Posted on 06/15/2018 7:15:42 AM PDT by upchuck
On Thursday, the Justice Department’s inspector general released a long-anticipated report on the FBI’s handling of the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server that handled classified information. Here are some quick takeaways from the report.
1. Learn How To Interpret An IG Report
2. FBI Agent Who Led Both The Clinton and Trump Probes Promised He’d Prevent Trump’s Election
3. Comey Mishandled The Clinton Probe In Multiple Ways
4. Comey Is Slippery And Weird
5. FBI Has A Massive Leak Problem And Is Doing Nothing About It
6. FBI Almost Got Away With Ignoring Clinton Emails On Weiner Laptop
7. Breathtaking Bias
8. Clinton Got Breaks, But Some Backfired
9. Obama Lied When He Said He Knew Nothing About Hillary’s Secret E-mail Scheme
10. FBI Agent Joked Clinton Associate Who Lied Would Never Be Charged, Questioned Legitimacy Of Investigation
11. FBI’s Insulting Response: FBI Director Christopher Wray gave a press conference in front of a compliant press corps where he said, “nothing in this report impugns the integrity of our workforce as a whole or the FBI as an institution.” In fact, the report paints a picture of an FBI with a problematic culture.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
The one thing you need to know is that Fedzilla runs amuck and there is nothing we the people can do about it.
We are subjects.
Apparently there are dozens of FBI agents taking bribes from the press, too.
L
From CNBC.com, July 7, 2016...
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ...”
Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:
_____________________________________________
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That’s what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right[]
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?
In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You’re right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ‘08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don’t know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.’
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there’s no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t. There’s nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out.
But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)
____________________________________
This will come to mostly nothing unless Comet is actually indicted, arrested and faces serious prison time for releasing classified documents to the Columbia professor. He is very psychologically vulnerable and will talk to avoid prison and salve his conscience. When he talks the extent and effect of Obama’s plot to subvert the American democracy will be revealed. Until then, nothing.
“4. Comey Is Slippery And Weird”
From CNN, July 2016...
This was not his first time investigating the Clintons [Comey]
Nor his second. The email server probe marked the third time Comey has investigated Bill or Hillary Clinton.
His first run-in came in the mid-1990s, when he joined the Senate Whitewater Committee as a deputy special counsel. There he dug into allegations that the Clintons took part in a fraud connected to a Arkansas real estate venture gone bust. No charges were ever brought against either Clinton...”
“In 2002, Comey, then a federal prosecutor, took over an investigation into President Bill Clinton’s 2001 pardon of financier Marc Rich, who had been indicted on a laundry list of charges before fleeing the country . ...”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/who-is-james-comey-fbi-director-things-to-know/index.html
__________________________________
“The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with investigations into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s.”
Whitewater Convictions
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker’s business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)
Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Bill Clinton’s successor as Governor, who was removed from office.[40]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_%28controversy%29#Convictions
or,
https://web.archive.org/web/20090326122112/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_%28controversy%29
12. Nothing will happen except a scolding. This is the Green Flag for our side to start taking people out so we can get a scolding ...... and of course wipe out liberalism.
#1: No big shots to go down.
My takeaway is the top 20% of FBI leadership is pro-Left Wing and uses the FBI as a way to promote liberalism.
Comey’s wife and daughters are HUGE Left Wing activists. He is too, but instead of marching in parades for Hillary he abuses his power to help her and other liberals.
The one thing you need to know is that Fedzilla runs amuck and there is nothing we the people can do about it.
We are subjects.
The US Government is much like the USSR. The difference is that the methodology has improved. It is not effective to just “disappear” people off to Gulags. It is better to have so many laws that you can prosecute them in broad daylight.
And a huge benefit of a prosperous culture is that as everyone gets comfortable with the modern conveniences of 21st century western culture (Yes, this isn’t just about the US), you sort of force complacency out of fear of losing not your life and “freedom”, but your comfort. In a way, the huge colonies of homeless in Seattle are a daily reminder to the worker bees that “this could be you” if you don’t toe the company (and government) line.
As long as you don’t stand out, or do something like write a manifesto about your company (the guy at Google who was fired for stating the truth), you’ll probably be fine.
Then there’s Seth Rich...
Most Americans will only know what the MSM tells them....”No Bias”.
And the feds can always be counted on to revert to their swamp creature ways. When one of theirs is under scrutiny, they'll go into a defensive crouch and lash out at any interloper who dares cross them.
I have no trust or faith in the American justice system. That whole Constitutional provision of "equal protection under the law" is a sick joke. The common folks abide by the set of rules established by the elites, who benefit from an entirely different set.
I have not read the report, but from what I have gathered the IG did not even address the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting nor the cover up of it.
Is that correct?
Yet nothing. I repeat, NOTHING, of any substance will be done about it. Nothing. The DOJ is broken beyond repair.
Very good, thanks. Of course most won’t (read it) and will continue to spew nonsense.
“4. Comey Is Slippery And Weird”
I believe there’s a fairly high probability that the Clinton’s have some serious “dirt” on Comey. Something so potentially embarrassing that he’d go to any length to provide them this sort of protection. Recall, some years ago, that Hillary illegally obtained FBI files on a bunch of people. See FBI FileGate Scandal.
12. If you’re putting together a list of organizations ranked by how reputable they are and how proud you’d be to support them, NAMBLA would be higher on that list than the FBI.
The establishment is riding out Trump. They hope he lasts only 4 years but will work to minimize his impact whatever his term. Then it will be back to normal. The DOJ, FBI, EPA, and IRS are just parts of the administrative state of the establishment.
The DOJ had a problem. Would they dare charge the expected next president with criminal offenses? That undoubtedly was a scary thing to do. What might that president do to them?
But the evidence was there that Hillary committed crimes. That evidence couldn’t be hidden.
Somehow Comey was chosen to speak on the matter. He stated the findings. That part is fine.
His big mistake: giving a conclusion of any sort.
I assume that Comey, Lynch and others had orchestrated the way the DOJ’s findings would be revealed, and the group decided that Comey would be the speaker.
Comey should have refused to give a conclusion and thereby forced someone else, perhaps Lynch, to state the DOJ’s conclusion.
By giving the conclusion himself he brought upon himself dishonor and revealed that he is stupid and/or weak.
Thanks for posting this article, I hope the other posters from yesterday who didn’t read or understand the report but commented so negatively yesterday can at least take time to read this summary.
BTW, this article, which I posted yesterday from the Conservative Treehouse, now has over 1,200 replies at that site, and they were asked not to comment without reading the entire report.The comments are cogent and educational.
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.