Fox News has reviewed an internal FBI chart made during their “Midyear Exam” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. Next to what would have been the section of the statute most applicable to Clinton’s case, 18 U. S. Code 793 (f), was the following comment:
NOTE: DOJ not willing to charge this; only known cases are Military, cases when accused lost the information (e.g. thumb drive sent to unknown recipient at wrong address.)
Contrary to former FBI Director James Comey’s frequent denials that the DOJ had ordered the FBI to scuttle the investigation, this document entitled “Espionage Act Charges – Retention/Mishandling,” indicates otherwise.
The chart listed various sections of statute including the most obvious one, 18 U. S. Code 793 (f) which states:
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
This was the section which most directly applied to Clinton, yet the DOJ was not “willing” to bring charges against her.
At Comey’s now infamous July 2016 press conference at which he exonerated Hillary Clinton, he told reporters, “What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”
Except for the influence of the Obama DOJ, that is.
Comey also stated that, “Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges,” including “the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent.”
Section (f) does not require a defendant’s “intent.”
The FBI’s role is to investigate a potential crime and to submit their conclusions and recommendations on a future course of action to the DOJ. Comey grossly overstepped his authority by his public exoneration of Clinton.
Comey later defended this highly unusual move because news of Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s secret meeting on the tarmac of the Phoenix, AZ airport several days before had “compromised” her.
During former FBI lawyer Lisa Page’s testimony before Congress last July, she was questioned by Rep. John Ratcliffe, (R-TX).
“So let me if I can, I know I’m testing your memory. But when you say advice you got from the Department, you’re making it sound like it was the Department that told you: You’re not going to charge gross negligence because we’re the prosecutors and we’re telling you we’re not going to —”
Between Page’s testimony and the written note on the FBI’s internal chart that the DOJ was not willing to charge Clinton under Section (f) of 18 U.S. Code 793, it’s difficult to conclude that the DOJ did not influence the outcome of Midyear Exam.
It’s equally hard to imagine that Barack Obama did not influence the DOJ.