Comey was complicit

[Votto]

New revelation about Comey’s refusal to charge Clinton sparks outrage

A letter from two Republican senators claims that there is evidence former FBI Director James Comey had made the decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton long before an FBI investigation into her handling of sensitive intelligence was completed.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote to current FBI Director Christopher Wray that Comey’s preparation of the statement to exonerate Clinton in April or May 2016 showed a prejudicial bias in her favor. Comey announced in July 2016 that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton.

Grassley and Graham requested documents related to Comey’s drafting of his statement about Clinton.

“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,” the letter stated.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the claim gave more support for President Donald Trump’s decision to dismiss Comey.

“If it is as accurate as they say it is, that would certainly give cause and reason that Jim Comey was not the right person to lead the FBI,” she told reporters during the White House press briefing Thursday.

Grassley and Graham said a government watchdog agency, the Office of Special Counsel, provided them with transcripts of interviews showing Comey had began drawing up the exoneration statement at least six weeks before he made it public.

That timeframe would put Comey’s drafting of the statement before certain key witnesses in the case were interviewed — including Clinton.

Longtime Trump ally and friend Roger Stone reacted on Twitter to the news, saying that the president “should order [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions to arrest/indict and perp Wall [sic] Comey for obstruction. Send signal to Mueller he is next.”

Fox News Business host and Trump supporter Lou Dobbs asked his followers in a Twitter poll if they believed “Former FBI Director James Comey was complicit in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal cover-up.” Ninety-four percent voted in the affirmative.



Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted, “Comey has some explaining to do — otherwise people will conclude his investigation was a sham

 

[bodecea]

Already a thread on this.......trumpanzees were getting spanked on it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I said Comey was a weasel...tada!!!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Already a thread on this.......trumpanzees were getting spanked on it.

Stop taking LSD. It distorts reality.

 

[kwc57]

New revelation about Comey’s refusal to charge Clinton sparks outrage

A letter from two Republican senators claims that there is evidence former FBI Director James Comey had made the decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton long before an FBI investigation into her handling of sensitive intelligence was completed.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote to current FBI Director Christopher Wray that Comey’s preparation of the statement to exonerate Clinton in April or May 2016 showed a prejudicial bias in her favor. Comey announced in July 2016 that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton.

Grassley and Graham requested documents related to Comey’s drafting of his statement about Clinton.

“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,” the letter stated.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the claim gave more support for President Donald Trump’s decision to dismiss Comey.

“If it is as accurate as they say it is, that would certainly give cause and reason that Jim Comey was not the right person to lead the FBI,” she told reporters during the White House press briefing Thursday.

Grassley and Graham said a government watchdog agency, the Office of Special Counsel, provided them with transcripts of interviews showing Comey had began drawing up the exoneration statement at least six weeks before he made it public.

That timeframe would put Comey’s drafting of the statement before certain key witnesses in the case were interviewed — including Clinton.

Longtime Trump ally and friend Roger Stone reacted on Twitter to the news, saying that the president “should order [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions to arrest/indict and perp Wall [sic] Comey for obstruction. Send signal to Mueller he is next.”

Fox News Business host and Trump supporter Lou Dobbs asked his followers in a Twitter poll if they believed “Former FBI Director James Comey was complicit in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal cover-up.” Ninety-four percent voted in the affirmative.



Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted, “Comey has some explaining to do — otherwise people will conclude his investigation was a sham

No surprise there. If Mueller lives up to his reputation and isn't part of the "fix", he will investigate all avenues in this collusion story. There is much more evidence being covered up that the Obama admin sought to destroy Trump as a candidate by politicizing FISA information and allowing it to be leaked than there is of Trump doing anything. To date, there has been nothing more than wishful thinking on Trump. Zero definitive in the way of a smoking gun. On the Obama side with intelligence and leaking information about a private citizen, quite a bit of information is out there. It's just that the intelligence folks are preventing it being looked at and the media won't pursue it. We will see if Mueller is the man of integrity that people claim.

 

[BluesLegend]

Tip of the iceberg...why were the FBI's hands tied with no grand jury? Why the bizarre Comey announcement when that decision and announcement should have come from the DOJ? Why did Comey first convict Hillary then let her off the hook because he said there was no intent. Which I find highly questionable, but legal scholars and a former AG said intent isn't required if you break this law in any case. Is Comey just a moron or something legally?

 

[BlindBoo]

Yeah, Comey was planning on helping Hillary with that statement explaining what a fuck up Hillary was with her careless handing of classified data.

For anyone willing to buy that nonsense I have some awesome land in Houston for sale. And a few cars too!

But hey, if it gets the rubes salivating, it worked to divert reality, again.

 

[g5000]

You rubes have spent so many years working up your fear and anger toward Hillary, you have become addicted and have a secret desire for her to stick around so you can keep masturbating.

Three and a half years from now:

"B-b-b-b-b-but Clinton!"

(sound of spunk hitting wall)

 

[hazlnut]

New revelation about Comey’s refusal to charge Clinton sparks outrage

A letter from two Republican senators claims that there is evidence former FBI Director James Comey had made the decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton long before an FBI investigation into her handling of sensitive intelligence was completed.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote to current FBI Director Christopher Wray that Comey’s preparation of the statement to exonerate Clinton in April or May 2016 showed a prejudicial bias in her favor. Comey announced in July 2016 that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton.

Grassley and Graham requested documents related to Comey’s drafting of his statement about Clinton.

“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,” the letter stated.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the claim gave more support for President Donald Trump’s decision to dismiss Comey.

“If it is as accurate as they say it is, that would certainly give cause and reason that Jim Comey was not the right person to lead the FBI,” she told reporters during the White House press briefing Thursday.

Grassley and Graham said a government watchdog agency, the Office of Special Counsel, provided them with transcripts of interviews showing Comey had began drawing up the exoneration statement at least six weeks before he made it public.

That timeframe would put Comey’s drafting of the statement before certain key witnesses in the case were interviewed — including Clinton.

Longtime Trump ally and friend Roger Stone reacted on Twitter to the news, saying that the president “should order [Attorney General Jeff] Sessions to arrest/indict and perp Wall [sic] Comey for obstruction. Send signal to Mueller he is next.”

Fox News Business host and Trump supporter Lou Dobbs asked his followers in a Twitter poll if they believed “Former FBI Director James Comey was complicit in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal cover-up.” Ninety-four percent voted in the affirmative.



Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer tweeted, “Comey has some explaining to do — otherwise people will conclude his investigation was a sham

Sarah Huckabee is a pig and her father is a homophobe.

These people should realize that when you tether yourself to a shit-spewing demon(Trump), you always get some on ya...

 

[IsaacNewton]

Cons you have a Viagra hardon for the Clintons that will never go away. Only pity for you the amount of hatred you must carry in your mind in perpetuity.

 

[BluesLegend]

My guess is both Comey and Lynch figured Hillary was a shoe in and were angling for jobs post election. Comey probably wasn't getting what he wanted so he knifed Hillary in the back, then a Lynch/Bill meeting and as if by magic the Comey exoneration.

 

[Peach]

Did Comey have authority to make any decision about Clinton and that infamous email server? Would that not be DOJ?

And of course Trump admits sharing classified information with Russia:
Trump vilified Hillary Clinton repeatedly for her handling of classified information

 

[usmbguest5318]

Based on the content of the letter (my remarks are subordinated to quotes from the "Grassley" letter):

• "...it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Corney had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work."
  
  Um...seriously. With but a month to go and knowing the nature and status of the investigation, and having been the Deputy AG in a prior Administration, only a bombshell discovery was going to alter the fact that no material evidence had been found to support an attestation of intent and Gorin v. United States clearly requires intent for 793(f) allegations to prevail.
  
  No evidence of intent = no prosecution because people have better things to do than bring a case that immediately after the prosecution rests, the defence will move for dismissal under Gorin and get it. Better to not prosecute and, if someday strong evidence of intent appears, bring the case at that time, because if the matter gets dismissed, "double jeopardy" prevents bringing the matter again, new evidence or not.
• "As of early May 2016, the FBI had not yet interviewed Secretary Clinton. Moreover, it had yet to finish interviewing sixteen other key witnesses, including Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Heather Samuelson, Justin Cooper, and John Bentel."
  
  Okay....Hillary was certainly not going to incriminate herself. Unless by May 2016 the FBI had credible documentary evidence hinting at intent, the remarks of those people would be of no use unless every one or damn near every one of them said the same thing that indicated Clinton intended to violate 793(f).
  
  It's already been stated that the FBI found no evidence of intent. Insofar as the FBI found none by the end of the investigation, there must necessarily have been none two months prior to the end of the investigation.
• "Mr. Corney's final statement acknowledged "there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information."
  
  As a legal statement, that's an assertion of actus reus, not mens rea. That is seen in the remainder of the sentence: "but nonetheless cleared Secretary Clinton because he claimed there was no intent..." Nobody denies existence of evidence of actus reus or that the unlawful act occurred.
• "Evidence of destruction of emails known to be under subpoena by the House of Representatives, and subject to congressional preservation requests, was obtained in interviews around the time that Mr. Corney began drafting his exoneration statement."
  
  and
  
  "Mr. Combetta's 302 summary noted that he deleted Secretary Clinton's email archives on March 31, 2015 using BleachBit, a software program designed to prevent forensic recovery. This information was obtained by the FBI on May 3, 2016, around the time that Mr. Corney began drafting his exoneration statement."
  
  and
  
  "Secretary Clinton's December 2014 instruction to her staff"
  
  The final quoted statement from the preceding bullet omits the words "and obstruction." They do because I'm addressing that point now.
  • One might plausibly assert that obstruction occurred; however, the person who committed it would have had to have been Mr. Combetta, not Hillary Clinton. She didn't delete the emails, and absent an explicit instruction from her to do so, there's no basis for asserting that she was/is guilty of obstruction.
  • That Mr. Combetta ran BleachBit on March 31, 2015 means that by the time Comey commenced composing his remarks, the information in those emails was gone and wasn't coming back. Consequently, whatever information they contained wasn't going to become part of the documentary evidence in the case. Comey knew that just as I do.
    
    Accordingly, as noted above, the only evidence that could possibly come to the fore between May 2016 and July 2016 was testimonial. [1] Why? Because as shown in the "Grassley" letter, essentially the only thing pertaining to the Clinton matter that the FBI did in May and June was iteratively prepare for, conduct, analyze and document interviews of various individuals.
    
    When that's all that's left to do in a years long process that began with the Benghazi hearings, experienced investigators and attorneys know damn well that they are highly unlikely to get new information that will alter the implications of what they already have found.
• "Judiciary Committee staff reviewed the immunity agreements as part of their oversight work, so there is no question that the terms of the agreement called for the Department to destroy evidence that had not been fully and completely reviewed."
  • To the extent that the deleted emails were dated between Jun1, 2014 and February 1, 2015, the December 2014 deletion instruction is covered by the period of the immunity agreement. (see the next bulleted quote) The emails not already "fully and completely reviewed" by the FBI, and that other parties didn't destroy, would have had to have been destroyed by the DoJ had it not already been destroyed.
    
    The substance being that the destroyed content wasn't admissible. Just as the destroyed content wasn't eligible for consideration in seeking evidence that may have been of use in prosecuting the matter pursuant to 793(f), testimony about that evidence (i.e., whatever people might remember about specific emails) [2] also was not eligible for that use. Thus the May-June 2016 interviews weren't going to address email content pertaining to the shuttered email content.
• "Transparency is essential to restoring the public's trust in the FBI."
  • I agree.
    
    I wonder whether, if nothing indicating Comey "concluded first, fact-gathered second" is found, will Grassley and Graham's committees attest to as much, theblaze will report as much, and this thread's OP-er will make a point of calling as much to our attention.

Notes:

1. There's nothing wrong with testimonial evidence, but for it to be considered probative, it must:
   • Be admissible (what is and isn't admissible, and why, is beyond my ability to "off the top of my head" address -- I'm not an attorney, but I have enough legal training to understand core legal principles)
   • Not be hearsay or speculative about the frame of mind of the defendant (unless the speculator is a relevant expert and the speculation/opinion/conclusion offered is founded legitimately on their status as an expert)
   • Not be deemed irrelevant on objection
   • Uncontested -- The court will take one's sworn testimony as truthfully what one believes so, but if some persons testifies "x" and more others testify "not x," the testimony to the effect of "x" is not probative. Similarly, if one testifies "x" and documentary evidence refutes "x," the testimony isn't probative. As a practical matter, no prosecutor is going to call witnesses whose testimony doesn't align with documentary evidence and the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. The defense attorney(s), however, most certainly will. Prosecutors rarely, if ever, bring cases that rely on "he said..., she said..." Civilian plaintiffs, on the other hand, are less exacting, particularly in civil cases.
   • Withstand cross-examination
2. The reality is that if someone were to show me a 6-month or more old email and ask me if I sent or received it, but for seeing the header info on it, and maybe a signature, I would have no idea. I could attest to the content indeed being the type of content I exchanged with coworkers and clients, but absent seeing the content, I couldn't say much else. There are a handful of work-related emails in my personal email account, and looking at them, I can recall at a high level what issues we were working through at the time. There's no way I'd attest to their being in my personal account because I sought to suborn anything pertaining to or stipulated by my firm or client(s). I wouldn't because I never had any such intent.