Posted on 07/13/2016 6:27:07 AM PDT by maggief
A knowledgeable reader and “longtime Power Line fan” writes to say that he has enjoyed our coverage of the Hillary email case. He thought we “might be interested in the perspective of someone inside the federal law enforcement community.” He has worked as a federal agent for 20 years and been involved in hundreds of criminal investigations. He has made dozens of arrests and held Top Secret/SCI clearance for a long time. “So,” he writes, “I have very extensive experience handling classified materials and info.” I’ll withhold additional details regarding his background to preserve his anonymity. He comments:
What really strikes me about the Clinton case (at least based on Director Comey’s public statements), is… well… the FBI’s curious lack of curiosity. By which I mean instead of approaching the case with a broad focus and following the evidence wherever it leads, which is the usual mode of operation, the FBI (again, based on publicly available information) seems to have deliberately kept the focus as narrow as possible. Their interests seem to have extended only to the questions of (a) was classified material mishandled and potentially compromised; and (b) if so, was there any criminal intent in doing so. Then, having satisfied themselves that the answer to (a) is “yes,” and (b) is “no,” they declare “nothing further to see here, let’s just move on folks.”
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
“Having worked extensively with the FBI, I can’t imagine that these questions and others didn’t occur to the rank and file agents working the case, probably at a very early stage. The fact that they were not followed up on (at least not as has been publicly revealed) indicates that the FBI was deliberately instructed to maintain as narrow a focus as possible, either explicitly or implicitly. Who gave those orders? Comey? Lynch? The White House? Again, wouldn’t you like to know?”
Sorry I already knew the FBI was corrupt, I don’t need an insider to tell me
Comey was a Director of a furrin’ Bank just prior to becoming the head of the Friends of Bill and Islam organization.
But the author still brings up one very important point. The media has led the sheeple to believe that emailing classified info to Clinton was an ‘oopsy’, it went on the wrong system...and anyway it wasn’t marked classified, so who could have known.
But, as the author points out, that’s not how it works at all. No oopsy...a very deliberate, long running, criminal scheme.
The FBI is in cahoots with those who would rule us. Comey opted to take the heat by overstepping his role and recommending no prosecution - if he was legit, he would have laid out the facts and laid it in Lynch’s lap instead of taking her off the hook.
This entire episode has had a “Who you gonna believe - me or your own lying eyes?” feel to it. It’s so transparently obvious that what she did was wrong but here we’ve had countless officials assure us that everything is “okie-doke”.
What comey brought to the table was the startling admission what what she did was wrong, but that they were not going to prosecute her anyway. But, oh by the way, the offense is significant and we WILL prosecute anyone else who mirrors her misdeeds.
In other words, the law is what I say it is - “Shut up” he explained.
In the back of my mind, the reality is that there is another much more deliberate and harmful investigation in process. The criminal RICCO investigation of the Clinton Foundation is so vast in scope and far reaching, many of the wanted details are swallowed up in that investigation. Those details must not be revealed so as to encroach on the CF investigation.
What the director revealed was that Hillary Clinton is a total liar who committed serial purgery. The revelation is official recognition of guilt.
I know, I know...... they are the Clinton’s. They are going to be up against Attorney General Rudy
FLASHBACK:
MAY 31, 2013
James Comey And KPMG: Isn’t It Ironic
EXCERPTS
“The firm was represented by a team that included [Robert] Bennett, new Chairman Timothy Flynn and Sven Erik Holmes, a former federal judge hired by the firm to be its top in-house lawyer.
“We cannot enter a plea,” Bennett said, according to a memo. “We’re not saying that in a macho way. We simply can’t do it and survive.”
KPMG employed 20,000 people “whose lives will be destroyed,” he said. “We’re asking you to use a smart bomb, not a nuclear bomb.”
(snip)
“About two weeks after meeting with Comey, the KPMG legal team met in New York with Kelley and his aides and got the good news: Comey and Gonzales decided against an indictment of the firm, the papers show.”
Agree. The statute of limitations will not have expired.
If I was Comey and I knew Lynch/Obama would cover for Clinton, I would lay out the case to politically damage Clinton to help Trump win, then have Trump’s AG go after Clinton.
The only question is how much money will the Clinton Foundation donate to Obama to pardon Clinton after November but before January?
there can be no pardon for the very broad range of yet unnamed charges
Not to give kudos to Comey, but he knew Lynch would bury the investigation.
Since she was not indicted, Obama has nothing to pardon.
Again, not to give Comey to much credit, but he knew that as well. Perhaps this was all he could do.
Testifying before Congress, AG Lynch dodged, bobbed, and weaved on a simple question:
Is it illegal to hand off classified materials to someone who does not hold a security clearance?
Demand Congress follow-up using these questions (hat tip SERKIT):
<><>Hillary was allowed to disclose classified data to others not holding security clearances, including her own attorneys and other aids outside the State Department,
<><> Are there documents that Hillary's people were shown that the Congressional Committee is not allowed to see?
<><> Can the Congressional committee see those same documents, un- redacted, as Hillary showed them to others?
<><> Since there was no criminal intent on Hillary's part (according to Comey), and criminal intent is required (according to Comey), what criminal intent would be necessary to show the oversight Committee the same documents?
<><> Why can't the Congressional committee see everything?
<><> What if Hillary gave those documents to the Committee - would that simply be careless....... or would it be criminal?
<><> would Comey give Congress a pass? (hat tip SERKIT)
Like I posted a week ago, since when does the FBI need to be led by the nose to a crime?
Since they became the Friends of Bill and Islam....
I guess Comey had to earn that $11 million he got as a board member at HSBC.
This is not true. Ford pardoned Nixon for a broad range of unnamed and to this day unknown charges.
And it worked.
I think it’s a very good article. It was in fact obvious that the scope of the investigation was unnaturally narrow, to the point that Comey admitted that he never even read the sworn testimony of Clinton given before congress.
This is unimaginable! The suspect in his case had given testimony on the exact points he was investigating and he never read it. Further, her statement to the FBI MUST have been at direct odds with that earlier sworn testimony, because by the time of the interview Clinton obviously knew everything the FBI had (due to joint representation of other suspects and HRC). Her lawyers had been at eery FBI interview with Mills, etc. But the incurious come decided it would be too much trouble to read the suspect’s sworn testimony and see if she LIED to congress.
The case was fixed, pure and simple, from the outset. Most of us knew what the outcome would be. We also know what the outcome of the perjury investigation will be—Comey will twist the law and do ANYTHING and everything to make sure that he again frees this serial felon.
I’m being forced to agree with Trump that the system is rigged for the elite insiders in government.
Folks kept saying how honest Comey was—which was a way of innoculating the expected result of no indictiment—but no one except Nat Hentoff (no conservative rightwinger he) in Jewish Review gave the specifics about Comey’s insider status and his previous investigation of Hillary Clinton during the Clinton administration which also turned up as a no indictment fiasco.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.