Comey’s hearing on Wednesday was like the Super Bowl for conservative’s in Congress, as they finally had the opportunity to probe the disgraced FBI Director for some answers concerning the Hillary and Russia investigations.
The FBI director’s testimony provided some damning new details into the crimes committed by both Hillary Clinton and her Muslim aide, Huma Abedin.
But despite listing off a litany of crimes, Comey still claimed he was satisfied with his decision not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton or her cronies.
As reported at Louder with Crowder, Comey revealed a new detail that Abedin regularly forwarded classified material to her pedophile husband’s account to print off at home.
This is highly illegal and anyone can Google similar cases where little people like us are thrown away for many years for less.
Comey put up a very weak defense of his decision not to prosecute saying that, well, he didn’t think that Weiner “ever read the emails, his role was to print them out as a matter of convenience.” So is he saying we can break the law and get away with it if it’s out of convenience?
His primary defense was when he said:
“That was a central problem over the course of the Clinton email investigation — we had to prove that people knew that they were communicating about classified information in a way that they shouldn’t have been, and that they were doing something unlawful.”
“That was our burden, and we didn’t meet it. We could not prove that the people sending that [classified] information were acting with any kind of criminal intent.“
You mean to tell me, the most powerful woman in the world and her longtime girlfriend, I mean aide, can effectively “play dumb” about the do’s and dont’s of handling classified intelligence? Yes, that’s what he’s saying.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz wasn’t buying the lame excuses from Comey and pressed him on his insistence that he needed bullet-proof evidence that Clinton and company “knowingly” and “willfully” committed crimes.
But Comey stuck to his guns, saying “I can’t find a case that’s been brought in the last 50 years that has no showing of [criminal] intent.“
Which is an absurd answer and pathetic attempt to dodge the real issue. That is, pretending to act like he doesn’t “know” if Clinton knew what she was doing.
It’s an insult to every American’s and even Hillary’s intelligence to suggest she wasn’t aware that what she was doing was illegal.
I just hope that the same leeway is given to future government workers accused of similar crimes. Not because I want them to get away with it, but because it’ll be a nice litmus test to see just how bad the double standard is.
It seems like the elites are flaunting their crimes in our faces. We have the FBI director admitting all sorts of crimes occurred and then hand-waving them away like they’re nothing.
No wonder faith in our governmental institutions are at historic lows. With leaders like these, who knows how much longer this Republic can stand.
Source: Louder with Crowder