As Special Counsel Robert Mueller digs deeper into the Russian interference, an interesting detail surfaced. The "lost" emails of Hillary Clinton's private servers are not lost. In fact, they are in possession of NSA. NSA offered Hillary's lost emails to the FBI and Comey turned them down.
Per New York Post:
Remember, the Republicans now control this committee. So bad news isn’t going to be stifled anymore.
Clinton, you probably remember, “lost” her private emails, which she’d been storing on a personal computer server. Comey chastised her harshly in a televised speech but then said there was a unanimous decision not to recommend prosecution.
Clinton’s emails, which were stolen by the Russians, have never been found. But as I’ve mentioned numerous times, the messages are still in the possession of the National Security Agency (NSA), which offered to give them to the FBI.
Comey turned down that offer, according to a source who has been very reliable.
I’ve also mentioned that Comey fibbed when he said his agents unanimously agreed that prosecution was unnecessary. In fact, my source says that FBI agents were irate about the decision not to go after Clinton.
Details continue to surface that damage the reputation of former FBI Director James Comey. Just last week a report was revealed that said Barack Obama made the decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton.
Per National Review:
Let’s think about what else was going on in April 2016. I’ve written about it a number of times over the last year-plus, such as in a column a few months back: On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated. This is precisely the reasoning that Comey relied on in ultimately absolving Clinton, as I recounted in the same column: On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute).
The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved. Obama’s April statements are the significant ones. They told us how this was going to go. The rest is just details. In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to succeed him, to be indicted. Conveniently, his remarks (inevitably echoed by Comey) did not mention that an intent to endanger national security was not an element of the criminal offenses Clinton was suspected of committing – in classic Obama fashion, he was urging her innocence of a strawman crime while dodging any discussion of the crimes she had actually committed.
As we also now know – but as Obama knew at the time – the president himself had communicated with Clinton over her non-secure, private communications system, using an alias. The Obama administration refused to disclose these several e-mail exchanges because they undoubtedly involve classified conversations between the president and his secretary of state. It would not have been possible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information without its being clear that President Obama had engaged in the same conduct. The administration was never, ever going to allow that to happen.
So Comey wrote a memo in April or May in 2016 saying he was exonerating Hillary, well before the investigation was over. Then he formally exonerated her on July 2, 2016.
What the heck is going on, James Comey?
Leave a Reply