XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.politics.usa.republican, or.politics   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: i_got_some@hillaryclinton.com   
      
   Bob Duncan  wrote in   
   news:sog6iu$tgc$31@news.dns-netz.com:   
      
   > Jonathan wrote   
   >   
   >> Throw her ass in jail and let the lesbians fuck her to death.   
      
   For most of the past three years, the FBI has tried to portray its top   
   leadership as united behind ex-Director James Comey’s decision not to   
   pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for transmitting   
   classified information over her insecure, private email server.   
      
   Although in the end that may have been the case, we now are learning that   
   Comey’s top lawyer, then-FBI General Counsel James Baker, initially   
   believed Clinton deserved to face criminal charges, but was talked out of   
   it “pretty late in the process.”   
      
   {mosads}The revelation is contained in testimony Baker gave to House   
   investigators last year. His testimony has not been publicly released, but   
   I was permitted to review a transcript.   
      
   During questioning by Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Baker was unequivocal   
   about his early view that Clinton should face criminal charges.   
      
   “I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate   
   to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of law — various laws,   
   with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?”   
   Ratcliffe, a former federal prosecutor, asked Baker.   
      
   Baker paused to gain his lawyer’s permission to respond, and then   
   answered, “Yes.”   
      
   He later explained why he came to that conclusion, and how his mind was   
   changed:   
      
   “So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder   
   of her emails that had classified information in them,” he said. “And I   
   discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually   
   became persuaded that charging her was not appropriate because we could   
   not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — we, the government, could   
   not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that — she had the intent   
   necessary to violate (the law).”   
      
   Asked when he was persuaded to change his mind, Baker said: “Pretty late   
   in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until the   
   end.”   
      
   Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in:   
   “My original belief after — well, after having conducted the investigation   
   and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her   
   materials — I thought that it was alarming, appalling, whatever words I   
   said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn’t be   
   charged.”   
      
   His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend   
   criminal charges. He did so without consulting the Department of Justice,   
   a decision the department’s inspector general (IG) later concluded was   
   misguided and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make   
   prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts that   
   finding but took the actions he did because he thought “they were in the   
   country’s best interest.”   
      
   Baker acknowledged that during the weeks leading up to the announcement,   
   Comey “would throw things out like that to get people to start talking and   
   thinking about it and test his conclusions.”   
      
   Baker said that if he had been more convinced there was evidence that   
   Clinton intended to violate the law, “I would have argued that   
   vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view.”   
      
   He portrayed his former boss as someone who was open to changing his mind   
   once he heard from his senior staff, even after drafting his announcement   
   statement. “I think he would have been receptive to changing his view even   
   after he wrote that thing,” Baker said.   
      
   Baker’s account also shed light on revelations I first reported more than   
   a year ago that the original draft of Comey’s announcement concluded   
   Clinton had been “grossly negligent” in handling her classified emails.   
   That is the term in espionage statutes for criminality, but the language   
   later was softened.   
      
   Republicans have seized on the change as evidence that Comey and the FBI   
   treated Clinton with favoritism. The IG, while criticizing Comey’s   
   actions, concluded, however, there was no political bias involved in the   
   decision.   
      
   What Baker’s still-secret testimony makes clear is that, incredibly, we   
   still don’t know the full story on how the Clinton email investigation   
   ended and if anyone else disagreed with the outcome — even after   
   congressional hearings and an inspector general’s review.   
      
   If there is still the stomach to resolve the lingering questions, then   
   there are two likely candidates to take the lead: the new attorney   
   general, William Barr, and the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary   
   Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).   
      
   https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/430881-fbis-top-lawyer-believed-   
   hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)