Trey Gowdy to FBI Director: This is “Not the FBI I Used to Work For”!
Congressman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) is at a loss to explain how the Department of Justice, and the FBI have become so openly corrupt in recent years. On Wednesday, Gowdy went toe-to-toe with FBI Director James Comey over the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. Speaking directly to one of the biggest problems with the FBI’s investigation, Gowdy wondered how Comey could see fit to hand out FIVE different immunity agreements but somehow not prosecute anyone.
Keep in mind we are being heavily censored, please follow us on our social media pages: Telegram USA.Life, Gab, Parler, Minds, Spreely, MeWe, Twitter, Facebook
“What concerns me Director is when you have five immunity agreements and no prosecution… when you are allowing witnesses who happen to be lawyers sit in on an interview. That is not the FBI that I used to work with.”
Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge expounds on the problem of immunity:
According to the Wall Street Journal, the FBI usually only “proffers” immunity deals in return for genuine information and requirements that the recipients cooperate with other investigating bodies, such as Congress. That said, in this specific case its unclear what the FBI received in return for their immunity deals other than what they could have otherwise taken with a subpoena. As Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “if the FBI wanted any other Americans’ laptops, they would just go get them—they wouldn’t get an immunity deal.” But, of course, by offering immunity, the FBI exempted the laptops and their emails as potential evidence in a criminal case.
You can see Gowdy’s entire conversation with Director Comey below:
Congressman Gowdy was also able to explain how unusual it is for the FBI to grant immunity to a “person of interest” in a case, but not actually charge anyone with a crime. He went on Fox News’ Fox & Friends to discuss how terribly this case seems to have been handled. Speaking particularly of the way the FBI allowed Clinton’s team to do as they wished, he used Cheryl Mills (Clinton’s chief of staff) as his prime example.
What Comey said yesterday was because she’s a lawyer, then you have attorney-client privilege issues, and there is some merit to that, but that gets back to my original point. Cheryl Mills — I mean, here’s the moral of the story: Hire a lawyer to be your chief of staff, because then what you want to be made public can be made public, and what you don’t want to be made public, you can claim attorney-client privilege…
Moral of the story: Hire a lawyer to be your chief of staff…
She stormed out [of the interview with FBI investigators] because her lawyer, who used to work for the Department of Justice, by the way, and the DOJ lawyers had an agreement about what she would and would not be asked, and the FBI was apparently not part of that deal. So they, God forbid, asked a question that went into an area she didn’t want it to go. So, that’s why she left. This whole thing would not happen to Cheryl Smith or Cheryl Jones, but it happened to Cheryl Mills. And that is my focus. Why are you treating this case differently than you would anyone else’s?
[It is] politics, I guess, and a Department of Justice that has been politicized.
I mean, keep in mind the head of the Department of Justice met on the tarmac for 30 minutes, she claims to talk about golf and grandkids. There’s not a guy in the world that’s going to talk 30 minutes about their grandkids. Maybe about golf, maybe golf, but not their grandkids.
Article posted with permission from Constitution.com. Article by Onan Coca.