Comey making up his mind before interviewing Hillary in context of Intent

First, for those unaware, evidence has recently came to light that in as early as May Comey was drafted a document about the conclusion of his investigation in May 2016, long bfore he even interviewed Hillary.

The FBI released documents on Monday revealing former Director James Comey drafted a statement about the conclusion of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server long before that investigation had actually concluded.

The FBI emails released this week are heavily redacted, but confirm Comey began drafting his July statement as early as May. Clinton herself was not interviewed until July 2.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

I agree with some of the points in that article that say that this alone is not very troubling.

For example, Comey and investigators could have found no evidence that Hillary had a server or home, or no evidence that she ever deleted requested material. In this situation, it would clearly make sense for investigators to be almost certain even before interviewing Hillary.

However, lets remember what Comey ultimately concluded in his final statement.

I will link the whole document, but suffice it to say he outlined all of the things Hillary did wrong, and then said the following.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

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.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

www.fbi.gov... -a-personal-e-mail-system

As you can see, he says that although there were potential violations, he wasn't recommending prosecution especially because there was o evidence of intent.

Put another way, had there been intent to hide information, he would have recommended prosecution.

Given this, how in the world could he make a conclusive judgement on Hillary's intent before he ever interviewed her or many other people.

This is ridiculous.

If I am trying to figure out why someone did something, the first place I would start is asking them. Then I would see if what they said matched up with the evidence.

How did Comey know what Hillary would say? Yes, it was pretty obvious she wasn't going to admit criminality; but any good investigator would want to here what she said and match it with the evidence before the made a judgement on intent.

Not only was it outrageous for Comey to even bring intent into the equation as that is not part of the law, but to now know that apparently he had made a judgement about her inetnt months beforer even interviewing her proves that he was either grossly incompetent, or corrupt.

-Chris

Couple things..

Counterintelligence gives a pretty broad sword to create a smokescreen or disinfo (lie). Though this doesn't seem to make sense here.

He is a powerful veteran of DC with a Deadman switch for sure.

He may have drafted another memo saying something else.

I find it hard to believe he would leave an obvious trail.

He may be the scourge of the right and the left (since he went after Clinton days before the election) but he ain't stupid.

My guess he was told to stand down by Lynch and thy would bury evidence and stack the bench, and he played his cards like a hoover.

a reply to: Grambler

Given this, how in the world could he make a conclusive judgement on Hillary's intent before he ever interviewed her or many other people.

He couldn't....bottom line.
Or at least anyone that had some integrity couldn't.
My guess is he was paid off to exonerate the witch in the July press conference and maybe he had a guilty conscience or something, when he announced they were reopening the investigation around Halloween.
I am really surprised he hasn't turned up dead by now for crossing Hillary like that after getting paid for the first hand wash.

a reply to: RazorV66

My personal opinion is he was leashed by lynch and found a way to get around it..maybe left more crumbs for Mueller.

I hope.

Again , no one has to prove intent on a felony or federal offense.
Look at it this way. A person goes into a bank and pulls a weapon. Now , imagine this person says absolutely nothing....
What would happen , ya think ?
I think felony armed robbery. No proof of intent needed. This person would have to PROVE that was not the intention.

a reply to: Gothmog

They do if the person running the police department won't prosecute.

a reply to: Grambler

He more than likely knew his days were numbered if Trump got elected. He gambled and lost.

As he's always stated, the only person he trusts is his wife. I actually believe that, and also believe that he would do right by his family. Like keeping a great career. Again he gambled on HRC.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Gothmog

They do if the person running the police department won't prosecute.

They would HAVE TO .
Invalid argument . It is a felony charge. Officers cannot make their minds up on that one.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Grambler

He more than likely knew his days were numbered if Trump got elected. He gambled and lost.

As he's always stated, the only person he trusts is his wife. I actually believe that, and also believe that he would do right by his family. Like keeping a great career. Again he gambled on HRC.

He probably had a huge part in her losing that doesn't make sense.

How would he gamble by saYing they ate opening up the investigation again right before the election?

Do you remeber his comments about Lynch.

He brings up charges she burns the evidence and refuses to prosecute...

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Grambler

He more than likely knew his days were numbered if Trump got elected. He gambled and lost.

As he's always stated, the only person he trusts is his wife. I actually believe that, and also believe that he would do right by his family. Like keeping a great career. Again he gambled on HRC.

He more than likely knew his days were numbered if Trump got elected. He gambled and lost.

He knew his days of a President being able to cover up his graft and corruption had came to an end....

a reply to: Gothmog

The prosecutors can as can the judges.

a reply to: Gothmog

So he came out a few days before the election and said I am reopening the case?

That doesn't seem logical to your conclusion.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Grambler

He more than likely knew his days were numbered if Trump got elected. He gambled and lost.

As he's always stated, the only person he trusts is his wife. I actually believe that, and also believe that he would do right by his family. Like keeping a great career. Again he gambled on HRC.

He probably had a huge part in her losing that doesn't make sense.

How would he gamble by saYing they ate opening up the investigation again right before the election?

Do you remeber his comments about Lynch.

He brings up charges she burns the evidence and refuses to prosecute...

To make her look like the victim. That was the goal the whole time. They gambled and lost. It's how I see it.

a reply to: luthier

He may have drafted another memo saying something else.

That could be a very possible scenario. Was there one found would be a question for that scenario.

I find it hard to believe he would leave an obvious trail.

He may have had to much faith in bleach bit, but he has never seemed to be a top notch thinking sort of man.

He may be the scourge of the right and the left (since he went after Clinton days before the election) but he ain't stupid.

I don't think he is stupid, but I think that FBI director was a position way above his skills and abilities.

My guess he was told to stand down by Lynch and thy would bury evidence and stack the bench, and he played his cards like a hoover.

That would make him not very adept in the skills of counter intelligence, which would prove my previous statement about his skills and abilities.

a reply to: 3daysgone

They are official typed memos people saw at the time...

He is literally one of the top US prosecutors over 30 years bitter about the DOJ being political.

How would he not be very adept if he leaves a trail that brings people down?

Why did he decide to reopen the investigation because he wanted Hilary to win?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Grambler

He more than likely knew his days were numbered if Trump got elected. He gambled and lost.

As he's always stated, the only person he trusts is his wife. I actually believe that, and also believe that he would do right by his family. Like keeping a great career. Again he gambled on HRC.

He probably had a huge part in her losing that doesn't make sense.

How would he gamble by saYing they ate opening up the investigation again right before the election?

Do you remeber his comments about Lynch.

He brings up charges she burns the evidence and refuses to prosecute...

To make her look like the victim. That was the goal the whole time. They gambled and lost. It's how I see it.

Possible but I don't think so that is a much bigger stretch given his account of lynch telling him what to say.

a reply to: luthier

That was after the election, no?

a reply to: JinMI

It was, does that mean it wasn't true? Did lynch say it never happened? It's not his fault he was questioned after the election.

It's a tricky deal. I really don't know what to make of it.

My hope is he found a way to leave a trail to actually get her prosecuted. I man can dream can't he?

a reply to: luthier

I'm arguing that they, which includes Comey/Clinton/Obama/Lynch/SlickWilly/Abedin were working an angle to get HRC in office. They had to do something before the election to shift the direction of Trumps campaign. They opted to put her in the light of a victim. It didn't work.

Everything after the election that came out of Comeys mouth was IMO to attempt and secure his spot and/or reputation. Upon figuring out that both were going away, he leaked in hopes to possibly cash in on a new job or...cash.

This is just my opinion based on the facts that I've seen.