Can Comey Be Indicted For Malfeasance? – IOTW Report

Can Comey Be Indicted For Malfeasance?

Of course not, because the DOJ is in on it too. This stinks from top to bottom, and there are people on the right that won’t vote for Trump in order to dismantle this cabal of corruption. In a way, they are part of the cabal as well.

– James Comey allowed Cheryl Mills to sit with Hillary during her FBI interview and act as counsel, effectively giving Mills and Clinton lawyer/client privilege so that Mills could never testify against Clinton.

But Mills was a material witness, if not a defendant. What was Comey thinking. Was he doing this purposely?

Comey failed to mention that someone had indeed breached Hillary’s private home server.

-Comey knows Clinton lied one way or the other on her Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement.

NYPost: In another bout of amnesia, Clinton told agents she “could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information.”

Yet on Jan. 22, 2009, State records show, she signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” that included a briefing by a diplomatic security officer covering the “retention” and “handling of classified information.”

The then-secretary of state acknowledged in the document, uncovered by Judicial Watch, that unauthorized retention or negligent handling of government secrets could lead to the “termination of any security clearances” and even prosecution.

Hillary – “The post office lost my laptop.”

Comey – “That’s unfortunate, but understandable.”

 

 

14 Comments on Can Comey Be Indicted For Malfeasance?

  1. I have this terrible feeling in my old age, especially when I have a drink or six, that there are these “Masters of The Universe” who just want to take care of themselves. I see it on TV with these scumbags who build these exotic homes, buy islands, build outrageous houses and just don’t give a shit about anything except themselves. As far as I can discern, they are mostly, or all, very Liberal, very rich, and they pretend to be very happy. But, I say to myself, how the fuck can you be happy , with you and the wife in a twenty three bedroom house with six bathrooms? And a fifty foot square kitchen? Where nothing is ever cooked in unless there is some type of political affair. Hillary is coming to dinner with Bill, fire up the ovens. And these are the people who worry most about the poor blacks in ghetto or the poor whites in their ghettos?
    Bullshit! I lost my train of thought. I forgot what the hell I was trying to get at. Sorry. No more Vodka for me.

  2. McCarthy’s review of the patently sham claim of attorney-client privedge is exactly right. Just keep a laywer hanging around with you enough that you can with a straight face, if you’re a sociopath, claim the privilege. I believe I read somewhere that the Mafia crime families came up with the idea. The Clinton’s had good role models.

    Why Comey and the rest of those FBI lawyers didn’t make a call to the judicial officer over seeing such issues for them, and get Mills 86’d from the place, is beyond odd.
    He knew he was bringing this to light when he released the report. So why release it? Especially now?

  3. https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-02-of-02/view#bypass-fullscreen

    page 10 of 11: Hillary told her staff to delete the 30,000 ‘personal’ emails because sje didn’t need them anymore. All of a sudden, after all those years saving all those emails and one day you suddenly decide you don’t need them anymore.

    Any half[assed junior prosecutor could spend all morning bouncing that one off her saggy skinned head.

  4. They make a farce out of our laws and the only thing we can do is sit around and complain about it.
    Just what good is this constitution we have?

    I’ll tell you. It is absolutely worthless.

  5. “James Comey allowed Cheryl Mills to sit with Hillary during her FBI interview and act as counsel, effectively giving Mills and Clinton lawyer/client privilege so that Mills could never testify against Clinton.”

    Uhhh, no. Privilege only applies when Counsel and Client are speaking alone. Conversations held with a third party present are not privileged. Counsel knows this and the client should know. Conversations with law enforcement in the course of an investigation are admissible evidence. That’s about as far from Privileged as you can get.

  6. @ Pelopidas, you hit the nail on the head.
    And just think, if Comey, Justice Roberts, etc, are afraid, where does that leave each of the rest of us ?!

Comments are closed.