The scandal surrounding former-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server is getting deeper and former-FBI Director James Comey seems to be near the bottom.
According to The Washington Times, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), believes Mr. Comey was originally going to state that Mrs. Clinton was “grossly negligent” in handling classified information, but later changed the statement to avoid using that phrase.
In a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Sen. Grassley stated, “Although Director Comey’s original version of his statement acknowledged that Secretary Clinton had violated the statute prohibiting gross negligence in the handling of classified information, he nonetheless exonerated her in that early, May 2nd draft statement anyway, arguing that this part of the statute should not be enforced.”
The investigation surrounding Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server and the severe mishandling of classified information is full of suspicious behavior and questionable acts, all part of an effort that appears to protect Mrs. Clinton at any cost.
Hundreds of classified emails, many top secret, were funneled to Mrs. Clinton’s secret account, a gross violation of her office as Secretary of State. Though the FBI found the matter to be a serious security breach they would eventually exonerate her on the grounds that it couldn’t be proven there was any intent at criminal activity, that she was merely “clueless” as to the security risks involved.
What’s interesting is that while the investigation was still underway, with 17 witnesses lined up to provide their statements, Mr. Comey was already drafting a statement that Mrs. Clinton while “grossly negligent” was innocent of any wrongdoing.
Originally he claimed that he did so after Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch met with former-President Bill Clinton in June on an airport tarmac. As if to suggest that the very questionable meeting somehow led to Mr. Comey being directed to let the matter drop, regardless of the investigation’s findings.
While the meeting was disturbing, it’s been revealed that Mr. Comey had intended to cover for Mrs. Clinton as early as May, when he drafted the first public statement regarding the findings of an investigation months from being finalized.
Sen. Grassley says the first draft was May 2 which stated there was “evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified material.”
He went on to say “the sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the ‘up classified’ emails) supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.”
But in June, after the tarmac meeting, Mr. Comey had removed that original statement and wrote “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
This change from “grossly negligent” to “clueless” is concerning given that a finding of “grossly negligent” could’ve resulted in criminal charges being pursued against Clinton, whereas “clueless” bore no further action.
James Comey changed the wording of his determination about Hillary Clinton’s email server investigation. Does this show Comey was influenced by something to change his wording?
Sen. Grassley makes this point by saying that the laws regarding the mishandling of classified information utilize a gross negligence standard. Considering this standard, an FBI statement that Mrs. Clinton was “grossly negligent” would’ve born legal consequences.
It raises the serious question of why Mr. Comey rephrased his statement to avoid stating that Clinton was “grossly negligent” in her use of classified information. It seems likely, though entirely speculative, that the change was made to avoid any further action or investigation against her.
While the rewording of a public statement may not seem like much, the reasons behind the change could prove disturbing.