[TravelerKai]

(08-31-2017 03:54 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

[/url]

CONFIRMED: Comey Decided He Wasn't Going to Refer Hillary For Prosecution Long Before FBI Investigation Was Over

Quote:

According to new transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey made the decision not to refer then Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for prosecution long before ever interviewing key witnesses. Members of the Committee allege Comey made the decision months before FBI agents were finished with the criminal investigation into her mishandling of classified information during her time as Secretary of State.

The transcripts were revealed in a letter sent to current FBI Director Christopher Wray, in which lawmakers are demanding an explanation and more documents surrounding the case.

"According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts," the letter, signed by Chairman Chuck Grassley and Committee member Lindsey Graham states. "Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy."

"It is unclear whether the FBI agents actually investigating the case were aware that Mr. Comey had already decided on the investigation’s outcome while their work was ongoing. However, it appears that the answer to that question may be underneath some of the extensive redactions that the Department made to the transcripts," the letter continues.

According to the letter and an ongoing investigation into the matter, Comey started drafting a statement exonerating Clinton in April or May of 2016. At this point, he had not interviewed Clinton herself or her closest aides. This included Bryan Pagliano, who set up the personal server where Clinton hosted and shared top secret information, and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, who was granted immunity. On July 5, 2016, Comey made his public statement that the FBI would not be referring Clinton to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

You can read the letter, which contains excerpts from the transcripts.

As Fitton said back in June...

[url=https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/872849453346115589]

In alot of ways this is not surprising and certainly not new information. Rod and Sessions in their recommendation letter to President Trump, more or less cited that he utterly botched, outright ruined the Clinton investigations so badly that no one would be able to clean it up or follow through. If you read between the lines it was extremely incompetent, the job Comey did.

What is now new:

1. Could a case be made that Comey was obstructing justice by carrying out the investigation in such a way that it destroyed evidence and future prosecution attempts? In other words, did he say oops and drop the evidence in a shredder? Proving intent is hard, as Comey likes to say. Proving intent that he did this stuff on purpose would be hard as well, letter or not.

2. Who in the hell are these two CIA employees that were interviewed long before Hillary was? Why were they interviewed? Is this why some of this stuff is too classified for guys like Jason Chaffetz and Trey Gowdy to get access to, when they were asking for it? Honestly I am shocked they did not redact that part.

3. Comey may have committed perjury with Congress. He did not discuss that letter not once. In his testimony he gave the impression that he waited all the way to the end or right after Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton, to call the whole thing off and clear the air in her place, which was wrong because that was not his place. If that is not quite perjury, it might be obstruction, but I am not a lawyer. He did hide details of intent and it was just as foul.

Congress is now going to have to decide if they are going to put screws to him like they did to Barry Bonds. They hate being lied to, but usually it is not always clear how far they are willing to go after someone, when that person waddled in the same swamp they do.

This entire affair smells really bad. This stuff under normal circumstances usually leads to firings and jail for a few people. I seem to recall an anon on either /pol or something that was claiming that no charges were going to be put to Clinton. If that was one of the CIA fucks or some NSA fuck with too much access to the details.

Also, Trump probably asked Sessions to review this stuff already. That is why Comey was fired. Trump needed them to take the heat for that recommendation because of the "Muh Russia" stuff. These Globalist fucks used the Russia stuff as a means to shield Comey from getting fired by Trump. Trump bypassed that by proving his job performance was atrocious. Now they got Mueller to pick up where he left off to keep pressure on Trump. Probably better to discuss in the Trump thread, but it might be time to fire him too, but that is not 100% obvious yet. If Congress wants to reinstate him, are they too dysfunctional to do it? I would say at this time, no not really. Some key Republitards need to go first to be certain.

These fuckers can hack Rawmeo 10 ways to Sunday, but cannot recover 33K emails from an Exchange server database backup from an IT vendor? And most of you guys believe what they wrote about Rawmeo? When something is a pure matter of money (drugs), they are good at their jobs. When something is a matter of politics, they are extremely incompetent?