- Oct 31, 2012
- 53,887
- 52,789
- 3,605
Did A Corrupt FBI Give Hillary Clinton A Free Pass? Sure Looks Like It | Stock News & Stock Market Analysis - IBD
Scandals: Among the many troubling revelations to have emerged regarding the FBI these days, one of the worst is finding out that an avowed Trump-hater softened language in a memo to exonerate Hillary Clinton.
Let's rewind the tape a bit. Until August 31, 2016, with the presidential election in full swing, former FBI director James Comey gave the impression that he hadn't arrived at his decision to let Clinton off the hook until after he had all the facts.
But in late August we learned that, in fact, Comey and his team began drafting his get-out-of-jail-free statement for Clinton in April — right around the time President Obama publicly declared Clinton innocent of any crimes, and well before the FBI had interviewed dozens of key witnesses, including Clinton herself.
Then, in early November, we learned that an early draft of that memo had accused Clinton of being "grossly negligent" in handling classified material because she used an unsecured private email server while Secretary of State.
At some point during the editing process of that memo, "grossly negligent" became "extremely careless," which is how Comey put it in the final version.
The change was monumental. The criminal statute regarding mishandling classified material specifically cites "gross negligence" as a violation of the law, even if there is no intent involved. Had that language remained, Comey's claim that "no reasonable prosecutor" would take the Clinton email case would have been laughable.
So changing the language was obviously meant to clear the path for letting Clinton off the hook, whatever the facts might be.
This week, the other shoe in the memo story dropped, when it was reported that Peter Strzok had made that particular edit.
Strzok, for those who don't know, had been kicked off the Trump/Russia investigation this summer — a fact we also only learned about in the past few days — after it turned out that he'd been sending anti-Trump, pro-Hillary texts to an FBI colleague.
So the key person who made a material change in a memo exonerating Clinton was a big Clinton supporter and a Trump hater.
On top of this, we only recently learned that officials at the FBI were in a frenzy after learning of Bill Clinton's off-the-books tarmac meeting with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on June 27, 2016.
But the FBI wasn't interested in finding out what was said at that highly suspicious and inappropriate confab. Nope. They wanted to know who leaked the information.
"These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which uncovered the memos, adding that they "show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people."
Now, contrast all this with the way the FBI has been pursuing — since July 2016 — claims made in the Clinton-campaign-DNC-financed "dossier" supposedly showing that Trump colluded with Russian meddling in the presidential election.
Before and after the election, the FBI has been ferociously investigating this, determined to find any shred of evidence that might support the dossier, and yet has come up empty. Now, under Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the entire focus seems to have shifted from providing any evidence of collusion to catching anyone in Trump's circle who committed unrelated crimes.
We're not conspiracy mongers here. But it's hard to see this as anything other than an effort by the Deep State first to protect Hillary's election chances at all costs, and then, when that failed, to ruin Trump's presidency — at all costs.
And people wonder why nobody trusts the government any more.
Scandals: Among the many troubling revelations to have emerged regarding the FBI these days, one of the worst is finding out that an avowed Trump-hater softened language in a memo to exonerate Hillary Clinton.
Let's rewind the tape a bit. Until August 31, 2016, with the presidential election in full swing, former FBI director James Comey gave the impression that he hadn't arrived at his decision to let Clinton off the hook until after he had all the facts.
But in late August we learned that, in fact, Comey and his team began drafting his get-out-of-jail-free statement for Clinton in April — right around the time President Obama publicly declared Clinton innocent of any crimes, and well before the FBI had interviewed dozens of key witnesses, including Clinton herself.
Then, in early November, we learned that an early draft of that memo had accused Clinton of being "grossly negligent" in handling classified material because she used an unsecured private email server while Secretary of State.
At some point during the editing process of that memo, "grossly negligent" became "extremely careless," which is how Comey put it in the final version.
The change was monumental. The criminal statute regarding mishandling classified material specifically cites "gross negligence" as a violation of the law, even if there is no intent involved. Had that language remained, Comey's claim that "no reasonable prosecutor" would take the Clinton email case would have been laughable.
So changing the language was obviously meant to clear the path for letting Clinton off the hook, whatever the facts might be.
This week, the other shoe in the memo story dropped, when it was reported that Peter Strzok had made that particular edit.
Strzok, for those who don't know, had been kicked off the Trump/Russia investigation this summer — a fact we also only learned about in the past few days — after it turned out that he'd been sending anti-Trump, pro-Hillary texts to an FBI colleague.
So the key person who made a material change in a memo exonerating Clinton was a big Clinton supporter and a Trump hater.
On top of this, we only recently learned that officials at the FBI were in a frenzy after learning of Bill Clinton's off-the-books tarmac meeting with then Attorney General Loretta Lynch on June 27, 2016.
But the FBI wasn't interested in finding out what was said at that highly suspicious and inappropriate confab. Nope. They wanted to know who leaked the information.
"These new FBI documents show the FBI was more concerned about a whistleblower who told the truth about the infamous Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting than the scandalous meeting itself," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which uncovered the memos, adding that they "show the FBI worked to make sure no more details of the meeting would be revealed to the American people."
Now, contrast all this with the way the FBI has been pursuing — since July 2016 — claims made in the Clinton-campaign-DNC-financed "dossier" supposedly showing that Trump colluded with Russian meddling in the presidential election.
Before and after the election, the FBI has been ferociously investigating this, determined to find any shred of evidence that might support the dossier, and yet has come up empty. Now, under Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the entire focus seems to have shifted from providing any evidence of collusion to catching anyone in Trump's circle who committed unrelated crimes.
We're not conspiracy mongers here. But it's hard to see this as anything other than an effort by the Deep State first to protect Hillary's election chances at all costs, and then, when that failed, to ruin Trump's presidency — at all costs.
And people wonder why nobody trusts the government any more.
