Hillary Crony Is Accused Of Obstructing Justice — Will She Be Next On The List To Indict?

We all by now know that James Comey, at the direction of Loretta Lynch, exonerated Hillary Clinton before a proper investigation had even occurred. In fact, it could be said that the O.J. Simpson investigation was better handled than the Hillary Clinton one. What we do know as well is that the exact language that was used in the exoneration speech that Comey gave to the Congress on live television was lifted directly from a speech that Obama gave on the subject TWO WEEKS PRIOR.

If there was ever a need for further investigation into this series of purposefully mishandled investigations, it is now and it is something that most Americans (sadly) believe will never happen. Regardless, the tri-lateral commission on the Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card, Lynch, Comey and Obama, requires a microscope to home in on the corruption there.

Word is now being bandied about that there is a consideration by certain Congressional officials to bring Comey up on charges of obstruction of justice in regard to this case. If that is the case, could it be that Hillary Clinton will be next up on the chopping block. And, equally, will Loretta Lynch and Barack Hussein Obama ever be questioned about their intimidation of Comey?!

Image result for james comey

Fox News:

Former FBI Director James Comey’s explanation for not prosecuting Hillary Clinton was always improbable. Now it seems impossible.

The Espionage Act makes it a crime to mishandle classified documents “through gross negligence” (18 USC 793-f). Punishment upon conviction carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

With 110 emails on Clinton’s private server that were classified at the time they were sent or received, the Democratic nominee for president could have been prosecuted on 110 separate felony counts. Yet Comey scuttled the case.    

But a story in The Hill this week by John Solomon says a newly discovered document shows that then-FBI Director Comey authored a draft statement accusing Clinton of mishandling classified documents and being “grossly negligent.” 

The document was confirmed by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It was written a full two months before Clinton was ever interviewed by the FBI.  

However, sometime later the words “gross negligence” were edited out with red lines. The words “extremely careless” were substituted. This would appear to show that Comey knew Clinton violated the law but subsequently resolved to conjure a way to exonerate her by altering the language.

Comey didn’t do a very good job. The two terms are largely synonymous under the law.

Image result for james comey

Many standard jury instructions, such as those in California and elsewhere, say the two terms mean the same thing. That is, gross negligence is an extreme departure from ordinary care. In other words, extremely careless behavior.

Either Comey is not well-versed in the law or he sought to draw a fine distinction where none exists. Nevertheless, he employed it as an excuse to protect Clinton from prosecution in a case that should have rendered 110 criminal charges against her.

Did Comey seek to absolve Clinton for political reasons? Was he pressured to do so by Attorney General Loretta Lynch or others? And why exactly did he take it upon himself to usurp the authority of the Justice Department in clearing Clinton?

If Comey prevented the prosecution of Clinton – even though there was sufficient and compelling evidence to indict her – then such interference or intervention in the due administration of the law would constitute obstruction of justice by Comey.

But that is not all. Comey blatantly misinterpreted another criminal statute, also under the Espionage Act, which Clinton appeared to have violated.

Under 18 USC 978, it is a crime to “knowingly and willfully” mishandle classified information. Yet, in his infamous news conference on July 5, 2016, Comey declared that Clinton never “intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.”

Comey was wrong. That is not the legal standard. The standard is whether Clinton committed intentional acts that violated the law. Clearly, she intended to set up a private server, and she intended to use it exclusively for all her communications as secretary of state, which would necessarily include classified documents.

Yet Clinton’s mendacity is breathtaking. Congress issued a subpoena on March 4, 2015 instructing her to preserve and produce emails. Three weeks later, on March 25, some 33,000 of her emails were deleted. It is unclear how many of those communications were relevant to the subpoena, since they have vanished. Her server was wiped clean by using a file-deleting software program called “BleachBit.”

The act of defying a congressional subpoena is audacious at best – criminal at worst.

Destruction of records in any federal investigation constitutes obstruction of justice (18 USC 1519) and a violation of the Federal Records Act (18 USC 2071) and the Public Officers Law (18 USC 1924).

While the FBI did manage to recover several thousand of the deleted emails that were work-related and, thereby, required to be produced, no charges against Clinton were ever brought by Comey. In his July statement, he somehow divined that they were “not intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”

Really? What other reason could possibly exist?  Clinton was just cleaning out her mailbox?

Neither Clinton nor Comey are above the law, although they may think so.

Image result for james comey hillary clinton

I truly believe that if Comey is going to go down for this, it needs to be made clear that Obama and Lynch were directly involved in pressuring him to let Hillary off, scot-free, even though he really had no power to do so.

Hillary and others in the Establishment may not be above the law, but I’m floored that it’s actually this difficult to nail someone on breaking federal laws multiple times and nearly everyone in the government acts as if it’s no big deal. With the continued assistance by their willing accomplices in the Fake News Industrial Complex, this may be a fight that no one can win.

Source: Fox News

To Top