There are so many aspects of the final days of the Clinton email investigation that raise suspicion.
But it is the last several days before James Comey's announcement-followed by Loretta Lynch's announcement the following day that no charges would be brought- that raise red flags. It seems somewhat choreographed, if you ask me. Consider this:
June 28-Bill Clinton and Lynch meet for a half hour, supposedly by chance, on Lynch's plane at Phoenix Airport and discuss "their grandchildren and golf". No cameras are allowed. As to what was really said we have only Lynch's (and Bill Clinton's) word
July 1- Loretta Lynch announces that she will accept the findings and recommendations of the FBI.
July 2- Hillary Clinton is interviewed at FBI Hqs.
July 5- Comey announces that there will be no charges recommended.
July 6- Lynch announces there will be no charges based on the FBI's recommendation.
Question: Why was the decision by Comey announced only 3 days after the interview of Clinton? Normally, investigators would want to analyze what she said and compare it to other testimony and evidence. Were there points made by Clinton that needed to be corroborated or refuted? Only three days between the interview of the prime suspect and a decision not to charge smells to me.
That leads us to what Hillary said to the agents. Did she tell the truth or were there any lies (since she clearly lied to the public and to Congress-the latter occasion under oath). This is taking into consideration Comey's own words in his press conference in which he refuted several statements previously made by Clinton.
Today, Comey testified before Congress and guess what: There is no transcript of the interview. No transcript-no video.
Pardon me if I suspect that the events of the past week were choreographed. I have no empirical evidence, but is it not possible that:
-Lynch told Comey there would be no charges. That could explain why she told the media she would accept the FBI's "recommendation".
-Lynch told Bill Clinton to get his wife to come in for an interview because this thing was being "wrapped up".
After all, the Democratic convention is looming and Hillary is about to be nominated.
One can only wonder why the FBI and DOJ went to such lengths to grant immunity to Bryan Pagliano, who set up Hillary Clinton's email server. In addition, why did they pluck a Romanian hacker who had claimed to have intercepted communications between Clinton and Sid Blumenthal out of a Romanian prison, bring him to the US, and make a deal with him? Why would they-not just the FBI, but the DOJ- do that if they didn't intend to prosecute someone?
(Note: In Comey's testimony before Congress today, he stated that the latter ("Guccifer") later admitted he lied about the breach.)
Donald Trump is claiming that the "fix was in" and implying that Comey may have been bribed. I don't believe Comey was bribed for a minute, but I do believe the fix was in. Why is Clinton at the least not being charged for perjury before Congress if Comey himself says she made statements before Congress that were false?
And why in the world is there-according to Comey's testimony- no transcript or video of that interview?
It all stinks to high heaven.
5 comments:
I agree that all this does not pass the smell test. What appears before our eyes may not be what we should perceive, is actually a sledge hammer on Hillary's chance at the White House.
Gary, you said: "Why is Clinton at the least not being charged for perjury before Congress if Comey himself says she made statements before Congress that were false?"
In fact, Trey Gowdy did mention, during the committee meeting that the FBI would get a directive to investigate her untrue statements before Congress, under oath (within three hours).
What Director Comey did was brilliant. He spent 18 minutes thoroughly detailing Hillary's six untruths regarding the emails, giving Congress the information about the lies, so they can hang perjury over her head.
Squid
It's a good deal that the breezes here flow from west to east. The stench in Washington is sickening.
In revisiting some of what Comey has said, when he said it, how he said it and where he said it, there is plenty of ammo for the Congress to appoint a grand jury.
Except who is going to actually charge her for perjury? Congress can't prosecute her.
The Congress sends a referral to the FBI/DoJ that states that Hillary gave false statements, under oath to congress regarding her emails and server. This points to perjury and the FBI is responsible to investigate (it has already investigated the facts surrounding the email/server issue) and allows Director Comey to recommend to DoJ Director Loretta to prosecute.
This takes Comey off the hook, because the offense was in Congress, which is making the claim that she perjured herself. It is difficult to control the House, at this time, as opposed to controlling Comey.
Loretta will have a very difficult time not prosecuting in this case. And, if she chooses not to, she faces impeachment, for sure.
Squid
Great point. Perjury is a big issue and she did commit perjury. I still expect it will die as well. It sure would keep the issue alive. Sorry for the pessimism, but I am felling very pessimistic now.
Post a Comment