FBI Director Comey Might Have Turned Down NSA Offer for Hillary’s Lost Emails


The New York Post reports that the NSA offered James Comey Clinton’s lost emails, which were stored illicitly on her personal server.

Comey turned them down according to a ‘reliable source’ reporting to the Post.

The source also said FBI agents were “irate about the decision not to go after Clinton”. Comey led Americans to believe the decision was based on the prevailing opinion of agents involved.

Last week, it became known that the former FBI Director appeared to have exonerated Hillary Clinton before interviewing 17 key witnesses including Hillary Clinton herself.

Former U.S. Attorney Andrew McCarthy believes Obama was the driver of the narrative. As he wrote on National ReviewBarack Obama publicly stated on April 10, 2016, that Hillary showed “carelessness” in using a personal server but did nothing to endanger national security.

While acknowledging that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated.

Coincidentally, 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).

Comey used the same straw man argument as Barack Obama after he sent out his dog whistle.

There was a lot more of course, including the fact that the former president himself transmitted communications to Hillary over her server.

There were so many other “Justice Department shenanigans”: Cutting off key areas of inquiry; cutting inexplicable immunity deals; declining to use the grand jury to compel evidence; agreeing to limit searches of computers (in order to miss key time-frames when obstruction occurred); agreeing to destroy physical evidence (laptop computers); failing to charge and squeeze witnesses who made patently false statements; allowing subjects of the investigation to act as lawyers for other subjects of the investigation (in order to promote the charade that some evidence was off-limits due to the attorney-client privilege); and so on.

The entire investigation was corrupt from beginning to end.



Comments are closed.