PAPER: It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s

PAPER: It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s
http://conservativefighters.com/news/paper-wasnt-comeys-decision-exonerate-hillary-obamas/
James Comey’s irreparable reputation took another body blow this week after a memo emerged, written by the former FBI Director, appearing to exonerate Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing in relation to her handling of classified information — prior to the investigation’s conclusion. With all the focus on Comey’s role in Hillary Clinton’s exoneration, it begs the question if the decision was made by a “higher power.”

No, not God.

But by a man who may think of himself as one — Barack Obama. National Review’s Andrew McCarthy believes Obama was the puppet master, so to speak, driving the narrative to insure Hillary was gotten off the hook, ensuring the Democrat Party continued its control over the White House.

National Review reports:

Let’s think about what else was going on in April 2016. I’ve written about it a number of times over the last year-plus, such as in a column a few months back: On April 10, 2016, President Obama publicly stated that Hillary Clinton had shown “carelessness” in using a private e-mail server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the [criminal statutes relevant to her e-mail scandal]). The president acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, its importance had been vastly overstated. This is precisely the reasoning that Comey relied on in ultimately absolving Clinton, as I recounted in the same column: On July 5, 2016, FBI director James Comey publicly stated that Clinton had been “extremely careless” in using a private email server to handle classified information, but he insisted that she had not intended to endanger national security (which is not an element of the relevant criminal statute).

The director acknowledged that classified information had been transmitted via Secretary Clinton’s server, but he suggested that, in the greater scheme of things, it was just a small percentage of the emails involved. Obama’s April statements are the significant ones. They told us how this was going to go. The rest is just details. In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to succeed him, to be indicted. Conveniently, his remarks (inevitably echoed by Comey) did not mention that an intent to endanger national security was not an element of the criminal offenses Clinton was suspected of committing – in classic Obama fashion, he was urging her innocence of a strawman crime while dodging any discussion of the crimes she had actually committed.

As we also now know – but as Obama knew at the time – the president himself had communicated with Clinton over her non-secure, private communications system, using an alias. The Obama administration refused to disclose these several e-mail exchanges because they undoubtedly involve classified conversations between the president and his secretary of state. It would not have been possible to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for mishandling classified information without its being clear that President Obama had engaged in the same conduct. The administration was never, ever going to allow that to happen.

As The Gateway Pundit reported on Friday, it looks like Comey has some explaining to do. The former FBI Director testified to Congress that he decided not to recommended charges in relation to handling of classified information, after the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton on July 2, 2016. However, a new report reveals Comey penned a memo exonerating Clinton in the Spring.

On September 28th, 2016, Texas GOP Rep. John Ratcliffe asked Comey the following (simple) question:

“Director, did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July 2nd?”

Comey’s answer under oath?

“After”
Following the exchange, the Office of Rep. John Ratcliffe issued the following statement:

Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) exposed troubling new details today surrounding the Clinton email investigation during his questioning of FBI Director James Comey before the House Judiciary Committee. In the exchange, Ratcliffe focused on implications of the facts revealed by documents released by the FBI after Comey initially announced his recommendation not to press criminal charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Ratcliffe’s exchange with Comey showed that:

In his multi-decade career as a prosecutor Comey could not recall a single instance in which two key witnesses of a criminal investigation were allowed to sit in on an interview with the principle target of that same investigation, as was the case in the Clinton email investigation.
The FBI appears to have focused on only two portions of criminal code related to the mishandling of sensitive information, specifically in regard to Clinton herself, while ignoring the possible destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice by other parties. In fact, Comey readily admitted that Paul Combetta, who destroyed emails records of Hillary Clinton with Bleach Bit despite a preservation request to retain them, lied to federal investigators before receiving immunity.
“As a former federal prosecutor, I can tell you that it’s unheard of for a potential key witness to be present when the target of an investigation is being interviewed. In fact, I’ve never seen it. And Comey admitted he’s never seen it. The American people have every right to wonder why this occurred in Clinton’s case – this isn’t the treatment anyone else in our country would have received, and it frankly appears that the outcome of this investigation was predetermined from the start,” Ratcliffe said.

Documents released on Thursday show former FBI head James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton before the investigation into her email conduct had concluded. Even more concerning is “Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership,” reports Townhall.

According to new transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Thursday afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey made the decision not to refer then Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for prosecution long before ever interviewing key witnesses. Members of the Committee allege Comey made the decision months before FBI agents were finished with the criminal investigation of her mishandling classified information during her time as Secretary of State.

The transcripts were revealed in a letter sent to current FBI Director Christopher Wray, in which lawmakers are demanding an explanation and more documents surrounding the case.

“According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts,” the letter, signed by Chairman Chuck Grassley and Committee member Lindsey Graham states. “Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.”

Former Congressman Jason Chaffetz believes Comey may have committed perjury.

Jason Chaffetz said former FBI Director James Comey has a lot of “explaining to do” in light of new reports that he began drafting a statement exonerating Hillary Clinton even before interviewing key witnesses, including the former secretary of state.

“He’s certainly got a lot of explaining to do. He could have perjured himself,” the former House oversight committee chairman said on “Fox & Friends.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley and fellow GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham wrote a letter to the FBI this week, expressing concern over whether Comey made up his mind about the email investigation months before his public news conference.
“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation,” the senators wrote. “The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.”


Obama’s 2018 budget requests will make him most expensive ex-president on taxpayer dime — Here’s why
http://conservativefighters.com/news/obamas-2018-budget-requests-will-make-expensive-ex-president-taxpayer-dime-heres/
Former President Barack Obama’s budget requests for 2018 will make him the most expensive living ex-president for taxpayers.

According to the Washington Times, Obama’s post-presidential needs will cost taxpayers $1,153,000 next year. The figure surpasses former Presidents George W. Bush by more than $100,000, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush by more than $200,000 and Jimmy Carter by nearly $700,000.

More from the Times:

By far the biggest cost for ex-presidents is renting office space. Mr. Obama’s office — 8,198 square feet in D.C. — will cost taxpayers $536,000 next year, the most of any ex-president. Mr. Clinton’s New York office is bigger, at 8,300 square feet, but slightly cheaper at $518,000. The younger Mr. Bush’s office in Dallas is $497,000, while his father’s space in Houston is $286,000. Mr. Carter’s Atlanta office is just $115,000.

The 1958 Former Presidents Act provides former living presidents with several lifelong benefits, including taxpayer funded office space, staff, travel and pension.

Post-presidential pensions begin at a base rate of $205,700, but former presidents can ask Congress for additional money. According to the Congressional Research Service memo, which details the numbers, Obama’s pension next year will be $236,000, the highest of his colleagues. Clinton’s is second-highest at $231,000 while the younger Bush’s is third-highest at $225,000.

The Times notes that the 50’s-era law was passed after Harry Truman struggled for income after leaving the White House.

In modern days, however, the presidential office makes a former first family extremely wealthy, which makes one question why former presidents need taxpayer funded anything, yet alone a pension and employment benefits.

In fact, the Clintons have made more than $100 million in their post-White House days. The younger Bushes have also racked up tens of millions in wealth since leaving Washington in Jan. 2009. But the Obamas are expected to eclipse the earnings of any former president with massive book deals and lucrative speaking engagements. Their post-White House career earnings are expected to be measured in hundreds of millions of dollars.

So far, the Obamas reportedly accepted more than $60 million to work on post-presidential memoirs while Barack has already hit the speaking circuit.