Here's the Scoop On How James Comey "Fixed" the FBI's Investigation of Hildebeest's Crimes!

This is a devastating comparison that explains in detail exactly how the FBI let hildebeest get off scot-free. I was initially willing to give Comey the benefit of a doubt on his investigation. Not anymore - not after reading this!


The FBI Treated Clinton With Kid Gloves

Investigators went after Gov. Bob McDonnell with every tool they had. The double standard is obvious.

By Noel J. Francisco and James M. Burnham
Oct. 5, 2016 7:16 p.m. ET

Tim Kaine repeatedly defended Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during Tuesday night’s vice-presidential debate. “The FBI did an investigation,” he said at one point, “and they concluded that there was no reasonable prosecutor who would take it further.” But such a statement is credible only if it follows a real criminal investigation—that is, the sort of investigation that the FBI and the Justice Department conduct when they actually care about a case and want convictions.

We know all too well what that kind of investigation looks like, as two of the lawyers who defended a recent target: former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. That story had a happy ending for the governor and his wife. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in their favor this summer and all charges were dropped in September. But their victory certainly wasn’t due to lack of investigatory zeal on the part of the FBI and Justice Department.

Below are only a few of the heavy-handed tactics federal investigators used to build their case against the McDonnells. See how they compare to how Mrs. Clinton was treated.

Conduct ambush interviews. The first contact between law enforcement and the McDonnells was an ambush interview of the governor’s wife. The agents lied to her about the topic of the meeting, forbade Gov. McDonnell’s staff from attending, and then grilled her on their suspicions about potential public corruption. Statements from that interview later took center stage in the trial of her and her husband.

In Mrs. Clinton’s case, no ambush interviews were conducted, and witnesses were generously accommodated. The FBI and Justice Department even allowed a fact witness and potential target— Cheryl Mills, formerly the State Department’s chief of staff—to simultaneously represent Mrs. Clinton as her counsel.

Immunize only witnesses who can help deliver convictions. One person in Gov. McDonnell’s case got immunity: Jonnie Williams, the prosecution’s star witness. For his testimony, Mr. Williams earned a wealth of blanket immunity—not simply from potential bribery prosecution but also from unrelated crimes he might have committed (including securities and tax fraud). Reluctant witnesses—Gov. McDonnell’s children and friends—were called before a grand jury and forced to testify.

Contrast that with Mrs. Clinton’s case. Much of her staff was immunized in exchange for simply meeting with investigators. None of them appear to have been pressed for information, or given any incentive whatsoever to spill on the boss.
Investigate and charge all potential crimes. Prosecutors in Gov. McDonnell’s case collected more than five million pages of documents and filed charges for every potential crime they could. In addition to the corruption charges, the governor and his wife were accused of lying to banks and obstructing justice. The jury acquitted the McDonnells of the former, and the trial judge ruled there was insufficient evidence of the latter. But the prosecutors pursued these charges vigorously, despite their lack of merit.

For Mrs. Clinton, there appears to have been no investigation into crimes beyond the mishandling of classified information. In particular, the FBI seems to have readily accepted Ms. Mills’s claim that she did not learn about Mrs. Clinton’s private server until after both of them had left the government. This is implausible on its face, since the two were in regular email contact while working at the State Department. It is also contradicted by a witness who administered the server, as well as by Ms. Mills’s own emails. These sorts of inconsistencies were enough to get Mrs. McDonnell, Scooter Libby—former Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff—and others indicted for allegedly covering up crimes. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, they weren’t even investigated.

Construe “corruption” broadly. Investigators of Gov. McDonnell took the most expansive possible reading of the law. They argued to the Supreme Court this spring that it was a felony for the governor to arrange meetings between a benefactor and other government officials, even without trying to sway the ultimate decision.

Yet the FBI appears to have done no investigation into how Secretary Clinton’s conduct while in office was affected by massive donations to the Clinton Foundation or large payments for speeches given by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Journalists have unearthed extensive evidence of special treatment: The Associated Press reported that during the first half of her tenure, Mrs. Clinton had meetings or phone calls scheduled with 154 private interests; 85 were Clinton Foundation donors, who in total had pledged or given as much as $156 million.

Claim that concealment proves consciousness of guilt. In Gov. McDonnell’s case, there was no evidence—none—that he ever suspected his conduct could be criminal. Prosecutors tried to show criminal intent by arguing that he “hid” gifts by declining to list them on annual disclosure forms. But Gov. McDonnell complied with Virginia’s disclosure requirements in virtually all respects. The law simply did not require much information to be disclosed. Further, many of his family and staff knew about the gifts. Still, prosecutors claimed that failure to tell the public sufficed to prove a guilty mind.

FBI Director James Comey said that in Mrs. Clinton’s case there was no evidence of criminal intent. Yet she set up a private email server in her basement and permanently deleted thousands of the emails it contained. A plausible motive would be shielding her activities from public scrutiny. The Comey standard—that direct evidence of knowing criminality is needed to prosecute—is certainly not the one that his agency and the Justice Department applied to Gov. McDonnell for more than three years.

To be clear, we aren’t endorsing these heavy-handed tactics, many of which are befitting Inspector Javert of “Les Misérables.” But these are the sorts of things investigators do when they are serious about bringing criminal charges. In deciding whether the investigation into Mrs. Clinton was a real one—as opposed to a grand, expensive spectacle of law-enforcement theater—Gov. McDonnell’s treatment is instructive.

Messrs. Francisco and Burnham practice law at Jones Day in Washington, D.C.

I hope the rank and file FBI personal repudiate Comey. Fuck him. Fuck Lynch, and fuck Obama. It is a rigged system.

Just so much damning information on this corrupt woman.

When Trump gets in, I hope he indites HRC, Comey, Sistine Chapel, Tabasco Humper and all the rest of those sick libs that hate the great USA.

Yeah, the more we learn about how Comey called the shots, the more it stinks! Especially how gingerly the FBI treated Cheryl Mills. Anyone with any experience as an attorney or prosecutor must look aghast at this!


Cheryl Mills’s Legal Privileges

The evidence of a politicized Clinton probe keeps building.

Oct. 5, 2016 7:05 p.m. ET

The more we learn about the Justice Department’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email, the worse it looks. The latest revelation is that, along with granting immunity to two Clinton aides, Justice agreed to secret side deals that provided highly unusual protections from potential prosecution.

The side agreements came to light this week in a letter from House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Mr. Goodlatte says he learned about the side deals by examining the immunity agreements, which haven’t been released to the public.

We already knew that Justice offered immunity to at least five central figures in the private email probe, including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the aides in charge of deciding which of the former Secretary of State’s emails on her private server would be turned over to the State Department. FBI Director James Comey struggled to explain to Congress last week why immunity was necessary to obtain the laptops the two had used for sorting the emails.

Now we learn that Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson also obtained guarantees that investigators would not search these laptops after Jan. 31, 2015. More amazing, Justice agreed to destroy both laptops after examining them. Think about that: Before the authorities knew what was on the laptops, they agreed to destroy potential evidence in their investigation. The evidence was also under a congressional subpoena and preservation order.

The “no-look” date beyond Jan. 31, 2015 means the FBI couldn’t see what the two aides said or did after the news of Mrs. Clinton’s private server became public in March 2015. Investigators would be unable to determine if Ms. Mills or Ms. Samuelson had engaged, as Mr. Goodlatte put it in his letter, in “destruction of evidence or obstruction of justice related to Secretary Clinton’s unauthorized use of a private email server.” Why else would time limits be necessary given that the two women already had immunity?

We’re told by prosecutors that this kind of special treatment is all but unheard of. Justice would typically empanel a grand jury, which would issue subpoenas to obtain physical evidence like the laptops. No grant of immunity would have been necessary.

So why no grand jury? Mr. Comey told Congress last week that the FBI was eager to see the laptop evidence and that it is sometimes easier to have informal agreements to obtain it. But surely it’s possible to negotiate with lawyers and conduct a grand jury at the same time. Without the threat of a grand jury the Clinton entourage had all the leverage, and they were able to get away with what amounted to formal get-out-of-jail-free cards.

Our guess is that Justice also knew that word of a grand jury was likely to leak and further damage Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign. Better to work sotto voce with the Clinton team until Mr. Comey made his public announcement in July that he was recommending that no charges be brought in the case.

All of this adds to the mounting evidence that the FBI and Justice gave Mrs. Clinton and her entourage special political treatment. No grand jury that the public knows about. Immunity. Special side deals. No hard digging into contradictory testimony. An FBI interview only at the last minute. Public exoneration by the FBI director when that isn’t his job. FBI summaries released on the Friday afternoon before Labor Day.

No wonder millions of Americans think the system is rigged.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/cheryl-m...ges-1475708726

THE SYSTEM IS RIGGED!!!


Fuckers!

what else you figure Obama's gonna do for his "homegirl"??? even if he hate her lol

it seems to me the system is rigged

for those at the political top

and then only for those at the political top left

Nixon never caught a break

one reason the top left benefits is the right will turn on its miscreants, the left never does

if Comey won't resign, then congress should impeach him.

I read where the president can't fire him. I could be wrong on this.

I hope the rank and file FBI personal repudiate Comey. Fuck him. Fuck Lynch, and fuck Obama. It is a rigged system. Originally Posted by bambino

I agree. However, I do not understand why anyone still loves America and considers it the freest country or the greatest country.

Compared to the country she once was, today's America sucks.

Our freedom of association is dismal.

if Comey won't resign, then congress should impeach him.

I read where the president can't fire him. I could be wrong on this. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

The President can certainly fire him by telling the Attorney General to do so, and that is where Mr. Comey feels the pressure.
The AG serves at the pleasure of the President, but a good one would not do his bidding. The AG could resign rather than do what the President tells her to do.

Of course, if the President told the AG to do something that Sistine Chapel liked, and the AG didn't do it, Sistine Chapel would accuse the AG of treason, no doubt...