Skip to comments.Inspector General Horowitz Submits Draft Report of Clinton Email Investigation For Principal Review
Posted on 05/16/2018 2:41:08 PM PDT by detective
Inspector General Michael Horowitz has submitted the Draft Report of his OIG investigation to the principals involved. The IG investigation encompasses the FBI and DOJ conduct during the 2015/2016 Hillary Clinton investigation. The Draft Report encompasses the findings.
The Draft Report review is the last review phase prior to the Final report being released. The Draft Report review allows the principals to provide input on the facts identified and outlined within the draft.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
From CNBC.com, July 7, 2016...
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ...”
Heres a full transcript of the exchange:
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: Thats what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, Im looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: Thats not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material. That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: Thats a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, theres no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, Im not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?
In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. Youre right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didnt say that in 08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you dont know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if youre Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned theres no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isnt. Theres nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out.
But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)
This report is just the about the Clinton email investigation, as I've had to point out to some.
All the other stuff most likely won't be ready for another year.
Leaks to commence in 3, 2, 1....
From CNN, July 2016...
This was not his first time investigating the Clintons [Comey]
Nor his second. The email server probe marked the third time Comey has investigated Bill or Hillary Clinton.
His first run-in came in the mid-1990s, when he joined the Senate Whitewater Committee as a deputy special counsel. There he dug into allegations that the Clintons took part in a fraud connected to a Arkansas real estate venture gone bust. No charges were ever brought against either Clinton...”
“In 2002, Comey, then a federal prosecutor, took over an investigation into President Bill Clinton’s 2001 pardon of financier Marc Rich, who had been indicted on a laundry list of charges before fleeing the country . ...”
“The Whitewater controversy (also known as the Whitewater scandal, or simply Whitewater) began with investigations into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s.”
Jim Guy Tucker: Governor of Arkansas at the time, removed from office (fraud, 3 counts)
John Haley: attorney for Jim Guy Tucker (tax evasion)
William J. Marks, Sr.: Jim Guy Tucker’s business partner (conspiracy)
Stephen Smith: former Governor Clinton aide (conspiracy to misapply funds). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Webster Hubbell: Clinton political supporter; Rose Law Firm partner (embezzlement, fraud)
Jim McDougal: banker, Clinton political supporter: (18 felonies, varied)
Susan McDougal: Clinton political supporter (multiple fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
David Hale: banker, self-proclaimed Clinton political supporter: (conspiracy, fraud)
Neal Ainley: Perry County Bank president (embezzled bank funds for Clinton campaign)
Chris Wade: Whitewater real estate broker (multiple loan fraud). Bill Clinton pardoned.
Larry Kuca: Madison real estate agent (multiple loan fraud)
Robert W. Palmer: Madison appraiser (conspiracy). Bill Clinton pardoned.
John Latham: Madison Bank CEO (bank fraud)
Eugene Fitzhugh: Whitewater defendant (multiple bribery)
Charles Matthews: Whitewater defendant (bribery)
Ultimately the Clintons were never charged, but 15 other persons were convicted of more than 40 crimes, including Bill Clinton’s successor as Governor, who was removed from office.
From reading the big NYT article today on the FBI counter-intelligence investigation of the Trump campaign, it sounds like the NYT already has an idea of it.
Here will be the big takeaways:
1. The IG report will stress how unfair it was to Hillary for Comey to talk extensively about her conduct in his July 5 press conference. He was supposed to use his carefully cultivated boy scout reputation to just exonerate her and leave it at that, not go on to give a PhD dissertation.
2. The IG report will stress how unfair it was to Hillary for Comey to publicly inform Congress that he had to re-open the investigation into Hillary after 650,000 of her emails were found by the NYPD on Carlos Danger’s laptop.
3. The IG report will tut-tut Strzok and Page for being indiscreet in their text messages about their strong anti-Trump feelings, but will say hey, after all, everyone is allowed to have opinions on politics even FBI agents.
Those who believe Sessions (even though he is recused) and Huber are working with the IG to comprehensively chronicle the Deep State plot to rig the election for Hillary and spy on and frame Trump and bring all Deep State crimes to justice will be disappointed.
Yes - where are the leaks
I’ll believe it when I see it!
I think the IG report will be devestating. And if he discovered evidence of crimes, he already reported them to Rosenstein/Sessions. But I have doubts Huber is investigating. It’s all conjecture; there is no proof.
I do hope he is investigating the email fiasco, but my fear is Rosensessions brickwalled it. Just said, “nope.”
So the bad guy and gals- Including Hillary- Already have the report. We will have to wait a bit.
I think it is of national importance and we already have a rouge intel service. Trump should just cut through the thick BS tape and by executive order bring i out..first tell field agents to come home, and just lay it on the table, if the evidence shows a rouge intel service, better to disband it, or at least decapitate with comey and crew
The OIG only reports facts. It will be up Rip Can Sessions to reach the likely conclusion that (1) Hillary and her cabal at State violated the espionage act, that (2) Hillary and her cabal obstructed justice, (3) key DOJ and FBI officials conspired to protect Hillary and her cabal from being prosecuted.
After which he would have no choice but to launch a full criminal investigation which is perhaps already underway by US Attorney Huber.
Wake me for the perp walk. Till then ......
Sundance: “Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Asst. AG Rod Rosenstein will review the draft report and control who they allow to review.”
Sessions is recused. He will not be given the draft report. He will first see it with everyone else when the final report is issued publicly.
Sundance appears to be under the impression John Huber has actually commenced a criminal investigation into all this. There is no reason to believe that based on the statements Sessions has made about the assignment he gave Huber.
But no hangings on pay per view?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.