FBI Director James Comey’s recent disclosure that more Hillary Clinton emails had been discovered on the computer of Anthony Weiner was a clear violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity by Justice Department employees during election periods. As is generally the case close to an election, on March 10, the Deputy Attorney General sent all affected Justice Department employees, including Director Comey, a memorandum reminding them of their responsibilities and obligations under the act. It stated, "activity director toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan political office or partisan political group" is prohibited under the act. Such memos have been going out every election season for the more than 70 years since the act was passed.
In adherence to the act, Director Comey has said nothing about the current FBI investigation of Donald Trump’s close co-ordination with the Russian government–so close, indeed, that there are serious concerns about his ability, as president, to protect American intelligence security.
So there is a double standard. On the one hand, the director violates the Hatch Act in a completely obvious and straightforward way. On the other, he upholds it.
This would appear to be blatant partisan politics, as indeed it is. But James Comey is a man of rectitude. There is a reason that the Republican senate fought his appointment for so long. While a Republican himself, he has been noted for an exceptional even-handedness throughout his public career.
So what caused him to do something he knew to be illegal and potentially damaging to the United States in some very profound ways?
I suspect that there is a hidden reason, and that reason is the fear of disclosure. It would also be why President Obama was so mild in his criticism of Director Comey. Throughout his term of office in the White House, John Podesta fought for UFO disclosure. In his final tweet as counselor to President Obama, he said that his chief regret was that the president had not done this.
What they are trying to make public, I think, are a series of documents and probably radar tracks from the 1950s and 1960s that make it clear that the objects being observed and tracked were intelligently guided and of unknown origin, and displayed flight characteristics far beyond known technology.
That seems simple enough, but it is not simple and it is not a small thing. It is, in fact, the largest issue of this campaign and the most important one to be addressed by any candidate. It is also extremely dangerous and challenging to elements that take an interest in mankind that go far beyond anything that we know, and some among those elements are absolutely opposed to disclosure, and will act to prevent it, and I believe that this fantastic lapse on the part of the FBI Director represents such action.
Whether he did it out of conscious or unconscious compulsion I cannot know, but I think that his action was primarily directed at preventing the election of a disclosure president.
From the standpoint of our own society, the disclosure of such documents would lead, in a matter of days, to the appearance on major media around the world of UFO researchers and abduction researchers who would be telling the horror story of the alien abduction phenomenon. And then there would rise to the surface the stories of bizarre animal and human mutilations. Within weeks, a state of general terror would have been whipped up, all in the name of ratings.
From the standpoint of the visitors, the reason that the above would happen is that we are blind to so much of reality that we literally cannot see what is actually happening, and therefore that disclosure would only confuse us further, and the media storm, which they are certain would occur, would destroy their own process of disclosure, effectively ruining our chance to ever enter the chorus of conscious being that is spread across the universe, and is the universe.
I am part of their process and have devoted myself to it as best I can. But I also think that there are enough of us who can now see the whole "touching" of mankind by this more potentiated level of being as communion rather than attack. So I believe that the kind of disclosure that Podesta wants and that Clinton, if she has the courage and insight necessary, might facilitate, would actually aid the human species in changing its direction in deeply important and useful ways.
However, the visitors I am engaged with are extremely unwilling to go along with this. They remain adamantly opposed. This brings to mind what was said to Col. Phillip Corso when he asked what was on offer for us: "a new world, if you can take it."
Official disclosure, at least of the reality of some small part of the phenomenon, is the beginning of our process of taking it, and of the next phase of the human journey, into a new world.
This is not a political statement. I am not disclosing here my own voting preference. I have already expressed my concerns, in a previous journal, about Donald Trump, because of his disinterest in climate change, which is the central issue of the visitors and therefore also mine, and his Russian connections. I have not stated that I am supporting another candidate. It is not my place to do so.
The overt stance of the visitors is that they want to remain in the cultural background where they are now. This means that they will derail Hillary Clinton, which I think they are trying to do. They do have the capacity to act in our world through surrogates who cannot discern the true origins of their own motivations, and I believe that this has happened here.
A new world if we can take it. They will fight us every inch of the way. If we win, it will be because we are strong enough to do so. As a close encounter witness was once told, "this is for the young and the strong." Mankind is young. But are we strong? That remains to be seen.