Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) are members of the committee tasked with investigating President Donald J. Trump’s firing of former FBI Director James Comey.
On August 30, 2016, they sent a letter to the current FBI Director Christopher Wray, requesting any additional documentation related to the former FBI Director’s intent to exonerate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The following day, the committee decided to make the letter to FBI Director Wray available to the public.
Comey Planned to Exonerate Clinton
According to the United States Office of the Special Counsel, evidence suggests that James Comey had every intention of exonerating Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system even before the probe into her actions was complete.
Senators Graham (R-SC) and Grassley (R-IA) addressed this in their letter to Wray. In their letter, they stated that Comey made the decision to absolve Secretary Clinton in April or early May of 2016, which was well in advance of the FBI agents’ completion of the investigation.
Furthermore, Comey circulated a draft of his statement to an élite group of senior FBI leadership early on.
Comey made the decision to absolve Secretary Clinton of her alleged mistreatment of classified information prior to even interviewing Clinton herself, or 16 other key witnesses like John Bentel, Justin Cooper, Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson and Bryan Pagliano: All of which had personal knowledge of Secretary Clinton’s private email server.
Moreover, these witnesses included individuals who assisted her with building and administering this non-government server. According to former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy, Comey was not calling the shots, he was just the ‘face’ of the investigation.
Attorney McCarthy Blames Obama, Not Comey
McCarthy states that the fact that Comey had already prepared a statement letting Clinton off the hook more than two months prior to his public announcement, should not be a surprise: McCarthy went on to say that Comey was just following the defense strategy that President Obama set in motion in April of 2016.
A month after President Obama’s plans were initiated, the State Department leaked his defense strategy “of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed” – The ‘crime’ being intent to cause harm to the United States.
President Obama, the Justice Department and Comey all insisted that prosecuting Secretary Clinton required showing evidence that she had intentionally tried to harm the United States when she transmitted classified information. However, intent is not required by the criminal statute that is relevant to her email scandal.
President Obama recognized that classified information was transmitted through the non-government server, but claimed the significance of that fact was overstated. On April 10, 2016, he made a public statement that Clinton had been careless because she used a private server while dealing with classified information. In addition, he made it clear that she did not intentionally endanger national security.
Then, on July 5, 2016, Comey had a news conference in which he stated that Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling classified information through a private email server, but that she had not intentions of endangering national security. Again, the criminal statute relevant to her email scandal does not require intent.
President Obama’s reaction to the investigation is understandable in that he, himself, had communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private system. His administration would not disclose the exchanges between the two, because they indubitably consist of classified conversations. However, McCarthy notes that prosecuting Mrs. Clinton for her negligent handling of classified information would make it clear that the president himself had committed the same act: Therefore, Obama’s administration would never allow her to be prosecuted.
The Cover Up
With the help of the Democratic-Media Complex, the narrative that Secretary Clinton could not be convicted without evidence of malicious intent was broadcast throughout the nation. All the while, barriers were placed in front of investigators in an attempt to obstruct the evidence-gathering process. For example, in May of 2016, Obama’s Justice Department barred investigators from asking Cheryl Mills pertinent questions related to the email investigation.
Other tactics used by the Obama Justice Department include the following:
• Cutting incomprehensible immunity deals.
• Disallowing key areas of inquiry.
• Refusing to use the grand jury as a means to compel evidence.
• Neglecting to charge witnesses who made false statements deliberately.
• Failing to squeeze witnesses who made false statements.
• Creating an attorney-client privilege between subjects of the investigation by permitting one subject to act as an attorney for another subject.
• Limiting the investigators’ ability to search computers.
• Destroying physical evidence, including laptops.
As evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s gross negligence mounted, the Obama administration decided to rewrite the criminal statute related to her email scandal. These changes were to include intent standards and offer ridiculous reasons as to why the statute should not be applied as it was previously written. When Director Comey began to draft his findings, Obama’s plan was in place and being implemented.
Throughout his entire campaign, Donald Trump’s supporters accused Washington of operating on a system that serves the powerful and rewards globalists without regard for the American people. This belief intensified as it became apparent that Secretary Clinton would not be held liable for the unsavory acts she committed in relation to her dealings within the Clinton Foundation or the gross negligence related to her use of a private server.
This most recent evidence makes it clear that Trump supporters were right on track, and it is time for the Justice Department to conduct a full-scale investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email scandal – this time without rewriting the rules in the process.
~ Conservative Zone