Comey testimony: Small "tells" show the fix was in
Of course if the person being questioned has a good attorney, he or she already knows the most likely questions. But it's almost impossible to predict ALL the questions. And therein lies the risk: If the person being questioned is trying to support a coverup--a "narrative"--there's a small chance that a question will be asked that will expose the lie.
Last Thursday FBI director James Comey testified before a House committee about whether Hillary Clinton sent or received classified material on her private email server, and about his decision not to recommend prosecution. It was a fascinating look at how government of the Elites, by the Elites and for the Elites works.
Now, it's instantly apparent that Comey is a really sharp guy--excellent understanding of the law--and he gave a very good defense of his decision not to recommend prosecution. But a couple of his answers seem to me to show that the decision was fixed. And by that I mean that Obama, Lynch and Comey understood that Comey would not have recommended that the case be prosecuted regardless of the evidence.
I realize this is a very controversial statement, so let me show you the things I noted, and then draw your own conclusions.
(Apologies for the all-caps; that was in c-span's transcript and I wasn't in the mood to re-type the whole thing.)
Example: at 32:44 (all times are on the c-span livestream) the chairman of the committee asks Comey
DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE?
Comey: TO THE FBI? WE HAVE NO BASIS TO CONCLUDE SHE LIED TO THE FBI.
Chair: DID SHE LIE TO THE PUBLIC?
Comey: THAT'S A QUESTION I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO ANSWER. I CAN SPEAK ABOUT WHAT SHE SAID TO THE FBI.
Chair: DID SHE -- DID HILLARY CLINTON LIE UNDER OATH?
Comey: TO THE -- NOT TO THE FBI. **NOT IN A CASE WE'RE WORKING.**
Again at 33:24 the chairman asks "DID THE FBI INVESTIGATE HER STATEMENTS *UNDER OATH* ON THIS TOPIC?"
Chairman: DO YOU NEED A REFERRAL FROM CONGRESS TO INVESTIGATE HER -- HER STATEMENTS UNDER OATH?
Comey: SURE DO.
Sounds like the FBI director is saying the bureau can't question any government official under oath unless congress specifically directs that. I'm very skeptical. Also, here's the third chance for Comey to inform the committee and voters that she was NOT "interviewed" under oath. Again he fails to mention it.
Not until two hours into the hearing did one member of the committee--a former judge--finally ask Comey "When the FBI agents questioned Mrs. Clinton, was she under oath?"
When the head of the congressional committee asked Comey "Did she lie under oath?", then someone as sharp as Comey should have noted in that answer that Clinton was never under oath. His failure to mention that seemingly significant fact is the kind of thing a defense attorney would do. It shows he was defending Hillary, and the FBI's inexplicable failure to put her under oath.
If the investigation had been intended to find the truth instead of clear Hillary, an impartial, unbiased agent would have--and should have--noted this as soon as the question of lying under oath was raised.
I realize democrats will counter that it's paranoid to draw such a conclusion from such a seemingly trivial failure by Comey to mention this. And certainly if the speaker had been someone with no legal experience, or a low-level flunky, I would agree.
But Comey is clearly extremely smart and has vast legal experience. His failure to mention that Clinton was never under oath when she was "interviewed" by 5 FBI agents was deliberate.
It seems clear to me that Comey didn't think anyone would ask. He didn't think anyone would ask because it wouldn't occur to anyone that in an investigation of such a critical matter, the government wouldn't put the witness under oath.
Of course not putting Clinton under oath isn't at all surprising if the real goal of the "investigation" was really to avoid concluding that Mrs. Clinton's atrociously careless handling of classified information probably resulted in Russia and China reading U.S. diplomatic cables for the entire term of Clinton's tenure as SecState.
Oh, and if that wasn't outrageous enough, the "interview" with Clinton also wasn't recorded.
So...never under oath, and not recorded.
Think they'd do that with you, citizen, if they had evidence that you'd exposed classified information to compromise? "But we're treating her just like any normal citizen--totally impartial."
It's also beyond comprehension that no one on the committee asked Comey about Mrs. Clinton's I.T. specialist, Brian Pagliano--the guy who set up the private, unencrypted email domain on her server. Pagliano was offered immunity by the DOJ if he would testify. The initial report was that he had accepted the offer, but his attorney later said he would not testify, even with the grant of immunity. This should have been brought out, and Comey should have been asked what he knew about the offer, and whether it was ever communicated to the FBI that the guy had accepted.
Comey should also have been asked how often witnesses in federal cases have turned down offers of immunity from prosecution. It's damn rare, for obvious reasons. But Pagliano knows that if Hillary won the election he won't have to worry about being prosecuted for anything.
As an aside: All of Pagliano's emails from the time Hillary was SecState have vanished.
Yes, all. Someone should have asked Comey if the FBI tried to obtain either an "interview" or sworn testimony from Pagliano, and if so, what they learned. At the very least, the committee should have put the FBI director on record as admitting that the guy who set up Hillary's private email account was offered immunity for testifying and--astonishingly--turned it down. That, by itself, speaks volumes.
I suspect Comey would have said "I have no information on that. I can't speak to that issue."
For those old enough to remember, back in 1987 a Democrat-run congress offered Lt.Col. Oliver North immunity in exchange for his testimony about a thing called "Iran-Contra." North testified, admitting that he had lied to congress previously. He admitted shredding government documents related to Iran-Contra. That would be equivalent to deleting emails, and refusing to use a government server which would have made deleting those emails far more difficult.
Despite being granted immunity, North was later charged with lying to congress. He was indicted on 16 felony counts, and was initially convicted of aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry and ordering the destruction of documents. He was sentenced to two years probation, $150,000 in fines, and 1,200 hours of community service. However, these convictions were later overturned after the appeals court found that witnesses in his trial might have been impermissibly affected by his immunized congressional testimony.
Imagine the screams of outrage from the NYTimes, WaPo and the rest of the Democrat media if North had refused the offer of immunity and had refused to testify!
The mainstream Dem media would have concluded--correctly--that the fix was in. NO rational person turns down immunity--unless the fix is in. For example, a witness against a mob boss might well conclude that testifying would get him killed.
There's more but I'm not in the mood to continue trying to hold back the tide. A "perfect storm" of impossibly unlikely events has converged to make this clearly incompetent woman the next president. (And I'm certainly not a Trump fan.)
May God help the United States.