Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

FBI Insiders Question Comey Decision on Hillary

FBI Insiders Question Comey Decision on Hillary

“Why wasn’t Clinton’s interview recorded?”

I remember hearing rumors months ago that if the FBI decided not to recommend indictment for Hillary Clinton, there would be high level resignations at the bureau in response.

So far, that hasn’t happened but some people at the FBI were clearly as stunned as the rest of the nation.

Sharyl Attkisson reports:

FBI Pros Question Decision Not to Charge Hillary Clinton

This week, FBI Director James Comey testified that Hillary Clinton and her aides had compromised classified information in an extremely careless fashion, exposed it to hostile adversaries, violated public records law, destroyed public documents (some permanently, so that they cannot be forensically recovered) and that Clinton made repeated false statements in public about her actions. But, he concluded, no charges should be filed. Clinton apparently told the FBI she didn’t understand classified markings and all the technology at issue, and that she didn’t know she was doing anything wrong. And the FBI takes her at her word.

Comey is well-respected by politicians in both political parties and by many within his own ranks. But there is new dissent after his Clinton decision, which some FBI insiders found baffling and contrary to normal practices.

Attkisson provides examples from people who have to remain anonymous:

  • Why wasn’t Clinton’s interview recorded? On May 22, 2014 the Justice Department announced a substantial change in policy “creating a presumption that FBI…agents will electronically record,” expressing a preference for video recordings over audio. “It appears to me they made a deal not to record,” says one observer, which flies in the face of the idea that Clinton was treated like anybody else.
  • Typically it’s the U.S. Attorney’s office, not FBI agents, deciding whether charges will be filed. “Director Comey seems to have taken on responsibilities far beyond the FBI’s purview–he assumed the duties of the Agent, US Attorney and Grand Jury.”
  • The Director commented that it wouldn’t be fair to charge Clinton for her reckless behavior because no one else had ever been charged by the standard before. “I am not aware of any investigation where a government official went to such extreme measures to comb through the government records,” said a career FBI professional.

In another post on her site, Attkisson points out that this is bigger than Hillary Clinton:

It’s Not All About Hillary

In some respects, the implications of the FBI’s findings aren’t about Hillary– they’re about the rest of us. As a layman, here’s my interpretation:

Any federal employee is now free, despite what the law may say, to make personal arrangements to communicate the public’s business using private servers, administrators, accounts and devices. They may send and receive classified material using these servers, even in hostile territory subject to hacking by sophisticated adversaries. They may routinely destroy the public-owned records they create–some of them permanently–and, if their actions are discovered, they may provide false public statements about their content.

They are free to violate public records law and fail to turn over public records upon request (making Freedom of Information law meaningless and toothless). And prosecutors will view questionable acts in the most innocent light and one that’s the most favorable to the subject of the investigation. Unless they can find what they term “clear evidence” of “intent to violate laws,” you’re off the hook!

Comey’s decision represents a total failure of justice.

Just wait until lawyers start citing this case a defense.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

It’s total BS.

Comey should be ashamed.

And every American should be outraged.

Little people will not be treated like the elitists. . This isn’t about justice. It’s about “let them eat cake”. The pretense of equality before the law is now dead. Founding Fathers and Lincoln are turning over in their graves and I am crying my eyes out.

“Just wait until lawyers start citing this case a defense.”

I understand that has already started.

I predict it won’t prove very useful, and here’s why…

1. judges are going to quash the invocation of “the Hellary defense” quite correctly

2. juries, faced with the complete gutting of our national security versus the idea of “turnabouts, fair play” will elect a robust national security defense and the keeping of records

Will that result in “unfair” prosecutions of those who violate the LAWSSSSSSSSSS in play here? Of course!

Does this diminish the standard of “a nation of laws, and not of men” in the eyes of the people? Most assuredly!

That damage has already been done. And, just for the sake of keeping it real, it started long ago with Dollar Bill Clinton. Many of us back when he was running for POTUS insisted that “character counts”. We still do, and won’t vote for a stinking, lying Collectivist thug, regardless of party.

    Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2016 at 5:47 pm

    All the lawyers I’ve read being interviewed who say they’re going to use the “Hillary defense” specialize in national security cases. Specifically, helping people get their security clearances back after being revoked. It’s not a judicial proceeding. It’s an administrative procedure, and they vary widely in format depending on what agency or department you’ve suffered an an adverse action from.

    You can lose a clearance of very minor issues. Every five years if you have

    Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2016 at 5:57 pm

    Damn it. I hate it when it does that.

    People can lose 20 year careers over very trivial matters. Meanwhile, Not only Clinton, but Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, et al, will suffer no adverse repercussions. Obama has already said he will not deny Clinton access to classified if she’s the presumptive nominee. She should not have such access given Comey’s testimony about her “extremely careless” treatment of it. But she will. There’s no way to deny her access if she’s elected but there’s no way any one in her inner circle should ever have a clearance again.

    This group of lawyers work in a very small specialized field. If they think they can use the “Hillary defense” to get their clients their clearances back I wouldn’t second guess them too quickly.

      Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | July 10, 2016 at 7:26 pm

      The thing is, Comey’s irrelevant to that. Comey specifically said that anyone else in Clinton’s position would not face criminal charges, but would face administrative and security consequences. Clinton, of course, can’t face administrative consequences because she no longer works for the government, and there seems little point in stripping her security clearance since one way or another, in six months she’ll have no need for one.

        Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | July 11, 2016 at 2:51 am

        That’s why it’s the “Hillary Defense,” not the “Comey Defense.”

        What’s relevant about it is it describes not just her but her inner circle, Human Abedin (who never should have been given a clearance at all), Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan who were just as “extremely careless” with classified information as their boss.

        Plus, as we know, another 300 people at the State Dept. who interacted with her home brew unclassified unsecure unauthorized. Many of them but probably not all have clearances. And many of whom but probably not all sent and received classified information.

        Yet I don’t see any big purge coming. So if Clinton should have suffered some administrative punishment so should they. But they won’t. If Clinton is elected she has to receive classified information. But there’s no legal reason any of these others have to. But if Abedin and Mills are in the White House with Clinton, they’ll have their clearances. AS will all those people at state.

        That’s what really lowers the bar. The reasons most of the little people have their clearances revoked pale in comparison. It’s going to be hard for the adjudicators to say that someone who lost his clearance because of a discrepancy on their SF-86, like they forgot to list a family member (when you do that they think you’re trying to hide something), combined with minor security infraction such as mishandling classified inside a SCIF shouldn’t get it back, when all these people who were “extremely careless” according to the FBI director haven’t had their clearances revoked.

How many of these upset FBI insiders have resigned in protest of this nakedly political betrayal by the FBI Director?

So far none. This is why I lose all respect for every FBI employee. They are sworn LEO and choose their paychecks and pensions over doing the right thing.

    Ragspierre in reply to Howard Roark. | July 10, 2016 at 10:49 am

    Today is the fifth day since the Comey Disgrace. I think it’s “fair” to give people time to decide to trash a career, and do the right thing.

    You or I may have acted with greater alacrity. But there may be reasons we were never FBI agents in our “genetic code” that make that true.

    I’ve known many FBI agents, and many have since retired. But they were…to a person…people of high integrity.

    Now, that said, I’ve known a few Secret Service agents, and they were not prone to the shenanigans we know of under the current administration. Their wives would have killed them…

      And same comments I made earlier apply to US military officers O-5 and above who have followed Obama’s PC orders to look the other way on radical Islam during this war on terror.

      If they show up for work and follow the orders they have broken their oath, dishonored the uniform. Retiring quietly also a betrayal of the oath to defend the Constitution.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Ragspierre. | July 10, 2016 at 2:15 pm

      Rags, they’ve had months to make that decision. Certainly those “in the know” have known for some time of the absolute certainty of Hillary’s lawless behavior in this matter. Comey’s recommendation to not prosecute should have been merely a trigger for a decision already made, not the starting point for reflection. Any ranking FBI personnel involved in this situation who are honorable and patriotic should have had a news conference of their own already planned to immediately follow Comey’s announcement at which they would have declared their resignations.

        Ragspierre in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 10, 2016 at 2:50 pm

        This assumes that the people you BELIEVE are as clued in as you and I are don’t have other things on their minds.

        I don’t make that assumption. A LOT of people are MUCH less involved in this than we are. I spoke to some over this last week that were oblivious to the whole Comey presser and to Hellary generally.

        I know that’s hard to take in. It is still true. I can believe that even high-ranking FBI people have their gaze turned elsewhere, and they are just now coming to grips with this scandal.

Don’t tell my mother that I work for the FBI, she thinks I play piano in a whorehouse.

I’m sticking to my theory:
Comey, knowing that even if everything he did was perfect, knew any chance of a fruitful prosecution under the Obama / Lynch DOJ didn’t stand a snow-balls chance in Tucson…
was actually very much in favor of persuing the case.
There were only two options in sight:
Punt it into the next Administration, or put it before Congress and get it away from the DOJ entirely.
In either of these two strategies, his strategy would be considered here as brilliant.
He stole the entire case right out from under Obama/ Lynch and it is a cherry for the picking.
The investigation is complete, the evidence is piled up and a list of recommended charges was provided, either for Congress or the next Administration to act upon.
This is my personal preferred pet theory.
If Comey wanted to preserve the case and gather attention to the point that he could not be ignored… he did just that. Notice his next stop was right in front of Congress.
Where Chaffetz, in the very first ” Congressional Inquiry ” promised to hand down a referral to the FBI to look at perjery by Clinton.
Of course, the alternative is to take his actions at face value, which many are doing, as did I prior to reflection.
Should that be the reality, well… “reprehensible” seems to fall quite short.

    ConradCA in reply to snowshooze. | July 10, 2016 at 11:48 am

    Comney’s primary goal should have been to protect the nation from being ruled by criminals, Hillary and BJ. Everything else is secondary. The most effective way to do this would have been to lay out out the case for Hillary’s prosecution call for her prosecution. He should have addressed her crimes of mishandling classified information and selling the favors of her office as SOS for hundreds of millions of dollars. This would have made it clear for everyone that she belonged in prison not in the White House. Whether Hillary and BJ ended up in jail for their crimes is irrelavant.

      Well, that is sorta the gist of what I was saying.
      In order to preserve the prosecution, and place it in fair and competint hands, Comey had to get it the heck out of the hands of Obama / Lynch.
      Comey had absolutely no good options.
      He could well have recommended prosecution.
      Yeah, first problem is the Espionage Act, and as Obama himself corresponded with Hillary Via E-Mail, he would be equally guilty.
      Obama is the acting Boss. You think maybe a prosecution under him where he is the first one to testify while incriminating himself, is something we would think he should oversee?
      Comey did and end run, they may well be snookered.
      And, he had to know he was gonna pay for it.
      Partiot or Minion?
      Only time will tell.

    Mac45 in reply to snowshooze. | July 10, 2016 at 12:16 pm

    I’m sorry, but I simply can’t buy this attempt to turn Comey into a white knight. Here is why.

    If Comey had simply done his job and forwarded the case to the US Attorney’s Office, without recommendation concerning prosecution, then the ball would have been entirely in the AG’s court. Anything the DOJ did from that point on would have been directly attributable to AG Lynch and President Obama, her boss. And, if the AG chose not to prosecute, which is very likely, ALL of the evidence and case files would have been available under FOIA. So, we would still have been privy to the information concerning HRC’s violation of existing laws. See, without taking the action that he did, Comey would still have hurt HRC’s campaign just as badly, no matter what the AG decided regarding prosecution.

    Instead Comey’s action provided political cover to the AG and the POTUS and allowed them to make the choice that they were going to make all along, excuse HRC. However, in doing so, Comey indelibly tarnished the reputation of the FBI, making it look like nothing other than an organization of political hacks. The number one rule in the FBI, is do not embarrass the Bureau. The goal of the FBI is be seen as the premier, impartial investigative and law enforcement agency in this country. Comey violated both of those.

    Comey is not a white knight, taking unilateral action to save the nation. Something made him take the action of stating that no reasonable prosecutor would charge HRC, even though this is patently false. That he laid out a prima facia case for filing such charges before he stated that they should not be filed may be an attempt to shield the Bureau’s reputation from the inevitable fallout generated by his “recommendation”, may provide some small redemption for him. But, this was not the FBI’s finest hour and Comey is not the white knight.

      Mac, I agree with your post. Not only did Comey provide political cover for the Obama administration, but his opening statement about no one in the WH or at State knowing what he was about to say is clearly false. Unless we all believe that Obama had scheduled his first appearance on the campaign trail with Hillary without knowing in advance what Comey was going to do. Geez, Obama even talked about how Hillary “has been tested” . . . hours after the Comey debacle. I don’t buy that as coincidence, not in the least.

      Your point about the FBI being tarnished is a good one. How can the public trust an FBI that blatantly acts like the law enforcement arm of some third world banana republic? It won’t be long before the criminalization of lying to the FBI is called into serious question, and it won’t be long before they are just as reviled–and distrusted–as the TSA and the IRS.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Mac45. | July 10, 2016 at 2:27 pm

      Mac, although I generally agree, shooz has a point. Hillary would have been tried by the Obama/Lynch DOJ, which could have easily “bungled” the case resulting in an acquittal. Once that is done, Hillary couldn’t be prosecuted again. What Comey did, intentionally or not, punted the case to the next (possibly Republican) administration for its consideration. (Might this explain the failure of FBI officials to resign over the “no prosecution” recommendation?)

      However, according your scenario, the DOJ’s failure to prosecute would have exposed the FBI’s investigatory files to FOIA requests. And how long do you think it would take them to turn over those records? I have a guess – it wouldn’t happen until some time after Hillary’s seconed term.

        randian in reply to DaveGinOly. | July 10, 2016 at 7:32 pm

        Bungled it or given Hillary a sweetheart plea deal. Either way he and the FBI would have been in the clear and Lynch/Obama would have taken the political fallout. That makes me wonder what he was offered or threatened with to take the heat himself rather than punt. Of course Obama doesn’t care about political fallout but the DNC does. A pending prosecution potentially affects the upcoming selection of Democrat Presidential nominee, as does obvious mishandling of the case or a corrupt plea deal. Moreover, even if Clinton got a sweet deal she couldn’t be going around saying “I’ve been exonerated” like she’s doing now. Another strategy Lynch could have taken would be to delay prosecution until after the election and pray Hillary wins, then drop the case. If she didn’t then resign it would look like she made a deal with Clinton to keep her job, but what do these people care if they look corrupt?

Conservative Beaner | July 10, 2016 at 11:56 am

I am disappointed that Comey decided not to recommend indictments in the face of overwhelming evidence that a crime was committed by Hillary and her minions.

Whet really sucks is that the government has wasted all these man hours and other costs for this investigation only to see it not go through because Comey lost his spin in the end. The agents tasked with this investigation could have been used to investigate terrorist for attempts to kill Americans, who knows could have prevented the Orlando attack.

If Comey won’t recommend an indictment then he should resign and reimburse the American taxpayer the cost for this folly.

DINORightMarie | July 10, 2016 at 12:12 pm

I believe Comey knew that Hillary was indictable, and that she had committed several crimes, blatantly.

However, I also believe his boss (Lynch) and his boss’s boss (Obama) told him HE WILL NOT indict Hillary. I also believe they GAVE HIM THE VERY WORDS he was to say (which is why his statement is nearly word-for-word identical to what Obama said about a Hill-da-beast indictment earlier this year).

So, to assuage his conscience, or perhaps to just state the facts because he didn’t want to read the diktat without exposing it as the FARCE that it was/is, he laid out the case and investigation results, detailing the evidence of HRC’s crimes.

He did what he was told. And, he told the truth about what they found – which is felony-criminal activity which should put that lying hag into Leavenworth FOR LIFE.

Two standards – one for the Clintons (and their elite buddies), and one for the rest of us peasants.

Fundamental transformation……..working better than they ever dreamed……

    TX-rifraph in reply to DINORightMarie. | July 10, 2016 at 1:23 pm

    Your perspective reminds of this story by Ravi Zacharias:

    Two brothers were notoriously immoral. They were synonymous with the vice that had overtaken their city. When one of them suddenly died, the surviving brother asked the local pastor to perform the funeral service. He offered him an enormous sum of money if, in his eulogy, he would refer to his deceased brother as a saint. After much pondering, the pastor agreed. As the service came to an end, the pastor (in the thick of his description of the departed individual) said, “The man we have come to bury was a thief. In fact, he deserves every vile description the mind can muster. He was depraved, immoral, lewd, hateful, and the scum of the earth. But compared to his brother, he was a saint!”

When was the last time a federal flack-jockey ever took a moral & principled stand & either resigned, or put their career in jeopardy? I could be overlooking 1 or 2 but the last I remember was the midnight slaughter 40 years ago during Watergate.

And those 2 became national heroes thru the media because their stand advanced the media narrative.

    DaveGinOly in reply to secondwind. | July 10, 2016 at 2:33 pm

    Richard Nixon resigned the presidency (albeit under the most severe pressure, much coming from his own party) for the good of the nation and his party (while completely destroying his legacy). At the time nobody had put the finger on him for the Watergate break-in (and wouldn’t for many years); the only crime of which he was accused until then had been his involvement in the cover-up.

    “Involvement in the cover-up.” Why is that phrase so familiar?

Comey could only recommend charges be brought – which Obama and Lynch would never do. By his scathing explanation he brought accurate political charges. It’s up to the GOP and Trump to do the prosecution via the airwaves and Net

Subotai Bahadur | July 10, 2016 at 4:55 pm

Those “FBI Pros” know exactly why the interviews were not recorded in any way, and why Hillary was not placed under oath. Since then-Attorney General Eric Holder made that standard procedure in 2014, the only people who could have ordered otherwise were either Loretta Lynch or Buraq Hussein Obama.

“Why was the interview not recorded?” and “Why wasn’t Sec. Clinton put under oath?”

Sec. Clinton most likely told the FBI that she would refuse to be “interviewed” under oath or recorded.

nellgleason | July 10, 2016 at 9:53 pm

Question here for those of you practicing or teaching law, or otherwise in the legal/judicial field. IF, and a big IF I know, the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation, would there be any advantage, or strategy to not recommend the indictment in this case? Could they be holding their cards close to the vest per se going after a bigger pay off? I can’t imagine a scenario other than some evidence overlapping and not wanting to broadcast it yet–is that possible?–Thanks

SweetJustice | July 10, 2016 at 10:07 pm

If Hillary Clinton gets elected as President of the United States, you can kiss your Liberty goodbye…

In addition, if Comey thinks he will still the FBI Director, he must be really gullible…If he stays, he will have to be Broom Hilda’s God Father of the Mafia…The FBI will become the US Mafia squad…I would not want Comey’s job…

If Comey does not comply with her, Broom Hilda will do her usual MO…Death by suicide with a long rifle shot gun in back of the neck…Or an airplane crash…Or drug overdose…

Either way, you know Comey will NOT be around much longer…Hitlary will definitely get rid of any loose ends…And, Comey is definitely a loose end to her…

The US government is no longer one by the people or for the people. It is entirely corrupt. Soon we will see that the upcoming election process does not matter. And we will be told by the media and bureaucrats and gov’t officials to move on, nothing to see here.

Almost all media stories and entertainment that the US public is subjected to are a product of concerted psychological warfare. And in the war that is being waged against us truth is the first casualty. The so-called fourth estate is actually a fifth column that has been very successful in undermining the principles and values upon which this country was founded. This has not just been going on while Obama has been in office. It has been happening for decades if not longer. The perpetrators are lying to us time and again. And if you tell a lie often enough; if you inculcate the children with enough lies and hatred of this country, then the lies become accepted as the truth.

    Milhouse in reply to aProvider. | July 11, 2016 at 8:33 pm

    Reporters who claim to be the “fourth estate” should be required to name the first three. I’ll bet there isn’t one in five who can do that.

While not legally trained, my opinion is that bill clinton was correct. The email issue was comparable to a ‘speeding ticket’.
The real problem bill faced, and only one he cares about, is evidence that creates a legal foundation to indict both of them on public corruption and influence peddling on behalf of the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings.
Those are, undoubltedly, the incriminating emails that were deleted.
Two things I think:
1. If clinton attorneys were told the keywords to use in the scripts to filter her emails, and they were regarding CF, someone will talk sooner or later. Rembering, attorneys barely are competent or energetic enough to use their cell phones. Some contract IT egghead wrote and executed the scripts and young people just cannot keep their mouths shut, as a rule.

2. The State Dept has already (and foolishly) admitted that they have identified 27k emails with addresses between the State Dept and CF/Teneo.
What possible legit business do State employees have with those entities? None

In examination of those emails, I believe, there will be found addressed to clinton, and probably many cc’d to clinton.
There is the beginning of a chain of investigation that could potentially further identify those deleted emails.

If clinton addressed emails in those 27k are not within the set that the FBI had retrieved, then they had to have been deleted!!!! That is intent, obstruction alone. The contents may be proof of corruption.

Conclusion:
This is why the DOJ has filed a motion to delay release of these emails for 2 years, with reasons that are pure lies.

If congress would proceed with a perjury or any kind of charge against clinton, they could force the release of those 27k emails via subpoena, just like those they received for the Benghazi investigation.

Someone has to be smart and gutsy enough on congress to figure out HOW to get those emails. They need a hot shot IT person and retired State investigator to prove how fast they really can process these emails for classified. How classified can they be when they are to the CF????

It can be done, and we all need to send the ‘how’ to Rep. Chaffetz. Look up his website and send to Idaho or Wa. DC. I did.

And one more thing I forgot to mention, entire copies of clinton’s server(s) were put into the hands of Platte River and Datto Inc. Datto put the entire contents into a cloud (reportedly).
These companies may still have copies of the server. Unless they really really gave them all over to the FBI (I would hae kept a copy).
There are ALL the emails BEFORE anyone physically deleted any because they had the data before Clinton was even forced to turn over her State Dept emails. Just saying, we might not have to wait for Russia or China to turn them over.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend