Breaking: Comey Altered Evidence to Hide Hillary’s Guilt

Elder Patriot – Thanks to the investigative work of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee it is now known that then-FBI Director James Comey had already decided he wasn’t going to seek the indictment of Hillary Clinton no matter what the evidence revealed. 

We can say this with certainty because Comey had already begun drafting a statement of exoneration in May of 2016 only days after having sent a different memo to three top bureau officials only days early describing Clinton’s actions “grossly negligent.” 

Grossly negligent is the standard required to be in criminal violation of federal law.

News of Clinton’s deliberate mishandling of secret State Department communications over an unsecured private server was first reported here on August 13, 2015.  By January 13th, 2016 Comey had 150 agents assigned to the investigation.

Then, on May 2nd he sent the memo containing the term “grossly negligent” confirming the investigation had found Hillary in violation of the Espionage Act.

It now appears that Comey amended his May 2nd memo on June 10th to strip the criminal charge from it by substituting the words “extremely careless,” words that carry no legal weight.

What changed his mind?  Was it pressure from Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Obama White House?  Or, did he make the decision on his own?

All that happened following Comey’s May 2nd memo was his decision to grant immunity to every one of Clinton’s associates who had knowledge of the illegal server.  Oh, and he allowed the destruction of all of their devices that might’ve had evidence on them.

To put this in perspective, Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is offering no one associated with Donald Trump immunity.  Instead he is probing every aspect of their lives, well beyond the Russia probe, trying to find some way to “flip” them into giving evidence against President Trump.  This is just smart prosecutorial procedure. 

By contrast, Comey offered immunity to Clinton’s underlings before they were interviewed thereby removing any leverage he might’ve had in getting them to provide evidence against their Queen Bee.

Even when he finally interviewed Hillary he failed to put her under oath so as to protect her from perjury charges that may come from a less corrupt investigator at a later time.

Regardless of whether Comey decided to exonerate her on his own, or was ordered to by his AG Lynch, or the Clintons threatened him, the change was a clear attempt to alter evidence with the intention of burying a criminal investigation. 

A CIA official with knowledge of the Clinton emails who characterized the person who sent them as an “idiot” bolsters this conclusion.

A second CIA official destroyed Comey’s decision not to seek indictment because Clinton and her cronies “are experienced and knew that this information was classified.” 

On July 5th of 2016 when he held a press conference – itself a departure from the FBI’s policy of not commenting on investigations unless they are recommending charges – he told the nation that,

“although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

It’s clear that Comey’s alteration of the May 2nd memo was an effort to cover his tracks once he decided, or was ordered to, exonerate Hillary.

But this isn’t the only instance of Comey protecting Hillary rather than pursuing an investigation that would’ve led to an indictment.

Recent revelations show that rather than investigate Clinton and the DNC’s money laundering scheme with the law firm Perkins Cole designed to hide their financing of the discredited Russia-Trump dossier, Comey was willing to pay for additional unreliable evidence from Fusion GPS rather than doing his own investigation.

Comey also refused to do his own forensic investigation of the hacked DNC server in order to confirm the account offered by Clinton acolyte and corrupt DNC head Debbie Wasserman Schultz despite both her and Clinton’s long history of lying.

The release of Donna Brazile’s new book earlier this week adds further fuel to Comey’s refusal to look into anything that might lead him back to Hillary. After it became apparent that Seth Rich was assassinated, Brazile admitted she became afraid for her own life.

The evidence against Comey really is overwhelming.  He will soon be facing a hard decision because, with a new administration in place – one he attempted to destroy – it is unlikely anyone is going to grant him immunity before he is deposed under oath about who ordered him to exonerate Clinton.

Will Comey take the fall for the Clinton’s criminal activities a la Frankie Pentangeli:

Or, will he make a deal to save himself from a long prison term and bring down the Obama-Clinton house of cards?