Vincent J. Curtis
4 Sept 17
It was revealed last week that FBI Director James Comey
began drafting his statement of exoneration of Hillary Clinton of criminal
wrongdoing in late April and early May of 2016.
This was before 17 key witnesses were interviewed by the FBI, including
Hillary’s inner circle of advisors and Hillary herself. These facts are cited as a case of the fix
being in for Hillary, and of evidence that Comey may have perjured himself in his June, 2017, testimony before congressional committees.
For those keen followers of this blogspot, Comey’s early
drafts would come as no surprise. In a
July 5, 2016 posting – the day Comey announced his exoneration – headlined “Why
Comey Recommended Against Prosecuting Hillary” I described why Comey would not
recommend prosecution, and these were reasons Comey did not announce.
“If Obama was the one with whom Hillary was
having these conversations that Comey condemned as ought never to have been had
on unsecured means, then Hillary's defense would be that the president knew and
approved it since he was a part of it. In addition, the email chains
containing these TS-SCI matters would likely have to be entered as evidence at
trial.
That the president knew and approved, and that he ought,
therefore, also to be in the docket with her, would constitute a difficult
defense to overcome. The risk of the secret material being entered in
evidence at trial would clinch the matter for the "reasonable
prosecutor."
Obama denied knowing about Hillary's secret server, but we
now know that he did correspond with Hillary on a few occasions on her private
server, at least 22 times. Obama knew the danger of being complicit, and
that's why he denied knowing about it, and why Hillary did not turn over those
emails to the State Department because they could be so damaging to her
possible protector.
Find out who Hillary was having the TS-SCI conversation
with, and we'll understand why Comey recommended against prosecution.”
By the time Comey began drafting his exoneration remarks,
Hillary’s deleted emails had been recovered – as far as they were going to
be. Comey could see that Obama had
corresponded with Hillary using an alias, and that being the case, Hillary’s
reasonable doubt defense was obvious. In
the course of interviewing Huma Abedin, the FBI confirmed that the alias they
thought was the one used by Obama to correspond with Hillary on her secret
system was indeed that one.
The real question is, why Comey did not come clean with his
reasons? Why would he suppress the fact
that Obama was Hillary’s get out of jail free card? Why would he want to protect Obama’s
reputation at that time? Why did he not
toss the “matter” to Attorney-General Loretta Lynch who, despite her meeting
with Bill on the Phoenix tarmac, had NOT recused herself from Hillary’s email investigation? If the whole thing stank that bad, why was he
willing to take one for the team? Did he
think he was part of “the team”? Did he
think he could save his job?
Did he think he would save the country from a certain Trump
victory if the depth of the corruption of the Obama administration – extending to
the President himself - were kept suppressed?
Certainly, his answers to the Senate Intelligence committee in June,
2017, appear much more lawyerly and opportunistic now, in light of this new
information, than they did at the time.
Andrew McCarthy of NRO is also on this track. At the link below:
McCarthy describes the various pressures that Obama applied
publically to Comey to find cause not to prosecute. There is much in what McCarthy says, and he
does hit on the fact that Obama did communicate with Hillary via an alias on
her non-secure server. I hold this to be
THE reason Comey found that “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Hillary –
but this is the reason Comey withheld from the public.
The question now is, why did Comey withhold the real
reason? Was is to withhold from the
public information that might throw the election in favor of Donald Trump? What does this say about his subsequent
conduct as FBI Director after Trump was inaugurated?
In any case, it comes as no surprise to this blog that Comey was planning his exoneration statement so early.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment