Comey’s Draft in Email Scandal Found Hillary Guilty of Gross Negligence


An early draft of former FBI Director James Comey’s statement closing out the Hillary Clinton email case accused the former secretary of State of having been “grossly negligent” in handling classified information, newly reported memos to Congress show and reported by John Solomon at The Hill.

This is “obstruction of justice” according to Fox legal analyst Greg Jarrett.

Why did the emails just get to Congress now and why was the language of the draft softened from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”. Both are crimes but the former is far more serious and can be punished criminally.

The term “gross negligence” was used several times and it was thought-through but was changed in June.

By July 2016, days after the Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton tarmac meeting, Comey was calling Hillary’s handling of classified information “extremely careless” and he leveled no criminal charges.

The charge of gross negligence allows for prison time or fines.

There has been no response from the FBI or Clinton at this time.

The draft was written weeks before Comey’s July announcement of no criminal charges.

Anonymous sources who saw the draft said there were red-line edits on or about June 10 to conclude the handling of 110 classified emails was “extremely careless”.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information,” reads the statement, one of Comey’s earliest drafts from May 2, 2016.

Anonymous sources who saw the draft said there were red-line edits on or about June 10 to conclude the handling of 110 classified emails was “extremely careless”.

Why did Comey make the changes to the wording?

Memos show that at least three top FBI officials were involved in helping Comey fashion and edit the statement, including Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, General Counsel James Baker and chief of staff Jim Rybicki.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday evening sent a letter to current FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding the FBI identify who made the changes and why.

“Apparently, as of May 2016, then-Director Comey and other FBI officials believed the facts fit that gross negligence standard until later edits were made,” Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote to Wray in the letter demanding more information.

There appears to have been dissent in the FBI. How did Comey make his decisions? Were they political?

“The red-line history clearly shows the original statement was designed to allege Clinton committed gross negligence and then someone changed it to extreme carelessness,” one source said. “Clearly there was a difference of opinion on the term derived right from the statute.”

When Comey announced his July decision he was harshly critical but claimed no one would have charged in her case because she didn’t show intent.

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

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” he said.

She is guilty of three criminal charges.

According to Section 793 of federal law: “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

In 1941, the intent issue was found significant in a Supreme Court case but not since. In any case, there appeared to be clear intent that should have been investigated.

James Comey did admit he found some evidence of criminality.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” he explained.

Investigative reporter John Solomon discusses it in the next clip. Also, in another Hillary case, Sarah Carter says Jeff Sessions definitely did not recuse himself in the Uranium One scandal, there is an investigation ongoing, and she believes a Special Counsel will be appointed shortly though she is not certain.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

1 Comment
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
6 years ago

You had to know the fix was in when Comey did not attend the Clinton interview on that Sat. and his FBI minions did not take any notes of the interview. every one of this clowns figured Hillary was going to win the White House, there was no way they were going to bring charges against the next president of the U.S., it blew up in their faces, special prosecutor and grand jury needed now !!!!!!!!! or this kinda s**t will continue