FBI Director James Comey’s letter to Congress regarding an unexpected development in his agency’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server was brief and vague, creating a vacuum that has been filled by distorted claims — mostly from the campaign of Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump:
• Trump strung together a series of debunked claims about Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of State to conclude that “this is bigger than Watergate.”
• Trump also repeated his unsupported claim that Clinton’s “criminal action was willful, deliberate, intentional and purposeful.” The FBI found no evidence that Clinton “intended to violate laws” on classified information.
• Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, claimed that Clinton “continues to refuse to turn over some 33,000 e-mails.” But Clinton’s non-work-related emails were deleted more than a year ago, so Clinton doesn’t have them to turn over.
• Clinton claimed that the FBI letter to Congress was “sent to Republican members of the House” and was “only going originally to Republican members of the House.” Both claims are false.
• Clinton’s campaign chairman claimed the FBI review of the new emails “might not be about [Clinton’s] server.” But the FBI has said it is reviewing the emails that “appear to be pertinent to the investigation” of Clinton’s “personal email server.”
On Oct. 28, the FBI director sent a three-paragraph letter to Congress that said FBI investigators, during the course of an unrelated investigation, found “the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent” to its prior investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of State. The letter said the FBI will review those emails “to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”
Comey wrote that “the FBI cannot yet assess whether this material may be significant” or how long the review will take.
Multiple news reports, citing anonymous law enforcement officials, said emails were found on a computer owned by Anthony Weiner, who is the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide and former deputy chief of staff at the State Department.
The news came more than three months after Comey announced on July 5 that the FBI had completed its investigation and recommended that no charges be brought against Clinton or her aides for mishandling classified information.
The FBI’s review of potentially new evidence comes less than two weeks before Election Day. The lack of hard information and the timing of the FBI’s announcement have created conditions that are ripe for distortions.
Wikileak evidence that both Clinton and Cheryl Mills lied to the FBI:
ReplyDeletehttp://dailycaller.com/2016/11/01/this-wikileaks-email-proves-cheryl-mills-and-hillary-clinton-lied-to-the-fbi/
Guiliani on the corruption seen in the Justice Dept. with re. to the Clinton case:
ReplyDeletehttp://video.foxnews.com/v/5193201718001/?#sp=show-clips
"If she had an Italian name, she'd have been prosecuted already!" :)
Ed Rendell, former Democratic National Chairman, agrees that Comey had to inform Congress:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/ed-rendell-mistake-to-attack-comey/
You should merge this post with the last one, call it:
ReplyDeleteFrum Supporters of Hillary: The sect that believes it is permissible to eat pork and violate other halacha
There are two issues. One is whether or not he should have informed Congress, and the other the specific wording of the letter he sent. I definitely understand that he was stuck between a rock and a hard place with regard to the former issue, as if these facts would come to light only after a Clinton victory he would be accused of "rigging" the election. But the second issue is a different one entirely. Comey issued a letter to the FBI staff explaining why he sent the letter to Congress, which was much more nuanced and detailed concerning what they did or did not know. He wrote: "At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression." Had he included that info in the letter to Congress, it would have prevented certain lawmakers from stating unfounded claims, and limited the impact of the story by keeping it in its true proportion.
ReplyDelete