The Completely Corruptible, Cowardly Mr. Comey

By Ray Starmann

James-Comey-jpg

I’ve always had the highest regard for the FBI and those who serve in that organization. The G-Men and G-Women are straight arrows, America’s clean cut, modern day super patriots who brush their teeth in the morning to the sound of Kate Smith belting out “God Bless America.”

The FBI Director, James Comey was apparently incorruptible, beyond reproach, a virtual altar boy in a 300 dollar suit with a 700 dollar pistol.  Comey could never be bought. Comey could never be corrupted. Comey could never sell out his country.

Until now…

But, Comey had never dealt with the forces of darkness. Forces of darkness defined as the evil, delusional, Machiavellian Ma Barker Clinton and her husband, Elmer Gantry’s evil doppelganger.

Comey appeared in front of the press two days ago, as white as a ghost. Perhaps he had seen Vince Foster’s or Jim McDougal’s? God knows what was said to him. God knows what was implied. God knows, but we never will…

Here are some excerpts from Comey’s statement on Tuesday, July 5th:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014.

As Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R. UT) asked Mr. Comey during today’s testimony to Congress, didn’t Hillary Clinton break the law by directing up to TEN individuals without ANY security clearances to view Top Secret information? Comey had no answer to that question, but responded with the canned line that somehow the attorneys for Mrs. Clinton didn’t actually read any of the classified information.

Really?

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery

Wouldn’t that be obstruction of justice, Mr. Comey?.

Comey continued by reciting a litany of transgressions committed by the bottle blonde Maoist in Dr. No attire.

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

 Carelessness as described as gross negligence.

 For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

To clarify this, Hillary Clinton sent and received the highest level of classified information in the US Government, concerning information from intelligence sources, on a non-secure server. What this means is that people’s lives were put in danger because of her actions.

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Comey must certainly know that the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, North Koreans and perhaps, ISIS, have hacked into Mrs. Clinton’s server and have obtained copies of highly sensitive information.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

This is where Mr. Comey refuses to follow the law, and indeed is mis-interpreting it to allow Mrs. Clinton to go free. Mr. Comey states that because he believed Mrs. Clinton did not intend to mishandle classified information, she therefore should not be indicted. Even though she was extremely careless and negligent, she did not INTEND to mishandle information all the way up to Top Secret/SCI and SAP.

I’m no attorney, Mr. Comey, but I can read and the law clearly states otherwise in regards to intentions and negligence.

As Andrew McCarthy – former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, obtaining convictions for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – notes:

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Shannen Coffin – who served in senior legal positions in the U.S. Department of Justice – writes:

Comey simply ignored — or rewrote — the plain language of § 793(f), which does not require any showing of criminal intent. There is a reason that Congress did not require a showing of intent in this provision of the Espionage Act: to protect against even inadvertent disclosure or risk of disclosure of protected information where the perpetrator demonstrated gross disregard for the national security. How Comey could conclude that “no reasonable prosecutor” could make this case is inexplicable in light of his own words. Even where the statutes prohibiting mishandling of classified information require intent, it is not exclusively intent to harm the national security (though that does play into some relevant statutes). Comey noted that his investigation looked at “a second statute, making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.” That statute is 18 U.S.C. §1924(a), which provides that any federal official who “becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, [and] knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both [emphasis added].” Section 1924(a) does not require an intent to profit, to harm the United States, or otherwise to act in a manner disloyal to the United States. It only requires “intent to retain” classified documents at an unauthorized location, something Comey’s own comments suggest was the case here. Again, the case for prosecuting in light of these facts was more than simply fairly debatable it was quite strong.

Furthermore, Erik Zuesse from Washington’s Blog, outlines six federal statutes that the FBI apparently ignored in its investigation of Hillary Clinton, including 793, which was mentioned above:

18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure

Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction

Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(c) Whoever corruptly

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 641 — Public money, property or records 

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, …

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …

18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …

(f) 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 not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy. 

What happens now?

Congressman Chaffetz is calling for a Congressional investigation of Hillary Clinton’s testimony to the Benghazi Committee where she allegedly perjured herself by stating that she had never sent or received any information marked classified on her non secure server.

The FBI will not comment on whether there is an investigation of the Clinton Foundation, which many believe was a piggy bank for bribes and money laundering from foreign countries doing business with Madame Secretary and former President Bill Clinton.

And now, a decent man like James Comey has found himself in the hot seat, defending villains.

History will be harsh on you sir. Wouldn’t it have been better to follow your conscience instead of the corrupt, twisted, evil whims of those who believe they are above the law, and which you, this week, have given them reason to believe they are?

Justice died in America on July 5, 2016. To cover up the criminal actions of a lying, delusional psychopath running for the highest office in the land, the FBI has sold its soul to the devil.

.

, ,
11 comments on “The Completely Corruptible, Cowardly Mr. Comey
  1. Justice Roberts inexplicably rules for the Libs….Justice Scalia goes hunting and becomes the hunted….Director Comey goes
    about his job and becomes the trophy, a patriot turned.

    What do we have in common among all these high powered protectors of our freedom?

    Lives/family threatened? Read about all the other “suicides” in the Clintons’ past? NWO powers brought to bear on them?

    Our nation is facing our darkest hour…Christians and ex military are now considered subversive. Illegals flood our southern border and our president orders our border police to
    basically catch and release….or just don’t even try to stop them. Radical Islam has an open door to our soft underbelly.
    Obama says when push comes to shove he’ll stand with his Muslim brothers.

    Who stands for us? Have all the fired flag officers been scared into submission? Do we only have pansies with stars on their shoulders now? Choosing which ear rings and pumps will go well with camo for the gay or trannie troops?

    Last chance, America…we need wholesale change in DC this November. Don’t like the choices? Tough….pick the least objectionable and fight for better fixes when we get some people with principles in office. This is the end of the road.
    Choose wisely.

  2. My take on it, while watching Comey giving his talk, Comey said, We are in a Banana Republic, and the dictators have one set of rules, which is determined when ever, and the masses, the poor masses, as you will all be poor, have the law that is for them.

  3. You not been paying attention. The FBI has been framing people into prison and early death for years. Most of the mass shooting have been false flag operations with the FBI working with the CIA to help the maggot in chief advance his gun control agenda. Not is the now and has been for several years the banana peoples republic of America.

  4. Real simple, the shadow government who tells Obongo and Hitlery what to do, need the puppet Clinton to be their spokesperson after Barry Setoro’s term ends……..tptb had a talk with Comey and probably let him know that the health of his family depended on his handling this with as best a possible spin for Hildabeast as he could while maintaining some credibility for public consumption. The FBI director may be portrayed in movies as a tough guy…….but folks, when a group of billionaires and probably a couple of trillions future’s are dependent on a particular stooge they have lined up, a simple FBI director of limited income would be shaking scared after they had their “come to Satan talk” with him.

    These are psychopaths with unlimited money, mercenaries, dark agendas and no real resistance to their wims.

    It really is that simple

  5. Good Info Mr. Starmann. However, Comey is not the “pure of heart” that you lead off with. You may re-consider some assertions once a few minutes is invested to research on Comey’s actual background.

    The info below was supplied by a guy named Dave Hodges. So far I have not been able to refute what Hodges writes. I will keep researching though…..

    Comey Oversaw Drug Cartel Money Laundering Operations As a Top Executive At HSBC Bank

    Before becoming the director of the FBI, Director Comey worked at the criminal bank of HSBC which laundered drug cartel and terrorist drug money in the worst banking scandal in US history.

    …..FBI Director James Comey has absolutely no law enforcement background, and is not qualified to run the FBI. To add insult to injury, the FBI Director held an executive (Board) position at HSBC Bank, while extreme money laundering operations where being carried out by the Mexican Drug Cartel and their terrorist allies with the direct assistance of HSBC banking officials.

    Comey has a very questionable background after having worked at HSBC bank, one of the most scandalous banks in history. So, should anybody be surprised that Comey essentially gave Clinton a walk, despite her blatant criminality? Better yet, why isn’t he investigating Attorney General, Loretta Lynch in regard to her conflict of interest meeting with Bill Clinton, regarding Hillary’s fate. That is because the FBI Director is just ass dirty as Lynch and the Clintonistas.

    Comey did not just work at HSBC bank as his resume indicates (see below). He was on the Executive Board at the very time the HSBC scandal was breaking. There is no way he did not know as he looked the other way. And when he was vetted for his job as FBI Director, they knew then, he was in a key position of an organization that was caught laundering Mexican drug cartel money for the Sinoloas, the Los Zetas and their terrorist allies. Yet, despite this information which is publicly available, he was made the FBI Director with no law enforcement background! Now, are (we) surprised that he just issued a de facto pardon for criminal Hillary over the email scandal?

    Here is Comey’s professional background as per Wikipedia.

    “James Brien Comey, Jr. (born December 14, 1960) is an American lawyer. He is the seventh and current Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

    He was the United States Deputy Attorney General, serving in President George W. Bush’s administration. As Deputy Attorney General, Comey was the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and ran the day-to-day operations of the Department, serving in that office from December 2003 through August 2005. He was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York prior to becoming Deputy Attorney General.

    In December 2003, as Deputy Attorney General, Comey appointed the U.S. Attorney in Chicago, close friend and former colleague Patrick Fitzgerald, as Special Counsel to head the CIA leak grand jury investigation after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself. In August 2005, Comey left the DOJ and he became General Counsel and Senior Vice President of Lockheed Martin. In 2010, he became General Counsel at Bridgewater Associates. In early 2013, he left Bridgewater to become Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School. He also joined the London-based board of directors of HSBC Holdings. In 2013, Comey was appointed as the director of the FBI by President Barack Obama.”

  6. This seems beyond outrageous. The statutes’ plain language make clear that malevolent intent is not required.

    The FBI blinked. Is there no institution in America that can or will stand up to these fascist liberals??

    Bill Clinton meets AG Lynch just days before Lynch announced: “No charges.”

    UFB!!

Comments are closed.