Posted on 01/04/2018 4:09:55 PM PST by SSS Two
Ex-FBI Director James Comey’s original statement closing out the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server was edited by subordinates to remove five separate references to terms like “grossly negligent” and to delete mention of evidence supporting felony and misdemeanor violations, according to copies of the full document.
Comey also originally concluded that it was “reasonably likely” that Clinton’s insecure private sever was accessed or hacked by hostile actors though there was no evidence to prove it. But that passage was also changed to the much weaker “possible,” the memos show.
The full draft and edits were released on the web site of Senate Homeland and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), providing the most complete public accounting to date of Comey’s draft and the subsequent edits.
The draft, released in full for the first time on Thursday, offers new details on the FBI's Clinton investigation and controversial conclusion.
The Hill was first to report late last year that Comey originally concluded Clinton was “grossly negligent” – the statutory term supporting felony mishandling of classified information – when she and her aides transmitted 110 piece of classified information through her insecure server but that subordinates edited the term to the lesser “extremely careless.”
The full draft, with edits, leaves little doubt that Comey originally wrote on May 2, 2016 that there was evidence that Clinton and top aides may have violated both felony and misdemeanor statutes, though he did not believe he could prove intent before a jury.
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statute proscribing gross negligence in the handling of classified information and of the statute proscribing misdemeanor mishandling, my judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey originally penned.
That passage, however, was edited to remove the references to “gross negligence” and “misdemeanor mishandling,” leaving a much more generic reference to “potential violations of the statutes.”
The FBI has told Congress the edits were made by subordinates to Comey and then accepted by the then-director before he made his final announcement July 5, 2016 that he would not pursue criminal charges against Clinton.
Johnson recently sent a letter to new FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding to know why such significant edits were made to Comey’s draft and whether they were part of an effort by FBI subordinates to politically protect Clinton from a harsher assessment during the 2016 election.
“The edits to Director Comey’s public statement, made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions,” Johnson wrote, noting recently released text messages show some senior FBI officials involved in the case harbored political hatred for Trump or preference for Clinton.
“This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election,” Johnson wrote.
One edit that concerned Johnson was a decision to delete from Comey’s original draft a reference to the FBI working on a joint assessment with the intelligence community about possible national security damage from the classified information that passed through Clinton’s insecure email servers.
“We have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation,” Comey originally wrote.
The reference to the rest of the intelligence community was edited out, the memos show.
Johnson now wants to know whether other intelligence agencies had assessments of damage that differed or were more negative than that of the FBI.
Johnson also demanded the FBI provide him the “editing comments” in the margins of the Comey memo that were redacted before Congress was given the document, so lawmakers can better understand the intent of some of the changes that were made.
The full document shows that when Comey first sent to his top deputies the draft statement May 2, 2016, announcing Clinton wouldn't face criminal charges, he imagined it would be part of an austere news conference where he took no questions from reporters. That event did not happen until two months later.
"I’ve been trying to imagine what it would look like if I decided to do an FBI only press event to close out our work and hand the matter to DOJ," Comey wrote. "To help shape our discussions of whether that, or something different, makes sense, I have spent some time crafting what I would say, which follows. In my imagination, I don’t see me taking any questions."
Read Comey's draft as released by Johnson below. [pdf of draft at link]
I remember the daily drip drip drip of Watergate news, always getting worse, and it’s just now starting to feel that way again.
Why would subordinates edit his correspondence? Where I work it is the other way around - the boss has final say on the content of any letters or memos sent from the office.
A statute that makes gross negligence a felony could not also require intent. How could a person intend to be negligent? LOL!
Yea, WHO are these subs and how soon can they go directly to jail?
“I remember the daily drip drip drip of Watergate news, always getting worse, and it’s just now starting to feel that way again.”
To think Bob and Carl threw away the chance to be Reporters of TWO Centuries....
Comey is a puppet of Lynch and even assumed her role for her on national television by exonerating Lyin' Hillary.
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
No. For the Clintons and democrats they drip the news out so people get used to it. Big mistake for us.
“Why would subordinates edit his correspondence?”
Pure CYA for the boss.
Here is the correct link:
Yes, I knew that, but I was trying to simplify the contradiction for Democrats who might be reading FR.
Big Jerome gwine have Comey sqealin’ like a pig in cell block 6.
Some post here.
And what are the names of those who edited it?
“was “reasonably likely” that Clinton’s insecure private server was accessed or hacked by hostile actors though there was no evidence to prove it.”
Abedin put a lot of classified material on an insecure YAHOO account, that is reported to have been hacked (and that Abedin sent messages with passwords for government accounts on Yahoo). So Clinton and Company’s malfeasance extended beyond her private server. Would Comey and his FBI co-conspirators write about the private server only when they knew full well Huma’s yahoo.com account with the same data had been accessed? Or was this early draft written before they knew?
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.