Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe testified in a closed session to congressmen. His testimony suggested that the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email server investigation was unusual, and designed to reach their preferred conclusion: that Hillary Clinton committed no crime and should not be charged with anything.
While the media is focusing all their attention on a witch-hunt looking to find anything that even sounds like collusionbetween Russia and the Donald Trump campaign, evidence of collusion of another sort keeps coming to light. Strangely, that evidence always comes back to one name; Clinton. All the proof suggests that Hillary Clinton colluded in one way or another.
Evidence has recently come to light that Hillary’s State Department colluded with the New York Times to respond to negative press. There’s evidence that the Hillary campaign colluded with Russian individuals to prepare a dossier to smear Donald Trump with. Recently, even more evidence has come to light that Hillary Clinton received special treatment from the Federal Bureau of Investigations concerning her use of a private email server and the flow of CLASSIFIED documents through that server.
Republicans on congressional committees claim that they have found yet MORE evidence of contradictions and double standards concerning the investigation of Hillary’s private email server. These are not just ‘anonymous sources’ making claims concerning information they may not be privy to; these claims have real weight behind them.
During his campaign, candidate Donald Trump promised to bring Hillary Clinton to justice for the crimes she committed in removing classified information from secure systems. However, it seems like there is little to no will to actually bring Hillary to justice, and even President Trump seems to have his attention elsewhere.
The more time goes by, the more obvious it becomes that Hillary Clinton is guilty of multiple crimes, and that she simply wasn’t charged due to her political connections. The Clinton family remains a shining example of how there are two standards in the United States: one for the everyday person, and a much more lenient standard for the politically connected.