Comey, of the FBI, raised serious questions during the summer about Clinton’s use of a private server when Secretary of State. Questions were raised about not just the legality of that, but whether or not our national security was compromised. Then for no clear reason, Comey dropped the issue and said there was no reason the Attorney General should file any charges. However; in his dialog, he made it pointedly clear that she was guilty of exposing confidential material to outsiders, and she was careless in the handling of classified material, and she had repeatedly lied about the use of the computer and what was on it. She was also aware of her aides trashing certain hard drives and destroying data.
Then less than two weeks before the election Comey again opened the issue, and again dropped it just 3 days or so before the election. This on again, off again raises many questions. Some of them are:
If Comey was convinced that Clinton was guilty, why did he decline to turn the case over to be prosecuted by the Attorney General?
Was he, as he implied afraid for the well-being of himself and his family?
Was he pressured by the White House to drop it, or perhaps powerful lobbies or Democrats?
When Bill Clinton and the Attorney General had that odd meeting in a private plane sitting on the tarmac was a deal reached?
Why were Bill and the Attorney General not required to give statements about that meeting under oath?
During the second round of investigations were emails found that perhaps implicated others, and maybe more than just what was already known?
If Clinton had been indicted, would Obama have pardoned her while he was still in office?
Could Obama pardon her if she had not yet been found guilty of a crime?
If he did pardon her wouldn’t that imply that he felt she was guilty therefore needing to be pardoned?
Is it even legal for the president to blanket pardon a person for crimes that they may or may not have committed in the past?
Was she not indicted because she would not be able to run while under indictment?
So, now that Clinton has lost the election will the Republicans push the FBI to reopen the issue, or perhaps hold hearings in the House? Or, in the interest of trying to heal the country will they let it drop? If it isn’t pursued doesn’t that give the impression that some are above the law? Could that be more damaging to the healing process than reopening the investigation?
What would you do?
Lynn: Trump has said that he will not appoint a special prosecutor or actively pursue the Clinton issues.
But, of course he doesn’t speak for the House. My guess is that Trump and Ryan struck a deal…Trump will back off to give the impression of healing the riff in the country and the house will open hearings after the inauguration.
Just my theory of course.
Ken, my sentiments exactly in this crazy aspect of the most recent election. I doubt very seriously if anything will come to fruition over the FBI Investigation, regarding Mrs. Clinton. I think they will let it fall to the wayside, until something in the future should shake it once again. The values of what our country stands for have been challenged beyond what could be imagined, yet the values of a government entity remains quiet.