And people wonder why Americans are losing confidence in our political system, that is why. Our political elites can’t even be bothered to conceal the appearance of corruption or their sense of entitlement.
Crooked Hillary is Guilty as Hell but too Big to Jail.
The Wicked Witch of the Left has been lying, cheating, misrepresenting facts, obstructing justice and destroying evidence her entire life.
Behold, the perfect nominee for vtard's corrupt treasonous party.
The irony of this entire thing is she's guilty as Hell according to Comey himself. He got his message across, meticulously breaking down and crushing every one of her talking points, and then warning other Americans not to try any of this shit themselves. And then like a one man justice committee set her free.
You can bet your sweet ass Obama was in on the whole thing too. Probably without a word to Comey directly, but BFDeal. He called a staffer into his office late last week and set in motion the events that led to this being wrapped up. He knew his Tuesday schedule a week ago for certain. Told somebody to get word to Comey and made sure it couldn't be traced back to him. The message was clear - "On Tuesday July 5th Hillary and I are going campaigning. You will make sure that by the time wheels are up that that will be the biggest story of the day. Get it done!"
The media has spent a lot of time parsing through the Clinton emails that already have been released—compiling lists, looking for specific names or discussion of particular issues. But they ought to pay more attention to the holes. Bob Woodward has declared that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal “reminds me of the Nixon tapes.” He’s right. In that case and here, it’s not what’s in the record that’s most troubling. It’s what’s not there.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...server-investigation-fbi-214016#ixzz4DgVytlhD
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...server-investigation-fbi-214016#ixzz4DgVytlhD
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
[h=2]Hillary denounces Trump in Atlantic City outside his shuttered hotel - but even striking casino workers call her visit 'political propaganda' [/h]
Standing directly underneath the shuttered Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of running a 'scam' again and again on the people of Atlantic City, New Jersey. She slapped at Trump's potential vice presidential pick and the state's governor Chris Christie too, as she tried changing the subject from FBI Director James Comey's charge yesterday that she was 'exceptionally careless' with the nation's secrets.
+19
Donald Trump smacked back this morning before Hillary Clinton's remarks suggesting it was Democratic politicians who were responsible for Atlantic City's downfall
.[h=3]DONALD TRUMP HITS BACK AT HILLARY'S ATLANTIC CITY ATTACK[/h]I have built a tremendously successful business, which has created tens of thousands of jobs.
Out of the hundreds of businesses I have owned over the decades, and hundreds of deals and transactions, I have used the chapter laws of our country in four instances, much as many of our country’s elite business people do (but nobody cares about).
It is an effective and commonly used practice in business to use bankruptcy proceedings to restructure a business and ultimately save jobs.
Nobody understands the economy like I do and no one, especially not Crooked Hillary Clinton, will do more for the economy than I will.
I want to bring jobs back to America, while Hillary Clinton wants to get elected to enrich herself with power at the expense of the people.
I created thousands of jobs and made a lot of money in Atlantic City, which was what, as a businessman, I am supposed to do for my company and my family– and as President I will make America rich again, and Make America Great Again.
.
A look at Clinton's claims since questions about her email practices as secretary of state surfaced and how they compare with facts established in the FBI probe:
CLASSIFIED MATERIAL ON EMAIL
CLINTON: 'I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.' News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton's server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.
Most of those emails — 110 of them — were included among 30,000 emails that Clinton returned to the State Department around the time her use of a private email server was discovered. The three others were recovered from a forensic analysis of Clinton's server. 'Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,' Comey said. Clinton and her aides 'were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,' he said.
CLASSIFIED MARKINGS
CLINTON: 'I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.' NBC interview, July 2016.
THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.
He said the marked emails were 'a very small number.' But that's not the only standard for judging how officials handle sensitive material, he added. 'Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.'
'I PROVIDED ALL MY EMAILS THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE WORK RELATED'
CLINTON: 'I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related' to the State Department. News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Not so, the FBI found.
Comey said that when his forensic team examined Clinton's server it found there were 'several thousand work-related emails that were not in th
.
'I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER TO CARRY JUST ONE DEVICE'
CLINTON: 'I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two.' News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: This reasoning for using private email both for public business and private correspondence didn't hold up in the investigation. Clinton 'used numerous mobile devices to view and send email' using her personal account, Comey said. He also said Clinton had used different servers.
'THERE WERE NO SECURITY BREACHES'
CLINTON: 'It was on property guarded by the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches. ... The use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure.' News conference, March 2015.
CLINTON campaign website: 'There is no evidence there was ever a breach.'
THE FACTS: The campaign website claimed 'no evidence' of a breach, a less categorical statement than Clinton herself made last year, when she said there was no breach. The FBI did not uncover a breach but made clear that that possibility cannot be ruled out.
'We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account,' Comey said.
He said evidence would be hard to find because hackers are sophisticated and can cover their tracks. Comey said his investigators learned that Clinton's security lapses included using 'her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.' Comey also noted that hackers breached the email accounts of several outsiders who messaged with Clinton.
Comey did not mention names, but a Romanian hacker who called himself Guccifer accessed and later leaked emails from Sidney Blumenthal, an outside adviser to Clinton who regularly communicated with her.
'ALLOWED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT'
CLINTON: 'I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department.' News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Comey did not address Clinton's reason for using a private server instead of a government one, but he highlighted the perils in routing sensitive information through a home server.
The FBI found that Clinton's personal server was 'not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail,' the director said.
A May 2016 audit by the State Department inspector general found there was no evidence Clinton sought or received approval to operate a private server, and that she 'had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices.' Courts have frowned on such a practice.
In an unrelated case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that the purpose of public records law is 'hardly served' when a department head 'can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to' by maintaining emails on a private system.
.
CLASSIFIED MATERIAL ON EMAIL
CLINTON: 'I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.' News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton's server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.
Most of those emails — 110 of them — were included among 30,000 emails that Clinton returned to the State Department around the time her use of a private email server was discovered. The three others were recovered from a forensic analysis of Clinton's server. 'Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,' Comey said. Clinton and her aides 'were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,' he said.
CLASSIFIED MARKINGS
CLINTON: 'I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.' NBC interview, July 2016.
THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.
He said the marked emails were 'a very small number.' But that's not the only standard for judging how officials handle sensitive material, he added. 'Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.'
'I PROVIDED ALL MY EMAILS THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE WORK RELATED'
CLINTON: 'I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related' to the State Department. News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Not so, the FBI found.
Comey said that when his forensic team examined Clinton's server it found there were 'several thousand work-related emails that were not in th
.
'I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER TO CARRY JUST ONE DEVICE'
CLINTON: 'I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two.' News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: This reasoning for using private email both for public business and private correspondence didn't hold up in the investigation. Clinton 'used numerous mobile devices to view and send email' using her personal account, Comey said. He also said Clinton had used different servers.
'THERE WERE NO SECURITY BREACHES'
CLINTON: 'It was on property guarded by the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches. ... The use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure.' News conference, March 2015.
CLINTON campaign website: 'There is no evidence there was ever a breach.'
THE FACTS: The campaign website claimed 'no evidence' of a breach, a less categorical statement than Clinton herself made last year, when she said there was no breach. The FBI did not uncover a breach but made clear that that possibility cannot be ruled out.
'We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account,' Comey said.
He said evidence would be hard to find because hackers are sophisticated and can cover their tracks. Comey said his investigators learned that Clinton's security lapses included using 'her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.' Comey also noted that hackers breached the email accounts of several outsiders who messaged with Clinton.
Comey did not mention names, but a Romanian hacker who called himself Guccifer accessed and later leaked emails from Sidney Blumenthal, an outside adviser to Clinton who regularly communicated with her.
'ALLOWED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT'
CLINTON: 'I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department.' News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Comey did not address Clinton's reason for using a private server instead of a government one, but he highlighted the perils in routing sensitive information through a home server.
The FBI found that Clinton's personal server was 'not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail,' the director said.
A May 2016 audit by the State Department inspector general found there was no evidence Clinton sought or received approval to operate a private server, and that she 'had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices.' Courts have frowned on such a practice.
In an unrelated case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that the purpose of public records law is 'hardly served' when a department head 'can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to' by maintaining emails on a private system.
.
[h=2]House Speaker Paul Ryan calls for blocking Hillary's access to classified information in light of actions the FBI director called 'extremely careless'[/h]
House Speaker Paul Ryan says Hillary Clinton should give up her access to classified information since she 'recklessly' handled secure information while at the State Department.
[h=1]Scarborough: Clinton Shouldn’t Be Allowed Within 1,000 Miles of Classified Information[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: David Rutz
July 7, 2016 7:06 am
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said Thursday that Hillary Clinton and her aides shouldn’t be allowed within 1,000 miles of classified information in the wake of Clinton’s private email scandal.
FBI Director James Comey did not recommend charges against Clinton in a statement on Tuesday. However, he commented she had been “extremely careless” with classified material and presided over an atmosphere at the State Department that did not take classification measures seriously.
Among Clinton’s claims that were officially refuted were that she never sent or received email marked classified on her server. Even the New York Times editorial board agreed that was now officially a bogus claim.
The Morning Joe host has been scathing in his criticism of Clinton’s email conduct, saying Wednesday that she had clearly lied about many aspects of her email practice. Thursday, Scarborough said it was clear Comey had treated her differently in not recommending charges because of being the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
“I don’t think there should be a higher standard for her,” he said. “And when they decide whether she ever gets access or Cheryl Mills—Cheryl Mills should never, ever get within 1,000 miles of classified information ever again. It’s disgusting that an attorney would be that reckless, and somebody that’s been in government long enough to know better.
“Neither Hillary Clinton nor all the people around her should ever be within 1,000 miles of classified information, and if you don’t take my word for it, talk to anybody in the intel community to see just how reckless they were.”
TWEET
BY: David Rutz
July 7, 2016 7:06 am
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said Thursday that Hillary Clinton and her aides shouldn’t be allowed within 1,000 miles of classified information in the wake of Clinton’s private email scandal.
FBI Director James Comey did not recommend charges against Clinton in a statement on Tuesday. However, he commented she had been “extremely careless” with classified material and presided over an atmosphere at the State Department that did not take classification measures seriously.
Among Clinton’s claims that were officially refuted were that she never sent or received email marked classified on her server. Even the New York Times editorial board agreed that was now officially a bogus claim.
The Morning Joe host has been scathing in his criticism of Clinton’s email conduct, saying Wednesday that she had clearly lied about many aspects of her email practice. Thursday, Scarborough said it was clear Comey had treated her differently in not recommending charges because of being the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
“I don’t think there should be a higher standard for her,” he said. “And when they decide whether she ever gets access or Cheryl Mills—Cheryl Mills should never, ever get within 1,000 miles of classified information ever again. It’s disgusting that an attorney would be that reckless, and somebody that’s been in government long enough to know better.
“Neither Hillary Clinton nor all the people around her should ever be within 1,000 miles of classified information, and if you don’t take my word for it, talk to anybody in the intel community to see just how reckless they were.”
[h=1]13 Questions Congress Must Ask FBI Director James Comey[/h]
Drew Angerer / Getty
by JOEL B. POLLAK6 Jul 2016203
[h=2]On Thursday, FBI director James Comey will testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about his agency’s decision not to recommend that Hillary Clinton be prosecuted for mis-handling confidential information.[/h]Comey announced his recommendation on Tuesday in unusually public fashion, explaining that while the agency had found evidence that Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless,” it did not find clear evidence of intent to break the law.
The problem, however is that the statute under which Clinton was investigated, 18 U.S.C. § 793, requires only “gross negligence,” not intent, and for a very good reason: we do not want people to be careless with national security secrets.
Comey and the FBI were under great political pressure. Bill Clinton made a brazen visit to Attorney General Loretta Lynch last week, while President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made plans to campaign together, as if they knew the outcome.
Republicans have pointed out, correctly, that there appears to be one law for the Clintons and another for everyone else. But Democrats, too, have cause for complaint: Comey’s conclusions are damaging, but Clinton has no opportunity to refute them.
Each side is guaranteed to press these points during Thursday’s hearing.
But beyond the politics, there is still much that is unknown about the case. Only Comey can begin to provide answers.
And so the committee must ask these yes/no questions:
1. You have shown that Clinton lied under oath to Congress last October. She did not turn over “all” work-related emails, her lawyers did not read all of them, and some were marked classified. She has committed perjury, hasn’t she?
2. You said Clinton not only used private servers, and deleted work-related e-mails, but also did so “in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” That is a violation of federal records laws, and obstruction of justice, isn’t it?
3. We know from ongoing litigation brought by Judicial Watch that Clinton instructed her staff to destroy public records, including burning her daily schedules. The FBI has an obligation to investigate that destruction, doesn’t it?
4. Since “intent” is not part of the relevant statute, why did you decide it was critical? And even it were, given ample circumstantial evidence — including false statements under oath — the standard of intent has been reached, hasn’t it?
5. You said “we cannot find a [similar] case” that led to prosecution. There are several, such as the conviction of Bryan Nishimura, and the discharge of Marine Jason Brezler. The difference is Clinton is a presidential candidate, correct?
6. You have personally prosecuted ordinary people for much smaller offenses, including a man who sent a 23-word email encouraging staff to savesubpoenaed documents. You’re applying a different standard to Clinton, aren’t you?
7. You said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring an indictment against Clinton or her associates. Yet several reasonable federal prosecutors — including a former Attorney General — disagree. That was premature, was it not?
8. The FBI does not decide prosecutions, but presents findings to the Attorney General. Yet you precluded any other decision by stating publicly “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict. You overstepped your authority, didn’t you?
9. You stated that you had “not coordinated or reviewed” your statement with anyone else. Yet the behavior of the Attorney General and former president, among others, raise serious concerns about such coordination, don’t they?
10. People with security clearance have believed, until now, they can be prosecuted if they are careless with classified information. Failing to prosecute Hillary Clinton weakens that deterrent, and sets a dangerous precedent, doesn’t it?
11. You stated that people who do what Clinton did are “often subject to security or administrative sanctions.” But she is no longer a public employee. Short of prosecution, there is no way of holding Hillary Clinton accountable, is there?
12. The Clinton Foundation failed to disclose some foreign donations during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. The FBI is reportedly investigating public corruption charges as well. That still remains an open investigation, doesn’t it?
13. You made statements have that impugned Clinton’s competence and integrity. She will not have the opportunity to challenge the basis for those statements. It would have been better to grant Clinton her day in court, wouldn’t it?
These questions must be asked — and answers demanded. At a time when Black Lives Matter activists are raising questions about equal justice, Clinton’s non-prosecution further damages public trust in the rule of law.
Americans deserve the truth.
803
0
by JOEL B. POLLAK6 Jul 2016203
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]On Thursday, FBI director James Comey will testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about his agency’s decision not to recommend that Hillary Clinton be prosecuted for mis-handling confidential information.[/h]Comey announced his recommendation on Tuesday in unusually public fashion, explaining that while the agency had found evidence that Clinton and her staff were “extremely careless,” it did not find clear evidence of intent to break the law.
The problem, however is that the statute under which Clinton was investigated, 18 U.S.C. § 793, requires only “gross negligence,” not intent, and for a very good reason: we do not want people to be careless with national security secrets.
Comey and the FBI were under great political pressure. Bill Clinton made a brazen visit to Attorney General Loretta Lynch last week, while President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton made plans to campaign together, as if they knew the outcome.
Republicans have pointed out, correctly, that there appears to be one law for the Clintons and another for everyone else. But Democrats, too, have cause for complaint: Comey’s conclusions are damaging, but Clinton has no opportunity to refute them.
Each side is guaranteed to press these points during Thursday’s hearing.
But beyond the politics, there is still much that is unknown about the case. Only Comey can begin to provide answers.
And so the committee must ask these yes/no questions:
1. You have shown that Clinton lied under oath to Congress last October. She did not turn over “all” work-related emails, her lawyers did not read all of them, and some were marked classified. She has committed perjury, hasn’t she?
2. You said Clinton not only used private servers, and deleted work-related e-mails, but also did so “in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” That is a violation of federal records laws, and obstruction of justice, isn’t it?
3. We know from ongoing litigation brought by Judicial Watch that Clinton instructed her staff to destroy public records, including burning her daily schedules. The FBI has an obligation to investigate that destruction, doesn’t it?
4. Since “intent” is not part of the relevant statute, why did you decide it was critical? And even it were, given ample circumstantial evidence — including false statements under oath — the standard of intent has been reached, hasn’t it?
5. You said “we cannot find a [similar] case” that led to prosecution. There are several, such as the conviction of Bryan Nishimura, and the discharge of Marine Jason Brezler. The difference is Clinton is a presidential candidate, correct?
6. You have personally prosecuted ordinary people for much smaller offenses, including a man who sent a 23-word email encouraging staff to savesubpoenaed documents. You’re applying a different standard to Clinton, aren’t you?
7. You said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring an indictment against Clinton or her associates. Yet several reasonable federal prosecutors — including a former Attorney General — disagree. That was premature, was it not?
8. The FBI does not decide prosecutions, but presents findings to the Attorney General. Yet you precluded any other decision by stating publicly “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict. You overstepped your authority, didn’t you?
9. You stated that you had “not coordinated or reviewed” your statement with anyone else. Yet the behavior of the Attorney General and former president, among others, raise serious concerns about such coordination, don’t they?
10. People with security clearance have believed, until now, they can be prosecuted if they are careless with classified information. Failing to prosecute Hillary Clinton weakens that deterrent, and sets a dangerous precedent, doesn’t it?
11. You stated that people who do what Clinton did are “often subject to security or administrative sanctions.” But she is no longer a public employee. Short of prosecution, there is no way of holding Hillary Clinton accountable, is there?
12. The Clinton Foundation failed to disclose some foreign donations during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. The FBI is reportedly investigating public corruption charges as well. That still remains an open investigation, doesn’t it?
13. You made statements have that impugned Clinton’s competence and integrity. She will not have the opportunity to challenge the basis for those statements. It would have been better to grant Clinton her day in court, wouldn’t it?
These questions must be asked — and answers demanded. At a time when Black Lives Matter activists are raising questions about equal justice, Clinton’s non-prosecution further damages public trust in the rule of law.
Americans deserve the truth.
[h=1]Rep. Jim Jordan: Hillary Clinton Lied to Congress Under Oath[/h]
Chip Somodevilla / Getty
by JOEL B. POLLAK6 Jul 20161,204
[h=2]Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Wednesday afternoon that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had misled Congress, under oath, when testifying to the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015.[/h]Jordan was speaking to Washington Watch with Tony Perkins on American Family Radio, guest-hosted by Breitbart News legal editor Ken Klukowski.
The Ohio congressman referred to the statements of FBI director James Comey, who had announced Tuesday that he would not recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, but whose findings prove that much of what Clinton told the Benghazi committee about her emails was false.
Specifically, Clinton told the Benghazi committee that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the government; that there was “nothing marked classified on my e-mails”; and that her attorneys “went through every single e-mail.”
According to Comey, all of those statements were false.
Jordan said that while he would leave the decision as to whether Clinton should be prosecuted for perjury to others, “what I do know is the questions I asked and the answers she gave didn’t square with what Mr. Comey said yesterday.”
He added: “And that should not happen in a country as great as ours, where people under oath in positions of real leadership and real importance in our government aren’t giving it to us straight. And again, it’s not my words — that’s what Director Comey said yesterday about Secretary Clinton, and the responses she gave to some of the questions that we asked her back in October.”
Comey will testify before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday. Jordan said that the committee would press Comey about why Clinton was treated as being above the law.
“The takeaway for most Americans is the simple fact that there now appears to be two standards in America: one for we, th people, and then a different standard for the politically connected. And it’s frustrating — if you’re Secretary Clinton, there seems to be a different standard than for anyone else with the same fact pattern.”
He added that IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, and former IRS director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner, also seemed to enjoy that double standard.
Later Wednesday afternoon, Attorney General announced that Clinton would not face criminal charges, following Comey’s recommendation.
1143
13
by JOEL B. POLLAK6 Jul 20161,204
[h=2]SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER[/h]
[h=2]Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Wednesday afternoon that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had misled Congress, under oath, when testifying to the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015.[/h]Jordan was speaking to Washington Watch with Tony Perkins on American Family Radio, guest-hosted by Breitbart News legal editor Ken Klukowski.
The Ohio congressman referred to the statements of FBI director James Comey, who had announced Tuesday that he would not recommend prosecuting Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information, but whose findings prove that much of what Clinton told the Benghazi committee about her emails was false.
Specifically, Clinton told the Benghazi committee that she had turned over “all my work related emails” from her private email server to the government; that there was “nothing marked classified on my e-mails”; and that her attorneys “went through every single e-mail.”
According to Comey, all of those statements were false.
Jordan said that while he would leave the decision as to whether Clinton should be prosecuted for perjury to others, “what I do know is the questions I asked and the answers she gave didn’t square with what Mr. Comey said yesterday.”
He added: “And that should not happen in a country as great as ours, where people under oath in positions of real leadership and real importance in our government aren’t giving it to us straight. And again, it’s not my words — that’s what Director Comey said yesterday about Secretary Clinton, and the responses she gave to some of the questions that we asked her back in October.”
Comey will testify before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday. Jordan said that the committee would press Comey about why Clinton was treated as being above the law.
“The takeaway for most Americans is the simple fact that there now appears to be two standards in America: one for we, th people, and then a different standard for the politically connected. And it’s frustrating — if you’re Secretary Clinton, there seems to be a different standard than for anyone else with the same fact pattern.”
He added that IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, and former IRS director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner, also seemed to enjoy that double standard.
Later Wednesday afternoon, Attorney General announced that Clinton would not face criminal charges, following Comey’s recommendation.
