Speaking before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey was out of sorts, sternly defending the Bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private, unsecured email server:
“You can call us wrong, but don’t call us weasels. We are not weasels, we are honest people and we did this in that way.
I think questions are fair, I think criticism is healthy and fair, I think reasonable people can disagree about whether I should have announced it and how I should have done it. What’s not fair is any implication that the Bureau acted in any way other than independently, competently, honestly here. That’s just not true.
I knew this was going to be controversial, I knew there would be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest, independent people. We do not carry water for one side or the other. That’s hard for people to see because so much of our country we see things through sides. We are not on anybody’s side. This was done exactly the way you would want it to be done.”
Here are 9 weasel-like aspects of the Clinton investigation:
- Not putting Hillary Clinton under oath, or recording her FBI interview.
- The Department of Justice granting immunity to Cheryl Mills, despite her laptop containing classified material.
- Allowing Cheryl Mills to act as Clinton’s attorney, despite her involvement as a “material witness,” thus allowing her “to shield her communications with Mrs. Clinton under attorney-client privilege,” as Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn notes.
- Granting immunity to Paul Combetta, the Platte River Networks employee who deleted Clinton’s emails with BleachBit. Combetta deleted the emails shortly after a phone call with Cheryl Mills, and despite a subpoena ordering their retention.
- Granting immunity to Bryan Pagliano, the IT specialist who set up Clinton’s private server, only to have him invoke his Fifth Amendment rights 125 times during his testimony.
- Implying indictment would require “intent” on the part of Hillary Clinton despite section 793(f) of the Espionage Act explicitly stating no intent is required for prosecution, simply gross negligence.
- Saying Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified material, and admitting that someone in her position should have “known better,” then turning around and saying she wasn’t grossly negligent.
- Looking the other way despite a complex series of events indicating there was indeed “intent.”
- Stating that “although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” then recommending against indictment.
Perhaps you’re not weasels, just incompetent.