Crooked Hillary and her acolytes are using FBI Director James Comey’s
pronouncement that she committed many mistakes but there exists nothing to
prosecute as an exoneration in an absolute sense, Now I’m a Conservative so I’m
a bit incredulous about Comey’s, “Nothing
to see hear – move along” pronouncement. Despite Comey’s pocket exoneration
of Crooked Hillary, most sane people smell yet another Obama Administration
cover-up or as I just read at the NoisyRoom.net, the fix is in!
***********************
Was The Fix In On FBI
Investigation Of Hillary Clinton’s Emails?
Posted by TMH
By Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media
9/30/16
The more that details about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s
email practices come to light, the more their efforts appear to have been a
sham designed to exonerate her of wrongdoing from the very beginning. As we
wrote, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) failure to indict Hillary, based on
the recommendation of FBI Director James Comey, has moved the United States
closer to banana republic status.
The Clinton family’s ongoing corruption and Hillary Clinton’s
pay-to-play as secretary of state have also created a precedent which could
encourage other politicians to enrich themselves at the expense of the
integrity of their office. The FBI’s light touch also has created a double
standard on national security, where high-profile figures such as Mrs. Clinton
walk free while others lose their security clearance or are fined or jailed.
Yet some on the left are unhappy with Comey’s investigation because of
the comments he made publicly characterizing Mrs. Clinton as “extremely
careless” with classified information. “What Comey should have done…was handle the Clinton
probe like any other routine inquiry: provide confidential recommendations to
prosecutors, release a strictly factual statement noting that the investigation
would be closed, and resist external pressures to inappropriately air the FBI’s
findings outside a court of law,” argues Riley Roberts,
former speechwriter for former Attorney General Eric Holder, in Politico
Magazine.
Arguably, Clinton’s status as a presidential candidate under FBI
investigation may have called for some public justification of the FBI’s
decision. However, despite Comey’s open criticisms, the fact remains that he
decided to recommend no indictment for Hillary Clinton. There will be no
accountability for Clinton’s many lies about classified information on her
private email server or the way she jeopardized national security as secretary
of state.
Upon further review, it appears that Mr. Comey’s investigation was
highly unusual, given the five immunity agreements that were handed out. According to Paul Sperry,
writing for the New York Post, not only was Platte River Networks’ Paul
Combetta granted immunity, the DOJ upheld this immunity despite the fact that
he had lied to the investigators during an interview.
“Instead of asking Attorney General Loretta Lynch to revoke his
immunity deal and squeezing him, Comey let [Combetta] go because he was a
‘low-level guy,’ he testified at the House hearing. It’s yet another action by
Comey,” wrote Sperry, “that has left former prosecutors shaking their heads.”
At that September 28 House Judiciary Committee hearing featuring
Director Comey as a witness, Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) accused Combetta
of “trying to cover-up the cover-up” by first using Reddit to solicit
information on how to strip email address information and then trying to delete
his posts. “The same guy later took Bleachbit and did delete emails,” continued
Rep. Jordan.
But Comey insisted that the immunity agreement was necessary to ensure
that the FBI got the facts.
“There’s no doubt Combetta was involved in deleting emails,” said
Comey. “He had the ‘O-sh-t’ moment, as he told us, and that’s why it was very
important for us to interview this guy to find out who told you to do that, why
did you do that.”
According to Andy McCarthy, writing for National Review, Secretary Clinton’s
former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and Clinton aide Heather Samuelson also
received immunity agreements meant to ensure that they gave the FBI access to
their laptops. However, the FBI could have just subpoenaed the computers or
obtained a search warrant instead.
Sperry makes it clear that Mills was lying to investigators, as well.
She, apparently, “told agents she had no idea Clinton maintained a private
email server,” he writes. However, the email record demonstrates that she
emailed the server administrator to ask about the status of that very server.
McCarthy calls the granting of these immunity agreements “very strange” behavior by the
FBI. “The Justice Department could have required the production of the computer
by simply issuing a grand jury subpoena,” he writes. “And had there been any
concern that Mills would not cooperate, would destroy the computer, or would
‘misplace’ it (as Team Clinton claims to have misplaced so many Hillary
devices), investigators could have applied for a search warrant and seized the
computer.”
To add insult to injury, the FBI allowed Samuelson and Mills to sit in on
Hillary Clinton’s interview with the bureau.
Former U.S. attorney Solomon Wisenberg, who conducted the grand jury
questioning of President Bill Clinton, argues that the FBI should
never have allowed Cheryl Mills to sit in on Mrs. Clinton’s interview.
“Competent prosecutors do not allow a key witness to participate
as an attorney in an FBI interview of the main subject,” he writes.
“It just isn’t done.” He writes that “if Clinton insisted on Mills’s
attendance, the interview would be conducted under the auspices of the federal
grand jury.”
In addition, it was inappropriate that the only interview of such a
high profile subject wasn’t recorded. It is preposterous that nine people were
allowed to sit in during the interview. Comey acknowledged that this was
unusual, but he said it was not unprecedented, though he didn’t cite any
precedents.
The FBI should have convened a grand jury instead of just conducting
light touch interviews, argued former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova, speaking at a recent
Judicial Watch event. “Now, it is evident to me…what Mr. Comey should have
done at the beginning of this investigation was empanel a grand jury,” said
DiGenova. “When you want to investigate crimes involving national security
information, classified information, you don’t do interviews. You issue
subpoenas to witnesses, third parties for documents. You make people come into
court and fight them in front of a federal judge…”
The left continues to claim that Mrs. Clinton is held to a different
standard, a double standard when compared to other candidates. However, it is
clear that the FBI did hold Mrs. Clinton and her aides to a different
standard—one which gives a free pass to lies and corruption.
___________________
Roger Aronoff
Roger Aronoff is the Editor
of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’
Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at roger.aronoff@aim.org. View
the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.
© 2016 NoisyRoom.net
No comments:
Post a Comment