I am done with it. Comey is taking criticism for doing a favor to the American people. He could have resigned, but what would have that gotten us? A big fat nothing. The Obama administration would have done what Lynch did after the Comey testimony- clam up and cover up the details of the case.
But when Comey stayed and walked out in front of the camera with his unbelievable statement about Hillary’s actions, he set in motion a continuous series of revelations that have shocked the America public! He knew what he was doing. Maybe the DOJ wouldn’t let his FBI arrest the lot of them, but they would not be able to hide their crimes if he had a chance to expose it all. And maybe he did enough to make sure she never makes it into the White House. (Sadly, there is Trump on the other side. So there are no guarantees. If Paul or Cruz or Carly or almost anyone other than Jeb were running, this race would be long over.)
However, because Americans and most commentators on this subject, including someone who knows better, Andrew McCarthy over at National Review, refuse to admit the obvious, Comey becomes the easy target. Today, I’m taking the time to try and explain this once and for all.
Let’s start with the basic facts.
- The FBI does not “arrest people based on probable cause”. McCarthy knows this. He has reminded us -ad nausem- about the case HE RAN concerning the “blind Sheik” and the first WTC bombing in 1993. If asked, do you think he won’t say he directed the FBI in that investigation and just didn’t sit back and have them willy-nilly arrest people, without full-proof evidence, then show up and drop that mess on his desk? Hardly. It is not done that way at that level. The FBI is the investigative and enforcement arm of the Department of Justice, which is run by Lorretta Lynch and governed by Barack Obama. Both of whom have openly supported Hillary Clinton for President.
- The DOJ decides who the FBI arrests, based on the DOJ building a case THEY want to bring to court.
- The FBI does NOT HAVE the ability to indict anyone. The DOJ does.
- In this case, it was obvious from the outset the fix was in. The DOJ gave Hillary’s attorneys a heads up during the whole case. They allowed Cheryl Mills to act as Hillary’s attorney while knowing full well Mills was ass deep in the conspiracy to destroy the evidence from the beginning. That is an unethical decision and possibly illegal to boot!
- The DOJ never impaneled a grand jury to hear evidence. Why? Because juries can ask questions nobody wanted answered. The DOJ wanted to direct and LIMIT the FBI inquiry. The options to Comey would have been to refuse to investigate- knowing it was bogus- and take that hit. Go ahead and investigate and accept the limits. Go public with the conflict and quit. His best option was by staying with the FBI and doing the investigation, he was able to be the continuous fly in the ointment that is the coverup of Hillary’s illegal and unethical behavior.
- To that end, I challenge any of the Comey haters to give me ONE example of where a director or head of an agency came forward and did or said what Comey has done. Not one, in the HISTORY of this nation that I’m aware of. We never saw J. Edgar Hoover come out and say “Hey, just so you know, we are being asked to bug MLK by the DOJ, because they think he’s a commie.” Or AG Holder stand up and say “Hey guys, that whole fast and furious bull we pulled in Mexico was Obama’s idea, suggested by Diane Feinstein as a way to seize guns in America. Boy, did we screw that up!”
- When was the last time someone as important as Hillary had the FBI interview released to the public? And as quickly as Comey offered it? No years long FOIA request winding its way through the courts. Nope, he dumped it out and said have at it. The whole “it was released on Friday so there was an attempt to bury it” is so 70’s that I actually wince when I hear usually smart people like Charles Krauthammer state it. Those days are gone! There are no longer three networks to view it. We have the Internet, amateur bloggers and hundreds of websites that will look at that 302 and tear it apart by the next Monday! Comey looked a little defensive and should be. You just can’t please ignorant people. Just can’t.
And yes, Comey is a DC insider player. But even the most insider of them may have a limit to what he will do. So the question is, did Comey reach his limit? Because he has certainly ended his upward rise in DC politics by trying to take out what will most likely be the next President of the United States. That is a huge gamble. Or as Trump says, “YUGE!”
So let’s assume given the options that Comey did us a favor. What exactly was that favor?
By his actions, Comey allowed reporters to dig up stuff like this from the Washington Times;
Several months later, on Aug. 1, 2013, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena covering the documents asked for, but not received, after the Sept. 20, 2012 request.
In May, 2014, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was formed. On July 23, 2014, the State Department agreed to produce records to the committee. The FBI report picks up the story from there:
[The State Department] sent a formal request to former Secretaries of State on October 28, 2014, asking them to produce e-mails related to their government work. After State requested that Clinton provide her e-mails, Clinton asked her attorneys, David Kendall and [Cheryl] Mills, to oversee the process of providing Clinton’s work-related emails to State. Heather Samuelson, an attorney working with Mills, undertook a review to identify work-related e-mails, while Kendall and Mills oversaw the process. Ultimately, on December 5, 2014, Williams & Connolly [Kendall’s firm] provided approximately 55,000 pages of e-mails to State in response to State’s request for Clinton to produce all e-mail in her possession that constituted a federal record from her tenure as Secretary of State. State ultimately reviewed the 55,000 pages of e-mail to meet its production obligations related to [Freedom of Information Act] lawsuits and requests….Clinton told the FBI she directed her legal team to provide any work-related or arguably work-related emails to State; however she did not participate in the development of the specific process to be used or in discussions of the locations of where her e-mails might exist. Clinton was not consulted on specific e-mails in order to determine if they were work-related.
In December 2014 — after the emails were sent to the State Department — Mills ordered people whose identity was not revealed by the FBI to delete Clinton email archives from their computers. Also in December 2014, according to what Mills told the FBI, “Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her e-mails older than 60 days.” Mills then ordered an unidentified tech staffer to “modify the e-mail retention policy on Clinton’s clintonemail.com e-mail account to reflect this change.”
So that was it: the Clinton team produced what it said were all her work-related emails to the State Department and then ordered its tech people to destroy everything, and then put a new policy in place in which no emails would be saved for more than 60 days.
Then everything changed.
On March 2, 2015, the New York Times reported the existence of the secret Clinton email system. The next day, Gowdy’s Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Kendall’s law firm “requesting the preservation and production of all documents and media” relating to Clinton’s emails. The day after that, March 4, the full Benghazi Committee issued a subpoena ordering Clinton to “produce all records in unredacted form” on the following:
For the time period of January 1, 2011 through December 31, 2012, any and all documents and communications in your possession, and/or sent from or received by the email addresses email@example.com“>firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,”>firstname.lastname@example.org, or any other email address or communications device used by you or another on your behalf, referring or relating to:
(a) Libya (including but not limited to Benghazi and Tripoli);
(b) weapons located or found in, imported or brought into, and/or exported or removed from Libya;
(c) the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and September 12, 2012, or;
(d) statements pertaining to the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 or September 12, 2012.
Remember that at that time the Benghazi Committee had not received a single Clinton email related to Benghazi.
Shortly after the New York Times report, according to the FBI, Mills asked Platte River Networks, the company that was handling the Clinton server, to do an inventory of what was on the servers. (Mills had, of course, ordered the old emails destroyed and a new retention policy put in place back in December 2014.) On March 25, 2014, the Platte River Networks people took part in a conference call with Bill Clinton’s staff. At that point, an intense round of deleting began.
Sometime between March 25 and March 31, according to the FBI, a tech worker not identified in the report had what he called an “oh shit” moment. He realized that he had not done what Mills had ordered back in December 2014. In his first interview with the FBI, on Feb. 18, 2016, the unidentified staffer “indicated that he did not recall conducting deletions based upon this realization.” But then, in a follow-up interview on May 3, 2016, the staffer “indicated he believed he had an ‘oh shit’ moment and sometime between March 25-31, 2015 deleted the Clinton archive mailbox.” The staffer used the now-notorious BleachBit to do the work, and manually deleted a backup as well.
But the story is a little more complicated than that. The FBI found that on March 9, 2015, Mills sent the Platte River Networks staff, including the unidentified worker, an email, in the words of the FBI, “referencing the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi.” In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that “he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail.” But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer “indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton’s e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server.” The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else “regarding the meaning of the preservation request.”
According to the FBI, the Platte River Networks staff had a conference call with Kendall and Mills on March 31. By then, the deleting was done. What did they talk about? The FBI report says Platte River’s attorney advised the staffer “not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege.”
Mills told the FBI she knew nothing about the deletions the staffer made in March 2015. Clinton also said she knew nothing.
So what does the story mean? Does it mean an incompetent, or rogue, staffer deleted the emails on his own even though they were under subpoena — and then initially lied about it to the FBI? Or was there something else at work?
Trey Gowdy hints yes. Anyone who isn’t drinking HRC Kool-Aid says yes. Wiki leaks says yes. HRC’s teams FEARS yes!
It is obvious to anyone who can read and comprehend above a fifth grade level that Hillary is up to her old tricks of obstructing justice and Cheryl Mills and David Kendall are her loyal lieutenants cleaning up after her mess yet once again. Yes, they are complicit in the act. They should not be lawyers, they should be defendants. Especially Mills.
During the investigation, the IT guy from Platte River was given immunity by the DOJ. Not the FBI and maybe not at the desire of the FBI either. By doing so though, they got him to stop lying about the deletion and admit he knew about the hold order and that he had a meeting with Kendall and Mills over what to do with it. Now, here’s the problem. Kendall and Mills are probably telling the FBI “Hey, we told him to hold onto it!” (A lie of course.) And he’s suddenly got immunity so he says “Yep I knew and I did it, but they didn’t tell me to.” (Another lie of course.) How do we know? Guess who was paying for expenses in this matter during this time.
According to documents obtained by CompleteColorado.com, Platte River Networks (PRN) has sought reimbursement from Hillary Clinton for legal and public relations expenses totaling at least $44,000 dollars, and possibly tens of thousands more. The expenses span a period of about eight weeks, from late July of this year to mid-September.
Platte River Networks is the Denver-based IT and networking company that provided hosting services to the independent email server set up by then-Secretary of State Clinton. Platte River’s services to Clinton were only provided after she left office, however.
An invoice dated September 16 is addressed to “Marcum LLP” in New York City, the accountant for the Clintons. Line items appear to show a minimum of $25,000 in reimbursements from the Clintons for legal expenses and $19,000 in public relations help.
However, handwritten notes on the invoice suggest the bill was incomplete or incorrect, and other line items would be added (one note reads, “Brenda – What was accounted for +2 time entries”).
Whether the bill has been paid is not known at this time. But if the Clintons have paid the invoice, it could mean they are effectively underwriting – and therefore possibly controlling to some extent – the legal assistance and public relations message.
As the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private server has expanded, Platte River Networks has used Andy Boian of dovetail solutions (uncapitalized, per the usage of the company) to manage the swelling tide of media inquiries. Boian’s company bio lists a long resume of Democratic Party work both locally and nationally, including serving on the 1992 transition team for President Clinton.
The invoice also shows that Platte River Networks flew in one of their top IT experts from the east coast, Paul Combetta, specifically to deal with issues related to the Clinton Server flap. According to a previous company bio, Combetta is PRN’s only employee not based in Colorado.
Now I’m not saying that’s dirty. …Okay, I AM SAYING that is dirty. The people getting hammered by the press and the FBI are seeking monetary reimbursement from the very people involved in a criminal conspiracy? Dude, really?
So, let’s recap so far. We know now what HRC did and is doing. We know the players, their acts, their co-conspirators and their agenda. All because James Comey stood up, didn’t resign without comment, and let the corrupt DOJ hide the investigation. (Remember, he’d be under the same non-disclosure agreement the DOJ foisted on all other agents in an act NEVER DONE BEFORE!!)
All of that didn’t happen because Comey said transparency is the best thing- even if the facts make all of us look corrupt.
To that you should say “Thank you.”
However, Trey Gowdy, who gets the 3D chess Comey is playing, points out even if we know they will still get away with it because the Obama DOJ is cheating. Gowdy says giving the IT guy immunity is like giving the trigger man in a robbery a pass so he can testify against the getaway driver. I think he’s a little off here. What they were shooting at was they knew the IT guy was lying, but he would not talk. So they made him talk about the conference call, until he pulled the attorney client privilege crap Mills did when she was asked. Which by the way, once again, is illegal. And may have occurred at the blessing of the DOJ, which is trying to get everyone off.
Listen, if you and your attorney plot to commit a crime, commit the crime and try to get away, that attorney cannot be YOUR attorney. They are a co-conspirator and can be made to testify against you.
Finally, over at National Review, one writer gets it. There was no way the Democratically controlled, Obama run DOJ was going to indict Hillary Clinton as she ran for the third Obama term. So Comey split the baby and even though there was no indictment he let the cat out of the bag and gave Trump and others are GREAT opportunity to hammer HRC’s corrupt life.
Comey looked at that report and saw plenty of potential reasons to recommend impaneling a grand jury. But had the FBI recommended seeking an indictment of Hillary Clinton, it undoubtedly would have created a political earthquake. The entire Democratic Party would have exploded in rage at the bureau. Comey would have instantly been painted as worse than Ken Starr, worse than Inspector Javert, worse than Torquemada. Clinton defenders would charge that the FBI was torpedoing her presidential campaign, and they might just be right: At the time of Comey’s decision, the Democratic convention was just three weeks away. If the FBI recommended seeking an indictment, Bernie Sanders might have made another push at the convention. Perhaps Democratic delegates would have panicked. Maybe Joe Biden would have suddenly changed his mind.
So Comey tried to split the baby: He declined to recommend an indictment citing a nonexistent need to prove intent, while at the same time giving Clinton and her team a firm public rebuke for being “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” Ask anyone else who handles classified information if they would rather face criminal charges and fines and a year’s imprisonment, or just a public verbal rebuke from the FBI director. There’s one rule for Hillary Clinton and another rule for everyone else. Thanks to Comey, Trump can now make the election a referendum on her privilege.
If only Trump can stay focused. If you’ll note, when he does he gains in the polls. Maybe too late, but that’s not Comey’s fault.