Rep John Ratcliffe (R-TX), a former prosecutor, questioned FBI Director James Comey on September 28th, 2016 and proved, beyond a reasonable doubt to many, that the fix was already in on the Clinton emails prior to the interview and hurried declaration of a decision not to prosecute her. He showed Comey to be the dirty cop that he is and, if he had more time and the authority he needed, could certainly have twisted him into demonstrating his guilt. As it was he went beyond his time in making three points that exposed the Comey corruption.
Ratcliffe opened by asking Comey, “Director, did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July 2nd?” Comey replied, “After.” Ratcliffe responded, “Okay, well then I’m going to need your help in trying to understand how that’s possible. I think there’s a lot of prosecutors or former prosecutors that are shaking their heads on how that could be the case.”
He explains, “Because if there was ever any real possibility that Hillary Clinton might be charged for something that she admitted to on July the second, why would two of the central witnesses in the potential prosecution against her be allowed to sit in the same room to hear the testimony? And I heard your earlier answers today, said that, well, it was because the interview was voluntary and they were her lawyers. But I think you’re skirting the real issue there, Director.”
No reasonable prosecutor would have allowed two immunized witnesses to sit in the room
Congressman Ratcliffe points out that the Clinton interview didn’t have to be voluntary, they could have impaneled a grand jury. In pointing out that the interview, under the conditions should never have happened, Ratcliffe says, “Those interviews never take place. If there was ever any possibility that something Hillary Clinton might have said on July second could have possibly resulted in criminal charges that might possibly have resulted in a trial against or related to this classified information, well then to use your words, Mr. Director, I don’t think that there’s any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution, to proving the case against her, to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation.”
Rep Ratcliffe says that the only situation he sees this happening is if the decision has already been made that all three individuals are not going to be charged. Comey attempts a weak, “contact me privately if you think I’m dishonest” defense, and then proceeds to substantiate Ratcliffe’s case against him.
Ratcliffe demonstrates what could only have been a deliberate effort on the part of the FBI and James Comey to not gather evidence that would lead to a conviction, as well as multiple instances where documents and data were destroyed by Clinton or her representatives, even after being told to maintain them by Congress and others.
The decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton was made long ago.
The Congressman says that any one instance in that list is an obstruction of justice charge and that collectively they scream obstruction of justice and that the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton was made long ago.
One thing the Congressman fails to note is that by conspiring to allow the Clinton obstruction to take place, Comey is guilty of obstruction of justice himself as well as conspiracy. This is the same dirty cop who is now conspiring with Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller to take down President Trump on fabricated obstruction of justice charges, as the Clinton circle of criminals escapes justice for their very real crimes.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Please look for me, Rick Wells at https://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/, https://gab.ai/RickRWells, https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RickwellsUs and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com, and also follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.