Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Just How Corrupt Is the FBI?

 

It has come to light that James Comey was already drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton, prior to the conclusion of the FBI investigation and prior to Ms. Clinton and other key witnesses being interviewed. Former Congressman Jason Chaffetz has warned that Mr. Comey may have committed perjury in his testimony before Congress on the Clinton matter investigation. Someone needs to go through Comey’s congressional testimony on this. I’ll alert the media.

Three days ago, the FBI refused to honor a FOIA request on documents pertaining to the Clinton investigation and her misuse of classified information and state secrets, which she and many of her staff engaged in on the quite laughable grounds – wait for it – that there is not enough public interest to warrant the release of the documents.

Yes, the story that dominated the news for the past two plus years, that contributed to the rupture within the Democratic Party resulting in the emergence of ardent socialist Bernie-You-All-Deserve-Free-Stuff-Sanders to oppose her, that probably more than any other factor apart from Ms. Clinton’s general incompetence as a candidate, her imperious attitude to Americans in general and the “basket of deplorables” in particular, her constant lies and fabrications, her questionable health, the revelations of operating a multimillion dollar pay-for-play criminal enterprise from Foggy Bottom, the cover-up and repeated lies, and the lies about lying of the Benghazi massacre — of course, the Russians, Vladimir Putin, Macedonian fake news sites, and you know, misogyny notwithstanding.

Yes, that story that ran rampant through those things called newspapers and on television and on new sites and that overwhelmed social media. That story that indicated to the Deep Staters at the FBI that there isn’t enough public interest.

I mean, even Obama apologist Mika Brezenski got all hot and bothered about the constant lies spewing forth from Hillary’s mouth and her campaign operatives (of course, trying to have a truth-based, coherent discussion with the likes of James Carville is enough to get anyone hot and bothered).

This was the story that had more legs than a barrel full of millipedes. So, someone, or several someones, at the FBI are deliberately covering up the extent of Ms. Clinton’s and her cronies’ pathetically obvious criminality. What else is being covered up? The FBI’s collusion with Clinton to keep her from serving time? Not that there were any Clinton presidential campaign supporters within the ranks of the Bureau who were paying to see her become President. I know, I’m a crazy person.

Meanwhile, Special Prosecutor Counsel Mueller continues to pursue the nebulous allegations of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Some believe that Mr. Mueller should have recused himself from the investigation given his personal friendship with star witness/informer Comey, former disgraced FBI Director. And never mind that Mueller and his bloodhounds may be barking up the wrong tree since there is a stronger scent of possible collusion between Hillary and Bill Clinton which Mr. Mueller and his crack team of former Clinton supporters are apparently unable to tease out even with the aid of a Geiger counter (that’s a hint).

Enter Attorney General Sessions who has already recused himself on the Russian matter. AG Sessions is in the unenviable and quite impossible position of having to root out bad apples from the Federal Bureau of Investigation which likely won’t happen. There’s only so much time in a day and the Deep State doesn’t give up its own easily or without a fight.

Of course, we must assume that there are still numerous dedicated FBI agents who uphold the law. But, even I was under the impression at the outset of the Clinton matter investigation that Mr. Comey was one such upstanding and forthright G-man. Little did I know he was possible of subterfuge, weasel-wording, misleading Congress, re-interpreting standing law, leaking of government documents, apparent cowardice (by his own admittance) and general aiding and abetting of a career criminal politician. So much for all those nights I spent at a Holiday Inn.

It seems likely, given the FBI’s refusal to let historians or the American people discover just how criminal Ms. Clinton and her cronies were that Mr. Comey is not an isolated case. Mr. Comey’s legacy and others currently at the FBI will continue to tarnish the reputation of the Bureau and unfortunately, it seems that there’s not much that can be done about it.

Expecting the black SUVs to arrive momentarily. I kid. No, really. It was a joke. I’d like to make a phone call to my attorney.

There are 71 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stina Member

    Brian Watt: But, even I was under the impression at the outset of the Clinton matter investigation that Mr. Comey was one such upstanding and forthright G-man. Little did I know he was possible of subterfuge, weasel-wording, misleading Congress, re-interpreting standing law, leaking of government documents, apparent cowardice (by his own admittance) and general aiding and abetting of a career criminal politician.

    I understand why a political novice would not understand, but after learning about the other high profile cases he had been on, I don’t understand how people who had the knowledge before this could come to the conclusion that Comey is a good guy.

    He isn’t.

    • #1
    • September 1, 2017, at 10:34 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Brian Watt: I know, I’m a crazy person.

    If you are a crazy person, Brian, I would definitely blame it on James Carville. I had to stop the video when I started to yell back at it. ARRRRGGGhhhhh!!!!!

    Can Sessions override that insane FBI decision? Lack of public interest? Are you kidding?? Okay, okay, I’m trying to calm down . . . .deep breaths …..

    • #2
    • September 1, 2017, at 10:36 AM PDT
    • 13 likes
  3. Brian Watt Member
    Brian WattJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Stina (View Comment):

    Brian Watt: But, even I was under the impression at the outset of the Clinton matter investigation that Mr. Comey was one such upstanding and forthright G-man. Little did I know he was possible of subterfuge, weasel-wording, misleading Congress, re-interpreting standing law, leaking of government documents, apparent cowardice (by his own admittance) and general aiding and abetting of a career criminal politician.

    I understand why a political novice would not understand, but after learning about the other high profile cases he had been on, I don’t understand how people who had the knowledge before this could come to the conclusion that Comey is a good guy.

    He isn’t.

    Ah, hindsight. Comey was generally thought to have been above reproach as Mueller is being characterized now even by numerous conservative stalwarts and experts on the law…like his friend Andrew McCarthy. So, I think I was in good company at the time.

    • #3
    • September 1, 2017, at 10:39 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  4. Gary Robbins Reagan

    It is not uncommon for lawyers to start drafting statements before making a final decision. Indeed, that would be recommended.

    • #4
    • September 1, 2017, at 10:40 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  5. Jager Coolidge
    JagerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Despite disagreements about the manner in which it was handled, Trump firing Comey is looking even better in retrospect.

    • #5
    • September 1, 2017, at 10:41 AM PDT
    • 16 likes
  6. Stina Member

    Brian Watt (View Comment):
    Ah, hindsight. Comey was generally thought to have been above reproach as Mueller is being characterized now even by numerous conservative stalwarts and experts on the law…like his friend Andrew McCarthy. So, I think I was in good company at the time.

    Yes, you were. But as soon as Comey said no reasonable prosecutor, all the stories came flooding out.

    Someone was sitting on those stories. There are people with memories who knew better. This is why history matters.

    • #6
    • September 1, 2017, at 10:46 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  7. Jager Coolidge
    JagerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Brian Watt: I know, I’m a crazy person.

    If you are a crazy person, Brian, I would definitely blame it on James Carville. I had to stop the video when I started to yell back at it. ARRRRGGGhhhhh!!!!!

    Can Sessions override that insane FBI decision? Lack of public interest? Are you kidding?? Okay, okay, I’m trying to calm down . . . .deep breaths …..

    I think Sessions can override the decision. The person requesting the information can also go before a judge. The FBI just lost and was ordered to provide information in a different case.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/31/judge-fbi-must-disclose-hillary-clinton-email-prob/

    • #7
    • September 1, 2017, at 10:50 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  8. Brian Watt Member
    Brian WattJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It is not uncommon for lawyers to start drafting statements before making a final decision. Indeed, that would be recommended.

    Well, that holds up if Comey was acting as a defense attorney for Ms. Clinton (which it appears he was). Clearly if he was prosecuting her and had yet to have other agents interview her or other key witnesses, it’s unlikely that – as a prosecutor – he would have been drafting a statement exonerating her. And given the mountains of evidence against her and her own sworn public testimony before Congress (which contradicted her statement to the FBI) that Comey claimed he needed an order from Congress to include in his investigation, it seems ludicrous that exoneration would even be considered.

    And finally, Comey wasn’t supposed to be acting like an attorney or even a prosecutor. He was supposed to be acting as the lead investigator and serving up the findings to the AG who had conflicts of her own.

    • #8
    • September 1, 2017, at 10:56 AM PDT
    • 36 likes
  9. Jager Coolidge
    JagerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It is not uncommon for lawyers to start drafting statements before making a final decision. Indeed, that would be recommended.

    Sure, but if this was the reason, this was the wrong statement to be drafting. After a review there is nothing criminal, is an easy statement. The difficult statement, that would need to be worked perfectly and reviewed like crazy would be “so we are filing criminal charges against the Democrat Presidential Candidate”. That type of bombshell would need to be well prepped.

    • #9
    • September 1, 2017, at 10:56 AM PDT
    • 12 likes
  10. James Gawron Thatcher
    James GawronJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Brian,

    So it was YOU!!!

    Hey wait a minute Trump is President and she’s not. Whew!

    Listen Brian, the Comey Chameleon will try to wash his hands of this but maybe this time even he can’t camouflage his duplicity.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #10
    • September 1, 2017, at 11:18 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  11. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western ChauvinistJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I wonder what the Clintons have on Comey…?

    • #11
    • September 1, 2017, at 11:19 AM PDT
    • 17 likes
  12. PHCheese Member

    As some here on Ricochet may remember, I notified the FBI 3 times on their hot line that crimes were being committed by the Clinton Family Crime Foundation. It was crickets each time.

    • #12
    • September 1, 2017, at 11:36 AM PDT
    • 9 likes
  13. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White MaleJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It is not uncommon for lawyers to start drafting statements before making a final decision. Indeed, that would be recommended.

    Well, that holds up if Comey was acting as a defense attorney for Ms. Clinton (which it appears he was). Clearly if he was prosecuting her and had yet to have other agents interview her or other key witnesses, it’s unlikely that – as a prosecutor – he would have been drafting a statement exonerating her. And given the mountains of evidence against her and her own sworn public testimony before Congress (which contradicted her statement to the FBI) that Comey claimed he needed an order from Congress to include in his investigation, it seems ludicrous that exoneration would even be considered.

    And finally, Comey wasn’t supposed to be acting like an attorney or even a prosecutor. He was supposed to be acting as the lead investigator and serving up the findings to the AG who had conflicts of her own.

    People. Look at the Calendar.

    Hillary was finally interviewed by the FBI on Saturday July 2nd, 2016.

    Comey held his press conference on Tuesday July 5th.

    With all due respect to the work ethic of our intrepid FBI investigators, do you really think a whole lot of legwork was done to corroborate/followup on Clinton’s interview during the 4th of July Holiday weekend, before Comey held his press conference?

    The whole thing was a whitewash. They didn’t even try to look like they took it seriously.

    • #13
    • September 1, 2017, at 11:40 AM PDT
    • 29 likes
  14. Profile Photo Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It is not uncommon for lawyers to start drafting statements before making a final decision. Indeed, that would be recommended.

    Comey was not acting as a lawyer. He was the investigator. Investigators should not start writing their conclusions before they’ve gathered the key facts of the investigation.

    • #14
    • September 1, 2017, at 12:08 PM PDT
    • 15 likes
  15. Profile Photo Member

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It is not uncommon for lawyers to start drafting statements before making a final decision. Indeed, that would be recommended.

    Comey was not acting as a lawyer. He was the investigator. Investigators should not start writing their conclusions before they’ve gathered the key facts of the investigation.

    Ooops – should have read the rest of the thread.

    • #15
    • September 1, 2017, at 12:09 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  16. Percival Thatcher
    PercivalJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Brian Watt: I know, I’m a crazy person.

    If you are a crazy person, Brian, I would definitely blame it on James Carville. I had to stop the video when I started to yell back at it. ARRRRGGGhhhhh!!!!!

    Can Sessions override that insane FBI decision? Lack of public interest? Are you kidding?? Okay, okay, I’m trying to calm down . . . .deep breaths …..

    If I heard the radio correctly this morning, the Federal judge the FBI tried to run that past was less than amused.

    I guess that I got it right.

    • #16
    • September 1, 2017, at 12:16 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  17. Profile Photo Member

    Brian Watt: that there is not enough public interest to warrant the release of the documents.

    I should start by noting that I am not a FOIA expert, and maybe self serving statements by an agency that “nobody cares” actually is a valid reason not to produce requested information, but I doubt it. This is one of those easy cases that I would love to be the judge on. “Excuse me sir, are you really arguing that you shouldn’t have to release this information because no one cares? But doesn’t the FOIA request in and of itself demonstrate the statutorily required level of public interest? You seem to have a very low opinion of this court’s intelligence, it’s integrity or both. Can you give me a good reason why I shouldn’t find you in contempt? . . . . Nice try, but that doesn’t work. I hope you brought your toothbrush. So here’s my ruling. You will be taken into custody and be remanded to jail until the information is released. The FBI is hereby ordered to release the information and to reimburse petitioners for costs, including attorney’s fees. Bailiff, please take the Government’s attorney into custody. Next case.

    • #17
    • September 1, 2017, at 12:23 PM PDT
    • 8 likes
  18. Susan Quinn Contributor

    Percival (View Comment):
    If I heard the radio correctly this morning, the Federal judge the FBI tried to run that past was less than amused.

    Okay, great. So how does that help me get my brain cells back that Carville stole??

    • #18
    • September 1, 2017, at 12:39 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  19. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… Coolidge

    You know, I swear I read about this several months ago. I was kind of surprised it’s suddenly news, since I’d already heard this exact thing: that Comey had already written his exoneration of Hillary before he’d had a chance to interview her.

    I’m gonna look it up. I’m certain it was news earlier this year.

    • #19
    • September 1, 2017, at 12:45 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  20. Gary Robbins Reagan

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It is not uncommon for lawyers to start drafting statements before making a final decision. Indeed, that would be recommended.

    Comey was not acting as a lawyer. He was the investigator. Investigators should not start writing their conclusions before they’ve gathered the key facts of the investigation.

    While Comey was the investigator, his training is as an attorney, and, if memory serves, had been a U.S. Attorney and the Assistant Attorney General before he was named as the FBI Director with a ten year term.

    • #20
    • September 1, 2017, at 1:36 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. Stina Member

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    While Comey was the investigator, his training is as an attorney, and, if memory serves, had been a U.S. Attorney and the Assistant Attorney General before he was named as the FBI Director with a ten year term.

    So its not that he deliberately overstepped but that he doesn’t understand the nature of his job.

    • #21
    • September 1, 2017, at 2:31 PM PDT
    • 13 likes
  22. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron MillerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Do we know which parts of his statement to Congress were drafted before the conclusion? Its basic structure was “(A) She broke the following laws, (B) but don’t prosecute her.” It’s plausible that he drafted the first part a bit at a time.

    The FOIA request is another matter.

    • #22
    • September 1, 2017, at 2:32 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  23. tigerlily Member

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Brian Watt (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It is not uncommon for lawyers to start drafting statements before making a final decision. Indeed, that would be recommended.

    Well, that holds up if Comey was acting as a defense attorney for Ms. Clinton (which it appears he was). Clearly if he was prosecuting her and had yet to have other agents interview her or other key witnesses, it’s unlikely that – as a prosecutor – he would have been drafting a statement exonerating her. And given the mountains of evidence against her and her own sworn public testimony before Congress (which contradicted her statement to the FBI) that Comey claimed he needed an order from Congress to include in his investigation, it seems ludicrous that exoneration would even be considered.

    And finally, Comey wasn’t supposed to be acting like an attorney or even a prosecutor. He was supposed to be acting as the lead investigator and serving up the findings to the AG who had conflicts of her own.

    People. Look at the Calendar.

    Hillary was finally interviewed by the FBI on Saturday July 2nd, 2016.

    Comey held his press conference on Tuesday July 5th.

    With all due respect to the work ethic of our intrepid FBI investigators, do you really think a whole lot of legwork was done to corroborate/followup on Clinton’s interview during the 4th of July Holiday weekend, before Comey held his press conference?

    The whole thing was a whitewash. They didn’t even try to look like they took it seriously.

    Yeah, and if memory serves, Clinton was not under oath during that Saturday FBI interview, there was no stenographer at the interview, and some of her potential co-conspirators such as Cheryl Mills were also at the interview. It simply wasn’t a serious investigation.

    • #23
    • September 1, 2017, at 3:41 PM PDT
    • 17 likes
  24. James Golden Inactive

    Comey’s actions throughout the whole affair are among the most inexplicable in memory. If he was in it for Hillary the whole time, why would he have announced that he was “re-opening” the investigation after the FBI found Hillary’s emails on Weiner’s laptop at great political cost to Hillary? On the other hand, his explanation for why he was not recommending charges was fundamentally flawed as a legal matter, as almost everyone who has looked it has concluded. And on the other hand again, his testimony before Congress certainly did the Democrats no favors (despite not being pro-Trump either) by really putting the kibosh on the lunatic Russia “hacked the election” theories.

    Was Comey one of the few honorable men left in DC? Was he corrupt? Or was he just incompetent?

    The only thing I am sure of: He was never going to allow an indictment of Hillary because he thought he would be deciding an election in doing so, and he didn’t think that was his job. His apparent decision to start writing an explanation for that decision before the investigation was even concluded lends even more credence to this theory. Note that I strongly disagree with this decision — it was emphatically his job to investigate criminal activity no matter what. And, it was not his job to decide whether or not Hillary should have been indicted — it was the Justice Department’s job. But I think that’s how he justified his behavior to himself anyway.

    • #24
    • September 1, 2017, at 4:28 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  25. James Golden Inactive

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Isaac Smith (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    It is not uncommon for lawyers to start drafting statements before making a final decision. Indeed, that would be recommended.

    Comey was not acting as a lawyer. He was the investigator. Investigators should not start writing their conclusions before they’ve gathered the key facts of the investigation.

    While Comey was the investigator, his training is as an attorney, and, if memory serves, had been a U.S. Attorney and the Assistant Attorney General before he was named as the FBI Director with a ten year term.

    While I’d like to defend your position, because I agree that, as a general rule, it is fine to start writing up conclusions before every last stone has been un-turned, this new evidence further supports the theory that Comey had decided what he was going to do from the beginning, and did not care about what the investigation might conclude. Comey’s actions in total are so bizarre that I’m not sure it proves that Comey was corrupt. But it does further support my theory that Comey didn’t care about the investigation because he was unwilling to take action that he thought would decide the outcome of the election.

    • #25
    • September 1, 2017, at 4:32 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  26. Percival Thatcher
    PercivalJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    James Golden (View Comment):
    Comey’s actions throughout the whole affair among the most inexplicable in memory. If he was in it for Hillary the whole time, why would he have announced that he was “re-opening” the investigation after the FBI found Hillary’s emails on Weiner’s laptop at great political cost to Hillary? On the other hand, his explanation for why he was not recommending charges was fundamentally flawed as a legal matter, as almost everyone who has looked it has concluded. And on the other hand again, his testimony before Congress certainly did the Democrats no favors (despite not being pro-Trump either) by really putting the kibosh on the lunatic Russia “hacked the election” theories?

    Was Comey one of the few honorable men left in DC? Was he corrupt? Or was he just incompetent?

    The only thing I am sure of: He was never going to allow an indictment of Hillary because he thought he would be deciding an election in doing so, and he didn’t think that was his job. His apparent decision to start writing an explanation for that decision before the investigation was even concluded lends even more credence to this theory. Note that I strongly disagree with this decision — it was emphatically his job to investigate criminal activity no matter what. And, it was not his job to decide whether or not Hillary should have been indicted — it was the Justice Department’s job. But I think that’s how he justified his behavior to himself anyway.

    There wasn’t any good way for Comey to play it without reopening the “investigation.” Weiner was going down. There was no helping that, but if it came out at his trial that there were classified emails from Hillary’s private server that they didn’t already know about, the whole thing blows up in his face. It was bad enough as it was. The FBI had exhaustively investigated all of the computers involved, except for this one. They had to see what was there, and if word leaked out (and there are FBI agents that are devoted to the rule of law) it would have looked much worse.

    As it was, I don’t think it damaged the Clinton campaign as much as people seem to think. If the emails and the dodgy server mattered to you at all, in all likelihood you had made up your mind already.

    • #26
    • September 1, 2017, at 4:38 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  27. James Golden Inactive

    Percival (View Comment):

    James Golden (View Comment):

    [snip]

    There wasn’t any good way for Comey to play it without reopening the “investigation.” Weiner was going down. There was no helping that, but if it came out at his trial that there were classified emails from Hillary’s private server that they didn’t already know about, the whole thing blows up in his face. It was bad enough as it was. The FBI had exhaustively investigated all of the computers involved, except for this one. They had to see what was there, and if word leaked out (and there are FBI agents that are devoted to the rule of law) it would have looked much worse.

    As it was, I don’t think it damaged the Clinton campaign as much as people seem to think. If the emails and the dodgy server mattered to you at all, in all likelihood you had made up your mind already.

    In general I agree. Hillary lost because she is terrible, and not for any other reason. But I don’t think Comey would have made that announcement if he was corruptly in it for Hillary. Just like the announcement doesn’t prove that he was pro-Trump, neither do the sum total of his actions prove that he was a Clinton flunky.

    • #27
    • September 1, 2017, at 4:41 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  28. Hoyacon Member

    If anyone’s interested in a bit of reading, here’s a memo on implementation of Justice Dept. guidelines on Exemption 6 of FOIA, which I assume is what’s being asserted here.

    • #28
    • September 1, 2017, at 4:54 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  29. Brian Watt Member
    Brian WattJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):
    If anyone’s interested in a bit of reading, here’s a memo on implementation of Justice Dept. guidelines on Exemption 6 of FOIA, which I assume is what’s being asserted here.

    I don’t think Exemption 6 applies in the least. Ms. Clinton’s actions and the actions of her underlings to deliberately disobey standing secrets statutes and laws by the willful misuse of classified and Top Secret and other incredibly sensitive material has nothing to do with her personal privacy. These were actions that she and her cohorts took while in the employ of the federal government.

    • #29
    • September 1, 2017, at 4:59 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  30. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. StephensJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Heh. Defending Comey and how he treated Clinton. Very telling.

    Explain to me again how you are not a Clinton supporter.

    • #30
    • September 1, 2017, at 4:59 PM PDT
    • 2 likes

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.