Quantcast
Skip to main content



This site works best in IE9 and up and in other modern web browsers

New Detail on Hillary Email Investigation Fingers Comey as Letting Her Off the Hook

You all know the basics of the Hillary Clinton FBI investigation.

There was an initial investigation, which revealed that Hillary emailed classified information, that she deleted 33,000 work-related emails ahead of the investigation, and that her excuses for why she used a private server in the first place were bogus. Despite all that – and the fact that FBI head James Comey admitted that “hostile actors” could’ve hacked into Hillary’s emails – he “couldn’t find a case that supports bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

So it seemed like there was a strong case against Hillary…. but that the FBI could do nothing about for an unexplained reason.

Now, Judge Andrew Napolitano has an idea about why the initial investigation ended so abruptly in Hillary’s favor: because if it didn’t, it would’ve guaranteed a prison sentence for Hillary.

Not long before letting Hillary off the hook, the FBI met with Hillary in her house for what became a four hour interview. Among her defenses for her actions was memory loss, which she blamed on a head injury she said she had suffered in her Washington, D.C., home.

A number of agents present questioned the “memory loss’ excuse, which could be easily verified by looking into Hillary’s health records. They asked Comey for a subpoena for those medical records – and he denied them permission.

Some tried to obtain them anyway, and that’s when things got interesting:

Because Clinton’s medical records had been digitally recorded by her physicians and because the FBI agents knew that the National Security Agency has digital copies of all keystrokes on all computers used in the U.S. since 2005, they sought Clinton’s records from their NSA colleagues. Lying to the FBI is a felony, and these agents believed they had just witnessed a series of lies.

When Comey learned what his creative agents were up to, he jumped the gun by holding a news conference on July 5, 2016, during which he announced that the FBI was recommending to the DOJ that it not seek Clinton’s indictment because “no reasonable prosecutor” would take the case. He then did the unthinkable. He outlined all of the damning evidence of guilt that the FBI had amassed against her.

This double-edged sword — we won’t charge her, but we have much evidence of her guilt — was unprecedented and unheard of in the midst of a presidential election campaign. Both Republicans and Democrats found some joy in Comey’s words. Yet his many agents who believed that Clinton was guilty of both espionage and lying were furious — furious that Comey had revealed so much, furious that he had demeaned their work, furious that he had stopped an investigation before it was completed.

Hillary Clinton continues to partially blame the FBI investigation into her during the campaign for her loss – but things could’ve gone much worse for her. In absence of James Comey, it could’ve cost her the presidency – and her freedom.

If Hillary were not a powerful politician, she would have been locked up and the key would have been thrown away. So just who does federal law enforcement work for? The people? Or the politicians?

Thanks to Judge Napolitano for laying this out so clearly.

Had you ever heard any of these details before? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Advertisement