RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Kiriakou writes: "Conservative and other Republican-leaning websites over the July 4 long weekend began preparing their readers for the possibility - the likelihood, maybe - that Hillary Clinton would not be indicted as a result of her email scandal."

Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, October 22, 2015. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, October 22, 2015. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)


What if Hillary Clinton Were a Whistleblower?

By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News

05 July 16

 

onservative and other Republican-leaning websites over the July 4 long weekend began preparing their readers for the possibility—the likelihood, maybe—that Hillary Clinton would not be indicted as a result of her email scandal. And this is despite the fact that former President Bill Clinton may have improperly and inappropriately inserted himself into the case by “running into” Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at an airport in Phoenix, AZ. The former President claimed later that the two had spoken for 20 minutes, but only about his grandchildren. His wife’s case, he said, wasn’t discussed. That meeting came within a day of news reports that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had met with the FBI for three-and-a-half hours to talk about her email server.

More importantly, Attorney General Lynch went so far as to say that she would have to assess whether or not Hillary Clinton had “criminal intent” when she had the email server set up and when she sent classified emails from it.

Either this is a red herring or the Justice Department, the FBI, and the judge in my case owe me and others an apology and the President owes me a pardon.

Four years after I blew the whistle on the CIA’s torture program I was charged with five felonies, including three counts of espionage (for speaking about torture with reporters from the New York Times and ABC News), one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (for confirming the name of a former CIA colleague; the reporter never revealed the name, and it was never made public), and one count of making a false statement, a “throwaway charge,” the basis of which was never clear to me.

In my very first hearing, my judge, a Bill Clinton appointee who reserves all national security cases for herself (me, Jeffrey Sterling, Ed Snowden, and others), said that she would not respect precedent from the Tom Drake case, saying that a defendant in a national security case had to have criminal intent to be prosecuted for espionage. That begged the question of whether a defendant could then “accidentally” commit espionage. “That’s exactly what it means,” the judge said. I didn’t stand a chance.

But in Hillary Clinton’s case, it seems that everything rests on the notion of criminal intent. Did Hillary, then, set up her email server specifically to subvert the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Did she set up her email server for the express purpose of passing classified information to people not entitled to receive it? Of course not. But that’s not the standard, at least it’s not in the federal Eastern District of Virginia.

I understand that life isn’t fair. I understand the reality of American politics that some people get special treatment and others don’t. I understand that I wasn’t married to a president and that I’m not a former Secretary of State. I sincerely appreciate the fact that two—yes, TWO—FBI agents who worked on my case have discreetly apologized to me in the past six months, saying that they were ordered to go after me for political reasons.

But the Constitution says that all Americans are equal, even if they are named “Clinton.” We know that Hillary sent and received classified information on an unsecured email system. That’s a crime. I don’t care whether or not she had criminal intent. My own trial judge says that it doesn’t matter. But if Hillary didn’t have criminal intent, and that’s the reason the Justice Department uses to not prosecute her, then Tom Drake and I, at the very least, deserve a pardon. Otherwise, the system really is as corrupt as so many Americans say it is.



John Kiriakou is an Associate Fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. He is a former CIA counterterrorism operations officer and former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+89 # CL38 2016-07-05 12:00
The system "is really as corrupt" as it's shown itself to be, over and over. The Democrats and the DNC are behind her, despite THIS, all the way.

What a Kafkaesque travesty it is, that the first female President is as corrupt as they come. (Of course, if I don't want to be prosecuted, I must remember to say, "IMO"). This IS 'justice' today in the USA.
 
 
-61 # ericlipps 2016-07-05 13:08
Quoting CL38:
The system "is really as corrupt" as it's shown itself to be, over and over. The Democrats and the DNC are behind her, despite THIS, all the way.

What a Kafkaesque travesty it is, that the first female President is as corrupt as they come. (Of course, if I don't want to be prosecuted, I must remember to say, "IMO"). This IS 'justice' today in the USA.

Of course, Hillary isn't president yet. Cheer up: she might be assassinated before the convention, allowing Bernie Sanders to step over her body and take the nomination before being red-baited into the ground by Trump.
 
 
+87 # CL38 2016-07-05 13:29
Sanders would never behave in such a way. He's already shown that by NOT calling her out for dozens of examples of corruption.

However, Clinton has shown time and again, throughout this primary period that SHE WOULD step over Bernie's or anyone else's body, if necessary. That's exactly what she did, with the help of the DNC & MSM, both as corrupt as she is.

Thanks for the image. It fits Clinton to a T.
 
 
-3 # Caliban 2016-07-08 15:15
I agree that Sanders would not "step over" anybody's body to get the nomination. But Clinton has performed well in the pre-convention period -- and without any proven illegitimate (i.e. "corrupt") support from anyone except from those who believe her to be the stronger candidate.
 
 
+48 # Radscal 2016-07-05 17:32
Again, your right-wing perspective might blind you to the fact that right-wingers are NEVER assassinated in this country. It is ALWAYS those who seek justice that are assassinated.

BTW: Remember in 2008 when HRC refused to end her campaign before Obama had the required number of delegates, by reminding people that RFK was murdered in June?

At least your fascist heroes are consistent.
 
 
+9 # lobdillj 2016-07-06 04:31
"Again, your right-wing perspective might blind you to the fact that right-wingers are NEVER assassinated in this country. It is ALWAYS those who seek justice that are assassinated."


Remember the jackals in Perkins’ books?
 
 
+15 # karenvista 2016-07-05 18:06
Quoting ericlipps:
Quoting CL38:
The system "is really as corrupt" as it's shown itself to be, over and over. The Democrats and the DNC are behind her, despite THIS, all the way.

What a Kafkaesque travesty it is, that the first female President is as corrupt as they come. (Of course, if I don't want to be prosecuted, I must remember to say, "IMO"). This IS 'justice' today in the USA.

Of course, Hillary isn't president yet. Cheer up: she might be assassinated before the convention, allowing Bernie Sanders to step over her body and take the nomination before being red-baited into the ground by Trump.


Funny you should mention that:

Clinton Sorry For Remark About RFK Assassination - Washington Post
www.washingtonpost.com › Politics
The Washington Post
Clinton Makes RFK Assassination Remark ... Saturday, May 24, 2008. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday invoked the 1968 assassination of Sen. ... "My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California ...
 
 
-14 # lights 2016-07-05 19:30
well stated, ericlipps.
 
 
+11 # Ken Halt 2016-07-05 20:18
It was a pile of shit, but I'm not surprised you endorsed it. HRC did apologize for her RFK remark, will an apology be coming from you?
 
 
-2 # dquandle 2016-07-06 00:16
"What a Kafkaesque travesty it is, that the first female President is as corrupt as they come."

No, its Hillary's vaunted support for gender parity.
 
 
+7 # Radscal 2016-07-06 13:46
One of the most brilliant bits of manipulation during the Primaries was when the Hil-bots noted that HRC was paid LESS for her speeches to Goldman Sachs than men like Bill Clinton got.

They literally turned HRC's corruption into a gender equality issue!
 
 
+85 # Anonymot 2016-07-05 13:15
The Clintons have become a national disgrace and they have pulled the Democrats down the rat hole with them. Now what does an honest, politically concerned person do: abstain? Vote Green? Vote Trump? Voting Clinton is beyond the pale. They are sick and slick.
 
 
+65 # CL38 2016-07-05 13:33
Agree with everything you said, except one. Bill Clinton pulled the Democrats down a rat hole, with Hillary's full support. After his presidential terms ended, the Democrats jumped on their own far deeper into the rat hole abyss, to represent 1% rats who've stolen this country's prosperity and wealth--to hoard--for WHAT?? Almost 50 million are living in poverty in the US today!

Hillary is the next reincarnation of the new 1% oligarch 'undemocratic' conservative/de mocrats. FDR would excoriate today's 'democrats', if he could see his party in action now.
 
 
+3 # dquandle 2016-07-06 00:13
The "Democrats" have been dwelling in that rat hole for decades, completely of their own volition.
 
 
+4 # Ampaha55 2016-07-06 10:19
What do we do? Can we write in Bernie's name? Will that work? Would it be legally recognized? "We" have to follow the law, you know.
 
 
+62 # Skyelav 2016-07-05 13:16
Please everyone forward suggestions that her foundation be looked into. Far worse than this email scandal..which has been one giant red herring
 
 
+5 # jimmyjames 2016-07-05 16:09
Quoting Skyelav:
Please everyone forward suggestions that her foundation be looked into. Far worse than this email scandal..which has been one giant red herring


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc
 
 
0 # karenvista 2016-07-05 18:10
Quoting jimmyjames:
Quoting Skyelav:
Please everyone forward suggestions that her foundation be looked into. Far worse than this email scandal..which has been one giant red herring


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkfE10g8xbc


I got a: "This video does not exist." Surprise, surprise!
 
 
+8 # desertprogressive 2016-07-05 18:24
The link worked for me...
 
 
0 # Anonymot 2016-07-05 20:38
I did a cut & paste and it came right up. This is also interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx3COYq1W_8

But mind you, they're both Foxy.
 
 
0 # librarian1984 2016-07-07 05:20
JJ and Anonymot: No criticism, but it's a pain for me to run videos, so it would be helpful to note what the videos are about and their length.

Cheers!
 
 
+23 # jdd 2016-07-05 17:28
Not really, aside from the obvious illegality of Hillary's behavior, and the repeated lying about the issue from day one, there is the question of Why? She is know to be secretive about her actions (remember the botched health-care reform bill) and wouldn't er like to see the emails regarding her role in Libya, Qadaffi's overthrow and murder, Benghazi, Syrian terrorists and the Ukraine coup, at least.
 
 
+39 # Radscal 2016-07-05 17:38
The Clinton Foundation has already been subpoenaed. There are so many instances of Secretary Clinton awarding countries, corporations and individuals with favorable deals immediately after they "donated" huge sums to their "charity" scheme. It'd be outrageous to believe those were all just coincidences.

Unfortunately, the same "Justice" Department is in charge of that investigation.
 
 
+23 # karenvista 2016-07-05 18:13
Quoting Radscal:
The Clinton Foundation has already been subpoenaed. There are so many instances of Secretary Clinton awarding countries, corporations and individuals with favorable deals immediately after they "donated" huge sums to their "charity" scheme. It'd be outrageous to believe those were all just coincidences.

Unfortunately, the same "Justice" Department is in charge of that investigation.


But they won't find evidence of "intent to receive bribes." So, no indictment.
 
 
+23 # Radscal 2016-07-05 19:32
Apparently true. The new standard for quid pro quo is apparently a signed and notarized contract that specifies the exact bribe and what it purchased.
 
 
+2 # librarian1984 2016-07-07 05:24
That's the new standard for the 1%. For the rest of us it remains the same.

I agree with the author's initial sentiment. The only way to make this right is if everyone convicted of the same or lesser charges as HRC is released and has their record expunged.

The only good news here is that there is only ONE judge who handles all these cases? That gives us ONE target for judicial malfeasance.
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2016-07-07 13:24
Yes, it would be great if this case caused the public to rise up and demand that those charged for being whistleblowers be pardoned.

It is odd that only one judge handled all these cases, eh?

Another oddity is that the same lawyer, Judy Clarke provided the "defense" for a whole string of "terrorists" from Eric Rudolph, Ted Kaczynski, Buford Furrow and Jared Lee Loughner through to Zacarias Moussaoui and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

In each case, she did not present any case for a finding of "not guilty" (often declaring them guilty in her opening statements), but we're told she's great because she usually got them life sentences instead of death.

I would note that, if the "suspect" isn't killed before a trial, the next best way to prevent inconvenient evidence from becoming public is to have a "defense" lawyer who refuses to present any such evidence.
 
 
+62 # ChrisCurrie 2016-07-05 13:24
Even by the very limited new definition of corruption defined by the US Supreme Court, former Vice President Dick Cheney could/should be convicted of corruption he for his actions to promote the financial benefit of the corporations he worked for before and after his term as Vice President, and President Obama could/should be convicted of corruption for his TPP/TTIP/TiSA rigged "trade agreement" initiatives which he is promoting for the financial benefit of the corporations who helped sponsor Obama's presidential campaigns and then went on to actually write those so-called "trade agreement" documents. The same could turn out to be true for Hillary if she gets elected President.
 
 
+59 # Texas Aggie 2016-07-05 13:39
Otherwise, the system really is as corrupt as so many Americans say it is.

Did anyone ever doubt that it was even more corrupt than many Americans say it is?
 
 
+23 # reiverpacific 2016-07-05 13:44
"Scandal???"
That's good coming from the masters of duck and weave.
Honestly, this is bagatelle compared with the skullduggery THEY have perpetrate for many decades!
 
 
+35 # MidwestDick 2016-07-05 14:16
Kiriakou and Siegelman are the ones who got the "special" treatment. Under federal law, if the prosecutor wants to throw your ass in jail, it's time to pack your toothbrush. But if every "guilty" person was punished there wouldn't be enough personnel left to run the slammers.
As in other less "democratic" tyrannies everything is illegal, but only those who piss off someone more powerful than they are get prosecuted.
 
 
+23 # The_Freak 2016-07-05 15:25
Well this is differently what I expected. I have no trust in our justice system what so ever and from the way thing are looking I doubt I ever will.
 
 
0 # dascher 2016-07-05 15:41
This entire "email server" episode is a load of crap that anybody who knows anything about the technology involved can clearly see. I am not a fan of Hillary - far from it - but it should be noted that there is no evidence of her emails having ever been hacked (despite Republican FBI Director Comey's claim that it is "probable" that they were). Nobody even knew that she had a private email server (actually, it turns out a series of private email servers) until the Benghazi investigation stumbled into it while roaming around in the dark. On the other hand, we know that several "secure" government servers HAVE been compromised - and it is "probable" that many more have been compromised but we're not supposed to know that because it might get us upset that the government is spending tons of moolah for security but cannot secure its own email servers.

Meanwhile, the "press" reports that Powell and Rice had their own "email servers" before Clinton... when they almost certainly had no such thing. It is much more likely that they used THEIR AOL accounts for emails. AOL, as almost everybody with an email account knows, is SO secure that virtually everybody on the planet has received lots of SPAM emails from AOL accounts.
 
 
+26 # Radscal 2016-07-05 17:45
1. Emails released by HRC show they knew their server was being hacked. At one point, they turned it off because it was being hacked.

But even if they hadn't admitted they knew it was hacked, the IG report showed it had been, and hackers have released thousands of emails from her server.

2. HRC claimed that "Everyone knew" she had set up a private server. Again, emails released by HRC show she knew she was being told not to use a private server, and specifically not to even use her blackberry because it was not secure.
 
 
-5 # kate@kseley.jazztel.es 2016-07-05 18:50
Apparently Powell used gmail.
 
 
+19 # markovchhaney 2016-07-05 15:50
They all wash each other's dirty laundry. I'm reminded of the '70s joke: After his resignation, Nixon is walking down Pennsylvania Avenue to get a longing glance at the White House when he bumps in that old bungler, Gerry Ford. "Pardon me," says Tricky Dick. And Ford quickly replies, "I already have."
 
 
+39 # cokacoa2 2016-07-05 16:05
The whole thing makes me so sad. It seems the last honest president we had, Jimmy Carter, only got to serve one term because Ronnie and Bush committed treason to get elected.
 
 
+4 # Salus Populi 2016-07-06 08:47
Not to burst your bubble, but Carter, as President, signed off [six months *before* the Soviet intervention] on a secret directive to support the Afghan mujahedin in their anti-modernism and anti-woman terrorism, and also ensured uninterrupted delivery of arms and ammo to the genocidal Indonesian regime of Suharto as it killed off a third of the entire population of East Timor.

He, like every other U.S. president, particularly since WWII, has much to answer for, and in a sane world would be, along with every other specimen of the genus, serving a life sentence for crimes against humanity.
 
 
+18 # turtleislander 2016-07-05 16:23
This is wrong on so many levels. One can surmise there is no justice at all. We have been so cynically misled.
 
 
-14 # Lasita 2016-07-05 16:25
YOU DO DESERVE A PARDON, in my opinion.
I also think that those who care about Humanity need to join forces to oppose Trump. However imperfect Hillary is and however unjust your conviction is, she is a million times more sane than Trump. I believe we need to choose the lesser of the bad choices available.
 
 
+22 # MendoChuck 2016-07-05 17:43
How ever you are aware that the "Lesser of Two Bad Choices: is still and always will be a "Bad Choice".

There will be no changes coming from Washington DC. The only change you have any control over is to change your vote.

Until the American Voter changes his/her vote we will continue to have "Only BAD CHOICES."

We will have the Government that we continue to elect . . . "Nuff Said."
 
 
-6 # kate@kseley.jazztel.es 2016-07-05 17:49
Yes, he really does deserve a pardon. And yeah, I suppose Hillary is the lesser evil; I've said so before. But this stinks so much that now's not really the time to say that but rather to cry that the bar is so f***ing low that she's got to be the one to save us from a racist, facist, xenophobic, narcissist lunatic!
 
 
+19 # lfeuille 2016-07-05 21:40
Hillary's wars make her the greater evil in my book. The racist facist, xenophobic, narcissist lunatic is not like to be effective in implementing any of his lunatic schemes. She has lots of support already embedded in gov't and will appoint more. She will be able to continue the mayhem in the Mideast and play chicken with nuclear armed Russia. This is much more dangerous than the embarrassment of Trump.
 
 
+6 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-07-06 05:09
"she's got to be the one to save us from a racist, facist, xenophobic, narcissist lunatic."

Describes Hillary to a "T."
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2016-07-06 13:53
Again, for more than a year, HRC's campaign, in collusion with the MSM has worked very diligently at presenting the role played by a Realty TV Star as so scary that we should hold our noses and vote for a candidate we all know to be a Wall Street/Corporat ist Warmonger.

Please don't fall for their scam and reward this corruption with your vote.
 
 
+7 # bettysdad@yahoo.com 2016-07-06 05:08
Trump will accomplish exactly none of his proposals/promises.

Hillary will sedate her supporters into smilingly support Fascism.
 
 
+21 # Radscal 2016-07-05 19:39
Just a reminder that documents released prove that HRC and the DNC planned to make 2016 an "election campaign" between HRC and Drumpf prior to February, 2015.

Again months BEFORE anyone had announced they were running, they planned for Drumpf to get the Republican nomination, and to scare everyone else into voting for HRC, despite what a despicable candidate she is.

We are being played. PLEASE, do not fall into their trap.
 
 
+23 # Ken Halt 2016-07-05 20:27
Rad: Yes, we are being played, HRC's campaign boils down to "I'm not Trump!" And if the DNC is successful in getting this very flawed candidate nominated and elected in 2016, it will embolden them to present a similar LOTE candidate in 2020. The US needs real change, not another agent of the deep state oligarchy, and I am very pissed at the DNC for the heavy-handed and uneven supervision of the primary process. Let's face it, the DNC is a huge, money making apparatus, and doesn't want to give up its perks responding to other than the 1%.
 
 
+3 # doppaphatic 2016-07-06 09:01
Quoting Radscal:
Just a reminder that documents released prove that HRC and the DNC planned to make 2016 an "election campaign" between HRC and Drumpf prior to February, 2015.

We are being played. PLEASE, do not fall into their trap.


Radscal, this is very interesting. I've been speculating that it might be the case. Can you point to some documentation?

Either way, as you say, we are being played.
 
 
+3 # Radscal 2016-07-06 13:55
Here's Guccifer 2.0's site that contains all the DNC/HRC documents he's made public.

https://guccifer2.wordpress.com

Both the Clinton Campaign and the Drumpf Campaign admitted that Bill Clinton and Donald had a phone conversation immediately prior to Drumpf's escalator ride into history.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html

And the entire plan for how the DNC/HRC planned to run against Drumpf PRIOR to either of them announcing they were running is in Guccifer's documents and HRC emails.

http://thesmokinggun.com/sites/default/files/assets/dj
 
 
+14 # dquandle 2016-07-06 00:10
" Did Hillary, then, set up her email server specifically to subvert the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?"

Yes
 
 
+10 # Dred Pierce 2016-07-06 02:46
Clinton is a perfect example of the advantage of being a lawyer. You learn how to break the law skillfully and in a way that leaves you innocent. I always thought that in many cases you hire a lawyer when you need to break the law legally. What she has already done, even though legal has produced actions that have led to mass death in unimaginably horrific circumstances. Like cluster bombs in Yemen tearing apart men, women, and children. If the law were to emphasize the OUTCOME of any word, thought or deed as the determinant rather than so-called INTENT then we might be able to call crime CRIME. If the INTENT to sell weapons comes with a possible OUTCOME of carnage and slaughter then all sales of weapons would be a CRIME. It is very possible that Clinton's server allowed the hyper sophisticated hacker community to completely infiltrate our nations intelligence network. Despite her criminal fault, there are forces that are so desperate to force TPP and other garbage on us and enslave the world economically through corrupt courts that they will let her get away with anything as long as she delivers what they have bought in real time with their money. She is their instrument in the BIG EVIL they have planned for quite some time. Maybe she will get the last laugh and start WWIII and destroy the plans of her owners. Bernie or Bust 2016
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2016-07-06 14:03
What makes you think that WW III is NOT in the plans of the psychopathic 0.01%?

Don't they keep telling us that the planet is grossly overpopulated?

Don't they make clear that they think we "First World" workers are overpaid and are demanding too many "benefits?"

What would prevent them from eliminating all we "excess workers" and return to 19th century-style gross exploitation of workers and "development" of the Southern Hemisphere?

That's where the real profits are to be made now.
 
 
+10 # joejamchicago 2016-07-06 08:39
So now the FBI is policeman and prosecutor, or in this case, not. Bill Clinton intentionally set up Loretta Lynch so that she would be "forced" to recuse herself. She should subsequently have assigned the case to one of her twelve Assistant Attorneys General, perhaps the one in charge of National Security. To think that Bill Clinton was inept or clumsy or made a mistake in his purposely delaying his departure so that he could spend alone time with the AG is to be naïve. The temporary brouhaha the meeting caused was worth it: the FBI, whose job is to investigate not to prosecute, stepped forward to give the appearance of thoroughness and propriety.
What cannot be argued is that Hillary Clinton willfully destroyed 30,000+ emails. Folk preserve exculpatory evidence and destroy incriminating evidence. 'Nuff said.
 
 
+6 # Aliazer 2016-07-06 12:15
Well!!! It is now out for everyone to see the duplicitous nature of our so called "Impartial American Justice"!

The test, in the case of Hillary, is "intent" not commission of a criminal act.But all of this is spurious as well as laughable on its face.

Was it the intent of Mr. Kiriakou to violate the law of confidentiality ? No!

And what about the intent of Mr. Snowden of Mr. Sterling? Absolutely not!!!

The intent of all of these folks was to alert the people of this country what "our government" is doing to both us and other people as well as violating the Constitution and existing laws.

What is even more mysterious in this case, though, is that the FBI, as an investigative agency, sole responsibility would be that of getting the actual events together and then present it to a Prosecutor" to decide whether the charges are prosecutable or not. That Comey decided to be an investigative as well as a prosecuting agency is unconvincing as well as highly improper.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN