The Untrustworthy FBI: The Failed Interview of Hillary Clinton

P1020656-1All stand up and say Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey is a man of honor and the highest integrity. That ends any inquiry into the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It follows then that if the man (like we often heard about J. Edgar Hoover) is of such flawless nature then so must be all the people who work under him and thus forever can we rest assured that the FBI is a brilliant organization consisting of people who mirror the director who we agree would do nothing dishonorable.

Why go on?

I do because my eyes and ears are telling me that not all is right. Are my senses lying to me?

I wrote earlier how Hillary is unfit to be president. There is an article you should read if you are interested in why one lawyer who plans to vote for Hillary believes Comey failed us which is here. He points out how wrong he was in many of the things he said and did.

Comey testified before the Congressional committee that“What I decided to do was offer transparency to the American people about the whys of that, because I thought that was very, very important for their confidence in the system of justice.” But what he did was far from transparent. He played a little game with us by allowing Hillary Clinton to receive extra special treatment.

For starters, how many of you think the FBI would accommodate you if you told them your work schedule only permitted you to meet with them on a Saturday on the 4th of July holiday weekend. Those who do can stop reading right now because they have no idea how the system works.

Now look at this article here. It tells of the manner in which the interview of Hillary was conducted. She was not put under oath. That is fine. If she lies to the FBI agents she would commit a crime whether she was under oath or not as Director Comey stated. But how would you prove she lied?

What followed in the article is the erroneous statement: “FBI policy is not to record interviews as part of its investigations.”  The article went on to note: “Under the current policy, agents may not electronically record confessions or interviews, openly or surreptitiously” except in rare circumstances, the bureau said in a 2006 memo.”  

That as we know is absolutely untrue. There is a 2014 memorandum urging them to record interviews. This they did not do with Hillary.

We know the FBI hates to record any interviews. It does not matter that the recording of a person’s statements is the best evidence The FBI would prefer to write-up its own version of the events to have it correspond with the agents beliefs of what a person said. It puts them on a Form 302. Those are so untrustworthy that federal Judge Mark Wolf refused to be interviewed by the FBI unless he could see the 302 of the interview and make changes.

On May 12, 2014, the Department of Justice issued a memorandum the subject of which was “Policy Concerning Electronic Recording of Statements.”  It mandated that statements of suspects in custody be recorded (but left enough loopholes to ensure they never would be) and also said: This policy also encourages agents and prosecutors to consider electronic recording in investigative or other circumstances where the presumption does not apply.”

Despite this, the interview of Hillary Clinton was not recorded. The question is why was it not when the Department of Justice encourages that it be done? In one of the most important interviews ever conducted by the FBI you would expect if Comey was interested in “transparency” as he said and wanted to give the American people “confidence in the system of justice” it would have been recorded.

Why did Comey not preserve the testimony in the best way so that history could judge if his decision was right? We will never know what questions Hillary was asked. We have no way of knowing if she answered them or she and her lawyers filibustered the whole session. We will never know if this was not just a pro forma act designed to give Hillary a pass.

All that we have from the meeting is an FBI 302 which is an agent or agents summary recollection of what Hillary may have said. Then to top it off the 302 is classified at the highest level, TS/SCI, so that we will never know even the FBI version. If it contained something that Hillary allegedly said that she did not like she could easily deny she said it.

From Bill Clinton meeting with U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch for thirty minutes within five days of Hillary’s interview; from the failure to preserve a recording of the interview; from the quickness of Comey’s appearance after the interview and of Lynch’s rubber stamping his findings it is hard to escape the feeling that all has the appearance of a well-orchestrated pre-planned con job.

We may be dealing with people supposedly with of lots of integrity. Yet none had the courage to do things right so that the people would know what really happened. How does that square out?

16 thoughts on “The Untrustworthy FBI: The Failed Interview of Hillary Clinton

  1. Matt: good analysis of the FBI’s whitewash of Hillary. Everyone should read Seth Abramsons’ “5 Reasons Comey Failed America” which you referenced. Of course, Comey found that Hillary acted with “extreme carelessness” and that federal law criminalizes “gross negligence” in the handling of confidential data; yet Comey pretended the two phrases weren’t synonymous. He conceded he found a precedent for prosecuting someone for gross negligence, but dismissed it solely because it was only “one case.” What a fraud! Comey ignored the facts, the clear statutory language and controlling precedent!
    2. Hillary told Congress she’d turned over all “work-related” emails. Comey said the FBI found 2,000 work-related emails Hillary failed to turn over. Seems to be a clear case of Perjury.
    3. Yesterday, you did a good job eviscerating Michael Moore’s logic. Still, the bumptious Trump, with all his faults, is ten times better than the cold calculating devious deceitful Hillary.
    4. Hillary’s speech was nothing but glaring generalities. Three times she said: here’s “how” I’m going to do it, followed by a string of more glaring generalities. “Free college” for the middle class, etc. She and Bill, two of the most divisive political characters in American history, are going to “bring us together.” Yuh! One example: Hillary supports repealing the Hyde Amendment, which for decades has prohibited tax-payer funding of abortions. The Washington Times (Jan 2016) reports that 68% of Americans oppose tax-payer funding of abortion. The Knight of Columbus survey says 65% oppose such funding. Who’s extreme? Hillary supports tax payer funding. She also supports “unrestricted” access; as a Senator, in 2003, she vigorously supported late term and “partial birth” abortions, too. She argued “partial birth” abortions, now outlawed, were necessary to protect a woman’s “health” when medical professionals had testified before Congress such procedures are never done to protect “health”. Hillary’s the extremist!
    5. I noticed Hillary said nothing about shrinking the size of government, reducing regulations, eliminating governmental waste, fraud and abuse. Not important enough to include in her speech. Instead she proposes more government spending and intervention.

    1. oK Bill
      Loved the last comment #5. I mean how dare she not mention shrinking the size of government, and reducing regulations….
      I don’t believe you were paying much attention to the some of the problems she addressed
      Like one dear to my heart is Flint. I’m curious on what you think about The problem we have where the Rep Gov knowingly poisoned a city and how much do you think that is going to cost? Then she didn’t mention the Florida Rep Gov collection $1 million in his campaign chest from the sugar industry and he looks the other way of the already established EPA regulations now the ocean is green slime and guess who is going to have to pay for that. And Then the banking… Any you ask about reduction of federal oversight and lessening regulations, and government fraud, hum .. . So I guess I’m kind of curious where you stand about Trump because he is the alternative. And you do know he is a bigot…

      1. Sky raised some good points yesterday, to which I respond:
        1. The Flint problem: It would have been avoided entirely if someone on the local level had simply tested the water for lead contamination before turning on the new system. Flint is a great example of a colossal government failure, preventable by expending a few thousand dollars in testing.
        2. You are incensed that someone in Florida got $1 million from the Sugar Industry? Hillary, I read, got about $150 million from Wall Street Hedge Fund Managers, while Trump has received $19,000 from Hedge Funders. Hillary is bought and sold. How about those Wall Street Transcripts? What a great public servant she is! Just like Mother Teresa. She and Bill are only worth @ $130 million from their years of doing nothing but public service!
        3. No one denies that there is great waste, fraud and abuse in Government. Matt wrote that all politicians promise to reduce waste, etc. I was responding to Matt, that Hillary failed to mention one word of it. No one denies that government, federal, state, local does great good. I’ve read that in the 1950s Gov took @ 30% of the GDP; Today Gov. takes @ 46% of the GDP. “Houston, we’ve got a problem!” See: 19 trillion in debt!
        4. Trump is not a bigot. He’s said some stupid things. Hillary’s been caught in bold face lies. (“Landing under sniper fire” in Bosnia; “running with our heads down”; “I turned over all work-related emails” except the 2,000 the FBI found, etc.)
        5. Throughout his life, Trump has employed and worked with people of every race, religion and ethnic group. No one called him a bigot until he decided to run for office one year ago. Reagan, Pat Buchanan and other Conservatives were unjustly labelled “bigots”, too.

  2. Matt – as you know, and as you point out, the FBI does make written reports of witnesses – and a defendant is indeed entitled to see those.

    Having just gone through this for a client, it seems to me that the FBI agents do play it straight, as straight as possible. The problem is that, during interviews, the witnesses may say things for which they have no support, because they have a grudge or a bias against the defendant. But that’s not the fault of the FBI agents – they take down what is being told to them, and then that has to be sorted out.

    I am still wondering how it is that deleting emails does not amount to obstruction of justice. Standard procedure, even before any indictment or information is filed, is to preserve and make a copy of all hard drives, tablets, phones, etc., and have it in the custody of a competent third party to preserve it all.

    As far as review, indeed, the target’s lawyers can do their review, or the material can simply be turned over with a “claw-back” agreement. This relates to items that might fall under a claim of attorney-client privilege.

    The whole mess is outrageous. It really, really stinks. Badly. Very badly.

    Matt – as Bill C said, good analysis on your part.

    1. Dan:

      Neither – never, ever Trump; Hillary is a horror; but where I live it matters little since she will win big. I thought of going with Bill Weld’s party but I’m tired of old people running for office. I think we need younger people with moderate thoughts who have some understanding of history. I might write in a vote for the party that should represent the working people and the unions. I haven’t figured out its name: “Union Party” or “Workers Party” (sounds too red); or Labor Party” sounds too English. Perhaps the “Popular Union Party” since everyone likes pups.

      1. Matt
        Ok. So you have pretty much covered everything concerning Whitey Bulger and Steve Flemmi and waiting to see whether you will be interviewing him? Any word if anyone in his family is writing a book?

  3. Matt,
    I have to apologize for assuming you supported Hillary.
    I forgot your position, since you were doing so much Trump bashing lately, and seemed to be sticking up for her while you were doing it.

    It is the Summer of Trump, and will be the Fall of Clinton.

  4. The article went on to note: “Under the current policy, agents may not electronically record confessions or interviews, openly or surreptitiously” except in rare circumstances, the bureau said in a 2006 memo.”

    Not true. The FBI husband and wife team of Robbins and Robbiins video taped my two hour meeting with them regarding my reporting of well planned discrimination designed to cheat minorities and women out of merit based promotions, subsidized by billions of taxpayer dollars. Was this a “rare circumstance?”

    dougkinan@yahoo.com

    1. Doug, local and state Cops have to record all “in custody” interviews. “In custody” is a very broad term that basically means if the person can’t get up and leave they are in custody. The rule doesn’t include any federal law enforcement or federal investigators, thus they are left free to make it up, give their personal interpretation or even lie about what they said and what the person said. This was done on purpose to give the feds that very gray area through which to make a case. Hillary Clinton’s interview should have been recorded. Say nothing! A fish doesn’t get caught unless it opens it’s mouth. Good day!

      1. Bobby Curtis:

        You seem to know a lot about the subject.

        How does my reporting relate to what you write and how can I obtain a copy of my record from the FBI, especially when they have not properly responded to previous FOIA requests?

        Thanks.

        dougkinan@yahoo.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *