If one was to mention the names James Comey and Hillary Clinton what’s the first thing that comes into your mind? Most people would probably answer either Hillary’s email scandal or possibly Comey costing Hillary the election.
It absolutely baffles some people as to how Comey got into a position t decide whether or not Hillary should be prosecuted. It wasn’t his job, it was never his job. However, after Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton at the airport to talk about their “grandchildren,” the decision for prosecution fell into the lap of James Comey.
That afternoon when FBI Director James Comey gave that scathing report detailing the crimes that Hillary Clinton and those around her had committed by using a private email server for classified documents, it seemed a prosecution was inevitable.
But what happened? How, after detailing all of the crimes that were committed, could he say that he couldn’t recommend prosecution? He said there was no intent, it was almost like she never had a pattern of behaving in this manner.
This is where it gets interesting. You see, this is not Comey’s first run in with the Clintons.
In 1996, Comey served as Deputy Special Counsel to the Senate special committee on the Whitewater investigation, which linked Hillary Clinton to the mishandling and destruction of documents.
That’s right, the Whitewater investigation into the Clinton’s included the investigation of Hillary Clinton mishandling and destroying documents.
Much like in the recent email investigation Comey’s conclusions were quite similar. After months of work,
Comey came to some damning conclusions:
Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”
Don’t forget that one of the Clintons associates in this matter, Sandy Berger, was caught sneaking documents out of the Congressional Library that he had attempted to conceal in his socks!
Once the investigation concluded and all the evidence was weighed no prosecution took place.
Some might believe that it would be too much of a coincidence to have two similar investigations and the same people would be involved. Also James Comey laying out the case for prosecution in both instances. But there couldn’t be more, could there? Could there be more connections between the Clintons and James Comey? Obviously a redundant question.
Next we have the case of Mark Rich.
Comey was also involved at both ends of the case of Marc Rich, a billionaire oil trader indicted for tax fraud and trading with Iran during the hostage crisis, who was later pardoned by President Bill Clinton during his final day in office in 2001.
Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing.
When pressed for details in one case, he said,
“I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.”
The federal government has closed its probe — with no charges filed — into former President Bill Clinton’s grants of clemency to four men accused of bilking the government of millions of dollars, authorities said Thursday.
U.S. Attorney James B. Comey said his office’s investigation into other pardons that Mr. Clinton issued just before leaving office will continue.
Comey’s decision to end the investigation of clemency for the men from the Rockland County Hasidic community of New Square takes the spotlight off Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who received overwhelming support from the insular community in her 2000 bid for the Senate.
During the election, she won 1,400 of New Square’s 1,412 votes. Two months later, over the objections of prosecutors, President Clinton commuted the sentences of four men from the village who had been convicted of stealing from federal anti-poverty programs.
The 1999 convictions that underlie the probe stemmed from the misappropriation of tens of millions of dollars in federal aid intended for housing, education and business. Federal prosecutors said the four men used the money to enrich their community and themselves.
So what have we learned here today?
Well, it appears that James Comey and the Clintons have a long history. It appears each time they have met it revolved around a criminal investigation involving concealment or destruction of documents. And oddly enough each time James Comey laid out the perfect prosecutions case.
But what happened? Each time the Clintons walked, no prosecution. How is it, that for over 20 years, each time the Clintons are investigated for criminal activity the same man is involved that seems to tip the balance in their favor?