Biased FBI And DOJ Officials Broke The Law And Tried To Decide The Election(Deleted Forbes Article)

Editor's Note: This article was originally posted on Forbes.com on Feb. 5th, 2018 at 11:36 AM (local time) but taken down shortly afterward for unknown reasons. We were able to recover all five pages from Google cache. Original URL (of first page; replace the "1" at the end with 2, 3, 4, 5 to see other pages):

Original Forbes Link

Author: Thomas Del Beccaro



There can be no question, at this point, that certain higher ups in the FBI and the DOJ did not want Hillary to be indicted and did not want Donald Trump to become President. Those efforts were not entirely independent of each other.



Below is a timeline of events – abbreviated though it is – that makes it rather plain that the FBI and DOJ were not investigating potential crimes objectively.



Indeed, they were committing crimes during the process in aid of their preferred outcomes.

1. 2007. Hillary Clinton wanted to be President. Hillary’s ambitions to be president started long ago. She ran for President in the 2008 cycle. In 2009, after losing to Obama, Hillary became Obama’s Secretary of State. She stayed in that post until 2013.



2. March 2015. The Hillary email scandal breaks. Hillary was using an unapproved/unsecured server and devices to communicate. She was using a private email account. Classified information was being sent through that email, server and devices – including when Hillary was abroad.



All of that is illegal. As 2015 unfolds, it becomes clear to the FBI and the DOJ that President Barack Obama was communicating with Hillary using her non-state department email. Obama was using an email and a name that masked who he was.



That had to be known to authorities long before March of 2015 given that it occurred prior to 2013.



As Andrew McCarthy points out in his recent article, there was no chance that the DOJ was going to indict Hillary because that would have required implicating President Obama. That was never going to happen. From thereafter, DOJ officials acted with that understanding, however illegal, in mind.

LINK

Why would Forbes write, publish and then remove this article? It seems to lay out a pretty apparent timeline and all seems to be factual..

So why take it down?

a reply to: GuidedKill

So why take it down?

To mess with people's minds.

Perhaps they were motivated to remove the article with a brief phone call beginning with something like "Remove it or else...." ?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: GuidedKill

So why take it down?

To mess with people's minds.

So that's how forbes makes money? Paying employees to investigate, confirm, write, proof read, edit, proof read, type, publish....only to take it down so NO ONE READS IT....


Great business model..yea right. Something else is at play here.

originally posted by: ausername
Perhaps they were motivated to remove the article with a brief phone call beginning with something like "Remove it or else...." ?

exactly what I'm thinking....

Someone either didn't get the word on the embargo or they did and ignored it.

As soon as the editor saw the article posted, down it came because, ya know...reasons.

a reply to: GuidedKill

only to take it down so NO ONE READS IT....

Yet here you are reading the article and linking to forbes giving them ad revenue.

a reply to: GuidedKill

None of those links are working for me.

But, my guess is someone called and asked him how his wife was, or daughter, or son, or mother and has their names.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: GuidedKill

only to take it down so NO ONE READS IT....

Yet here you are reading the article and linking to forbes giving them ad revenue.

Exactly. It is just an attention grab.

Seems like pretty simple logic to me.

Because it's an opinion piece by the former head of the california republican party and, just read it.

It's craptastic. It's filled with lies and half truths, and is it even an article? It's like a copy paste from true pundit. Now, I realize most of you mistake the spin for the facts in well, everything, but I'm glad the folks at Forbes don't agree with you.

Forbes isn't some fly by night "news" site made by an angry guy sitting in his basement. I know that probably gives their credibility a hit to people around here, but it is what it is.

a reply to: Jefferton

Government conspiracies are big business for the media these days, why wouldn't they take advantage of their opportunities? The MSM have the highest ratings in their history and people like the OP are a big reason for that.

a reply to: GuidedKill

I read that, and later went to look for it. Poof!

Now I know why. Struck a few nerves close to the epicenter.

Either the author went rogue and somehow was able to post it himself or whoever approves articles for publication went rogue and approved it and then the higher ups had it deleted ASAP.

The darkest antagonists are always weak and feeble, because if anyone ever shined a light on their vast and intricate manipulations, they would shrivel like the absolute demons they are. They live in such fear of exposure, 24/7 that it drives them completely insane. They become absolutely disassociated with the world. They begin to live their lives vicariously, and are only driven by power and dominance. Money, at this point, has no meaning - only control.

Of course, if one is never caught it is just a tax on their soul for doing business. All those worries about being caught, if not a reality, are a minor cost in the business of power. However, if one is caught, there is no fear greater on earth than to be discovered for what true vile creatures they are. Enter, belatedly, the internet.

There is a God, and I hope his mighty hand guides Trump's tweets as we stay posted on this heavenly justice.

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: GuidedKill

So why take it down?

To mess with people's minds.

So that's how forbes makes money? Paying employees to investigate, confirm, write, proof read, edit, proof read, type, publish....only to take it down so NO ONE READS IT....


Great business model..yea right. Something else is at play here.

Maybe that is how they make money.

Are there any wealthy folks out there that might have paid to have that article pulled?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: GuidedKill

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: GuidedKill

So why take it down?

To mess with people's minds.

So that's how forbes makes money? Paying employees to investigate, confirm, write, proof read, edit, proof read, type, publish....only to take it down so NO ONE READS IT....


Great business model..yea right. Something else is at play here.

Maybe that is how they make money.

Are there any wealthy folks out there that might have paid to have that article pulled?

I can think of a few.

a reply to: underwerks

Well, show us which part has been proven false.

I'll wait....

a reply to: GuidedKill

Great find GuidedKill! S&F it will be interesting to see if these talking points do ever get released by the MSM at all or if it was just completely...silenced. How can Forbes keep quiet about it? They are going to have to respond and say something. It's out there, all over the place! They have some 'splaining to do! We need to keep this in their face!

Its an excellent timeline and summation of just how the FBI was operating to influence the election toward hillary and away from trump.

As the author says at the bottom and I have been saying for months, the scale of this scandal (particularly if the hillary team paid dossier was used for a fisa warrant) puts watergate to shame.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: underwerks

Well, show us which part has been proven false.

I'll wait....

Over 3 hours, still waiting?

Crickets...