Comey’s General Counsel Believed It Was Appropriate To Charge Hillary Clinton With Mishandling Classified Information

[I B Hankering]

Lookee here, lookee here!

[Comey’s General Counsel At The FBI — James Baker — Testified Privately That He Originally Believed It Was Appropriate To Charge Hillary Clinton With Mishandling Classified Information

Comey Hearing 7 December 2018 (pp. 224-31)]

Mr. Ratcliffe. p. 166, the bottom paragraph: Baker told the OIG that he thought the conduct of former Secretary Clinton and her aides was appalling with respect to how they handled classified information, and arrogant in terms of their knowledge and understanding of these matters. Did I read that correctly?

Mr. Comey. Yes, sir….

Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. So I guess as I try and summarize what I've heard today, Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information more than a hundred times. She made false statements about it. The FBI was aware that at least one of her aides also mishandled classified information. And one of the folks employed on behalf of Secretary Clinton intentionally destroyed evidence known to be subject to a congressional subpoena and preservation order and lied to the FBI about it. And on July 5th, 2016, you stood before the American people and said that neither you nor any reasonable prosecutor would bring any charges in this fact pattern. Is that accurate?

Mr. Comey. Yep. I believed it then, I believe it now. And anybody that thinks we were on team Clinton trying to cut her a break is smoking something.

Mr. Ratcliffe. I'll object to everything after "yep" as nonresponsive to my question. But is Jim Baker a reasonable prosecutor?

Mr. Comey. Yeah, I think he is. He hasn't done a lot of criminal prosecution, he's in the intelligence world, but I think he's a reasonable prosecutor.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Do you recall what Jim Baker's response was on May the 2nd when you presented him with the non-pros memo or exoneration memo about whether or not Hillary Clinton should be charged with mishandling classified information?

Mr. Comey. You mean my draft of a possible public statement?

Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.

Mr. Comey. I don't remember exactly. He was a big part of the editing process….

Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Comey, I want you to have the benefit p. 230 of the transcript. I highlighted my exchange with Mr. Baker on page -- ….

Mr. Comey. Where are we? I'm sorry, sir.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Page 152. I asked the question: "All right. And I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of the law, various laws, with regard to the mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?" Mr. Baker's answer was "yes". Did you find that?

Mr. Comey. I'm reading the rest where he explains.

Mr. Ratcliffe. He does, and I will just – the conversation continues, as you'll see, that he explained that you persuaded him that Hillary Clinton should not be charged after reviewing a binder of emails….

Mr. Ratcliffe. So my question -- I read the question and the answer. The question was to “Mr. Baker: I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations of the law, various laws, with regard to the mishandling of classified information.” Is that accurate? And his response was “yes”….

Mr. Ratcliffe. … Do you recall, Director Comey, having a conversation with Mr. Baker about this issue?

Mr. Comey. I don't...

(House Judiciary Committee)

[themystic]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Lookee here, lookee here!

Oh my God IB. This changes everything. A Smocking Gun! Wiki Leaks if your listening. Sorry. Russia if you're listening

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

Oh my God IB. This changes everything. A Smocking Gun! Wiki Leaks if your listening. Sorry. Russia if you're listening

Per Comey, FBI counsel James Baker is a "reasonable prosecutor". Now, if you're listening, the world knows that without a smidgen of doubt that a "reasonable prosecutor" would have charged hildebeest.

[rexdutchman]

we all know the "blintons" have been protected from the whitewater days, just saying , I just wonder what they have ( maybe they know what area 51 is really about)

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Per Comey, FBI counsel James Baker is a "reasonable prosecutor". Now, if you're listening, the world knows that without a smidgen of doubt that a "reasonable prosecutor" would have charged hildebeest.

IB please try and quit cherry picking things to fit your narrative.

Jesus.

You realize that Comeny provided things to have Backer change his mind. And then you do not provide wtf that was....did he put a gun to Baker's head?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

IB please try and quit cherry picking things to fit your narrative.

Jesus.

You realize that Comeny provided things to have Backer change his mind. And then you do not provide wtf that was....did he put a gun to Baker's head?

It's not "cherry picking" to note that Comey's proclamation that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against hildebeest is now invalidated by Comey, who per documented Congressional hearing testimony, admitted that FBI counsel James Baker is a "reasonable prosecutor". And now the world knows, without a smidgen of doubt, that a "reasonable prosecutor" would have brought such a case against hildebeest, but Comey overruled a "reasonable prosecutor".

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's not "cherry picking" to note that Comey's proclamation that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against hildebeest is now invalidated by Comey, who per documented Congressional hearing testimony, admitted that FBI counsel James Baker is a "reasonable prosecutor". And now the world knows, without a smidgen of doubt, that a "reasonable prosecutor" would have brought such a case against hildebeest, but Comey overruled a "reasonable prosecutor".

Yet you do not supply the evidence of why Comney .... not overruled but changed his mind.

Your play with words is much like Trumps....they only work in publi, not in a court of law.
.Which is why Trump does not have the balls to sit down with Muller, while Comney willingly testified before congress.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yet you do not supply the evidence of why Comney .... not overruled but changed his mind.

Your play with words is much like Trumps....they only work in publi, not in a court of law.
.Which is why Trump does not have the balls to sit down with Muller, while Comney willingly testified before congress.

The evidence and the testimony shows clearly that it is Comey who is "playing with words".

He changed the words in his presentation regarding hildebeest's illegal handling of classified emails from "gross negligence" to “extremely careless”.

It was Comey who in that same speech removed a reference to Odumbo's knowing about hildebeest's illegal handling of classified emails.

It was Comey who said "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case against" hildebeest even after his own counsel -- James Baker, whom Comey considers a "reasonable prosecutor" -- said he would bring charges against hildebeest for her illegal handling of classified emails.

[nevergaveitathought]

wtf, you lost IB won

[bambino]

Comey was only following directions from Obama and Lynch. Doesn’t make him a bad guy.

[gnadfly]

Why are we hearing now hearing about this? Trump should have applied this pressure before the "independence council" was about to be voted on.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Why are we hearing now hearing about this? Trump should have applied this pressure before the "independence council" was about to be voted on.

James Baker testified before the committee on 18 October 2108. The inconsistency between Baker's testimony and the testimony given by Comey on previous occasions is one of the reasons the Committee had Comey return on 7 December 2018. Comey has perjured himself. Little by little, the shenanigans on Odumbo's watch are coming to light.

[themystic]

Once again IB you dont know your stuff. Why doesn't Trump go talk to Mueller? Comey did. We all know why. Your president is a Liar. Obama's watch? No one in the Obama administration got indicted. That makes him either a lot more honest or a lot smarter. Which is it IB?

[bamscram]

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by themystic

Once again IB you dont know your stuff. Why doesn't Trump go talk to Mueller? Comey did. We all know why. Your president is a Liar. Obama's watch? No one in the Obama administration got indicted. That makes him either a lot more honest or a lot smarter. Which is it IB?

Flynn is an excellent fucking example of why Trump isn't talking to Mueller. Comey testified under oath that he and his agents didn't believe Flynn lied; yet, fucking Mueller charged Flynn with lying.

Mueller paved the way for Comey to make millions in just a few months, and you're bragging that Comey went and talked to Mueller as if that is somehow remarkable? That notion and five dollars will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Comey has to worry about the new AG.

Your lying cunt, hildebeest, was a greater liar, and the choice was between her and Trump. Trump is hands down better as president than that lying cunt your party ran for office.