Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Comey Defends Disclosure of Hillary Investigation Prior to Election

Comey Defends Disclosure of Hillary Investigation Prior to Election

“Made me worry that the department leadership could not credibly complete the investigation”

FBI Director Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, where he was grilled on a handful of issues.

Comey defended his decision not to pursue charges against Hillary or her associates for the unlawful sharing of classified information. As he explained, he felt the FBI maintained a burden of proving individuals involved, namely Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, knew sharing classified information was unlawful. Comey concluded they did not.

From The Washington Post:

Hillary Clinton emails containing classified information were forwarded to former congressman Anthony Weiner, the director of the FBI testified Wednesday as he defended his handling of politically sensitive probes surrounding the last year’s presidential race.

Under questioning from the senior Democrat on the committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), James B. Comey revealed more details about how Clinton’s emails ended up on Weiner’s computer.

Weiner, a New York Democrat, was married to a top aide to Clinton, Huma Abedin. Weiner was being investigated separately for possible inappropriate communications with a minor.

“Somehow, her emails were being forwarded to Anthony Weiner, including classified information,” Comey said, adding later, “His then-spouse Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him for him to print out for her so she could deliver them to the secretary of state.”

The two were investigated for possible mishandling of classified material, but the FBI ultimately dropped the matter without seeking charges because they could not show either of them intended to violate the law, Comey said.

“Really the central problem we had with the whole email investigation was proving people… had some sense they were doing something unlawful. That was our burden and we were unable to meet it,’’ he said.

Comey also expressed concern over the credibility of former AG Lynch’s Justice Department after she met with former President Bill Clinton on a private plane just days before the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation into Hillary’s email use was to be announced. Both insisted the meeting was purely social, but the appearance suggested otherwise.

Full quote here:

Hillary very recently blamed the FBI’s announcement revealing the bureau’s email probe for her embarrassing electoral loss. Comey said he “prayed to find a third door” but felt it best to share with Congress what the FBI had found.

“When the Anthony Weiner thing landed on me on October 27 and there was a huge — this is what people forget — new step to be taken, we may be finding the golden missing emails that would change this case, if I were not to speak about that, it would be a disastrous, catastrophic concealment. It was an incredibly painful choice, but actually not all that hard, between very bad and catastrophic.

I had to tell Congress that we were taking these additional steps. I prayed to find a third door. I couldn’t find it. Two actions: speak or conceal. I don’t think many reasonable people would do it differently than I did, no matter what they say today. If you were standing there, staring at that on October 28, would you really conceal that? So I spoke.”

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

VaGentleman | May 3, 2017 at 6:09 pm

“Really the central problem we had with the whole email investigation was proving people… had some sense they were doing something unlawful.”

So we are to understand that 3 supposedly intelligent people with high gov’t positions couldn’t figure out that the purpose of classifying documents was to limit who could see them? And this after all 3 in their official positions had received instruction on how to handle classified materials?

The mind boggles.

Why are we still talking about this? Why isn’t that vile, corrupt, criminal whore in jail?

    JOHN B in reply to Paul. | May 3, 2017 at 11:27 pm

    Even if the decision not to prosecute on the classified emails is correct, how do they avoid perjury when Hillary repeatedly lied to Congress and investigators.

    Remember, Martha Stewart went to prison for one wrong statement to a government official. Hillary made many.many false statements, all of which were felonies.

    And destruction of evidence. The next time the government asks to see your tax records or other files, throw most away and tell the government they didn’t really need to see them. It is doubtful you will be out of prison until Chelsea is president.

Read Comey’s statement very carefully. Then think about it.

Essentially, he starts out saying that he was “concerned” that when the DOJ completed the investigation [which was being conducted by the FBI] there would be no way for the AG to refuse to prosecute HRC. which would be seen as reasonable to the American public. He was afraid that the decision not to prosecute would be seen as being purely political and the blame would end up on the President’s desk. In other words, he believed that no prosecution would take place, no matter what was uncovered. He then says that the infamous “meeting on the tarmac” would be perceived as former President Clinton putting in the fix, with the AG and, by iference, the adminsitration to shortstop prosecution of HRC. So, he decided to give his now infamous press conference and attempt to take all the blame for the decision. In the part concerning his call to AG Lynch, he as much as illustrates a classic attempt to give the Administration a heads-up on what was coming, while still allowing the Administration to maintain some type of deniability. He flat out says that he knew that his action would be personally devastating, but he was trying to protect the Administration [substitute everyone’s name up to and including the President]. Then he goes on to say that he was faced with another political dilemma, with regard to the Weiner files. But, knowing that a cover-up would eventually be even more detrimental to him, he decided to reveal the existence of these files. Still, he somehow managed to find it in his heart to exonerate Abedin for the improper handling and disclosure of classified materials.

This is HUUUUGGGGE. It is tantamount to a confession. It sounds as though he is fishing for some kind of deal. It goes back to what I have been saying about Comey. If this was my investigation, I would be slowly increasing the pressure on Comey. He is the key to breaking all of this.

whether you meant to do something unlawful or not, mishandling classified information is a crime.

and every single one of these cockroaches had to be briefed on the rules before they could access said data.

they are ALL guilty as sin, and should all be in prison.

as a GI, you can get a Fig Chicken Dinner if you just mishandle even a couple messages, let alone years of them.

this is BS of the foulest sort. prosecute them all, and, at the very least impeach Comey, although i’m all in favor of obstruction of justice for his bull5hit.

Comey is a lying little weasel.

Allegedly the only reason he made the big announcement was that the team in charge of the Weiner investigation threatened him flat out that either he would make the public announcement or they were going to leak it.

    Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Olinser. | May 3, 2017 at 8:48 pm

    “Comey is a lying little weasel.”
    No bout a doubt it.

    Of all the scenarios he faced, biting the bullet and making the announcement was the most palatable; at least that way he could control what was disseminated and to who.

    Maybe this is why Trump kept him on, sitting on the hot seat and wondering if he can still make a deal and live.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Olinser. | May 4, 2017 at 8:53 am

    Comey also has a long standing relationship with the Clintons is what I was made to understand last year……

2nd Ammendment Mother | May 3, 2017 at 8:05 pm

“Huma Abedin appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him for him to print out for her so she could deliver them to the secretary of state.”

Hillary supposedly sent classified emails to the housekeeper in New York to print for her.

Anyone else asking “why doesn’t the State Department own a printer”? Seriously, short of standing on 5th Avenue and handing out copies, how much more “in the wind” does this habit place classified docs. Personal printers are considered the most easily hackable access point on home computer networks. And that’s not taking into account all of the usual home traffic – babysitters, repairmen, friends, delivery people.

Or would it be that the type of printers the Pentagon uses keep records of what they print and what computer and passcodes request the print job?

Head banging on wall!

    DaveGinOly in reply to 2nd Ammendment Mother. | May 3, 2017 at 9:54 pm

    “Or would it be that the type of printers the Pentagon uses keep records of what they print and what computer and passcodes request the print job?”

    Your head-banging has hit the nail on the head. All of this illegality was necessary for the illegal (partially successful) attempt to circumvent record-keeping and FOIA laws. Documents sent to government computers would have created a record in the networks in which those printers operated. Clinton’s SoS office was trying to keep as much off the record as possible, so they couldn’t even run print jobs through government-controlled networks. It’s easier to avoid passing some (personally and/or politically sensitive) print jobs through a government network if you keep all of your print jobs off that network.

Subotai Bahadur | May 3, 2017 at 8:05 pm

He claims to have been motivated by concern over the American people’s confidence in the justice system.

What American people have any confidence in the American justice system?

2nd Ammendment Mother | May 3, 2017 at 8:10 pm

If there’s any Judicial Watch lurkers out there…..

seems like I would use Comey’s testimony for a class action lawsuit seeking due process violations and the release of every serviceman who is sitting in Leavenworth for taking a pic in their nuclear sub for their girlfriend. I might be wrong but I believe Comey was under oath today, so therefore, “intent” is the standard the DoJ is supposed to be using. It really would make the most spectacular case the MSM would ignore.

Once it gets to Gorsuch, the case fails because the red letter of the law does not require intent….. but getting it there would make for some glorious depositions and testimony.

    Unfortunately, service members are tried under a jurisdiction separate from the law – the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). This is a jurisdiction to which a person must voluntarily submit himself, because it doesn’t provide all of the process and protections usually provided to a citizen. One volunteers by signing certain papers at enlistment, and taking the oath.

    In fact,there were some smart draft-dodgers during the Vietnam War who reported to induction centers when ordered to do so, but then refused to sign papers. They would be held for two or three days and pressured to sign. If they didn’t cave in, they’d be released. Even when drafted, submission to the UCMJ must be voluntary, and nobody is required to volunteer, even when drafted.

On at least one occasion (and there may have been two), Hillary was told by a State Dept. worker that the law prevented him from sending through non-secure channels. She told him to send the information anyway.

Wouldn’t this person’s testimony establish that Hillary was aware that what was being done was in violation of the law, and that she ordered that person to violate it? Wouldn’t that prove intent?

What’s funny is that this was a Senate hearing regarding Senate oversight of the FBI. When Comey re-opened the Hillary matter on October 27, he didn’t send out a press release or announce it publicly. He sent a letter to Congress.

Senator Feinstein is actually complaining about a federal official providing her information in respect of her Congressional Oversight responsibilities.

If this fiasco didn’t represent the rotting of my country, it would be “Hilar-ious”. Comey is a clown. He tries to come across as a Hamlet, but he’s much more the fool, without the shrewdness.

I didn’t have much respect for federal law enforcement before, but this removes any trace. Why even bother with trials if an agency head can so perfectly and expeditiously determine “intent”? Let’s just abandon jury trials and simply ask Comey.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend