Did the FBI chief lie to Congress about the Hillary email
<http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/did-the-fbi-chief-lie-to-congress-about-the-hi
llary-email-probe/>  probe?

By Paul Sperry <http://nypost.com/author/paul-sperry/> 

 
<http://nypost.com/2016/10/12/did-the-fbi-chief-lie-to-congress-about-the-hi
llary-email-probe/> Modal Trigger 

Photo: AP 

Congressional leaders investigating the FBI’s suspiciously inept
investigation of ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails are turning
their attention to FBI chief James Comey’s truthfulness. Did he mislead
them? Did he perjure himself?

Two days after clearing Clinton of criminal wrongdoing, Comey went to
Capitol Hill and explained his reasons for coming to that stunning
conclusion. Testifying under oath, he claimed to be an open book: “I think
transparency matters tremendously.”

But he not only held back critical details about his investigation, he
repeatedly misrepresented his actions and findings.

In his July 7 testimony, Comey assured Congress that he examined all the
evidence of Clinton’s lawyers and aides deleting her emails, and concluded
they weren’t trying to hide anything. “We did not find evidence to indicate
that they did the erasure to conceal things of any sort,” he swore. “We
didn’t find evidence of evil intent to obstruct justice there.”

“In his statements before Congress, Director Comey repeatedly assured us
that the FBI investigated whether charges of obstruction of justice and
intentional destruction of records were merited,” the chairmen of three
House committees and a Senate committee complained last week in a letter to
Attorney General Loretta Lynch. “The facts of this investigation call those
assertions into question.”

Congress has now obtained letters detailing unprecedented immunity
agreements and side deals with multiple witnesses in the case — including
one in which Comey agreed to prevent his investigators from reviewing any
emails from Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills to Clinton’s server
administrator Paul Combetta generated in late 2014 and early 2015. The
off-limits correspondence, the chairmen point out, could reveal information
“directing the destruction or concealment of federal records.”

Astonishingly, before Comey agreed to the June side deal with Mills’
attorney, he “already knew of the conference calls between Secretary
Clinton’s attorneys and Mr. Combetta, his use of BleachBit, and the
resulting deletions, further casting doubt on why the FBI would enter into
such a limited evidentiary scope of review.”

In other words, Comey never really investigated Clinton and her aides for
obstruction of justice, as he claimed. Lacking access to key evidence, he
couldn’t have explored the possibility, though the circumstances were beyond
suspicious.

“The sequence of events leading up to the destruction of Secretary Clinton’s
emails — the conference call, the work ticket, the use of BleachBit, and
[Combetta’s] subsequent refusal to discuss the conference call with the FBI
— raises questions about whether Secretary Clinton, acting through her
attorneys [including Mills], instructed [Combetta] to destroy records
relevant to the then-ongoing congressional investigations,” noted House
Oversight Committee Chair­man Jason Chaffetz.

In his July testimony, Comey said it was unclear if anyone had helped
Clinton’s lawyers delete emails — yet he had to have known that Combetta, in
his final interview under his immunity deal, had admitted destroying
evidence under subpoena.

Comey also swore his team asked Clinton if she knew her lawyers had wiped
clean the devices containing her email archives, when it seems clear from
the summary of her interview that agents did not ask her that question.

“Did you ask that question?” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked.

“Yes,” Comey replied.

In 4½ hours of testimony, Comey never once mentioned that he’d agreed to
give Mills, Combetta and three other key subjects of his investigation
immunity from prosecution. Also belying his pronouncements of
“transparency,” he failed to reveal the unusual side deals that severely
limited the scope of his probe.

Congressional investigators only learned about the deals weeks later, and
still have not obtained all of the documents.

Lynch and Comey have redacted parts of the side-deal letters, including the
names of all Justice Department and FBI personnel. They have also restricted
access to the letters to certain members of Congress, while prohibiting even
those members from removing them from the secure viewing room where they are
kept. They’re also barred from taking notes.

“These onerous restrictions are not consistent with the high degree of
transparency you and director Comey promised to Congress,” the chairmen
complained.

Though Comey has turned over some 250 pages of investigative-case summaries
and witness-interview summaries known as FBI 302s, he’s still withholding
summaries of interviews with some 30 other witnesses.

It’s more evidence that Comey hasn’t been straight with the public about
this probe, and raises serious questions about his integrity.

Congress must treat Comey as a hostile witness and investigate the
investigator.

 

 

EM

On the 49th Parallel          

                 Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja and Dr. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda is in
anarchy"
                    Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni, Ssabassajja na Dk. Kiiza Besigye, Uganda ni
katika machafuko" 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
Ugandanet@kym.net
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet

UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@kym.net/

The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to