James Comey, former FBI
director, the shining icon for all those who plague the American body politic
with anti-democratic, lying and corrupt government, along with their lapdog
journalist honchos, is at it again.
Comey, who some suggest
should forever hide in disgrace, pronounced on Oct. 26 that “the House [of
Representatives] has no choice but to pursue an impeachment inquiry.”
This from the man who, by
comparison, has turned the late J. Edgar Hoover into a saint-like public
servant and who has to date chalked up a performance record that reads in small
part:
- Lied when face-to-face with Donald Trump,
both before and after the former businessman assumed the presidency, when Trump
asked whether he was the subject of an FBI investigation.
- Plotted with his FBI underlings to entrap
former national security advisor Michael Flynn, drive him from his White House
position and leave him on the cusp of a term in federal prison for allegedly
lying to FBI agents. (More about this is a forthcoming blog)
- Improperly purloined from his office safe
memos he had written about his meetings with President Trump, said memos being
the property of the government of the United States.
Comey Deserves Contempt,
Not Praise
Rather than examine an
entire litany of unethical, if not illegal, behavior that should warrant his disbarment,
let’s briefly look at some of Comey’s actions during the “probe” of Hillary
Clinton’s email server.
FACT: Prior to assuming
her cabinet-level sinecure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton surreptitiously
established a private email server, perhaps even two, in her Chappaqua, N.Y.
home for use in all government email communications.
FACT: 18 U.S.C. § 1924: “Unauthorized
removal and retention of classified documents or material. (a)Whoever, being an
officer … of the United States, and, by virtue of his office … becomes
possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the
United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority
and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized
location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five
years, or both.”
QUESTION: Absent official
paperwork, does the basement of a private residence in an affluent Westchester
County community even remotely qualify as an authorized location?
ANSWER: In James Comey’s
mind, yes, so long as its Hillary Clinton’s home.
Comey Grants Absolution
To Clinton
According to Comey, in
his July 5, 2016, nationally televised comments regarding the Hillary Clinton
email server “matter” (the use of this word was mandated by Attorney General
Loretta Lynch): “From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State
Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning
agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or
received.”
However, according to the
FBI report made public on Sept. 2, 2016 and available at https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/Hillary%20R.%20Clinton%20Part%2001%20of%2036/view:
“In furtherance of its investigation, the FBI acquired computer equipment and
mobile devices, to include equipment associated with two separate e-mail server
systems used by Clinton, and forensically reviewed the items to recover
relevant evidence. In response to FBI requests for classification
determinations in support of this investigation, US Intelligence Community
(USIC) agencies determined that 81 e-mail chains, which FBI investigation
determined were transmitted and stored on Clinton’s UNCLASSIFIED personal
server systems, contained classified information ranging from CONFIDENTIAL to
TOP SECRET/SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAM levels at the time they were sent between
2009-2013. USIC agencies determined that 68 of these e-mail chains remain
classified.”
In case you, the reader missed it, there were
TWO separate e-mail systems involved!
So, what did the esteemed
James Comey have to say to America on July 5, 2016. (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system) Among other things:
- “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.”
- “None of these e-mails should have been on
any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning
because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not
even supported by full-time security staff.
- “Although there is evidence of potential
violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information,
our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
- “There are obvious considerations, like
the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.” [NB: In the
opinion of many legal experts, intent does not enter into the picture under the
relevant statute.]
- “To be clear, this is not to suggest that
in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no
consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security
or administrative sanctions.”
Comey’s use of the words
in italics (inserted by author) were used to work around the wording of
the relevant law and let Hillary off the hook.
Justice Department
Inspector General Gives Comey Failing Grade
On June 14, 2018, Michael
Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general (OIG), released his report
on various actions taken by the FBI and Justice Department in advance of the
2016 election in connection with the investigation (dubbed “Midyear Exam”) into
Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. (https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download)
Among the findings made
by Horowitz:
- “Sally Yates [former deputy attorney
general] told the OIG that, as a result of her discussions with Comey, she
thought the Department and FBI would jointly announce any declination.”
- “Comey did not raise any of [his] concerns
with [Attorney General Loretta] Lynch or Yates. Rather, unbeknownst to them,
Comey began considering the possibility of an FBI-only public statement in late
April and early May 2016.”
- “Comey’s initial draft statement …
criticized Clinton’s handling of classified information as ‘grossly negligent.’
The description of Clinton’s handling of classified information was changed
from ‘grossly negligent’ to ‘extremely careless.’”
- “At one point [over the course of a
two-month period, the evolving Comey draft] referenced Clinton’s use of her
private email for an exchange with then President Obama while in the territory
of a foreign adversary. This reference later was changed to ‘another senior
government official’ and ultimately was omitted.”
- “Comey admitted that he concealed his
intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference on
July 5, and instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for
Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement. We found
that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found
none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from
well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid
supervision by Department leadership over his actions.”
- “We determined that Comey’s decision to
make this statement was the result of his belief that only he had the ability
to credibly and authoritatively convey the rationale for the decision to not
seek charges against Clinton, and that he needed to hold the press conference
to protect the FBI and the Department from the extraordinary harm that he
believed would have resulted had he failed to do so.”
- We concluded that Comey’s unilateral
announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing
Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s
unchaged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the
Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position
of Department prosecutors.”
To top off the
aforementioned, in August 2019, Horowitz released an investigative report of
“Comey’s disclosure of sensitive investigative information and handling of
certain memoranda.” (https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2019/o1902.pdf)
The report stated:
- “Between Jan. 6, 2017, and April 11, 2017,
while Comey was Director of the FBI, he memorialized seven one-on-one
interactions that he had with President-elect and President Donald J. Trump. We
conclude that Comey’s retention, handling and dissemination of certain Memos
violated Department [of Justice] and FBI policies, and his FBI Employment
Agreement.”
Deputy Attorney General
Gives Blistering Evaluation of Comey
Finally, on May 9, 2017,
Rod Rosenstein, deputy attorney general, submitted a memorandum to the attorney
general, titled “Restoring public confidence in the FBI.” (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3711188-Rosenstein-letter-on-Comey-firing.html)
Here are several key
quotes from the Rosenstein memorandum:
- “Over the past year, however, the FBI’s
reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has
affected the entire Department of Justice.”
- “I cannot defend the Director’s handling
of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do
not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was
mistaken.”
- “The Director was wrong to usurp that
Attorney General’s authority … and announce his conclusion that the case should
be closed without prosecution. It is not the function of the Director to make
such an announcement.”
- “Compounding the error, the Director
ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to
release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal
investigation. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents
are taught not to do.”
And here is what should
have been the coup de grâce to Comey’s sterilized reputation – pronounced by none
other than the esteemed former Attorney General Eric Holder and as published in
the Rosenstein memorandum:
- “Eric Holder, who served as deputy
attorney general under President Clinton and attorney general under President
Obama, said that the Director’s decision ‘was incorrect. It violated
long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to
guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to
conduct investigations during an election season.’ Holder concluded that the
Director ‘broke with these fundamental principles’ and ‘negatively affected
public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.’”
The Bottom Line
James Comey’s track
record as FBI director is chock-full of professional blemishes, to put it
mildly.
That he would make any
pronouncement regarding impeachment is beyond belief except by those who know
him or know about him.
However, what is
absolutely astonishing is that those sages of virtue and truth in the media
still suck up to him and Comey’s fellow deep-staters.
But watch out, James,
because once the heat get high enough your fellow travelers are likely to throw
you under the bus!
-30-
Like this:
Like Loading...
Un-American Activities 