What would compel FBI Director James Comey to reopen his investigation into Hillary Clinton? The New York Times reports the development springs from newly discovered emails found on electronic devices belonging to Clinton aide Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner in its investigation into Weiner’s texts with an underage girl. Just two months ago, Comey announced that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, that Hillary’s actions were “extremely careless” but lacked intent and did not rise to the level warranting further investigation.
Everyone’s question is, “what” could be so blockbusting and heretofore unknown that would lead to such a stunning announcement just 11 days before a Presidential election? Is it some smoking gun email to or from Hillary? Did Anthony Weiner turn over evidence as part of a plea deal? Is there an internal revolt within the FBI that prompted this announcement?
Veteran FBI agents say FBI Director James Comey has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his “cowardly” whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server. . . .
But agents say Comey tied investigators’ hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.
“In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews,” said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit. . . .
Comeny’s immunity deal for several key witnesses rankled investigators, among other things.
The immunity agreements came with outrageous side deals, including preventing agents from searching for any documents on a Dell laptop owned by former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills generated after Jan. 31, 2015, when she communicated with the server administrator who destroyed subpoenaed emails.
Comey also agreed to have Mills’ laptop destroyed after the restricted search, denying Congress the chance to look at it and making the FBI an accomplice to the destruction of evidence. . . .
“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time,” Hughes said. “I hold Director Comey responsible.”
Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”
Another retired FBI agent has penned a damning open letter to Director Comey condemning his unilateral decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton for violations of federal law:
[Y]ou eloquently laid out enough of the evidence deduced from the investigation to strongly indicate there was abundant evidence uncovered during the investigation and interview of her to not only indict but to convict her in Federal Court. However, you personally re-worded and soft-pedaled the actions she took as Secretary of State describing her actions as “extremely careless” in using a personal email and un-secured server for her communications while Secretary of State. You rewrote the statute, which is not your job. . . .
Normally, an investigation will be assigned to an agent, or team of agents with one being the Case agent, or the lead investigator. When the investigation is complete, an investigative report will be presented to the U.S. Attorney for the Federal District involved. It would be the U.S. Attorney who decides whether to decline prosecution for that investigation… NOT the FBI agent. But in the Clinton investigation, YOU (unilaterally) decided not to forward the investigation to the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General of the U.S., but instead personally made the decision not to prosecute her or even provide the information to a Federal Grand Jury. You were wrong to take this upon yourself. . . .
Furthermore, you stopped short of investigating the Clinton Foundation as a RICO case (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization). This is a RICO case if there ever were one. Even an untrained person can tell from the communications which were recovered that Hillary Clinton spent more time working for the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State than on State Business. It may be argued that Hillary did not do any State business UNLESS the Clinton Foundation benefitted. You decided to just let this uncomfortable truth alone without addressing it.
Could FBI agents have communicated to Comey that they will go public with what they know, to become whistle blowers, in order to save the agency’s public reputation?
Against the background of the weekly water torture of Wikileaks email releases and promised release of new emails which “will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton,” and the ongoing Project Veritas undercover video series presenting illegal communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and Democrat SuperPacs, Comey may be responding to intolerable pressure.
Director Comey’s decision to reopen the Hillary Clinton server-gate investigation appears to be prompted, at least in part, for reasons of personal and professional damage control as the public learns about the pay-to-play connections between Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton’s activities as Secretary of State.