Comey’s Peculiar Explanations

FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday before the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee on the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s and her aides’ handling of e-mails containing classified information on her private e-mail system while she was Secretary of State. In more than four and a half hours of testimony, he sought to explain his recommendation, which he made public in his July 5th press statement, that there was not sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to bring a criminal case against Hillary Clinton. He said the FBI had not developed clear evidence that Clinton intentionally violated the law. Attorney General Loretta Lynch closed the case on July 6th based on the FBI’s recommendation.

When asked whether the FBI was looking into the Clinton Foundation, however, Director Comey notably declined to answer.

  • Sharkibark

    Is it possible (and I`m grasping at straws here but humour me) that Comey`s deferral on prosecuting Hillary on the emails is because he`s got bigger fish to fry with the Clinton Foundation? The damage regarding the emails is done and while inexcusable – Hillary’s prosecution and conviction would do little good moving forward. Getting the Clinton Foundation however…. Now that’s a meaty chowder.

    • V10_Rob

      I’d imagine a conviction against Hillary could only help a subsequent case against the Clinton Foundation.

  • V10_Rob

    Well, he was correct. No reasonable prosecutor would jeopardize themselves to take the case against Clinton. You’d need to find a prosecutor who was UNreasonable, who was self-destructive, or an adrenaline junkie, or terminally ill with no close family or friends.

  • mauser 98

    not peculiar for the Clintons

  • JoKeR