of bias in the whole investigation.

It is rare for a criminal to write down his intent to commit a crime. When Trey Gowdy questioned James Comey after his July 2016 press conference, he very effectively got Comey to explain that you show intent by a series of actions that indicate the willful nature of the crime. In Hillary Clinton’s case, this included setting up a private email server after being briefed on the proper use of the State Department’s secure system and the statutes regarding sensitive information. Then she transmitted over one hundred highly classified documents over that server. When confronted with a Congressional subpoena and preservation order, she directed her attorneys to destroy 33,000 emails. And she made false exculpatory statements about her server. This chain of events showed clear intent to perform illegal acts and consciousness of guilt.

But Hillary Clinton never wrote down, “I’m going to violate the law.” So there is no “documentary evidence” of her intent. It is the chain of events that clearly shows intent. So we must now go where Inspector General Horowitz declined to go.

Statistics is often seen as some sort of dark art. Mathematical formulae for them get complex, even for the simpler tasks, such as Student’s T-Test, which is used to “determine if means of two data sets differ significantly.”

The Inspector General listed a number of actions taken during the Clinton email investigation. If the investigation had been neutral, you’d expect that roughly half of the decisions would be in her favor and about half would be contrary to her. That would show that the Department of Justice was acting as an impartial agency.

But some of the decisions were starkly in Secretary Clinton’s favor. For example, the exoneration letter was written months before seventeen witnesses were interviewed. (Is that one decision or seventeen?) Fact witnesses such as Cheryl Mills were allowed to sit in on Secretary Clinton’s interview as if they were attorneys representing Mrs. Clinton. Secretary Clinton’s interview was not under oath, and was neither recorded nor transcribed. Immunity agreements were reached before the content of proffered testimony was assessed. And devices containing documentary evidence were not searched.

These decisions were so favorable that even the Inspector General had to admit that they were “unprecedented.” This sounds awful, and that emotional response clouds our thinking. So we have to do some math (OMG!) to sort things out. And we have to make some assumptions.

It is not possible at the moment to be sure that these hypothetical numbers are accurate.[i] For example, I did not see or hear of a single decision during the investigative process that was not in Secretary Clinton’s favor. That doesn’t mean there weren’t any, just that I’m not aware of them.

But just to be fair, I set up a simple Student’s t-test that included some decisions against her. In good statistical fashion, the test had to propose the “null hypothesis” that the investigation was neutral. A decision “for” Clinton was a “2,” “against” Clinton was a “0”, and “neutral” would be “1.” I picked eighteen “for” and two “against,” trying to match my impression of the facts on the ground.

The results were:

“The calculated t exceeds the critical value (9.4424>2.093), so the mean of data set is significantly different from μ0=1.”

In this hypothetical the “null hypothesis” has been invalidated. In other words, the investigation was not neutral. Applying that t value to the test table allows us to assess the probability that an 18:2 ratio of for/against Hillary Clinton happened by chance.

Notice that the t value is far greater than the .001 probability that Hillary Clinton got all those decisions in her favor by chance. There is only one tenth of one percent chance that those decisions were not made without bias if this represents the decisions in the process.

But is 18:2 the right ratio? Suppose it was 16:4. This time the t value is 3.9829, again larger than the t  value for one tenth of one percent probability that America got a fair investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices. We have to get to 14:6 to reach a point where we lose scientific certainty.

It’s time to apply common sense to this issue. As my Dad used to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.” We have to take even my work with a grain of salt. Statisticians might argue that another test is better than the t test. They might argue that we can’t properly count the number of for/against decisions. They might argue that some decisions fall at 0.6 or 1.3 instead of the limited range I used. But common sense tells us we should use the Inspector General’s language to describe what happened.

The favors granted to Hillary Clinton in her email investigation were strongly biased in her favor. In fact, they were so biased as to be “unprecedented.”

---

[i] The format of the IG Report does not allow a clear enumeration of the specific decisions involved, since it does not list every specific decision in a format that would allow a ready count. For example, the Executive Summary states that the FBI, “Did not seek to obtain every device, including those of Clinton’s senior aides, or the contents of every email account through which a classified email may have traversed.” This could be counted as a single decision for the reasons the ES later lists, or it could be counted as multiple decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Ultimately, it is necessary to create a hypothetical number in order to illustrate the folly of clearing the FBI of charges of bias by stating, “The question we considered was not whether a particular investigative decision was the ideal choice or one that could have been handled more effectively, but whether the circumstances surrounding the decision indicated that it was based on considerations other than the merits of the investigation. If a choice made by the investigative team was among two or more reasonable alternatives, we did not find that it was improper even if we believed that an alternative decision would have been more effective.”

In short, as Inspector General Horowitz said in his testimony to Congress, each individual decision was considered in isolation. This precludes an assessment of the investigation as a whole, and forces a conclusion contrary to the known facts. But to evaluate the “circumstances surrounding the decision,” an assessment of the whole investigation was required.

Student’s t-test

But one part of statistics is totally intuitive: the normal distribution. We expect certain outcomes to “center around a mean.” In simple language, that means that when we flip a coin a twenty times, we expect to get ten heads and ten tails. If we get nine heads and eleven tails, that’s not a big deal, since it’s close to a 50:50 result. Getting all heads or all tails is almost as likely as talking your way out of that speeding ticket. Not happening. The curve looks like this, and we intuitively use it every day.

The Inspector General listed a number of actions taken during the Clinton email investigation. If the investigation had been neutral, you’d expect that roughly half of the decisions would be in her favor and about half would be contrary to her. That would show that the Department of Justice was acting as an impartial agency.

But some of the decisions were starkly in Secretary Clinton’s favor. For example, the exoneration letter was written months before seventeen witnesses were interviewed. (Is that one decision or seventeen?) Fact witnesses such as Cheryl Mills were allowed to sit in on Secretary Clinton’s interview as if they were attorneys representing Mrs. Clinton. Secretary Clinton’s interview was not under oath, and was neither recorded nor transcribed. Immunity agreements were reached before the content of proffered testimony was assessed. And devices containing documentary evidence were not searched.

These decisions were so favorable that even the Inspector General had to admit that they were “unprecedented.” This sounds awful, and that emotional response clouds our thinking. So we have to do some math (OMG!) to sort things out. And we have to make some assumptions.

It is not possible at the moment to be sure that these hypothetical numbers are accurate.[i] For example, I did not see or hear of a single decision during the investigative process that was not in Secretary Clinton’s favor. That doesn’t mean there weren’t any, just that I’m not aware of them.

But just to be fair, I set up a simple Student’s t-test that included some decisions against her. In good statistical fashion, the test had to propose the “null hypothesis” that the investigation was neutral. A decision “for” Clinton was a “2,” “against” Clinton was a “0”, and “neutral” would be “1.” I picked eighteen “for” and two “against,” trying to match my impression of the facts on the ground.

The results were:

“The calculated t exceeds the critical value (9.4424>2.093), so the mean of data set is significantly different from μ0=1.”

In this hypothetical the “null hypothesis” has been invalidated. In other words, the investigation was not neutral. Applying that t value to the test table allows us to assess the probability that an 18:2 ratio of for/against Hillary Clinton happened by chance.

Notice that the t value is far greater than the .001 probability that Hillary Clinton got all those decisions in her favor by chance. There is only one tenth of one percent chance that those decisions were not made without bias if this represents the decisions in the process.

But is 18:2 the right ratio? Suppose it was 16:4. This time the t value is 3.9829, again larger than the t  value for one tenth of one percent probability that America got a fair investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices. We have to get to 14:6 to reach a point where we lose scientific certainty.

It’s time to apply common sense to this issue. As my Dad used to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.” We have to take even my work with a grain of salt. Statisticians might argue that another test is better than the t test. They might argue that we can’t properly count the number of for/against decisions. They might argue that some decisions fall at 0.6 or 1.3 instead of the limited range I used. But common sense tells us we should use the Inspector General’s language to describe what happened.

The favors granted to Hillary Clinton in her email investigation were strongly biased in her favor. In fact, they were so biased as to be “unprecedented.” Ultimately, it is necessary to create a hypothetical number in order to illustrate the folly of clearing the FBI of charges of bias by stating, ”

The question we considered was not whether a particular investigative decision was the ideal choice or one that could have been handled more effectively, but whether the circumstances surrounding the decision indicated that it was based on considerations other than the merits of the investigation. If a choice made by the investigative team was among two or more reasonable alternatives, we did not find that it was improper even if we believed that an alternative decision would have been more effective.”

In short, as Inspector General Horowitz said in his testimony to Congress, each individual decision was considered in isolation. This precludes an assessment of the investigation as a whole, and forces a conclusion contrary to the known facts. But to evaluate the “circumstances surrounding the decision,” an assessment of the whole investigation was required.

[i] The format of the IG Report does not allow a clear enumeration of the specific decisions involved, since it does not list every specific decision in a format that would allow a ready count. For example, the Executive Summary states that the FBI, “Did not seek to obtain every device, including those of Clinton’s senior aides, or the contents of every email account through which a classified email may have traversed.”

This could be counted as a single decision for the reasons the ES later lists, or it could be counted as multiple decisions on a case-by-case basis.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

And seen this chart proving that the IG report was an intentional whitewash of the Clinton/Comey farce, trying to evade a real investigation into the classified emails — we have all the evidence to show that it was extreme bias that led the DOJ and the FBI to give a free pass to Hillary Clinton and they should do the same now to all other people that have been bedeviled by this Mueller debacle, and judicial fiasco…

And that is why U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller has reached his wit’s end with Gen. Michael Flynn, whom Mueller was confident he could flip to rat out on his former boss President Donald Trump and his all of  Flynn’s former White House associates.
Because Mueller indicted Flynn on a single charge of lying to the FBI in Dec. 2016 and Flynn plead out, promising to work with Mueller per his plea agreement.
But Flynn won’t crack, and he won’t rat out fake news or fake evidence on President Trump.

And Mueller is steaming, according to federal insiders familiar with the friction-packed relationship between the two parties.

And as one insider from Mueller’s team said: “Flynn remains loyal to Trump. Mueller overplayed his hand because Flynn has not cooperated and will not cooperate. He still supports Trump. Nothing Mueller has tried, including threats, has changed that.”

Mueller previously had threatened Flynn’s son with prosecution, if Flynn didn’t plead out and agree to cooperate with the probe, the same Team Mueller insider said: “Somewhere during this whole process, Flynn decided he was not going to work with Mueller’s team. So now, Mueller is left with a hostile witness who he has charged but can’t get to cooperate.”

Flynn didn’t cut a deal with Mueller because he was necessarily guilty of lying to the FBI, or any crimes, according to sources close to the retired general. Flynn was muscled and coerced into a plea deal, several sources said. Flynn plead guilty after Mueller threatened Flynn’s family, including his son Michael Jr. According to sources close to Flynn family, Mueller threatened Flynn on multiple occasions that if he did not plead guilty to lying to the FBI, Mueller would investigate other Flynn family members. Especially including his son. And he wanted the family to rack up thousands more dollars in legal fees.

Michael Flynn Jr had this to say: “I didn’t do anything illegal so this notion that one of the thing the Special Counsel could do to get my father to accept a plea deal was threaten me has always been odd.”

Odd but true nonetheless.

A close family associate said Mueller and his team even threatened Flynn Jr. during a meeting with Gen. Flynn in the same room. Mueller’s apparent goal with the threats was to cause additional stress in the Flynn family as well as hike Flynn’s legal fees which were already bankrupting the family, sources said.

For months, the media has been trumpeting Flynn Sr. as a star witness for Mueller and cited delays in Flynn’s sentencing as proof Flynn was cooperating with Mueller and providing intel against the Trump administration.

That was all complete fiction. Totally untrue. Psych-Ops by the dirty cop Mueller overplaying his Gestapo hand.

Now, General Flynn is scheduled in court this Friday for sentencing…

Unless the court delays it.

Again. As it did last time when the sentencing judge fearing of sentencing an innocent man — recused himself and resigned…

Maybe a clue about all this can be found in the statement of General Flynn, after his plea deal with he Special Prosecutor was announced. That is when Flynn released a statement on Dec. 1st of 2017, that in part read: “My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the Special Counsel’s office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and our country.”

Yet hope is always alive here and we hope that Flynn will get exonerated. The agony of hope is alive and well, at least amongst the patriots and the people of God, because based on recent court documents in General Flynn’s case, there appears to be a possibility that a new judge could vacate the General’s guilty plea, and thus Flynn could walk away a free man.

And also as a free person, then he could freely talk, and name names, place places, and reveal the very reasons for his biased targeting, constant abuse, terrible debasement, psychological torture, and eventual crucifixion… at the hands of the junkyard dog, Robert Mueller that is trying his damndest to throw us off the scent from Hillary Clinton’s awful abuses of office and for her Russian collusion to sell the American uranium to the Kremlin.

Hillary, as she wakes up, and as she goes to sleep too, she prays at the photograph of Robert Mueller, that she has on her altar to her savior — the dirty Cop, whom she Thanks all the time for being able to walk free…

One wonders, if it wasn’t for the mass media, this thing would have been blown out of the water.

How can the treason of crooked Hillary, not be visible to everyone?