If the FBI thought that the Friday-afternoon document dump of their notes from Hillary Clinton’s interview would restore confidence in their handling of the scandal, they were sorely mistaken. Director James Comey recommended that the Department of Justice take no action against Hillary just days after this interview, and claimed that she had cooperated honestly with investigators. Even a cursory look through the “302” put lie to that suggestion. Instead of burying the story over a holiday weekend, the obvious contradictions and lies fueled rising anger over the FBI’s handling of the scandal.
Some of these observations got very detailed. Sharyl Attkisson found a clear contradiction between Hillary’s testimony and that of Huma Abedin regarding the use and security of SCIFs in Hillary’s residences:
Clearly someone wasn’t telling the truth, which should have prompted obstruction of justice charges against one of the two. Ask Scooter Libby what happens when a person unconnected to the Clintons lies to FBI investigators.
Overall, it’s clear that Hillary was lying to investigators, as I write in my column for The Week, or that she’s a complete idiot. Either way, Hillary doesn’t belong anywhere near the White House:
Anyone who has handled classified material would know this to be utter nonsense. Paragraph markings appear in all classified material to note the specific classifications within the sections of each page, while the page itself bears a marking of the highest classification information within it. Even without that knowledge, though, Clinton’s explanation still makes no sense, because the alphabet doesn’t start with C. If she legitimately wanted to employ this imbecilic alphabet defense, the follow-up question is obvious: “How could you think this if there was no (A) and (B)?” …
Did agents ask her to reconcile that experience with her protestations of ignorance on classifications, originations, and markings? The FBI’s interview notes show no evidence of that obvious follow-up. In fact, Clinton went even further by claiming that she “could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified material.”
On that point, the FBI had clear evidence of deception. In a non-disclosure agreement dated Jan. 22, 2009, Clinton attested to having received a “security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information.” That signature explicitly made Clinton “legally bound” to that testimony. Did investigators challenge her statement, or follow up on the potential perjury or obstruction ramifications? Apparently not. …
When asked whether a discussion of an upcoming covert operation should have prompted her to recognize the classified nature of the information, she told the FBI that “deliberation over a future drone strike did not give her cause for concern regarding classification.”
It doesn’t take von Clausewitz to know that discussions of military and intelligence operations require secrecy, especially covert operations such as the drone-strike program and its targets. To accept these answers at face value, one would have to consider Hillary Clinton an idiot, and especially dangerous if put in charge of the military as commander-in-chief.
Glenn Reynolds also marvels over the apparent acceptance of these intelligence-insulting responses by FBI agents:
In addition, there were “mass deletions” of emails just after news reports of her secret private server became public, and after she received a subpoena, and order not to destroy any records, from the House committee investigating the Benghazi affair.
Hillary also claimed a lot of memory problems, leaving blogger Tamara Keel to write: “I have an Ivy League lawyer, wife of a former governor and president, who lived in the White House for eight damned years, then went on to be a senator and Secretary of State telling me she didn’t know about classified email and that work-related documents needed to be saved as part of the public record? Look, I don’t mind you bullshitting me a little bit, Hillary, but don’t you ever lie to me like I’m Montel Williams.”
You don’t have to be an Ivy League lawyer to recognize a coverup when you see one. This goes far beyond anything Richard Nixon did after Watergate. If the coverup is this big, what’s being covered up must be pretty bad, bad enough that they’re willing to blow lots of smoke rather than let us see the fire… This is where we are on Labor Day weekend, 2016.
Here’s where we also are — in a place where the FBI won’t enforce the law on the powerful. The answers related in these notes are so obviously lies that in any other circumstances a grand jury would have been empaneled to contemplate prosecution. The 302 doesn’t just indict Hillary Clinton on obstruction of justice; it indicts James Comey for lacking the courage to pursue it.