FBI, DOJ Furious that Comey, Lynch Decided to Let Clinton off the Hook

From: pjmedia.com,  by Debra Heine,  on Oct 13, 2016

james-comey-being-sworn-in

I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Three months after FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic press conference announcing his decision not to recommend an indictment in the Clinton email case, disgusted FBI agents who worked on the investigation are finally beginning to speak out anonymously about the decision.

Comey told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on July 7  that the decision was unanimous among the investigative team, but a person who was closely involved in the year-long probe told Fox News it was the other way around. According to the source, “career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.”

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute — it was a top-down decision,”said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

Another source — a high-ranking FBI official —  told Fox News that it may not have been a unanimous decision, but “it was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.” He also said, contra James Comey, that the majority of the agents who worked on the case did want to see her indicted.

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official said. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

It made no sense to the public, either.

Comey tried to quash dissension in the ranks with an internal memo to FBI employees last month, explaining that the decision to forgo criminal charges in the investigation was not even a close call.

“At the end of the day, the case itself was not a cliff-hanger; despite all the chest-beating by people no longer in government, there really wasn’t a prosecutable case,” Comey wrote in the memo. “The hard part was whether to offer unprecedented transparency about our thinking.”

Andrew Napolitano, a former judge and senior judicial analyst for Fox News, says that the law enforcement agents he talks to regarding the case are furious.

“It is well known that the FBI agents on the ground, the human beings who did the investigative work, had built an extremely strong case against Hillary Clinton and were furious when the case did not move forward,” said Napolitano. “They believe the decision not to prosecute came from The White House.”The claim also is backed up by a report in the New York Post this week, which quotes a number of veteran FBI agents saying FBI Director James Comey “has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his cowardly whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.”

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit, told the Post. Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello added to the report, saying, “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”

Especially angering the team, which painstakingly pieced together deleted emails and interviewed witnesses to prove that sensitive information was left unprotected, was the fact that Comey based his decision on a conclusion that a recommendation to charge would not be followed by DOJ prosecutors, even though the bureau’s role was merely to advise, Fox News was told.

“Basically, James Comey hijacked the DOJ’s role by saying ‘no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case,’” the Fox News source said. “The FBI does not decide who to prosecute and when, that is the sole province of a prosecutor — that never happens.

“I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”

Napolitano agreed, saying the FBI investigation was hampered from the beginning, because there was no grand jury, and no search warrants or subpoenas issued.

“The FBI could not seize anything related to the investigation, only request things. As an example, in order to get the laptop, they had to agree to grant immunity,” Napolitano said.

Fox News’s source said it became clear that the investigation would go nowhere when the FBI forced the agents and analysts involved in the case to sign non-disclosure agreements.

“This is unheard of, because of the stifling nature it has on the investigative process,” the source said. Also unheard of were the five immunity agreements granted to Clinton’s State Department aides and IT experts.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s former chief of staff, along with two other State Department staffers, John Bentel and Heather Samuelson, were afforded immunity agreements, as was Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s former IT aide, and Paul Combetta, an employee at Platte River networks, the firm hired to manage her server after she left the State Department.

“No one should have been granted immunity if no charges were being brought,” the source said.

Then there was Mills’ dual role as Clinton’s attorney and a witness in the case which should never have been tolerated.

“Mills was allowed to sit in on the interview of Clinton as her lawyer. That’s absurd. Someone who is supposedly cooperating against the target of an investigation [being] permitted to sit by the target as counsel violates any semblance of ethical responsibility,” the source said.“Every agent and attorney I have spoken to is embarrassed and has lost total respect for James Comey and Loretta Lynch,” the source said. “The bar for DOJ is whether the evidence supports a case for charges — it did here. It should have been taken to the grand jury.”

Also infuriating agents, the New York Post reported, was the fact that Clinton’s interview spanned just 3½ hours with no follow-up questioning, despite her “40 bouts of amnesia,” and then, three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing.

Many FBI and DOJ staffers have concluded that Comey and Lynch were motivated by ambition and not justice, according to the source.

“Loretta Lynch simply wants to stay on as attorney general under Clinton, so there is no way she would indict,” the source said. “James Comey thought his position [excoriating Clinton even as he let her off the hook] gave himself cover to remain on as director regardless of who wins.”

Early in the year, former U.S. Attorney Joe diGenova and other conservative politicos predicted that members of the FBI would “revolt” if charges were not brought against Mrs. Clinton.

DiGenova said in January of 2017 that “vitriol of an intense amount” was developing among the intelligence community and they would “fight to the death” to make sure Hillary and her staff faced justice for mishandling classified information. According to two of his sources in the FBI, they were already in the process of “gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges.”

Talk is cheap. Especially anonymous talk to reporters less than a month before an election. The country is still waiting for this vaunted FBI revolt to take place.

Maybe Comey and Lynch aren’t the only ones motivated by ambition.

~~~~~~~~~~

 

From all reports, practically ALL of the professional investigators and attorneys at the FBI and the Department of Justice who worked on the investigation believed that Hillary should have been prosecuted. How is it possible that THEY were all wrong and Director Comey was the only one who saw the truth? Answer: it’s NOT possible. It’s plain that the fix was in and the outcome was never in doubt based on who was pulling the strings – the president. Obama simply couldn’t let Hillary be prosecuted because she knew too much about too many things; she had him by the testes and wouldn’t hesitate to give them a hearty yank if she felt that he threw her under the presidential limo.

There was simply too much coddling of Hillary and her cohorts for this to have been a REAL FBI investigation. The decision by Comey was a fait acompli from the beginning.

Garnet92.



Categories: Political

Tags: , , ,

4 replies

  1. The only way the FBI can redeem itself is to begin profiling everybody inside the DC Beltway and associates along with all associations (including all of the media folks who have been aiding and abetting) in order to begin wholesale corporate charges to hold the bands of thugs accountable for the abusing of OUR Government.
    While during the time that begins, WE need someone who will stand up for OUR Constitutional Heritage and get the attention of Government to abide by the dictions initiated by it and demand that NO branch of Government has any right or authority to overrule either of the branches nor to set themselves over the will of the people who elected them to protect the rights freedoms liberties of for and by the people.
    People have been supportive of Trump with high hope for just that person who will stand for this country to get itself back to abiding to the Constitution.
    Unless someone will stand up and lead the citizens to stand up against the thugs and demand accountability, then my only prospect is to seek refuge as far underground as possible outside the surveillance of whichever band of thugs have charge over wherever I could be at anytime.

    Like

  2. And it was all done right in front of our faces, which is akin to saying, “We’re going to do what we want. We don’t care what the law says.”

    Like

  3. Yes, Comey had already made his decision long before the investigation was over and that’s why Loretta Lynch stated earlier that she would abide by whatever path they chose. She knew he wasn’t going to pursue it.

    Just read that Judicial Watch has requested copies of all the FBI’s backup data. I won’t be surprised if it was destroyed too, but if it exists that will take months, maybe years if they get it at all. By the time they do, it will be too late.

    Like

    • Unfortunately, you’re right. Under Obama, there are apparently standing orders to stonewall all requests for FOIA documents. That is obviously standard operating procedure for democrats, especially when an election is looming – delay, delay, delay.

      For all practical purposes, the government shuts down for the year of so before an election. All of a sudden, people can’t remember anything, documents get “misplaced” and can’t be found (until it’s too late), and FOIA requests get shelved. In other words, nothing incriminating may be said or provided until the election is over (and the democrat has won).

      So much for the “rule of law.”

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: