Evidence? Who needs evidence?

Comey intended to let Clinton walk before interviewing her or 16 other key witnesses


With all of the attention directed at Charlottesville and Hurricane Harvey, you might have missed this one.

According to the Washington Post and multiple other MSM sources …

The Office of the Special Prosecutor (Mueller) turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee (Grassley) transcripts of interviews with a couple of Comey’s key lieutenants: James Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff, and Trisha Anderson, the bureau’s principal deputy general counsel for national security and cyberlaw.

The pair gave corroborating testimony that Comey was planning to exonerate Clinton long before the FBI had completed its investigation.

Specifically, three or four months before Comey’s infamous July 2016 press conference, he drafted and circulated an outline of what he eventually said.

That’s before the FBI interviewed Clinton (a session that Comey didn’t even bother to attend) or 16 other key witnesses – -some of whom were granted immunity for their testimony and allowed to trash their own electronic devices without the FBI taking a peek at them.


There are several curious aspects to this revelation ….


First, as Grassley has pointed out, “Conclusion first, fact-gathering second — that’s no way to run an investigation.”

In consulting, it’s commonplace to come up with a hypothetical storyline early-on in a project to focus analytical energies.

As evidence accrues, the storyline is appropriately revised.

Not so in law enforcement, where investigators are trained to follow the evidence to the conclusion.


Some FBI sources are saying that a premature Comey exoneration draft would have no influence over the investigation.


C’mon guys, get serious.


Other FBI folks are saying that the evidence was clear before the interviews, so no harm, no foul.

Say, what?

How can you conclude that a crime wasn’t committed before interviewing the perp and key witnesses?

That just doesn’t make any sense.


And, if there were no indications of any crimes, why did several key witnesses seek and receive immunity?

Immunity from what, pray tell?

And, why was it important for the FBI to allow destruction of potential evidence – laptops, phones, etc.

Seriously, has anybody ever heard of anything like that?


Maybe the Mueller investigation will get to the heart of this one …



Follow on Twitter @KenHoma            >> Latest Posts


2 Responses to “Evidence? Who needs evidence?”

  1. chasqui Says:

    Prof. Homa….he would have ratted out Anne Frank. What a disgusting excuse of a human being. Holding any donation to Georgetown while he is on the payroll

  2. John Milnes Baker Says:

    Does anyone really think Mueller is after the truth? There was no “collusion” with the Russians to defeat Hillary..Look at the team he has assembled. If he had any principles he would never have taken the job of special prosecutor – he is obviously compromised.
    It appears to me that he has exceeded his mandate (such as it was) and should close down the so-called investigation. But he won’t- He’s a snake and will do anything he can to take down Trump. Fortunately he can only report to the DOJ and make a recommendation. He can’t issue warrants. Let’s hope I’m wrong!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s