Yet another smoking gun: Senate releases 502 pages of FBI emails showing coverup for Hilliary

Yet another smoking gun:  Five hundred pages of texts among top officials of the FBI, including Comey, McCabe, Priestap, James Rybicki (bet you've never heard that name before, eh?; there's a reason), released by the United States senate.

I haven't seen any other blogger analyze this, probably because it's so damn huge.  In any case: go to page 3 and you'll find one from Rybicki to Comey, dated 10 June 2016--three weeks before Comey appeared before the House committee--live and televised--to clear Hilliary of any wrongdoing in the thousands of TOP SECRET docs she'd sent or had other s send to her unencrypted private email server.

These emails included information beyond Top Secret, called "SCI" (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information) and "SAP" (Special Access Programs).  These classifications are beyond Top Secret, yet Comey never mentioned a single word about them during his testimony before the House committee.  Had he done so--that is, had he been honest about his agency's findings, Hilliary would have been imprisoned.  But Comey supported Hilliary, so instead he cleared her.

In the email noted above, Comey had sent a draft of his clearing speech to the top FBI people asking for their input.

I’ve been trying to imagine what it would look like if I decided to do an FBI-only press event to close out our work and hand the matter to DOJ.  To help shape our discussions of whether that, or something different, makes sense, I have spent some time crafting what I would say, which follows.  In my imagination, I don’t see me taking any questions.  Here is what it might look like:

Comey notes that the FBI examined those emails of Hilliary's that they were able to reconstruct after her agents had deleted the software that stored them.  A few grafs later Comey writes

Xxxx of those contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent;xxxx contained Secret information at the time;

Yet in his testimony before the House committee he said her emails contained nothing over "confidential"--the lowest classification possible.  He didn't say a single word about SAP/SCI emails.

That alone shows that he was corruptly protecting Hilliary, and should be grounds to take away his pension, if not jail him--and all the underlings who knew about his draft speech and helped him tweak it instead of going to the IG or congress with what they knew.  That is, they were ALL in on the coverup.

It gets worse (for Comey and the top FBI lying assholes):

The FBI also discovered xxxx several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014 [Rybicki changed Comey's year here]. 

Wow, cuz Comey didn't mention this at all in his testimony.  And Hilliary repeatedly--many times--claimed she'd turned over ALL work-related emails to the State Department.  The FBI knew this was a lie, yet Comey didn't say a word to the American public.

Moreover, of those several thousand work-related emails that Hilliary did NOT turn over to State, Comey wrote this--again, essentially drafting his later testimony

Of those, we assessed that xxxx possibly contained classified information at the time they were sent or received and so we sent them to other government agencies for classification determinations.  To date, agencies have concluded that xxxx of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, xxx at the Secret level.  There were no additional Top Secret emails found.

So again we see a tacit admission that Top Secret emails were found, showing yet again that a) Hilliary lied, and b) the FBI knew she lied; and c) Comey not only didn't say anything about this in his testimony to congress, but actually lied by saying that the ONLY classified emails the FBI found on her server were the four Confidential ones noted earlier.  That is a flat lie.

Corrupt from top to bottom.
That’s what we have done.  Now let me tell you what we found.  Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information.  For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the TS/SAP level when they were sent and received.  These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails from others about the
same matters.  There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable 

Someone at the FBI--either Rybicki or another corrupt reviewer of Comey's draft--lined thru the following language:

... there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. 

Again, Comey told the House committee Clinton's entire violation involved sending just four Confidential emails.  Not "very sensitive, highly classified information."  Again, total lies.

Similarly, one of the reviewers had lined out all of the following:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statute proscribing gross negligence in the handling of classified information and of the statute proscribing misdemeanor mishandling, my judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.  At the outset, we are not aware of a case where anyone has been charged solely based on the “gross negligence” prohibition in the statute. 
   In looking back at our investigations in similar circumstances, we cannot find a case
that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.  All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of:  (1) clearly intentional misconduct; (2) vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; (3) indications of disloyalty to the United States; or (4) efforts to obstruct justice.  We see none of that here.  

The draft statement "We are not aware of a case where anyone has been charged" is yet another brazen lie by the top FBI people.  Had anyone in the FBI actually done a review of even quite recent cases involving violations of statutes involving gross negligence, they would have found the case of Kristian Saucier, who was sent to prison for a year for taking six souvenir photos aboard the nuclear submarine where he worked.  So saying "We are not aware of a case..." shows they never actually looked for one--because they wanted to clear Hilliary so badly.

Then on page 11 (of the 502 pages of FBI emails) is the final draft of Comey's June 30th testimony to the House committee, which appears to have incorporated all of Rybicki's suggested changes.  And it certainly does put the FBI in a better light--deleting all the admissions of finding SAP/SCI emails on her server.  Nothing like lying to make your org look better, eh?

I'm gonna stop at page 11 for now.  More later.  They should all be in prison.

Next up: the text from December of 2015 that reads

"You get all our oconus lures approved? ;)"

"Oconus" means "outside the continental United States."  "Lures" implies Strzok and Page are seeking the approval of top FBI brass to try to lure some persons in some way.  You'd think the House committee members would be searching for how this turned out.

BTW, when the corrupt Obama holdovers in DOJ released the "oconus" email, the word "lures" was blacked out.   Hmmm, why would they do that, eh?  Oh yeah:  It's yet another indication they were trying to spy on Trump long, long before they had the excuse of the corrupt, Hilliary-funded "Russian dossier."

But I'm sure there's a totally innocent explanation.  Maybe something like "There was no intent to spy on the Trump campaign."  Uh-huh, sure.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Appendix%20C%20-%20Documents.pdf