Against the backdrop of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees (Nunes), and the Senate Judiciary probe into the FBI (Grassley), there’s a great deal of various investigative information swirling around. It’s very easy to get lost amid all the headlines; perhaps it’s intended that way.
From a high-level overview, and counter to the narrative du jour, it still appears Robert Mueller is more focused on the overall foreign influence into DC policy -and the various corruptions therein- than specifically focused on Hillary Clinton and/or President Trump and the vast “Russian Conspiracy” theories. That perspective is being noticed by a FEW.
The various Senate (Intel and Judiciary) and House (Intel, Oversight) committees skirt through the same general probe direction as Mueller but break away from the Mueller probes as congress narrows toward “internal corruption” within the DOJ and FBI.
Taking out the “Russia Angle” for a moment [which congress should (IMHO) leave to Mueller], House Intel Committee Chair Devin Nunes and Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley appear headed toward investigative discoveries within the politicized action of the FBI and DOJ; and how those agencies interact with the larger Intelligence Community and the corruptive influences within the deepest part of the swamp.
It is within the FBI/DOJ corruption and politicization aspects that we find ourselves back to the Black Hat and White Hat paradigm.
A Black Hat: is a self-serving entity, person or organization, that is corrupt, deceitful, manipulative, exploitative, and working for their own power and interests. A bad entity.
A White Hat: is an altruistic entity, person or organization, that is foundationally grounded on truth, honesty, and clear definitions of right and moral wrong. A good entity.
Within your life, and within all organizations, you will encounter black hat operatives and white hat operatives. The structures of modern governmental institutions are no different. When black hats rise to the top of the institutional structure, the institution itself tends to become corrupt; or at the very least engaged in corrupt behavior.
In the free market, black hat operations eventually implode; they fall apart, it’s a natural consequence. Unfortunately, in governmental monopoly systems black hat operations can continue until the corruption becomes so overwhelming it eventually brings a white hat to the top.
In governmental systems when black hats rise to positions of power and influence the white hats are still there, just waiting – riding out the storm until another white hat takes the helm. Within this complex intra-system, intra-personal, dynamic, white hats are often conflicted; unable to stop black hat operations, or forced into a position of necessary willful blindness. (more)
Arguably, there is more evidence in this regard than every before.
As more information flows into the media, each day presents confirmation the upper tier(s) of the DOJ (Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates) and FBI (James Comey, Andrew McCabe) were taking action based on politics; and at a status somewhat below those levels of leadership there were/are people pushing and retaining information to document the upper-level corruption. This explains why we are able to discover information (ex: special agent records retention requests) that runs counter to the eventual outcome decided by the top tier decision-makers.
Unfortunately, because of the sheer scale and scope of the corruption, in combination with prior hiring practices to enlist only those of ideological alignment, the number of Black Hat insiders sympathetic to the goals of the upper-tier of Obama appointments remains high, hence:
The White Hats have new similarly-minded leadership but the organization itself is still replete with Black Hat facilitators, enablers and apologists.
The sources said the Justice Department notified the Senate Judiciary Committee late Friday and the FBI began transmitting memos soon after to assist Congress in its review of former Director James Comey’s handling of the Clinton email case.
The memos detail how and when the bureau’s leadership declined to pursue criminal charges against Clinton for transmitting classified information on her private email server as secretary of State, an investigation that has remained controversial since the 2016 presidential campaigns.
FBI officials declined to comment. “We don’t have any information for you,” spokeswoman Carol Cratty told The Hill.
The Senate committee has been seeking the memos for some time as it investigates whether Comey chose to absolve Clinton of criminal liability before the election-year probe was complete and before she was even interviewed. Comey ultimately concluded that while Clinton’s handling of classified emails was careless, there was not enough evidence of intent to warrant criminal charges. (read more)