Thanks to the persistence and pressure applied by Judicial Watch and other watchdogs of freedom, events surrounding the decision by former FBI Director James Comey to criticize, but fail to proffer charges, against former presidential candidate and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are beginning to show why. About a week ago, a Washington federal judge ordered the release of FBI files involving Clinton's computer malfeasance and the part played by the FBI in it.
A review of some of the files reveals that Comey was on track to recommending charges against Clinton when he changed his mind after meeting with his senior leadership team. The entire team consisted of political appointees by the previous administration and one key member still remains in place as second-in-command under the new FBI Director, Christopher Wray. Who was that team member? Why it's none other than Andrew McCabe, the man whose own wife received nearly three quarter of a million dollars in campaign funds for her unsuccessful candidacy for the Virginia State Senate. The funds were provided via Terry McAuliffe, then the Governor of Virginia and, of course, a close confidant of Clinton herself.
When Comey gathered his team to review his report of findings prior to submission, one glaring statement was identified and McCabe was one of those recommending a change. The original draft included the term "gross negligence" and it was recommended by McCabe and others that it be changed to "extreme carelessness." Now from a practical standpoint, one might ask what's the big deal? Doesn't it mean just about the same thing? And, yes, that is reasonably accurate but with the law words have to be precise. And the actions that Clinton took, or failed to take with security on her use of computers, is defined in federal code as "gross negligence", a charge that on conviction would draw a hefty fine and jail time.
It was a big difference and now that we also know Comey wrote his exoneration far in advance of completion of evidence review, the fix was in. That's why his statement when he went public looked like he was going to charge her when he suddenly said he didn't think a prosecutor would take such a case. Really, Mr. Comey." Many have.
This is far from over and coupled with the real "Russiagate," not the false one that the media has pushed, it looks like Comey has some more serious explaining to do. And for those of you who will blindly ask where is the evidence, my response is this. Start reading John Solomon's work at TheHill.com or Sara Carter at Circa News. These two investigative journalists, working for sites that can by no means by labelled as conservative, have dug deep for the truth and they are bringing it out. Enlighten yourselves, the country needs the truth.
A review of some of the files reveals that Comey was on track to recommending charges against Clinton when he changed his mind after meeting with his senior leadership team. The entire team consisted of political appointees by the previous administration and one key member still remains in place as second-in-command under the new FBI Director, Christopher Wray. Who was that team member? Why it's none other than Andrew McCabe, the man whose own wife received nearly three quarter of a million dollars in campaign funds for her unsuccessful candidacy for the Virginia State Senate. The funds were provided via Terry McAuliffe, then the Governor of Virginia and, of course, a close confidant of Clinton herself.
When Comey gathered his team to review his report of findings prior to submission, one glaring statement was identified and McCabe was one of those recommending a change. The original draft included the term "gross negligence" and it was recommended by McCabe and others that it be changed to "extreme carelessness." Now from a practical standpoint, one might ask what's the big deal? Doesn't it mean just about the same thing? And, yes, that is reasonably accurate but with the law words have to be precise. And the actions that Clinton took, or failed to take with security on her use of computers, is defined in federal code as "gross negligence", a charge that on conviction would draw a hefty fine and jail time.
It was a big difference and now that we also know Comey wrote his exoneration far in advance of completion of evidence review, the fix was in. That's why his statement when he went public looked like he was going to charge her when he suddenly said he didn't think a prosecutor would take such a case. Really, Mr. Comey." Many have.
This is far from over and coupled with the real "Russiagate," not the false one that the media has pushed, it looks like Comey has some more serious explaining to do. And for those of you who will blindly ask where is the evidence, my response is this. Start reading John Solomon's work at TheHill.com or Sara Carter at Circa News. These two investigative journalists, working for sites that can by no means by labelled as conservative, have dug deep for the truth and they are bringing it out. Enlighten yourselves, the country needs the truth.
RSS Feed