A bombshell new report from The Epoch Times is revealing more information about how the Department of Justice and the FBI handled the Hillary Clinton case.
And what it shows is not good.
You may recall the strange statement of then FBI Director James Comey.
As he outlined the facts it seemed that he was actually laying out the case to charge Clinton. But then he got to the part where he said that they didn’t reach the conclusion that she had “intent,” although she was “extremely careless.”
Many found that astounding because of course she had “intent,” setting up a whole personal server to subvert going through the government.
But beyond that, many legal folks wondered about Comey’s statement, since one didn’t need to find intent in order to charge her, that she could have been charged under a gross negligence standard.
According to the Epoch Times, there’s a reason for that.
The edict came from the Obama DOJ, they told the FBI that they had to find intent because they, the DOJ, wouldn’t prosecute Clinton for gross negligence. They said this even before the facts were in.
“The Justice Department (DOJ), under then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, decided to set an unusually high threshold for
prosecutionof Clinton, effectively ensuring from the outset that she would not be charged,” Epoch Times explained, citing congressional testimony that it said had previously not been publicized.
“Intent is a requirement of several statutes the FBI was looking into. But intent is specifically not a factor under the charge of gross negligence — contained within 18 U.S. Code § 793(f),” Epoch Times explained.
And guess who convinced him to take out wording of gross negligence?
“Notably, Comey had been convinced to remove the term ‘gross negligence’ to describe Clinton’s actions from his prepared statement by, among others, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI agent Peter Strzok, senior legal counsel Trisha Anderson, and FBI analyst Jonathan Moffa,” the report explained.
Many of those names are connected to a wider scandal, in which there is strong evidence that FBI and DOJ officials actively worried about Trump taking the White House and may have schemed to undermine him.
Congressman Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) asked Lisa Page in testimony on July of last year about this, if they were just blowing past gross negligence.
“We did not blow over gross negligence,” Page replied. “We, in fact … it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence.”
So why wasn’t that the charge the FBI pursued against Clinton? That’s exactly what the congressman wanted to know.
“(Y)ou’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 —” began Ratcliffe.
“That is correct,” Page replied.
“— bring a case based on that,” finished the congressman.
She repeated it again, saying that even if they had found evidence of intent, “gross negligence would still have been off the table because of the department’s assessment that it was vague” she said, according to Epoch Times. “We would have other crimes to now charge, but gross negligence would not have been among them.”
Others confirmed that to Congress.
Trish Anderson, an FBI lawyer testified, “It was legally irrelevant because the Department of Justice would not have brought a prosecution in a circumstance in which there was simply negligence.”
So not only did the DOJ under Obama and AG Loretta Lynch actually control the show much more than we have publicly been given to understand but they explicitly excluded pursuit of the most likely crimes with which they could have charged Clinton.