There are one hell of a lot of people asking this question. Many of those ask this question with the erroneous understanding that the FBI is about law enforcement. If these people had any understanding whatsoever of what the bureau and it’s purpose truly is, then they would have no need of asking the question. It is only due to the long running PR campaign conducted through television dramas, movies and state shill media hacks that their tin star still holds any lustre at all. Their badge of authority might just as well be a black arm band with the bright red Soviet star because the bureau’s function is essentially the same as that of the once dreaded Soviet state political police, the NKVD. Once one understands this the answer to the question is obvious.
The FBI is right where it has been for decades, hiding in plain sight with the veneer of their manufactured legitimacy shining just as bright as the lights that reflect off all their black sunglasses. Behind those dark shades and tight lipped, stony faces there resides the smug and snarky smirk of the fourth grade bully who somehow comes into possession of the coveted hall monitor’s belt. This is a quality that infests the leadership and the culture of the bureau. This is what creates a Peter Strzok or an Andrew McCabe. This is what elevates James Comey to the director’s chair. This is what enables these men to look directly into the camera; or to swear affidavits before a FISA court; or provide sworn testimony before congressional oversight committees, and every one of them lie through their teeth without batting an eye. It’s like that moment in fourth grade when you found yourself confronted by that bully/hall monitor for a day: you and the bully both know that he’s got no business wearing that belt, but the bully can still say “Yeah, but I’m the one wearing the belt asshole”. Unlike the hall monitor’s post, these slugs at the FBI get to stay as long as they like. Or until the bureau decides to throw them under the bus to protect what is first and foremost in all of their minds. That, of course, is the bureau itself.
Remember the Lois Lerner hearings? How about John Koskinen’s testimony regarding the agency’s computer hard drives? What was that story again? They were destroyed according to some internal policy? So no records preserved? No audit trail (ironic given the IRS fondness for audits)? Do you honestly believe any of that? Paul Ryan said it at the time: “Sir, I don’t believe you”. That is a term which, translated from RINO speak, means “You’re a fucking liar”. I’m betting the FBI has those computers.
Remember as the sham Clinton e-mail investigation was winding down? All those missing e-mails? And the server that was “wiped”? Oh yeah, there was also the interview with Cheryl Mills where she was supposedly Hillary’s counsel? Her laptop was supposedly destroyed, for some bullshit excuse I can’t recall now. And the phones. They smashed those with a hammer, or so goes the approved narrative. We know they have Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin’s computer. I’m betting they have the server and it hasn’t been wiped. Or at least they have a backup of the original. Likewise for the Mills computer and all of the other devices too.
All of these things are evidence of federal crimes. They would be, at least, if they were presented in the prosecution of these crimes. Instead they reside with the FBI whose purpose, it becomes clearer with each passing day, is not the pursuit of justice. Their purpose is the exercise of leverage. Yeah, but I’m wearing the belt asshole.
Seth Rich was just a random street crime and the FBI had neither interest nor jurisdiction in that case. That was the official word for four years. If I may be so bold as to quote our Pretender-Elect-in-Chief, “Well sonofabitch!” It turns out that this was a complete and utter falsehood. Now we know, because they have admitted it, that the FBI has had Seth Rich’s laptop all along. And a search of FBI databases reveals 20,000+ hits on reference to Seth Rich. That is rather an oddity for a case in which there was no interest or jurisdiction.
We also know now, again by the bureau’s own admission, that they have been in possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop for a year. We now know that Christopher Wray’s FBI was in possession of the Biden laptop at the time of the sham impeachment hearings. What do you suppose are the odds that Chris Wray knew nothing about it? Given the gravity of the situation it was incumbent upon the director to make this evidence known, if not publicly then at the very least to the members of the house committees. The bureau’s silence in this matter is more than deafening. It suggests complicity. Given these confirmations from no less than the FBI itself on the Rich and Biden laptops, it is no great leap of faith to conclude that the earlier incriminating computers referenced here are also still firmly in the possession of the bureau. With the scarcity of prosecutions taking shape in light of all this evidence one can only wonder to what purpose.
Prosecutions only interest the FBI where selectively applied. Just ask Bob Mueller about that. I would ask that you ask the same of no less of a criminal than Whitey Bolger. I would, but for the fact that, conveniently for Agent Mueller, Mr. Bolger has expired. Or you might ask Michael Flynn. And St. James the Pious, Saint Andrew the Duplicitous, and Saint Peter the Petulant: that unholy trinity of the Sacred Church of State Secrets. Any collection of any evidence is for the purpose of covering up crimes, then in turn leveraging the weight of this evidence against the perpetrators. The current day prelate of this church, Saint Christopher the Castrati, is carrying on in this fine tradition. The actions, or more importantly the lack of action, by the FBI are predicated by two simple factors: 1) self (institutional) preservation, and 2) the wants of the highest bidder. Some bidders are smart enough to incorporate the former into the latter.
At present we do not have concrete proof for this thesis. I fully expect there to be more in time. Until that time I welcome any who may present a credible case to refute these assertions. None of this will change until more American citizens begin to ask the right question: not where is the FBI. We should instead ask what is the FBI. One thing is for certain: the motto “Fidelity, Bravery, Integrity” is as flaccid as the bureau’s limp dicked leadership.