Comey is well-respected by politicians in both political parties and by many within his own ranks. But there is new dissent after his Clinton decision, which some FBI insiders found baffling and contrary to normal practices.
“Many people at the FBI are outraged, but cannot speak out,” one insider told me.
Here are some of the observations by FBI professionals who wish to remain anonymous because their opinions could affect their job prospects:
Why wasn’t Clinton’s interview recorded? On May 22, 2014 the Justice Department announced a substantial change in policy “creating a presumption that FBI…agents will electronically record,” expressing a preference for video recordings over audio. “It appears to me they made a deal not to record,” says one observer, which flies in the face of the idea that Clinton was treated like anybody else.Typically it’s the U.S. Attorney’s office, not FBI agents, deciding whether charges will be filed. “Director Comey seems to have taken on responsibilities far beyond the FBI’s purview–he assumed the duties of the Agent, US Attorney and Grand Jury.”“It appears no Grand Jury was empaneled for this investigation,” says an insider. “This is absurd, Grand Juries are used in nearly all criminal investigations” and that’s where the decision is made as to whether the standard for charges has been met. (Attkisson Note: I have no information on whether or not a Grand Jury was empaneled)
A two-day turnaround between the interview with the target and a decision not to prosecute is “unheard of.” “Even in the most straightforward of cases, the time span between a target interview and prosecution opinion takes weeks, not days. If a good interview were conducted [with Clinton] on Saturday, there would have been leads or other new pieces of information to verify or investigate prior to any conclusion to the case.”
In addition, Attkisson’s source took issue with the position Comey took during the hearing that he needed an additional referral to investigate whether or not Clinton lied to Congress during the Benghazi hearings. “This makes no sense,” said a career agent. “It is normal practice that if you came upon evidence of a crime different than the one you were originally investigating, it was fair game.”
He apparently has a refferal now, and with Clinton and her mouthpieces publicly besmirching Comey’s findings and testimony, this won’t be going away like Democrats want. Much has been made of Republican attacks on Comey, but it is Clinton who is doing the attacking. This from CBS:
On this point, the former secretary of state disagrees. “They, I believe, did not believe they were sending any material that was classified,” she told CNN. And, in opposition to Comey’s findings, she told Pelley, “I do not think they were careless. I have a very high regard for the professionals in the State Department, so I believe that they knew what they were doing, and I had no reason to question or second guess their expert opinions.”
Of the State Department diplomats she corresponded with, whom she said faced tremendous pressure from the field and from questions by journalists, Clinton told Blitzer, “I have no reason to believe that they were careless in their judgments in sending me the material that they did.”
The is classic Clinton parsing of words. By using “they'” she is essentially putting it on the State Department. Does she really want Comey, the FBI and the State Department routinely leaking damning evidence? And why does she feel the need to go into denial mode when professional Democrat operatives are ready to go full, frontal “move on” mode? Does Clinton sense danger?