Elder Patriot – Democrats’ charges that a sitting president obstructed justice are proving to be spot on. It’s just that they’ve been accusing the wrong sitting president.
Yesterday we reported that Sen. Charles Grassley and Sen. Lindsey Graham had uncovered evidence that former FBI Director James B. Comey began drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton for using a private email server months before the investigation had been concluded and before she, and 17 of her closest associates had been interviewed.
Today, thanks to the investigative skills of former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy we can see that Comey used the same words when he exonerated Clinton in July as Obama did in April:
“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.”
Then, just less than three months later McCarthy noted that Comey declined to seek an indictment using strikingly similar comments:
“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.”
Comey’s words were not the typical words a prosecutor would use for two reasons. His remarks did not mention that intent to endanger national security was not an element of the criminal offenses Clinton was suspected of committing. He deliberately ignored the expressed intent of the Espionage Act.
Then there was Comey’s seemingly dogged determination to find something to hang President Trump on immediately after giving Clinton a hall pass.
There are many reasons why Obama could’ve wanted Clinton exonerated but not the least of them was his desperation to protect himself from the facts getting out had a full-fledged investigation taken place.
On January 13, 2016 we suggested this was the case:
“Expect Obama to order his Justice Department not to indict Mrs. Clinton.” We then wrote that, “The reason will be President Obama would risk being implicated himself as things become public.”
We also noted at that time that, “The FBI is holding all of the cards in this game. If Obama chooses not to have Mrs. Clinton indicted they can present everything to congress.”
Of course we didn’t know at that time that Comey was a dirty cop who would cave to Obama’s demands.
Even earlier than that, on August 13, 2015 we noted Obama had full knowledge of Hillary’s private server having himself emailed classified information with her on multiple occasions while using an alias email name.
That made Obama complicit with Hillary in violating the Espionage Act.
“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.”
As director of the F.B.I. Comey’s job was to expose and prosecute corruption wherever he found it and nowhere would that be more important than in government.
Instead Comey not only turned a blind eye to that corruption, he orchestrated the protection of it.
Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe posted this statement on his website explaining what can only be described as Comey’s deliberate mishandling of the investigation:
September 28, 2016
WASHINGTON – Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) exposed troubling new details today surrounding the Clinton email investigation during his questioning of FBI Director James Comey before the House Judiciary Committee. In the exchange, Ratcliffe focused on implications of the facts revealed by documents released by the FBI after Comey initially announced his recommendation not to press criminal charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Ratcliffe’s exchange with Comey showed that:
- In his multi-decade career as a prosecutor Comey could not recall a single instance in which two key witnesses of a criminal investigation were allowed to sit in on an interview with the principle target of that same investigation, as was the case in the Clinton email investigation.
- The FBI appears to have focused on only two portions of criminal code related to the mishandling of sensitive information, specifically in regard to Clinton herself, while ignoring the possible destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice by other parties. In fact, Comey readily admitted that Paul Combetta, who destroyed emails records of Hillary Clinton with Bleach Bit despite a preservation request to retain them, lied to federal investigators before receiving immunity.
“As a former federal prosecutor, I can tell you that it’s unheard of for a potential key witness to be present when the target of an investigation is being interviewed. In fact, I’ve never seen it. And Comey admitted he’s never seen it. The American people have every right to wonder why this occurred in Clinton’s case – this isn’t the treatment anyone else in our country would have received, and it frankly appears that the outcome of this investigation was predetermined from the start,” Ratcliffe said.
“But perhaps even more astonishing when it comes to this investigation, is the fact that despite the overwhelming evidence of obstruction of justice by a number of actors close to Clinton, no one – not a single soul – was held accountable. In any other case, against any other person, I can assure you the outcome would have been different.”
Comey’s guilt is no longer in doubt. But, it should not end there.
The Democrats have been screaming obstruction of justice since Donald Trump was elected president. Now its time for Jeff Sessions to give them what they’ve been screaming for.