Ladies and gentlemen, the video below is well worth nine minutes of your time. Finally, a politician — Trey Gowdy — cuts to the proverbial chase with pointed questions that do not utilize mealy-mouthed weasel words and word pablum. He is nothing but clear.
As a law enforcement officer of 41 years and still a Sheepdog, Comey embarrasses me. He dishonors his oath and denigrates those 100+ agents who worked for over a year on the Hillary Clinton server case. I have been attacked on various forms of social media for daring to state the obvious, because those persons have no idea how the criminal justice system works.
Let there be no mistake: James Comey is nothing more than a POLITICAL HACK. In my best and most gracious estimation, Comey thinks he “took one for his team.”
In my worst and most despicable interpretation, Comey has caved on every ethical principle. James Comey is nota stupid individual. Therefore, I can only conclude that his decision was proffered but upon his own career in mind and nothing else.
Shame on you, sir. Shame on you.
You do not want to hear or read the thoughts I have of you now.
Make no mistake. James Comey is a country-destroying weasel, first for not recommending the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and second for not placing Hillary Clinton under oath or recording her in any fashion when interviewed on the July 4th weekend. There is, thusly, no transcript of her interview.
To me it is quite clear that FBI Director James Comey, about whose probity I wrote quite a number of times on the blog, has dishonored his law enforcement oath, showing that he has no fidelity, no bravery and no integrity with regard to his decision to not recommend prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
But in today’s hearing with Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz as documented at Politico, James Comey revealed his flawed and craven, cowardly political thinking when one is familiar with law enforcement prosecutorial thresholds as I am.
Director Comey determined a manner in which to weasel his way out of recommending the prosecution of Clinton. At Thursday’s hearing he went out of his way — again, just like Wednesday — to make his own case and then fall back on a position/decision that isn’t his to make.
FBI director: Clinton’s statements were not true
by Nick Gass
FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton’s statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau’s investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.
During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI’s investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.
“That is not true,” Comey said. “There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents.”
Asked whether Clinton’s testimony that she did not email “any classified material to anyone on my email” and “there is no classified material” was true, Comey responded, “No, there was classified material emailed.”
“Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?” Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.”
Comey admits that Clinton lied. But here is the difference (that we won’t know precisely because there was no oath and no recording).
You can lie publicly all you want, if people are sufficiently stupid to believe it — like much of the electorate and the American Media Maggots are doltish enough. But you should not lie to the FBI. My guess is that Hillary Clinton came relatively clean in 3.5 hours. And that is why I believe she was not placed under oath and the interview was not recorded. Things like that make it easier to dispute later when politically necessary. There is no record and it is not completely official. As the Church Lady would have said, “how con-veee-nient.”
Gowdy asked whether Clintons’ lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, “No.”
But here, ladies and gentlemen, comes the crux of the proverbial biscuit. Please read this carefully, though through Gowdy’s bit of humor:
“In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?” Gowdy inquired.
Wait for it.
“Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?” Gowdy asked. “Consciousness of guilt and intent.”
Please read the rest of the article here, because we are going to jump to another Politico article. Politico purposely does not let you make this link. You have to be smarter than Politico and make the link as I now display to you. We continue:
Comey: Clinton did not lie to the FBI
by Nick Gass
Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI investigators during their probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.
“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI,” Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing’s opening exchanges.
Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI,” Comey said.
Weasel words. Mealy-mouthed. Word pablum. You cannot determine that Clinton lied to the public? You just made your best case that she did. If she didn’t lie to your agents under oath, and you’re unsure if she lied to the public, then why didn’t you simply say so? Instead, you went out of your way to say the opposite. Your statements are conflicting and make no sense whatsoever.
But the most insightful part has arrived. Comey outs himself:
Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.
“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “
And this is how James Comey attempts to rationalize his decision. He states he does not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization. All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.” That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do. Their jobs. They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.
Don’t think I don’t see through your cowardice for political purposes, James Comey.
FBI Director James Comey figured out how to cover his own ass by revealing some truths about Hillary Clinton whilst simultaneously making nice with those in DC power positions who could hurt him seriously. This is Comey’s false justification for his decision. And it is clearly wrong and damaging. He created his “out.”
Or did he just believe he “took one for the team”?
The US government under Obama (and with guidance and edicts from Mr Obama) cannot and will not fully and properly vet persons seeking entry into the United States.
Witness, for example, US Representative Jason Chaffetz (3rd, UT) take apart various US government drones who admit: they know nothing and, further, they don’t care.
The Obama administration cannot be sure of the whereabouts of thousands of foreigners in the U.S. who had their visas revoked over terror concerns and other reasons, a State Department official acknowledged Thursday.
The admission, made at a House oversight hearing examining immigrant vetting in the wake of major terror attacks, drew a sharp rebuke from the committee chairman.
“You don’t have a clue do you?” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Michele Thoren Bond, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Consular Affairs.
Correct. Your US government doesn’t have a clue. It couldn’t care less.
Feds can’t say whereabouts of those whose visas were revoked over terror threat
That says it all. After having watched the video, can you draw any conclusions?
I certainly can:
The Obama administration isn’t concerned about US security
Obama favors Islam over Christianity
Obama’s minions fear being “offensive” in the face of terror
Obama refuses to name terror because he believes the US is too strong and needs to be taken down; it is responsible for what is bad in the world and needs to make amends, have its power diminished
Each government drone you watched in the video knows they will not be held accountable, they will not be fired, and they will continue to collect their paychecks and enjoy a glorious retirement that you will not experience.
“WHEREABOUTS UNKNOWN OF THOUSANDS WHO HAD VISAS REVOKED IN U.S. DUE TO TERROR CONCERNS.”
Remember: Obama wants to purposely import over one hundred thousand Syrians into the United States.
“Ninety percent of Syrian refugee cases are being approved,” Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian told the panel. “The average worldwide is 80 percent. How stringent of a vetting process can it be if 90 percent are being approved?”
Europe is already doomed. Angela Merkel helped to doom the bulk of Europe with a flood of Muslims and Paris has just begun to pay the price.
If we don’t wise up, this country faces the same plight.
Hillary Clinton recently spoke to CNN this week about her e-mails, and said that she has never received a subpoena regarding those e-mails. At all. This is unequivocal.
Hillary Clinton: “I’ve never had a subpoena. Let’s take a deep breath here.”
Except that Hillary Clinton lied again.
On the Wednesday edition of the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show, former Representative John Campbell interviewed Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who is chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. The conversation between Campbell and Gowdy, transcribed by Duane Patterson, producer of the HHRS, is as follows:
The Transcript:
JC: We have with us on the line now Congressman Trey Gowdy and chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Hey, Trey, great to have you on the show.
TG: Congressman, we miss you, and thank you for having me on.
JC: Well, thank you so much for coming on. Now I’m going to play for you, I’m sure you expected this, the clip from Hillary Clinton yesterday when she was being interviewed on CNN by Brianna Keilar. So please play that clip.
BK: Facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?
HRC: You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions that are, I’ve never had a subpoena.
JC: I’ve never had a subpoena, her words. Congressman Trey Gowdy, did Hillary Clinton lie yesterday?
TG: Well, she certainly had a subpoena. You know, when you lie, a lie suggests an intent to deceive. I can’t imagine whatever intent she could possibly have. I try not to use the word lie. I can certainly tell you this. It is a fact that there was a subpoena issued to her in March of 2015. But Congressman, it’s also a fact that there was a subpoena in existence from another Congressional committee far before that one. So there are two subpoenas. There are letters from Congress. And there’s a statutoryobligation to her to preserve public records. So whether it’s a subpoena in place or whether it’s a statute in place, or whether it’s a Congressional investigation in place, you can’t delete and wipe out public records.
JC: Now Chairman Gowdy, I have the subpoena that your committee sent out, I have a copy of it, sitting in front of me from March of 2015. But you’re now telling me that there was another one prior to that?
TG: Oh, yes, sir. There was, think back right after Benghazi, Jason Chaffetz wrote a letter to Secretary Clinton, in fact, saying Congress has the right and the authority to investigate these attacks. That is tantamount to a ‘do not destroy’ request. And also keep in mind, Congress wrote her directly when she was Secretary of State and asked her specifically, do you ever use personal email. She never answered that question. She never said yes, she never said no. All right, fast forward. The Oversight Committee is looking into Benghazi. They issued a subpoena to the State Department to bring certain documents over to Congress so we can inspect them. It is that subpoena that ultimately led the State Department to give us the first eight emails we got from her.
JC: And when was that?
TG: We got them in August of…
JC: No, but when was that subpoena?
TG: 2013.
JC: 2013?
TG: Yes, sir.
JC: So she, all right, so, because she had this subpoena in March, 2015, and then you’re saying she had another one in 2013.
TG: There was another one to the State Department. In August of 2013, there were two subpoenas sent to the State Department, which are requests for documents. But as a result of that subpoena to the State Department, the State Department then produced to us her emails. So there is no way to claim that there was not some legal process directing that those emails be retained and ultimately produced, because they were.
JC: Yeah, because I’ve read that her trying to weasel out of this is, out of the lie, and I’m going to use that term, and I’m going to get back to it in a minute, but is that well, I thought that the question was whether I was under any subpoenas when the emails were deleted. And so obviously, she had subpoenas. I mean, there is no way that she didn’t have subpoenas. That’s without question. I’ve got them sitting in front of me. But you’re saying that also, there were subpoenas that covered the deletion of those emails?
TG: There are, there were subpoenas in place well before our committee ever existed.
JC: Right.
TG: There were two, one related to ARB documents, and one related to what we call reading room documents. And they were sent to the Department of State asking that Congress be delivered these documents. Where that becomes important is it was as a result of that oversight subpoena that the Department of State first gave us any of her emails. So clearly, her emails were covered by that subpoena, or the Department of State never would have given them to us. Now her out is going to be this, or what she thinks is her out, well, the State Department didn’t have my emails, I did, which then moves us to the law, the statute, the regulation, which places on her an affirmative duty to protect and preserve public records. So whether there’s a subpoena in place or not, the law is and has been in place, you have to preserve public record. She decided on her own what was and was not public record. And John, what’s even worse than that, I mean, think when she left office. She left office in February of 2013, right?
JC: Right.
TG: She didn’t delete and wipe clean that server until the fall of 2014, 20 months later, after she left.
JC: Indicating to me an intent, and I’m not a lawyer, but an intent to deceive.
TG: Well, at a minimum, that timing is curious, isn’t it?
JC: Yeah.
TG: We’re to the point where the Benghazi Committee is up and running, and they’re putting pressure on the State Department. We want the rest of her emails. And next thing we know, she’s swapping letters with the State Department, not telling us about it, she wipes her server clean. Then the story breaks in 2015, hey, all she used is personal email and she had her own server. That’s when we sent the second subpoena. But that first subpoena was clearly sufficient to cover her emails or the State Department wouldn’t have given them to us.
JC: So Chairman Gowdy, what do you do now? If she destroyed evidence under subpoena, and if, and she is now deepening that lie, what are you going to do about it? What can you do about it?
TG: Well, my first, you know, I had another job before I got to Congress…
JC: Yes.
TG: And that one had certain powers, and different powers than the one I have now. My obligation now is to write the final definitive accounting of what happened in Benghazi, which is why I’m interested in her records. I could care less about yoga and bridesmaids dresses. I want the documents that relate to Benghazi. She claimed that she turned the full record over to the State Department, but we learned a week or so ago that there are at least 15 emails or portions thereof that she did not turn over.
JC: Right.
TG: So you know, at some point, the Speaker has a decision to make, or another committee of Congress has a decision to make. I don’t have the authority to subpoena her server. We have asked her to turn it over to a neutral third party so that person, an archivist, and expert in federal records, can make sure that everything that should be in the public domain is in the public domain. I do not care about her personal stuff. I do care about every document that the media, the public, and Congress is entitled to. And we’ll never know the answer to that question until somebody other than her lawyers looks at the server.
JC: Yeah, and I mean, you know, when she says oh, I turned over, I mean, that’s like in any case, the accused saying well, I made the decision about what evidence might be used or not. No, you don’t make that decision. All the evidence has to be presented, right?
TG: Well, look at the three explanations she’s come up with so far. First thing she said was I used a single device for convenience. Well, we know that’s not true. Then she said oh, those emails from Sidney Blumenthal were unsolicited. Well, we now know that’s not true. But the big thing she said is you don’t need to worry about my email arrangement, because I gave everything to the State Department. I erred on the side of inclusion. And next thing we know, we’re getting emails from Sidney Blumenthal that involve her that she never even turned over to the State Department. So we know what she turned over was not complete, just in the area of Libya. About other countries and other issues when she was the Secretary of State, it’s outside my committee’s lane, but I would think the public and the media and Congress would be interested in whether or not there’s a full record of her tenure as Secretary of State. We know it’s not. We just don’t know how deficient the record is.
JC: Chairman Gowdy, I know you’re reluctance to use the word lie. I had that same reluctance when I wore the Congressional pin. You know, oh, this is not true, it’s a falsehood, it’s blah, blah, blah, all that. There’s so much of this, and so much evidence from this woman now, and she was running for president, and the intent is clearly there that she doesn’t want people to know what she did, I think she is lying.
TG: Well, I typically use the phrase demonstrably false. It is false. I can prove that it’s false, and I can prove that you should have known it was false at the time. What I cannot do is climb into someone’s head. I just can’t do it. But for my purposes, it is enough that I know it was false, it was false at the time you said it, and I can make a pretty good circumstantial case that you should have known it was false.
JC: And there’s an awful lot of them there. Congressman Gowdy, Chairman Gowdy, good luck with whatever you can do and whatever you can do to bring to America the truth about Hillary Clinton, because you will never, ever, ever get it from her.
End of interview.
(Thanks to Duane Patterson and Hugh Hewitt.)
The back-and-forth between Gowdy and Clinton is, naturally, described in the stories of the American Media Maggots as much ado about nothing, conducted by biased persons who have no evidence. Salon magazine calls it an “anti-Hillary witch hunt.”
Why do Republicans and Conservatives and Gowdy continue on with Benghazi? Because four good Americans died at that consulate, the US deserves to know the truth, and too many people are refusing to speak about it or are outright lying about it.
This is why some people will not let Benghazi rest.
On August 12, Joe DiGenova, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told Washington D.C.’s WMAL that one of the reasons people have remained tight-lipped about Benghazi is because 400 U.S. missiles were “diverted to Libya” and ended up being stolen and falling into “the hands of some very ugly people.”
DiGenova represents Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson. He told WMAL that he “does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles.”
He claimed his information “comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community.” He said the biggest concern right now is finding those missiles before they can be put to use. “They are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner,” he claimed.
Is this the unspoken nasty secret surrounding Benghazi and the reason the current administration thinks those four deaths mean nothing? And why they’ll do anything to cover it up and minimize it to their best extent?
Perhaps this paragraph will shed some light:
Months earlier, following then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s February 7 testimony on Capitol Hill about the Benghazi attacks, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested that one of the causes behind the terrorist attack “may have been that there was a gun running operation going on in Benghazi, leaving Libya and going to Turkey and [distributing] arms to the [Syrian] rebels.”
As may perhaps my previous postshere and here and here and here.
But no one seems to care.
Which tells me one thing: never work for the federal government. Your death means nothing.
