WEASEL: The Case Against Comey

Tweet

September 28, 2016 – FBI Director James Comey was back before the House Judiciary to face more damning questions over his failure to indict Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and destroying 33,000 emails that were under subpoena.

“You can call us wrong, you can call me a fool but you cannot but cannot call us weasels, okay? That is just not  fair,” Comey implored. He proceeded to blame all criticism of his personal integrity onto an amorphous corruption of public discourse that makes people suspect the FBI of wrongdoing when, in fact, everything is fine. He had giant bags under his eyes. It looked like he hadn’t slept.

Earlier, the FBI Director again drew a distinction between himself and a weasel.

“We are not weasels.  We are honest people and we did this in that way. Whether you disagree or agree with the results, this was done the way you would want it to be done.”

The assertion was met without challenge from his immediate questioner, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who represents the impoverished 18th District of Texas and is widely known as one of the stupidest members of Congress (Lee once stated that Neil Armstrong planted a U.S. flag on Mars). An ardent Hillary Clinton supporter, Lee opened the lane for Comey to allege he was not a weasel by incongruously analogizing FBI agents investigating the former Secretary of State’s use of an unauthorized email system to the “foot soldiers” of the civil rights movement.

But was Comey’s assertion true? Was the whole thing simply a big misunderstanding? Did the FBI conduct a proper investigation? Was Comey not a weasel?

No. Comey is a weasel.

Under his leadership, the FBI has shown that it will do anything to cover up crimes committed by Hillary Clinton and others in positions of power. In conjunction with the Justice Department, the FBI abandoned its role as a law enforcement agency and instituted a full scale cover up to protect the targets of its investigation. Clinton is above the law and Comey lied to Congress and the American people to try and justify his dereliction of duty.

__________

The decision on whether to indict Hillary Clinton was supposed to go to the Attorney General, but Loretta Lynch was forced to abdicate her responsibility after she violated all bounds of professional ethics by taking a meeting with Bill Clinton the week before she was due to announce her decision. Lynch laughingly gave herself a pass for violating all bounds of professional ethics and said she would just agree with whatever the FBI recommended.

On July 5, 2016, Comey held a bizarre half hour press conference that resembled an exercise in cognitive dissonance. First, he presented evidence that Clinton’s actions  were completely out of bounds and illegal. Then he said they were actually not quite illegal and no “reasonable prosecutor” would indict her under the citcumstances.

Comey never presented any reasonable legal basis to support the decision. Look at his odd statements about mens rea. During appearances before Congress, the FBI Director lied about the law by imputing a false evidentiary standard to 18 U.S. Code § 793(f), which prohibits gathering, transmitting or losing defense information. When presented with evidence of wrongdoing, Comey repeatedly responded that there was no evidence that anyone intended to violate the law.

§ 793(f) has a gross negligence standard, so you don’t need to knowingly violate the law in order to be guilty. Comey himself said that Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless” with their handling of classified materials. Though the term fell just short of the legal standard necessary for gross negligence, Comey testified that nobody qualified for indictment because there was no evidence that anyone knowingly violated the law. That is not the standard required under the statute.

Even if Clinton and her aides believed they were complying with national security protocols and doing everything correctly, they would still be guilty of mishandling classified materials. Whenever this was pointed out to Comey, he had no sensible answer because there is no sound legal basis for his distortion.

Clinton violated § 793(f) by storing classified materials on her unsecure server and sending and receiving emails that contained classified information. On October 22, 2015, she lied about it during her testimony to the Benghazi Committee. She said “nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.” That was a lie. She has repeated it many times since and it’s still a lie.

At his July 5th press conference, Comey confirmed that Clinton sent and received emails marked “classified.” During her FBI interview, Clinton said she didn’t know the “C” marking meant classified. She also told FBI agents that she didn’t think an email exchange about impending drone strikes was classified. She also said she couldn’t remember national security protocols due to her brain injury.

Her line about the emails not being marked “classified” is obfuscatory. Even if such materials are not marked “classified” in an email, people with security clearances are trained as to what communications are considered classified. They are expected to be proactive about it. Like anyone with security clearance, Clinton was expected to ensure that she complied with national security protocols. Claiming her behavior is excused because the materials didn’t have “classified” on them is an effort to dilute the standard for what constitutes criminal conduct.

The FBI and DOJ gave out five immunity deals to the lawyers and IT techs employed by Clinton who effectuated her illegal actions. It is unheard of for the FBI to give out five immunity deals without convening a grand jury and seeking an indictment. Even more unheard of is the fact that the deals for chief of staff Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson actually required that the FBI destroy their laptops after conducting a data search that could go no further than January 31, 2015.

It was truly bizarre. The FBI didn’t need an immunity deal to get the laptops. They could have obtained them by subpoena, but didn’t even try. Instead, the FBI granted immunity to the laptop owners and agreed to destroy the evidence after conducting a restricted review of the materials on them.

So many immunity agreements were given to principal targets of the investigation that there was no one left to indict, except Clinton. That wasn’t going to happen.

A primary reason for the cover up is the fact that the Clinton email scandal directly implicates the President. On March 7, 2015, President Obama told CBS News that he didn’t know Clinton used a private email address until it became public. However, he emailed her on June 28, 2012 at the @clintonemail address using a pseudonym.

Another reason is that FBI Director Comey is deeply enmeshed in the cash cronyism of Washington D.C. and has numerous fiduciary ties to the Clinton Foundation. The fact that the FBI Director profits through companies connected to the Clintons presents clear conflicts of interest.

Among the many renumerations earned by greasing the Clintons’ wheels are profits generated at Lockheed Martin. Between October, 2005 and July, 2010, Comey was a board member and director at the company. During that time, Lockheed Martin benefitted by numerous contracts with the State Department and was a top defense contributor to the Clinton Foundation, a slush fund masquerading as a charity.

In 2010, Lockeed Martin paid Bill Clinton $250,000 for a speech. Soon after, the company received a weapons export contract from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. That same year, Lockheed Martin became a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. The defense contractor was simply following the rules necessary to get the best return for investors with Hillary Clinton in charge of the State Department. 17 of 20 countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation saw an increase in arms exports during her term of office.

In 2013, the same year Comey was appointed FBI Director, he also became a board member and director at HSBC, a controversial London bank that’s been investigated for laundering drug cartel money and was involved in the LIBOR scandal in the U.K.

During Hillary Clinton’s term of office, HSBC facilitated the controversial uranium deal that conveyed control of 20 – 50% of U.S. uranium to a Russian company based in Canada called Uranium One. The deal was approved by the State Department shortly after the transfer of $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation from Uranium One. There was also $500,000 paid to Bill Clinton to give a speech in Moscow. The payment came from a Russian bank with Kremlin ties that was promoting Uranium One stock.

As it turns out, Comey has a track record of assisting the Clintons with their legal problems.

“In 2004, Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National Archives. The documents were relevant to accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the 9/11 terrorist attack.”

“Curiously, Berger, Lynch and Cheryl Mills all worked as partners in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, which prepared tax returns for the Clintons and did patent work for a software firm that played a role in the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was secretary of state.”

Source: WND

__________

The FBI Director says his integrity is beyond reproach and he is not a weasel. The facts show otherwise. The facts show that he and Attorney General Lynch are obstructing justice and implementing a cover-up to protect Hillary Clinton, who endangered national security in order to avoid disclosing emails that accompanied her disasterous term of office as the Clinton Foundation filled its coffers.

James Comey is not a fair and impartial public official, as he claims in his disingenuous and increasingly whiny appearances before Congress. He is simply a “fixer” serving the interests of an elite, moneyed class of bankers and globalists who want to install the corrupt matriarch of the Clinton crime family into the nation’s highest office.