The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
FBI Director Comey Is Wrong: The Case for Prosecuting liar-Hillary Clinton Is Strong
by Shannen W. Coffin
~~~
. 'Lynch-ing' the Rule of Law
Arnold Ahlert: "The tarmac summit sent a signal. It is a signal to all of the hardworking FBI agents who have the goods on liar-Hillary. The attorney general has made it clear what team she is on. The attorney general isn't on the side of justice. She's on the Democratic Party team."—J. Christian Adams, former DOJ Voting Rights Section attorney
Were it not for the fact that local reporter Christopher Sign from Phoenix's ABC15 Arizona received a news tip and led a crew on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport last Monday, the nation might never have known that Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a private 30-minute meeting with Bill liar-Clinton, despite the reality liar-Hillary Clinton remains under FBI investigation (and was interviewed over the holiday weekend). Moreover, Sign noted the FBI was "instructing everybody around ‘no photos, no pictures, no cell phones.'"
It was so clandestine, liar-Hillary even stole one of Barack nObama's favorite lines: "I learned about it in the news."
A day after the meeting was uncovered, Lynch insisted it was innocuous — "[There was no discussion on any matter pending before the Department or any matter pending with any other body. There was no discussion of Benghazi, no discussion of State Department emails..."
There didn't have to be. The meeting itself was the message. And it is clear that Lynch is every bit the arrogant and compromised law enforcement official her predecessor Eric Holder was. The very same Eric Holder who, when the FBI sought felony charges against former CIA Director David Petraeus for mishandling classified material and then lying about it, had those charges reduced to a misdemeanor.
Thus despite criticism from both sides of the aisle, Lynch refused to recuse herself. Instead, she promised, "The recommendations will be reviewed by career supervisors in the Department of Justice and in the FBI, and by the FBI director, and then, as is the common process, they present it to me and I fully expect to accept their recommendations." Apparently Lynch believes her pinky swear will sufficiently defuse this egregious conflict of interest.
Yet Adams astutely picked up another "tell" as poker players put it, noting that Lynch "borrowed the narrative of the liar-Hillary campaign when she described the FBI criminal investigation as a 'security inquiry.'" Adams explained that it's "a very bad sign that the person who must approve any grand-jury referral has adopted liar-Hillary's dishonest language."
Yet it gets even worse. FBI agents reportedly are not only "livid" about the appearance of the Lynch/liar-Clinton meeting, they are furious because Bill liar-Clinton is a potential witness in a separate FBI investigation of the liar-Clinton Foundation. An investigation where the Lynch-run DOJ filed a motion in federal court last Wednesday on behalf of the State Department, asking for a 27-month delay in producing some key emails between liar-Hillary's top aides and both the Foundation and a public relations firm Bill launched.
In other words, if liar-Clinton wins the election, the public won't know about any potential corruption until after she has been president for nearly two years.
Why the delay? The State Department discovered their estimate of 6,000 emails and other document exchanges between liar-Clinton and her quartet of aides — Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin — had grown to "34,116 potentially responsive documents," as in an average of 700 communications per month between the liar-Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings. The same Teneo Holdings where Bill liar-Clinton was formerly a client and a paid consultant, and where Abedin simultaneously served as employee while working for liar-Hillary at the State Department. Miller was also a "double-dipper," employed by the liar-Clinton Foundation and the liar-Clinton Global Initiative, while serving at State.
And that's when the State Department was keeping track at all. Following a successful FOIA suit in federal court, the Associated Press reviewed liar-Hillary's official calendar during her tenure as secretary of state. The AP identified at least 75 meetings she had with "longtime political donors, liar-Clinton Foundation contributors and corporate and other outside interests" that were scrubbed. AP also confirmed that liar-Clinton failed to turn over at least one work-related 2010 email between her and Abedin indicating she set up her private server to avoid accessibility. And on Monday it was revealed Abedin told Judicial Watch attorneys that liar-Clinton destroyed her secretary of state schedules — as in federal records required to be preserved — "on more than one occasion."
Anyone still remember liar-Clinton deleted a whopping 33,000 "personal" emails based solely on her own discretion?
"I certainly wouldn't do it again," an ostensibly repentant Lynch said Friday, further insisting the "most important thing for me as attorney general is the integrity of this Department of Justice. And the fact that the meeting I had is now casting a shadow over how people will view that work is something that I take seriously and deeply and painfully."
Not seriously and deeply and painfully enough to recuse herself. And the fact that she wouldn't meet with Bill liar-Clinton again is specious nonsense. One meeting was more than enough.
Will the FBI be able to maintain its integrity? Director James Comey insists it will, but integrity is often measured against worries of career destruction. Moreover, one is left to wonder why the agency scheduled a meeting with the former secretary over the holiday weekend, while millions of Americans were distracted with celebrating Independence Day.
liar-Clinton was grilled for three and a half hours. Campaign spokesman Nick Merrill insisted she was "pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the Department of Justice in bringing this review to a conclusion."
"Security inquiry" is now "review," and a corrupt Leftmedia is already reporting no charges will be filed.
"This is a marriage of a liar-Clinton-style carnival ride in an age of nObama-style lawlessness," Adams writes. "The stars of 'no controlling legal authority' are behaving badly in an age of 'punishing your enemies and rewarding your friends.'"
Friends indeed. "While Lynch offers no explanation as to why in the world she agreed to the 30-minute meeting on a plane in Phoenix, perhaps she felt she owed the former president something," writes New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin. "Remember, he first nominated her to be the US attorney in Brooklyn in 1999, a promotion that changed her life."
Regardless, Lynch didn't owe liar-Clinton her integrity, or an already-tainted DOJ an even tawdrier reputation. In a better nation, she would resign. In one run by the most corrupt administration in history, it's not going to happen. -The Patriot Post
.
Veteran Saves 'Freedom'
As millions of Americans geared up to celebrate Independence Day over the weekend, an Army veteran was busy saving our national bird. So to welcome you back from the holiday, here's the feel-good story of the day.
Jason Galvin, a veteran of two tours in Afghanistan, spotted the eagle hanging upside down from a tree after having become entangled in a rope. But at 75 feet up, there wasn't anything the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or local police could do to reach the bird, which had been stranded for two days. The young eagle would die without help, so after clearing it with the DNR, Galvin grabbed his rifle and began shooting at the branches and the rope to dislodge the eagle. After 90 minutes and 150 shots with his .22, Galvin succeeded. The freed eagle is recuperating at the University of Minnesota Raptor Center, and the Galvins and their neighbors agreed on the appropriate name for him: Freedom. -The Patriot Post
.
.
Does Islam Belong to Germany?
by Soeren Kern
.
.
{gatestoneinstitute.org} ~ Nearly two-thirds of Germans believe that Islam does not belong to Germany, according to a recent opinion poll, which also found that only 22% of Germans consider Islam to be an integral part of German society... In a similar poll conducted in January 2015, 37% of Germans said that Islam belongs to Germany, 15% more than now. The results indicate that German attitudes toward Islam are hardening after Chancellor Angela Merkel's decision to allow more than 1.1 million mostly Muslim migrants to enter Germany in 2015. The poll has opened yet another chapter in the decade-long debate over the phrase, "Islam belongs to Germany." The words were first uttered in September 2006 — at the time there were 3.5 million Muslims in Germany, compared to nearly six million today — by then Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble... http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8392/islam-belongs-to-germany
.
Congress funds problematic weapons
the Pentagon does not want
by Lauren Chadwick & R. Jeffrey Smith
.
.
{publicintegrity.org} ~ In the nearly eight years since the first Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) was delivered to the Navy, it hasn’t won many ardent fans outside the Navy, its home-state lawmakers, or the employees of the two shipbuilders producing dueling models... The ships’ maiden voyages have been marked by cracked hulls, engine failures, unexpected rusting, software snafus, weapons glitches, and persistent criticism of how vulnerable they are to an attack. “The ship is not reliable,” the Pentagon’s operational test and evaluation director said in a report released in January 2016, only the most recent such judgment it has made. During 113 days of testing on one ship last year, some of the engines and water jets responsible for propelling the ship forward were out of commission for 45 days... https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/07/05/19869/congress-funds-problematic-weapons-pentagon-does-not-want?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=watchdog&utm_medium=publici-email&goal=0_ffd1d0160d-33053fddc4-100318285&mc_cid=33053fddc4&mc_eid=19f9d76dda
.
FBI Director Comey Is Wrong: The Case for
Prosecuting liar-Hillary Clinton Is Strong
by Shannen W. Coffin
.
.
{nationalreview.com} ~ The FBI built a solid case for prosecuting liar-Hillary Clinton’s criminal misdeeds — but then inexplicably decided not to recommend her prosecution. Like Andy McCarthy, I worked with Jim Comey at the Department of Justice... Jim has always been very cordial and accommodating to me, including supporting some charity fundraising I have done. He is not a close personal friend, but he is someone I worked closely with at times, and have always regarded warmly. With that said, it is clear to me that Director Comey blinked under pressure. Comey’s Tuesday morning press conference read like the opening statement for the prosecution. He dismantled several of the lies that liar-Hillary’s camp has propounded over the last 16 months. As to her claim that there was never any classified information or classified markings in her e-mail, he concluded that 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains were classified. Eight of those e-mail chains were classified top secret and seven contained special-access (or “SCI”) material, the most sensitive secrets our government protects. Some of those classified e-mails — albeit a “very small number” (the exact number is undisclosed) –“bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information.” With respect to the SCI material, Comey reasoned that “any reasonable person in Secretary liar-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.” None of these e-mails “should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437493/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-director-comey-built-strong-case-decided-against
.
Ignoring Overwhelming Evidence, FBI
Opposes liar-Clinton Indictment
by C. Mitchell Shaw
.
.
{thenewamerican.com} ~ The FBI will not recommend that former Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton be indicted for her use of a private e-mail server — regardless of the fact that she certainly violated the law and risked national security... FBI Director James Comey said on Tuesday that the FBI was unable to find any evidence that liar-Clinton intended to break the law and that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring” charges in this case. However, incredibly, in his same statement he actually acknowledged that liar-Clinton did break the law. Comey's statement was — in his own words — “an unusual statement in at least a couple ways.” He listed those ways as: ...Wow! More coverups and injustice. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/23559-ignoring-overwhelming-evidence-fbi-opposes-clinton-indictment
.
Lou Dobbs – Comey Cave On liar-Clinton A
Dark Day In American History
by Rick Wells
.
.
{rickwells.us} ~ Lou Dobbs highlights some of the many instances on video of liar-Hillary Clinton saying one thing and then having it refuted by the facts, what we would normally refer to as lying... He raises some of the issues brought up by James Comey, including his tepid assertion that “It is likely that some of the work emails weren’t turned over.” Really, Director, you’ve got the server, were your forensic hotshots not able to come up with any of those so as to be able to determine that definitively? After pointing out a liar-Clinton claim last March that all of her emails had been delivered to the State Department, Dobbs quotes Director Comey as saying in his briefing that it was “likely there were work-related emails that weren’t turned over...
.
No Sacred Cows? The Washington Post
Continues Carrying CAIR's Water
by Steven Emerson
.
.
{investigativeproject.org} ~ Virtually any news story about the new program would cover this context in detail. It's reasonable to expect major news outlets would devote entire stories comparing the new claims to the church's history... It would be inconceivable to omit that background even if the new program proved to be a smashing success. This is what makes the Washington Post's coverage of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) so confounding. The newspaper, which rarely hesitates to investigate the backgrounds of politicians, companies and more, has never seen fit to delve into CAIR's checkered history. Independence Day brought yet another story casting CAIR as a reliable partner in the fight against terrorism and Islamist extremism. CAIR's Florida chapter, the headline says, "is doing what the government has so far failed to do." It tells the story of "intervention teams" on alert in South Florida to help cases of radicalized Muslims who might be thinking of committing violence. Some of the seven individuals identified so far have been referred to law enforcement, the story says... http://www.investigativeproject.org/5486/no-sacred-cows-the-washington-post-continues#
.
Chinese and Japanese Fighters
Clash Over East China Sea
by Sam LaGrone
by Sam LaGrone
.
Japanese Air Self Defense Forces F-15s
.
{usni.org} ~ Beijing claims a pair of Japanese fighters locked weapons radar on their planes over the East China Sea, while Tokyo denies the accusation... During the June 17 incident, Chinese defense officials said two Japanese Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) Mitsubishi F-15J Eagles intercepted two Chinese Sukhoi Su-30 fighters over the East China Sea in the Beijing declared Air Defense Identification Zone near the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands. “The Japanese fighter jets approached and warned the Chinese military aircraft, while the Chinese military aircraft did not leave. During the flight, the Japanese fighter jets came face to face with the Chinese military aircraft for many times. To avoid risks, the Japanese fighter jets released infrared jamming shells and then flew out of that airspace,” according to a Monday report by China Military Online quoting Ministry of National Defense officials... https://news.usni.org/2016/07/05/chinese-japanese-fighters-clash-east-china-sea?utm_source=USNI+News&utm_campaign=640e0b9bd2-USNI_NEWS_DAILY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0dd4a1450b-640e0b9bd2-231491269&mc_cid=640e0b9bd2&mc_eid=3999f18767
.
Cruz’s Powerful Response to the FBI’s Decision
Regarding liar-Clinton’s Email Scandal
by Susan Wright
.
{redstate.com} ~ As a Constitutional lawyer, Texas Senator Ted Cruz knows a thing or two about the law... As a conservative senator, he knows what a tank of sharks Washington, D.C. can be. After today’s announcement by FBI Director James Comey that liar-Hillary Clinton would skate on charges of wrongdoing, in regards to her hiding, destroying, and total mishandling of sensitive emails, Senator Cruz made a strong statement... http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/07/05/senator-ted-cruzs-powerful-response-fbis-decision-regarding-clintons-email-scandal/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl
.
Speaker Ryan: FBI’s Announcement
‘Defies Explanation’
by Kemberlee Kaye
by Kemberlee Kaye
.
.
{legalinsurrection.com} ~ Despite describing liar-Hillary’s email debacle as “completely careless,” the FBI announced earlier today it would not recommend prosecution. Professor Jacobson covered the decision in more detail... Surprising? Not really. Maddening? Hell yes it is. Responses across the political spectrum are trickling in and Speaker Ryan minced no words, rejecting liar-Clinton’s “pattern of dishonesty and poor judgement”... http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/07/speaker-ryan-fbis-announcement-defies-explanation/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le%C2%B7gal+In%C2%B7sur%C2%B7rec%C2%B7tion%29
.
Liberal AG Global Warming Investigations
Into Exxon Mobil Are Falling Apart
by Michael Bastasch
.
.
{dailysignal.com} ~ Exxon Mobil Corp. fended off two of the investigations launched by liberal attorneys general into the oil giant’s alleged campaign to mislead the public on global warming... U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker has withdrawn the subpoena he sent Exxon Mobil as part of his anti-racketeering investigation, and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s office has agreed to temporarily suspend enforcing her subpoena. “After conferring on the matter, the parties mutually agreed that Attorney General Walker will withdraw the subpoena and ExxonMobil will stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of this action,” reads a legal filing submitted to the court Thursday by Exxon Mobil and Walker that was obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation... http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/01/liberal-ag-global-warming-investigations-into-exxon-mobil-are-falling-apart/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTWpOaU56UXpZMlUyTTJGaSIsInQiOiJjZUZoR2J1RERrMFllRTVxV2g5ZjI1VDRxc3FqRTA4blUxa3dxMEpyTUNITE9ueEFIbHFZOGVZVVZ0SE1YUVcrc1M1cU54cnNYVVRGODFyMzFsWk9UZVVxVTMrT1NzekI2RnlDNnQ1RWpKZz0ifQ%3D%3D
{dailysignal.com} ~ Exxon Mobil Corp. fended off two of the investigations launched by liberal attorneys general into the oil giant’s alleged campaign to mislead the public on global warming... U.S. Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker has withdrawn the subpoena he sent Exxon Mobil as part of his anti-racketeering investigation, and Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s office has agreed to temporarily suspend enforcing her subpoena. “After conferring on the matter, the parties mutually agreed that Attorney General Walker will withdraw the subpoena and ExxonMobil will stipulate to the dismissal without prejudice of this action,” reads a legal filing submitted to the court Thursday by Exxon Mobil and Walker that was obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation... http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/01/liberal-ag-global-warming-investigations-into-exxon-mobil-are-falling-apart/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTWpOaU56UXpZMlUyTTJGaSIsInQiOiJjZUZoR2J1RERrMFllRTVxV2g5ZjI1VDRxc3FqRTA4blUxa3dxMEpyTUNITE9ueEFIbHFZOGVZVVZ0SE1YUVcrc1M1cU54cnNYVVRGODFyMzFsWk9UZVVxVTMrT1NzekI2RnlDNnQ1RWpKZz0ifQ%3D%3D
.
.
FBI Director Comey Is Wrong: The Case for
Prosecuting liar-Hillary Clinton Is Strong
by Shannen W. Coffin
.
.
{nationalreview.com} ~ The FBI built a solid case for prosecuting Hillary Clinton’s criminal misdeeds — but then inexplicably decided not to recommend her prosecution.
Like Andy McCarthy, I worked with Jim Comey at the Department of Justice. Jim has always been very cordial and accommodating to me, including supporting some charity fundraising I have done. He is not a close personal friend, but he is someone I worked closely with at times, and have always regarded warmly. With that said, it is clear to me that Director Comey blinked under pressure.
Comey’s Tuesday morning press conference read like the opening statement for the prosecution. He dismantled several of the lies that Hillary’s camp has propounded over the last 16 months. As to her claim that there was never any classified information or classified markings in her e-mail, he concluded that 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains were classified. Eight of those e-mail chains were classified top secret and seven contained special-access (or “SCI”) material, the most sensitive secrets our government protects. Some of those classified e-mails — albeit a “very small number” (the exact number is undisclosed) –“bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information.” With respect to the SCI material, Comey reasoned that “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.” None of these e-mails “should have been on any kind of unclassified system.”
He all but concluded that liar-Hillary had been hacked by foreign powers — or at least substantially increased the risk of such hacking with her reckless handling of her e-mail system. The FBI did not find “direct evidence” of successful hacking, but given the nature of the system and the sophistication of the hackers, it was “unlikely to see such direct evidence.” Nevertheless, the FBI knows that “hostile actors gained access to the private commercial accounts of people” — like Sidney Blumenthal — “with whom the Secretary was in regular contact from her personal account.” That risk, of course, would have existed with an official account as well. But the director also noted that her use of a personal e-mail account to conduct foreign business “was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent,” which substantially increased that risk. Finally, and most damningly, she “used her personal email extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving worked-related email in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.” This merely confirms what was already public, including e-mail chains in which her aides talked of security incidents while travelling in China. As a result, the FBI determined it “is possible that hostile actors gained access” to her official e-mails.
RELATED:
FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook
Comey also debunked the notion that liar-Hillary had turned over all of her official e-mails to the State Department when requested. “Several thousand” undisclosed e-mails were identified by the FBI, culled either directly from her server or from other sources such as other State Department employees’ e-mails. As we’ve discussed in these pages, federal law makes it a felony for the official custodian of a federal record to intentionally and unlawfully conceal, alter, or delete that record. Comey concluded there was nothing nefarious in those deletions, reasoning that there was “no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them in some way.” But the very existence of the server evidences deliberate concealment. Comey provided no explanation for liar-Clinton’s reasons behind the server itself. Nor did he seek to address the legality of liar-Clinton’s exclusive use of that server to conduct official business out of the gaze of public scrutiny.
The greatest shortcoming of Comey’s public comments, though, were in his conclusion that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a case for mishandling of classified information. Comey himself made the case for such a prosecution. The investigation “looked at whether there is evidence that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system in violation of a federal statute that makes it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way.” Here, Comey referred to 18 U.S.C. § 793(f), which criminalizes conduct by which the recipient of national-defense information “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.”
POLL:
Was liar-Hillary Let Off the Hook Because She’s an Elitist Politician?
Comey found all of the factual predicates for this statute satisfied: 1) liar-Clinton and her staff mishandled more than 100 classified e-mails, some containing information classified at the highest levels and some containing markings demonstrating classification; 2) any reasonable person in liar-Clinton’s position would have known that her e-mail system was not where those discussions should take place; and 3) most importantly (and perhaps most obviously), liar-Clinton was “extremely careless” in doing so. Gross negligence and “extreme carelessness” are interchangeable terms, something Comey obviously knows. The result of that extreme carelessness was to substantially raise the risk of exposing our national secrets to foreign powers.
Yet he found no violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793(f). Why? According to Comey, all the past cases in which similar transgressions were prosecuted involved “some combination of clearly intentional or willful mishandling of classified information or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way to support an inference of intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or an obstruction of justice.” One could seriously debate whether that standard could be met here. But even if it couldn’t, 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 mine]. 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.
Director Comey’s press conference was a study in contradiction. But it was also an example of how divorcing an inquiry from its context leads to indefensible results. Comey found that liar-Hillary Clinton quite plainly mishandled classified information and exposed the United States to a heightened risk of national-security harm. But he forgot to explain the reason she did so — to keep her business, both public and private, beyond the reach of public scrutiny. She did all of this to avoid congressional oversight, FOIA requests, and accountability to the public. Comey’s decision simply ensures that she was successful in avoiding that accountability.
Comments