Swamp Rat James Comey Soon BACK IN THE HOT SEAT [VIDEO]

Swamp Rat James Comey Soon BACK IN THE HOT SEAT [VIDEO]

If you’ve had suspicions about how corrupt former discredited FBI Director James Comey, then you’re late to the party.

Comey is a menace who should be in prison with the Clintons and a host of other Democrat swamp creatures.

The man is a serial liar, and political “cleaner” for the Clintons and other high-ranking politicos. I’m not sure we want to know how far the corruption of our government goes, less we revolt.

As True Pundit writes,

Fired ex-FBI Director James Comey is having a difficult time keeping his facts straight. And that includes his testimony under oath of his actions before and after he cleared Hillary Clinton of a host of alleged crimes for classified email breaches.

New shocking intelligence provided by Sen. Chuck Grassley’s Judiciary Committee this week appears to show Comey had prepared a statement clearing Clinton months before the FBI interviewed her and key aides linked to the 33,000 emails Clinton lost from her home-grown, unsecured computer server. That computer was intentionally kept separate from the State Department’s secure messaging infrastructure for classified communications.

But the revelations from Grassley and his senate colleagues mean Comey likely perjured himself on several occasions, making intentionally obtuse and false statements to lawmakers since 2016 regarding his controversial handling of the Hillary Clinton email case.

All you have to do to know definitely that Comey is guilty is listen to how he speaks. When Comey testifies, he makes Bill Clinton’s “That depends on the definition of ‘is'” comment actually sounds reasonable.

Comey selectively remembers things, though when it came to his encounter with President Trump recall Comey took copious notes, afterward.

But that deviation from modus operandi may be the least of Comey’s worries. We wrote at the time,

Remember all the drama Comey gave us in the buildup to letting Hillary Clinton go free?

Masterful delivery, Comey had ALL of America hanging on his every word.

And when it came for the obvious “happy ending,” Comey switched on the TV, and asked, “Was it good for you?!”

As for Comey’s pre-testimony notes, here are the salient points:

  1. The FBI did assure Trump that he was not under investigation. CHECK
  2. Comey did keep memos of his interactions with Trump, something he did NOT do with President Obama. INTERESTING
  3. Trump asked Comey to drop the Flynn investigation. OR SO HE SAYS
  4. Trump asked Comey to expedite the Russia investigation. AND WHY NOT…HE’S INNOCENT!
  5. Trump asked Comey to “get out” that Trump was not under investigation. PRUDENT
  6. While Trump’s actions “concerned” Comey nothing Trump did went beyond disconcerting. None of it was illegal or even unethical. WHAT CONCERN?

The issue that will burn Comey is #2.

We were told that Comey was a meticulous note keeper. And supposedly after each meeting, Comey would journal like a teenage girl lost in love.

As Fox News Katherine Herridge pointed out, Comey only began this practice after Trump became president.

That newfound methodology will prove troublesome for Comey, and I suspect one of the Congressmen will inquire as to why that started under President Trump.

And what of FBI procedure when it came to Hillary Clinton’s “interview”?

Senator Grassley believes Comey decided not to pursue charges against Clinton even before the FBI interviewed her and aides. “Key FBI interviews had not yet occurred when Mr. Comey began drafting his exoneration statement.”

Likewise, Comey’s testimony to Congress differed greatly from the facts uncovered by the Senate Judiciary. According to one Justice Department official, the discrepancies in Comey’s testimony could warrant an easy perjury indictment.

Recall Comey’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Sept. 28, 2016. This transcript showcases glaring discrepancies in Comey’s handling of the Clinton case.

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, for 5 minutes.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Director, did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July the 2nd?

Mr. COMEY. After.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Then I am going to need your help in trying to understand how that is possible. I think there are a lot of prosecutors or former prosecutors that are shaking our heads at how that could be the case.

Because if there was ever any real possibility that Hillary Clinton might be charged for something that she admitted to on July the 2nd, why would two of the central witnesses in a potential prosecution against her be allowed to sit in the same room to hear the testimony?

And I have heard your earlier answers to that.

You said that, well, it was because the interview was voluntary and they were her lawyers. But I think you are skirting the real issue there, Director. First of all, the fact that it was voluntary, it didn’t have to be, right? You could have impaneled an investigative grand jury, she could have been subpoenaed. And I know you have said that you can’t comment on that, and I don’t really care about the decision about whether or not there should have been a grand jury here, but since you didn’t have one, it goes to the issue at hand about whether or not this interview should have ever taken place.

With due respect to the answers that you have given, the FBI and the Department of Justice absolutely control whether or not an interview is going to take place with other witnesses in the room. Because the simple truth is that under the circumstances as you have described those interviews never take place.

If there was ever any possibility that something Hillary Clinton might have said on July 2 could have possibly resulted in criminal charges that might possibly have resulted in a trial against her relating to this classified information, well, then, to use your words, Director, I don’t think that there is any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution proving the case against her to sit in the room with the interview, the FBI interview, of the subject of that investigation. And if I heard you earlier today, in your long career, I heard you say that you have never had that circumstance. Is that—did I hear you correctly?

Mr. COMEY. That is correct, but——

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. And I never have either, and I have never met a prosecutor that has ever had that.

So, to me, the only way that an interview takes place with the two central witnesses and the subject of the investigation is if the decision has already been made that all three people in that room are not going to be charged.

Mr. COMEY. Can I respond?

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Yes. Please.

Note that Comey admits that what he did was highly unusual.

Then, in his next statement he avoids saying why he didn’t follow procedure, and urged people to contact him privately. He doesn’t want his shenanigans displayed under the light of day, as there is NO reason for him to do what he did.

Mr. COMEY. I know in our political lives sometimes people casually accuse each other of being dishonest, but if colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this.

All I can do is to tell you again, the decision was made after that, because I didn’t know what was going to happen in that interview.She would maybe lie during the interview in a way we could prove—let me finish.

I would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to kick out of an interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. That is not my point. The interview never should have taken place if you were going to allow the central witnesses that you needed to prove the case to sit there and listen to the testimony that the subject was going to give. It never happens. It has never happened to you, and it has never happened to me or any other prosecutor that I have met.

And you know you have defended the people that were involved in this of being great, but if it has never happened, I wonder why this is a case of first precedent with respect to that practice that you and I have never seen in our careers.

Mr. COMEY. You and I don’t control the universe of what has happened. I suspect it is very unusual.

A key fact, though, that maybe is leading to some confusion here is we had already concluded we didn’t have a prosecutable case against Heather Samuelson or Cheryl Mills at that point. If they were targets of our investigation, maybe we would have canceled the interview, but, frankly, our focus was on the subject. The subject at that point was Hillary Clinton.

So Comey thinks he’s skated the issue of fellow Clinton crooks Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson.

Ratcliffe defers for the moment, and moves on to an irrefutable co-conspirator, namely Paul Combetta.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. All right. Let me move on. According to the FBI’s own documents, Paul Combetta, in his
first interview on February the 18th told FBI agents that he had no knowledge about the preservation order for the Clinton emails, correct?

Mr. COMEY. I don’t know the dates of that, but I am sure it is in the 302.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. But then 21⁄2 months later, on May the 3rd, his second interview, he made a 180-degree turn, and he admitted that, in fact, he was aware of the preservation order and he was aware of the fact that that meant that he shouldn’t disturb the Clinton emails, correct?

Mr. COMEY. Yep.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Well, then I need your help again here, because when I was at the Department of Justice, your reward for lying to Federal agents was an 18 U.S.C. 1001 charge or potential obstruction-of-justice charge; it wasn’t immunity.

Mr. COMEY. Depends on where you are trying to go with the investigation. If it is a low-level guy and you are trying move up in the chain, you might think about it differently.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. But he lied to an FBI agent. You don’t think that is important?

Mr. COMEY. Oh, it is very important. It happens all the time, unfortunately. It is very, very important. Sometimes you prosecute that person and end their cooperation; sometimes you try and sign them up.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. But if they lie to an FBI agent after they are given immunity, they have violated the terms of their immunity agreement.

Mr. COMEY. Oh, sure, after, after the agreement.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. And so that is my point. He shouldn’t have immunity anymore.

Mr. COMEY. Oh, I am sorry. I may have misunderstood you. He lied to us before he came clean under the immunity agreement and admitted that he had deleted the emails.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. No, not according to the FBI’s documents. He had the immunity agreement in December of 2015. These interviews took place in February and March and May of this year, 2016.

Mr. COMEY. Combetta?

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Combetta.

Let’s be clear. The only person being discussed in this exchange is Combetta. Yet, Comey asks for clarification?

Of course not. Comey used a liar’s technique of asking a question of the question. 

Mr. COMEY. Okay. Then I am—then I am confused and misremembering, but I don’t think that is right.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Well, let me—my time has expired, but I have one last question, and I think that it is important. At this point, based on everything, do you think that any laws were broken by Hillary Clinton or her lawyers?

Mr. COMEY. Do I think that any laws were broken?

Note Comey’s use of asking the question again.


Mr. COMEY. I don’t think there is evidence to establish that.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Well, I think you are making my point when you say there is no evidence to establish that. Maybe not in the way she handled classified information, but with respect to obstruction of justice—and you have a pen here—I just want to makethe sure the record is clear about the evidence that you didn’t have,that you can’t use to prove. So this comes from the FBI’s own report.

It says that the FBI didn’t have the Clintons’ personal Apple server used for Hillary Clinton work emails. That was never located, so the FBI could never examine it. An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton’s email archives was lost, so the FBI never examined that. Two BlackBerry devices provided to the FBI didn’t have SIM cards or SD data cards. Thirteen Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded, or destroyed with a hammer, so the FBI clearly didn’t examine those. Various server backups were deleted over time, so the FBI didn’t examine that.

Keep in mind that Ratcliffe has established that Paul Combatta knowingly deleted Clinton’s emails.

Yet Comey could see no correlation between that act and obstruction of justice?

After the State Department and my colleague Mr. Gowdy here notified Ms. Clinton that her records would be sought by the Benghazi Committee, copies of her emails on the laptops of both of her lawyers, Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, were wiped clean with BleachBit, so the FBI didn’t review that. After those emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from the Platte River Network with BleachBit, so the FBI didn’t review that. And also after the subpoena, backups of the Platte River server were manually deleted.

Now, Director, hopefully that list is substantially accurate, because it comes from your own documents. My question to you is this: Any one of those in that very, very long list, to me, says obstruction of justice. Collectively, they scream obstruction of justice. And to ignore them, I think, really allows not just reasonable prosecutors but reasonable people to believe that maybe the decision on this was made a long time ago not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. And, with that, I yield back.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Director, do you care to respond?

Mr. COMEY. Just very briefly. To ignore that which we don’t have—we are in a fact-based world, so we make evaluations based on the evidence we are able to gather using the tools that we have. So it is hard for me to react to these things that you don’t have. So that is my—that is my reaction to it.



Back to top button