Skip to comments.Does Snopes need to Update Comey/Corruption? [aw!m vanity]
Posted on 08/17/2018 4:23:51 PM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
According to a new book out that was promoted on Hannity [radio] today, Comey/Corruption is now quite obvious.
I confess, I don't remember the book's name. If someone does, please let me know.
Snopes is trying to debunk any 'proof' of the connection with the following website:
Did James Comey Take Millions from the Clinton Foundation?
No evidence suggests that former FBI Director James Comey financially benefited from Bill and Hillary Clinton's charitable foundation.
[Interestingly, the same page confirms many claims.]
from the Snopes page:
Former FBI Director James Comey worked for some organizations that donated to or partnered with the Clinton Foundation.
On 10 September 2016, the Breitbart web site posted a story delineating a set of alleged financial ties between FBI Director James Comey and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whom the Bureau had investigated for using a private server to handle sensitive e-mails in her capacity as secretary of state. Federal prosecutors ultimately declined to file charges, which has inspired accusations of bias on the part of Comey.
Although the article from Breitbart (masters at using incomplete and misleading information to suggest improper financial ties and relationships where none exist) didnt provide any smoking gun showing that Comey was personally involved with any of his previous employers doings with the Clintons charitable foundation, the story has been picked up and spread through the conservative blogosphere with headlines asserting Comey was essentially bribed to clear Clinton of criminal actions.
The Breitbart article linked Comey to the Clinton Foundation through a series of circumstances without ever coming close to proving that Comey received money directly from Bill and Hillary Clintons charitable foundation. It also hinted at malfeasance on the part of Comeys brother, Peter, who is employed in some capacity by the global law firm DLA Piper. DLA Piper reportedly performed an independent audit of the Clinton Foundation, yet Breitbart doesnt document that Peter Comey had anything to do with the audit.
The article featured a collection of Internet searches combing through Comeys professional history and the Clinton Foundations online listing of donors to suggest some tie between the two datasets (of which there was none other than of the tenuous variety):
How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation.
Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010.
According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010.
In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department.
The story moved on to Comeys joining the board of London-based bank, HSBC, in 2013 and how HSBC had partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector’ in New York. The story also cited a Washington Examiner article that stated the DLA Piper firm performed an audit on the Clinton Foundation and was a Foundation donor as well.
The Breitbart story failed to document that James Comeys brother was involved in (or had any tangible connection to) DLA Pipers independent audit of the Clinton Foundation. If the storys own statement that Peter Comey works as Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas is true, it doesnt seem likely he would have taken part in the auditing of a charitable foundation. It also doesnt explain how James Comey would have had a vested interest in the outcome of the FBIs investigation of Hillary Clinton. The article went so far as to note that James once lent his brother money for a home mortgage but didnt provide any remotely credible explanation for how a loan between siblings would suggest any form of wrongdoing.
The story implied that James Comeys once having worked for organizations that were donors or had partnered with the Clinton Foundation in some capacity was proof enough that he was biased in favor of Hillary Clinton when his bureau investigated her for her mishandling of sensitive information, and it alleged a conflict of interest due to his brothers employment in a large law firm that audited the Clinton Foundation. But the evidence offered in support of those charges was nothing more than extremely questionable supposition based on a weak form of guilt by association all based not on any actual investigation, but on simply collating information deftly hidden by the alleged conspirators in online news stories and the Clinton Foundations own web site.
Snopes has the amazing talent of making sh*t sound somewhat appetizing to the right people.
I agree. Have you heard about that book? Was on Hannity /radio today. I can’t remember the name.
>> with headlines asserting Comey was essentially bribed to clear Clinton of criminal actions.
it raises the question of influence
but his loyalty to Herr Clinton was the real scandal. He was cut loose and he chased Trump based on her bogus “file”
Thank you, FRiend. I knew Snopes was full of BS back in the 90s when Boortz tried to shut us up by quoting Snopes.
Yeah, I doubt Snopes is very interested in the truth.
Snopes held out for YEARS that Hitlery hadn’t lied about the origin of her name. They even tried blaming her mama as the source of the lie, that Hil was only repeating what she’d been told. Eventually a staffer came clean.
Snopes-Dude lives about 30 blocks west of me with his (allegedly) former whore.
Snopes is funded by the Clinton Foundation and the George Soros organization. They buy protection by such means.
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 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)
I’m still waiting for Snopes to debunk the hands up don’t shoot narrative.
You’re kidding! They didn’t even debunk that myth????
Hah! I suspected as much! [Snopes funded by Soros/Clinton]
Thank you. FRegards ....
Thank you, FRiend.
And God bless you for your work here!
The word, ‘work’, doesn’t do justice to what you and liz and so many others do here.
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.