Disgraced FBI Director James Comey has a new problem on his hands after a bombshell revelation came late yesterday afternoon regarding his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server.

Comey has been under fire for the manner in which he seemingly allowed Hillary to walk free after her egregious violations of national security statutes – the FBI’s “investigation” ended with him reciting a letter exonerating the former Secretary of State by stating she was “extremely careless” using a private, unsecure email server. It’s that statement – extremely careless – which has been the focus of Congressional investigators after it was revealed the language in his letter was changed from “grossly negligent,” which rises to the level of criminality, so Hillary could walk away unscathed.


Demoted FBI Agent Peter Strzok was the man responsible for changing the language in Comey’s letter, and now we’re learning that he also changed another part of the letter that has even more serious national security implications. In fact, Comey stated in his press conference the FBI believed it was “possible” that Hillary’s server was hacked, but as it turns out the bureau actually believed it was “reasonably likely” that hostile actors were able to gain access to it.

take our poll - story continues below

Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?

  • Whom do you consider to be the most corrupt Democrat Politician?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to AFF updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

This is huge.


Fox News has more [emphasis added]:

Newly released documents obtained by Fox News reveal that then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email probe was edited numerous times before his public announcement, in ways that seemed to water down the bureau’s findings considerably.


In an early draft, Comey said it was “reasonably likely” that “hostile actors” gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account. That was changed later to say the scenario was merely “possible.”

Another edit showed language was changed to describe the actions of Clinton and her colleagues as “extremely careless” as opposed to “grossly negligent.” This is a key legal distinction.

Wow. The FBI, Comey included, knew that Hillary’s server was a major national security risk, and they knew that in all likelihood, hostile foreign actors were able to gain access to it, yet they completely downplayed the ordeal and let her off without so much as a slap on the wrist.

Let that sink in for a second.

Hillary Clinton had highly classified information on that server, including documentation from Special Access Programs, which only a handful of people in our entire government have clearance to see. The national security implications of this “carelessness” (read: criminality) are massive, and had anyone else done the same as Hillary, they’d be rotting away in federal prison, if not GTMO, right now.

The worst part about it all is that the FBI, not Congress, rewrote the federal statutes to give Hillary a pass on her crimes, as the National Review noted.

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

Exactly. People are prosecuted for crimes they didn’t “intend” to do all of the time. For instance, when you kill someone accidentally, you’re prosecuted for manslaughter.

Or better yet, former national security adviser Michael Flynn didn’t “intend” to mislead the FBI about his contacts with Russia because he wasn’t even aware he was being interviewed. However, he was still investigated and prosecuted for not telling the truth.

So no, intent in these situations means nothing at all. In fact, the only part intent would play is if the charges were going to rise from felony mishandling of classified information, to treason – purposefully aiding and abetting our enemies.

We’ll have to see how this all plays out. But as of now, there appears to be more than enough evidence to take down both Strzok and Comey, as well as reopen the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton and her band of lying minions.

If you enjoyed this story, be sure to follow Sean Brown on Facebook!



FOLLOW us on Facebook at Nation In Distress!

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter

Facebook Has Banned Us!

The leftists at Facebook decided they didn’t like our message, so they removed our page and are censoring us. Help us fight back and subscribe to our newsletter so that you can stay up-to-date with everything Facebook doesn’t want you to see!

Disqus Comments