Comey Threw FBI Agents Under the Bus; Now, They Are Returning the Favor

FBI Director James Comey has been in the center of the mix in the investigation into the use of a private email server against State Department policy by Hillary Clinton.  Comey appeared at House investigation hearings involving the incident and the recommendations against prosecution of Ms. Clinton.  During the hearings, Comey repeatedly used the term “we” suggesting that all investigative agents were in accord with the decision.  Now, FBI agents are speaking out and coming forward to refute those claims by Comey and provide insight into problems plaguing the investigation.As the Daily Caller reported:

FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.

According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey’s leadership.

“This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling,” an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. “We talk about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.”

The agent was also surprised that the bureau did not bother to search Clinton’s house during the investigation.

The source stated, “We didn’t search their house. We always search the house. The search should not just have been for private electronics, which contained classified material, but even for printouts of such material.”

The agent indicated there should have been a thorough search of the house as well as seizure of devices.  Yet, there were none in the Clinton investigation.  According to the agent, the FBI seizes all devices, even ones that have been set ablaze.

Another special agent, who worked in counter-terrorism with the bureau, took offense at Comey using “we” and “I’ve been an investigator.”  As it turns out, FBI Director James Comey has not at any time been any type of investigator, as the Daily Caller reported.

After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey’s career moved through the U.S. Attorney’s Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration. 

After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director Robert Mueller.

Unless law clerks, law associates, deputy Attorney Generals, general counsels, and Senior VPs perform criminal investigations, Comey has never been an investigator or trained to be an investigator.  His admission to being one in front of Congress, under oath, could be seen as perjury, meaning “what else has he lied about?”

This same agent stated, “Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that Comey included them in ‘collective we’ statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to prosecute.  All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecute but he stood in the way.”

The biggest bombshell came when the agent indicated the Clinton case should have been brought before the grand jury, but wasn’t.  He called it “ridiculous.”

Washington, DC attorney, Joe DiGenova, indicated additional FBI agents will be talking about this case and how it was handled by Comey as well as other problems within the bureau once Congress returns to session.  Congress can decide to force these FBI agents to testify through issuance of subpoenas.

Appearing on WMAL radio’s Drive at Five last week, DiGenova stated, “People are starting to talk. They’re calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away.”

“It’s not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a hack but more than that that they think he’s a crook. They think he’s fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him. The bureau inside right now is a mess.”

Moreover, DiGenova added, “The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk.”

No one doubted there was impropriety on Comey’s part when he “recommended” to the DOJ not to pursue criminal charges.  Since when does the investigating agency get to decide when to apply the law or not?  Moreover, several procedures were ignored during this investigation that had not previously been ignored in other cases;  i.e., the subject of an investigation being allowed to act as an attorney for another subject of an investigation.  Cheryl Mills, who was under investigation herself, was allowed to act as attorney for Hillary Clinton, the subject of the investigation.  That is like allowing the tax accountant, under investigation by the IRS, for Al Capone to act as the tax accountant representative for Al Capone, under investigation for tax fraud by the IRS.

If this isn’t bad enough, Bill Clinton just happened to be at the same airport at the same time as Loretta Lynch, US Attorney General, and just happened to have time to meet with Lynch, who had time as well — ON THE TARMAC — while this whole investigation was ongoing.  The sarcastic Gomer Pyle moment occurred when Lynch declared she took the recommendation by the FBI, read Director Comey, not to bring criminal charges, after meeting with Bill Clinton.   The “say what” moment was Comey providing a recommendation not to bring criminal charges based on “intent.”

Clinton didn’t “intend” to break the law, she just did it out of ignorance or whatever.  Yet, US servicemen committing the same offense, not “intending” to break the law, have found themselves prosecuted.  However, Comey maintains “that’s different” because it is the military.  Maybe Julius and Ethel Rosenberg didn’t “intend” to break the law either;  but, look what happened to them.  Edward Snowden, acting as a whistleblower, didn’t “intend” to break the law, but expose government violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution;  yet, the government is ready to prosecute him on criminal charges after an investigation.   A individual may not “intend” to break the law through shoplifting;  but, the individual had starving children to feed.  Does this individual get a “pass” based on “intent?”  Based on Comey’s stance on Hillary Clinton, the answer would be “yes.”  However, in the real world, it doesn’t work that way.  It only works that way in the world of Hillary Clinton.

The investigation proved Hillary Clinton broke the law, period.  Under the law, she should be held accountable for it.  Yet, this woman, with proven criminal behavior, is still being allowed to run as the Democratic nominee for president under impunity.  There is no doubt the rabbit hole of corruption is bottomless in the area known as Washington, DC.

 

Advertisements

About Suzanne Hamner

Former professional Registered Nurse turned writer; equal opportunity criticizer; politically incorrect conservative;
This entry was posted in Constitution, General, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.