FBI Director James Comey will be questioned by Congress today on the investigation into Clinton’s emails and his subsequent refusal to recommend prosecution. It is important to hold his feet to the fire and ask him the tough questions that we all want answers to. Joel Pollak , editor for Breitbart News has prepared 13 questions that are designed to do just that.
Look for democrats to try to paint a picture that Comey’s conclusions are only opinion and try to convince viewers that the process was unfair because Clinton doesn’t get a chance to dispute them. Don’t be fooled. Hillary could talk to the press and declare herself innocent but what she’s done instead is place the reporters behind a rope fence, which she avoids like the plague.
1. You have shown that Clinton lied under oath to Congress last October. She did not turn over “all” work-related emails, her lawyers did not read all of them, and some were marked classified. She has committed perjury, hasn’t she?
2. You said Clinton not only used private servers, and deleted work-related e-mails, but also did so “in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.” That is a violation of federal records laws, and obstruction of justice, isn’t it?
3. We know from ongoing litigation brought by Judicial Watch that Clinton instructed her staff to destroy public records, including burning her daily schedules. The FBI has an obligation to investigate that destruction, doesn’t it?
4. Since “intent” is not part of the relevant statute, why did you decide it was critical? And even it were, given ample circumstantial evidence — including false statements under oath — the standard of intent has been reached, hasn’t it?
5. You said “we cannot find a [similar] case” that led to prosecution. There are several, such as the conviction of Bryan Nishimura, and the discharge of Marine Jason Brezler. The difference is Clinton is a presidential candidate, correct?
6. You have personally prosecuted ordinary people for much smaller offenses, including a man who sent a 23-word email encouraging staff to savesubpoenaed documents. You’re applying a different standard to Clinton, aren’t you?
7. You said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring an indictment against Clinton or her associates. Yet several reasonable federal prosecutors — including a former Attorney General — disagree. That was premature, was it not?
8. The FBI does not decide prosecutions, but presents findings to the Attorney General. Yet you precluded any other decision by stating publicly “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict. You overstepped your authority, didn’t you?
9. You stated that you had “not coordinated or reviewed” your statement with anyone else. Yet the behavior of the Attorney General and former president, among others, raise serious concerns about such coordination, don’t they?
10. People with security clearance have believed, until now, they can be prosecuted if they are careless with classified information. Failing to prosecute Hillary Clinton weakens that deterrent, and sets a dangerous precedent, doesn’t it?
11. You stated that people who do what Clinton did are “often subject to security or administrative sanctions.” But she is no longer a public employee. Short of prosecution, there is no way of holding Hillary Clinton accountable, is there?
12. The Clinton Foundation failed to disclose some foreign donations during Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. The FBI is reportedly investigating public corruption charges as well. That still remains an open investigation, doesn’t it?
13. You made statements have that impugned Clinton’s competence and integrity. She will not have the opportunity to challenge the basis for those statements. It would have been better to grant Clinton her day in court, wouldn’t it?