Trey Gowdy EXPOSES FBI Director Comey’s Corruption With 1 BRUTAL Question

Angry Patriot Movement

Needless to say, FBI Director James Comey’s return to Capitol Hill regarding the issue of his non-recommendation for indictment of Hillary Clinton was disappointing to every man, woman, and child who believes the United States is a nation of laws and not of men. His refusal to reopen the matter for consideration – and his defensive posture – was a travesty of justice.  

In his examination of Director Comey, U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) drew from his time as a federal prosecutor to question Comey about the issue of “intent.” As Comey did his best to remain faithful to his original findings, Gowdy chipped away at the basis for his decision until it was incredibly fragile. “What would she have had to do to warrant your recommendation for prosecution?” Gowdy asked.

Indeed, with a litany of crimes laid out in the FBI report and gathered facts proving Clinton’s active role in covering up her actions, all the components for an indictment recommendation were present, yet Hillary Clinton is one election away from the Oval Office.

During Gowdy’s grilling of Comey, he implored the FBI director to explain his agency’s actions. He sought answers as to why Comey refused to recommend prosecution of Clinton for mishandling classified information while she was secretary of state.

“What would she have had to do to warrant your recommendation for prosecution?” Gowdy asked during a House Oversight Committee hearing Wednesday. His voice was chock-full of disbelief and incredulousness.

Gowdy wondered aloud what other evidence could possibly have been needed to recommend prosecution of Clinton if all that had been revealed in the federal investigation was not enough. That brought the matter of intent to the table.

Comey, almost fumbling for an excuse, noted that intent could be proved by looking at whether or not a person’s actions facilitated the belief that they knew they were doing something they knew was wrong at the time.

“But the way to prove that is whether or not someone took steps to conceal or destroy what they’ve done,” Gowdy declared. “That is the best evidence you have that they knew it was wrong, that they lied about it.”

Gowdy, at the conclusion of his allotted time for questions, told Comey he had been “real careful not to criticize [him].” But, he said, he found it very hard to understand the director’s decisions in the Clinton probe.

By Comey’s own admission and according to the FBI report into the matter, of the 30,000 emails Clinton did initially return to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined – by the owning agency – to have contained classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was “Top Secret,” 36 chains contained “Secret” information, and eight contained “Confidential” information.

Separate from those, approximately 2,000 additional emails were “up-classified” to make them “Confidential;” the information in those had not been classified at the time the emails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not in the initial 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton to state in 2014—this against her declaration she had “fully complied and cooperated” with the investigation.

Even to a dyslexic second-grader this smells to high heaven.

Angry Patriot Movement