8:36 AM 10/29/2016
This is a bombshell. Way worse than you imagine.
For one thing, it's a setup: Comey has no intention of prosecuting or investigating the new emails. He wrote the 3-paragraph letter to congressional committee chairmen deliberately to bottle up any revelations, and to ENABLE Hillary and the MSM to claim this was a partisan hit job designed to throw the election to Trump.
Sure enough, every Democrat-supporting mainstream media hack immediately went into the total-defense mode, claiming Comey is a partisan *for the Republicans.*
But use your head: after he blatantly and totally mis-characterized the law regarding mis-handling classified information--claiming one had to show "intent," and that "no responsible prosecutor" would indict someone for grossly compromising top-secret info unless the person did so intentionally.
I've had a top-secret clearance and I can say that Comey's statement was bullshit. As everyone who's ever worked with classified knows. Moreover, Clinton's actions were totally intentional. But we'll leave that for another post.
If you rely on the mainstream media for your news, all you've probably heard is that the FBI is looking into Hilliary's emails *yet again*--and haven't we heard enough about that? Can't they just 'move on' and leave the poor woman alone?
Yeah. So you have no idea what happened. And of course that's not your fault, as you depend on the Mainstream Media to tell you the truth.
Hahahahaha! That cracks me up every time.
So let me bring you up to speed on what's happened and what it means.
First, Comey is a total Hillary supporter, as shown by his mis-characterization of the law to let her off for compromising TOP-SECRET info--let alone the millions he's been paid by various arms of the Clinton foundation.
So why write the letter? What could possibly have forced his hand? Easy: After it was discovered that Weiner had been sexting a 15-year-old, the federal law against child sex predators triggered the FBI to go into reflexive "get that child molester" mode--which allows agents to seize every electronic device in the suspect's home.
Every. Electronic. Device.
No one EVER imagined the agents would find Hilliary's "deleted" emails on Weiner's laptop.
In searching every file on the laptop--which the procedure for child-porn requires them to do--agents reportedly found a huge number of emails--a "law enforcement source" tells one news agency that the number is "in the five figures"--to Weiner's wife--Hillary's closest aide for over 20 years, Huma Abedin. While no one has said whether those emails were to or from Hilliary, the fact that Comey specifically said they were revisiting the matter of Hillary's emails strongly suggests she's on one end or the other.
But since the head of the FBI already said he'd never indict her for what the investigation had already found, why would new emails be a problem? It's almost certainly because some of those emails discussed sensitive overseas developments--breaking events she'd need to know about while she was weighing down the office of SecState.
Those developments would have been explained in the original email. And by default, most email programs automatically include the previous exchanges with each reply.
But important, busy people never take the time to delete the prior exchanges--as shown by the Wikileaks emails. And it's likely that for events overseas, many of those exchanges would likely show information captured by "signals intelligence"--electronic traffic intercepted by the U.S.
The type and origin of the signals the U.S. intercepts overseas are among the most highly-sensitive information in government. When the FBI agents found emails referencing these intercepts the law obligated them to report those findings up the chain.
At that point a mundane sex investigation involving an under-age girl and a former Democrat congresscritter suddenly blew up, big-time.
And we're just getting started.
If Comey hadn't so brazenly lied about the law back in July, he might have been able to cover this one up. But at least some
of the FBI agents who's worked on the investigation of Hilliary's email server were honest, and knew breaking that law didn't require intent. That is, her acts definitely warranted prosecution. And when Comey told congress that the decision not
to indict was "unanimous" these honest FBI agents were justifiably angry. It was clearly yet another case of some people being above laws that less-powerful people had to obey.
So Comey knew that if he refused to acknowledge the new discovery he'd never be able to keep rank-and-file agents from leaking word of the discovery. That would be a problem. But clearly, he could have pretended to be consulting with top officials of the just-us dept (Loretta "the Constitution isn't the law" Lynch) for another week, in which case the election would be over with no damage to his client.
So the huge question is, why did he write to congress now if he didn't have to? It's not a matter of--as the Left is claiming--pressure being put on Comey by Republicans in congress, since he can't be fired.
Consider this: When someone does something seemingly against their own interest, when not forced to do so, there's always a compelling reason.
That's true here, and in this case it's brilliant: By making the announcement, Comey can plausibly claim that Bureau procedures prevent him from revealing any information--cuz it's "an ongoing investigation," right? This lets Hilliary, Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media claim his letter to congress is purely and totally an attempt by a partisan Republican (yes, Comey is nominally a Republican!) to sabotage her campaign. She's already asked that Comey explain the details of what the bureau found, and will then claim that his refusal to do so proves
that this is a partisan hit job!
It's a cunning strategy. And of course the members of the Mainstream Media are all eager to cooperate. One of the first I could find is from the WaPo--and the headline alone is a magnificent piece of pro-Clinton propaganda: "A British tabloid story is the reason for Hillary Clinton's new nightmare."
Ah, yes, of course: It's not the emails containing highly sensitive national security information, but the fact that those awful Brit tabloids are, you know, *telling* people about it! See, those foreigners are trying to interfere in our elections yet again!
Guess if the narrative that Wikileaks was really done by the Russians didn't convince enough voters, the Dems wanted to have a backup scapegoat. Nice.
The WaPo story is datelined Friday, 10/28 at 5:07pm
--mere hours after the letter was announced. Here's the text:
"This is the sentence, published in September by the Daily Mail, that led to Hillary Clinton's new FBI woes: "Anthony Weiner carried on a months-long online sexual relationship with a 15-year-old girl during which she claims he asked her to dress up in 'school-girl' outfits for him on a video messaging application and pressed her to engage in 'rape fantasies.'"
By the time of that report, Weiner's sexting relapse had been exposed weeks earlier by the New York Post, which published messages that the former New York congressman exchanged with a "40-something divorcee." The New York Post story prompted Weiner's wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, to announce she was leaving her husband, but it did not suggest criminal behavior.
The Daily Mail's follow-up story, however, alleged that Weiner had traded sexually explicit messages with an underage girl and caught the FBI's attention. As The Washington Post noted Friday, in the process of investigating Weiner, the FBI examined a computer shared by Weiner and Abedin and happened upon emails deemed relevant to the agency's earlier probe of the way Clinton and aides handled classified information during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.
Thus we have Friday's news that the FBI is renewing its inquiry into Clinton's use of a private email server. All because of story in a British tabloid.
I wrote in August about the way British tabloids influence election coverage here in the States, but this is next-level stuff. It is one thing to revive conspiracy theories about the death of Bill Clinton administration counsel Vince Foster; it is another to spur FBI action that rocks the race less than two weeks before Election Day."
The author of the piece is "Callum Borchers." Pic here:
Notice how deftly Borchers re-framed the "problem:" It's not the emails that almost certainly showed evidence of top secret communication intercepts, but rather "All because of story in a British tabloid.
No. Not even close. But Dems and their hordes of low-information voters will never figure it out.
Then four hours later the WaPo follows up with this: "Computer seized in Weiner probe prompts FBI to take new steps in Clinton email inquiry."
It's datelined Friday, 10/28 at 9:32 pm.
Interestingly the very first item in the story is a 3-minute video of Hilliary giving a press conference in Des Moines, captioned "Hillary calls on FBI to release information..." Which both Hilliary and Comey know he must refuse to do...cuz "ongoing investigation." Mission accomplished.
"Newly discovered emails found on a computer seized during an investigation of disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner thrust the controversy over Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server back into the presidential campaign less than two weeks before the election.
Officials said the discovery prompted a surprise announcement Friday by FBI Director James B. Comey that the agency would once again be examining emails related to Clinton’s time as secretary of state.
In a letter to lawmakers, Comey said the FBI would take “appropriate investigative steps” to determine whether the newly discovered emails contain classified information and to assess whether they are relevant to the Clinton server probe.
The emails, numbering more than 1,000, were found on a computer used by both Weiner (D-N.Y.) and his wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, according to law enforcement officials with knowledge of the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The correspondence included emails between Abedin and Clinton, according to a law enforcement official.
Federal officials have been examining sexually suggestive online messages that Weiner allegedly exchanged with a teenage girl. The link to the Weiner investigation was first reported by the New York Times.
Comey’s announcement appears to resume the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s server, which previously ended in July with no charges.
The announcement could reshape a presidential race that Clinton, the Democratic nominee, has been leading in most public polls. It was immediately hailed by Republican nominee Donald Trump, who told supporters at a New Hampshire rally that “perhaps, finally, justice will be done.” The crowd responded with pumped fists and chants of “Lock her up! Lock her up!”
Clinton told reporters Friday night in Iowa that she learned of the newly discovered emails only after the letter to Congress was made public.
“I’m confident whatever [the emails] are will not change the conclusion reached in July,” she said. “Therefore, it’s imperative that the bureau explain this issue in question, whatever it is, without any delay.”
Asked about the connection to Weiner, Clinton said: “We’ve heard these rumors. We don’t know what to believe.”
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta called it “extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election.”
Officials familiar with the inquiry said it was too early to assess the significance of the newly discovered emails. It is possible, they said, that some *or all* of the correspondence is duplicative of the emails that were already turned over and examined by the FBI. ['Nothing new here, citizen. Move on.']
Comey made a similar point in his letter, sent to congressional committee chairmen, saying that the FBI “cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.”
The letter, which was three paragraphs long, contained few details.
He wrote that the FBI, in connection with an “unrelated case,” had recently “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the Clinton investigation.”
Comey wrote that he was briefed on the new material Thursday. “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation,” he wrote.
An FBI spokesman on Friday declined to elaborate, and a spokesman for Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch declined to comment.
Comey provided no details about the unrelated case that resulted in the discovery of the new emails.
The official said that Comey, once told about the find, felt an obligation to inform Congress, since he had previously told lawmakers that the investigation had been completed.
Abedin, who has worked for Clinton since the 1990s, is vice chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign. She exchanged thousands of emails with Clinton while serving as her deputy chief of staff at the State Department. She, like Clinton, used an email address routed through the private server.
Weiner, who represented a New York City congressional district, resigned from his House seat in 2011 after he accidentally tweeted an explicit photo of himself that he had intended to send to a supporter.
The federal inquiry into Weiner’s contact with the teenager was sparked by a September report in the Daily Mail tabloid. [Once again--as always--we learn about scandals on Democrats not from *our* media but from overseas papers. How...helpful...for Democrats, though not for American voters.]
When Comey announced the FBI’s findings in July, he said that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of classified material, which was found among the emails exchanged on her private server.
He said then that his investigators had found evidence of potential violation of laws governing the handling of classified information.
But he said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges because investigators had not found evidence that there had been intentional mishandling of classified material, or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.
Comey had come under *enormous pressure from Republicans* for his recommendation to bring no case against Clinton. [What kind of "pressure," exactly? The director can't be fired. What else could congress do to pressure him?]
Podesta on Friday cited the political pressure on Comey in questioning the director’s actions, saying that Republicans had been “browbeating” career FBI officials “to revisit their conclusion in a desperate attempt to harm Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.”
Democrats said Friday that the lack of detail from the FBI allowed Republicans to mischaracterize its actions. Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told CNN that Comey was “unleashing a wildfire of innuendo.”
The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), issued a blistering statement Friday expressing shock at the FBI’s vague announcement, which she said “played right into the political campaign of Donald Trump.”
“The FBI has a history of extreme caution near Election Day so as not to influence the results,” she said. “Today’s break from that tradition is appalling.”
Wonder if Feinstein would have "issued a blistering statement" if emails had been discovered between Trump to Putin showing collusion, and the FBI had re-opened an investigation? Do you think she'd condemn that? No, I didn't think so either.
Then at 9:30am the next day--Saturday, just 12 hours after the story broke--the Post posted a much different twist on the event. According to the Post the real story here isn't
the discovery of tens of thousands of emails that might prove Clinton compromised our most sensitive national security methods, but outrage against Comey for reopening the investigation.
"Comey under fire for his controversial decision on the Clinton email inquiry:"
FBI Director James B. Comey decided to inform Congress that he would look again into Hillary Clinton’s handling of emails during her time as secretary of state for two main reasons: a sense of obligation to lawmakers and a concern that word of the new email discovery would leak to the media and raise questions of a coverup.
The rationale, described by officials close to Comey’s decision-making on the condition of anonymity, prompted the FBI director to release his brief letter to Congress on Friday and upset a presidential race less than two weeks before Election Day. It placed Comey again at the center of a highly partisan argument over whether the nation’s top law enforcement agency was unfairly influencing the campaign.
In a memo explaining his decision to FBI employees soon after he sent his letter to Congress, Comey said he felt “an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed.”
“Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record,” Comey wrote to his employees.
The last time Comey found himself in the campaign spotlight was in July, when he announced that he had finished a months-long investigation into whether Clinton mishandled classified information through the use of a private email server during her time as secretary of state. After he did so, the denunciation was loudest from Republican nominee Donald Trump and his supporters, who accused the FBI director of bias in favor of Clinton’s candidacy. There was also grumbling within FBI ranks, with a largely conservative investigative corps complaining privately that Comey should have tried harder to make a case.
This time the loudest criticism has come from Clinton and her supporters, who said Friday that Comey had provided too little information about the nature of the new line of investigation and allowed Republicans to seize political ground as a result. The inquiry focuses on Clinton emails found on a computer used by former U.S. congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), now under investigation for sending sexually explicit messages to a minor, and top Clinton aide Huma Abedin, who is Weiner’s wife. The couple have since separated.
“It is extraordinary that we would see something like this just 11 days out from a presidential election,” John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s presidential campaign, said in a statement. “The Director owes it to the American people to immediately provide the full details of what he is now examining. We are confident this will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.”
Officials familiar with Comey’s thinking said the director on Thursday faced a quandary over how to proceed once the emails, which number more than 1,000 and may duplicate some of those already reviewed, were brought to his attention.
Comey had just been briefed by a team of investigators who were seeking access to the emails. The director knew he had to move quickly because the information could leak out.
The next day, Comey informed Congress that he would take additional “investigative steps” to evaluate the emails after deciding the emails were pertinent to the Clinton email investigation and that the FBI should take steps to obtain and review them.
In July, Comey had testified under oath before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the FBI was finished investigating the Clinton email matter and that there would be no criminal charges. Comey was asked at the hearing whether he would review any new information the FBI came across.
[Link to story: "Hillary Clinton calls on FBI to release information on emails"]
“My first question is this, would you reopen the Clinton investigation if you discovered new information that was both relevant and substantial?” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) asked Comey during the hearing.
“It’s hard for me to answer in the abstract,” Comey replied at the hearing. “We would certainly look at any new and substantial information.”
In the Friday memo to his employees, Comey acknowledged that the FBI does not yet know the import of the newly discovered emails. “Given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression,” Comey wrote.
Comey’s action has been blasted by some former Justice Department officials, Clinton campaign officials and Democratic members of Congress.
“Without knowing how many emails are involved, who wrote them, when they were written or their subject matter, it’s impossible to make any informed judgment on this development,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who called the release “appalling.”
“However, one thing is clear: Director Comey’s announcement played right into the political campaign of Donald Trump, who is already using the letter for political purposes. And all of this just 11 days before the election,” Feinstein said.
Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman in the Obama administration, said the FBI rarely releases information about ongoing criminal investigations and does not release information about federal investigations this close to political elections.
“Comey’s behavior in this case from the beginning has been designed to protect his reputation for independence no matter the consequences...to people under investigation or to the FBI’s own integrity,” Miller said.
Miller and other former officials pointed to a 2012 Justice Department memo saying that all employees have the responsibility to enforce the law in a “neutral and impartial manner,” which is “particularly important in an election year.”
Miller said he had been involved in cases related to elected officials in which the FBI waited until several days after an election to send subpoenas. “They know that if they even send a subpoena, let alone announce an investigation, that might leak and it might become public and it would unfairly influence the election when voters have no way to interpret the information,” Miller said.
Nick Ackerman, a former federal prosecutor in New York and an assistant special Watergate prosecutor, said Comey “had no business writing to Congress about supposed new emails that neither he nor anyone in the FBI has ever reviewed.”
He added: “It is not the function of the FBI director to be making public pronouncements about an investigation, never mind about an investigation based on evidence that he acknowledges may not be significant.”
C'mon, Post: Comey's acknowledgement that the emails may not be significant is the telltale that he isn't remotely trying to damage Hilliary. He wrote the letter to the congressional chairmen to try to prevent rank-and-file agents from disclosing the damaging material they'd seen on Weiner's laptop.
This was a ploy from the outset, designed to insulate Hilliary. And it's working.