RBR: Gowdy wants Comey to testify again following Clinton email draft release
Following the FBI’s release of documents confirming that former FBI Director James Comey began drafting a letter on the Hillary Clinton email investigation months before completing several interviews, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. said Comey needs to testify before Congress again.
“Whenever somebody decides to charge someone, there are lots of layers of scrutiny. When you decide not to charge someone, there aren’t that many layers of scrutiny but there ought to be at least a couple,” Gowdy said. “The media should do it but also Congress should look at this decision not to charge and whether or not it was made before you interviewed two dozen witnesses, including the target of the investigation, yeah we need to talk to him again.”
COMEY INSISTED NO ‘SPECIAL’ RULES IN FBI CLINTON PROBE – WHIEL DRAFTING ‘EXONERATION STATEMENT’
According to Gowdy, the timeline of events and some of Comey’s decisions along the way did not appear to add up. He was referring to Comey’s statement during his June congressional testimony in which he said the tarmac meeting between former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former President Bill Clinton encouraged him to announce his findings in the email investigation.
“His ostensible reason for taking that decision away from the Department of Justice was that meeting on the tarmac but yet a month and a half earlier he is memorializing a decision he’s already made so the chronology does not add up,” Gowdy said. “His answers have been all over the map.”
When asked whether Loretta Lynch, who is expected to be on Capitol Hill Friday concerning the Russia investigation, would be asked about Comey’s email draft, Gowdy said she would not.
COMEY DRAFTED LETTER ON CLINTON EMAIL INVESTIGATION BEFORE COMPLETING INTERVIEWS, FBI CONFIRMS
But he said there were “lots of reasons” to talk to her as well, in that she could “corroborate or contradict Comey’s recollection” about their conversation regarding his decision to make the announcement.
Baier’s interview also touched on Gowdy’s investigation into Samantha Power, the former ambassador to the United Nations during the Obama administration, and her office’s request to unmask at least 260 individuals heard on surveillance recordings.
Gowdy said during questioning, Power testified that she had not personally made all of the requests, despite them being filed under her name. He said the committee had to find out whether someone else in the intelligence community was actually behind those requests.
RBR: Do not attack the source. The topic is NOT Fox News.
Tags
Who is online
42 visitors
RBR: Do not attack the source. The topic is NOT Fox News.
I believe Gowdy was saying in a nice way that Comey lied to Congress.
Actually, in Capital speak, he flat out called Comey a liar in no uncertain terms...
Comey has two choices now;
In either case his credibility and integrity is now gone forever.....
And it puts even more shade on the Tarmac meeting....
As Chairman, has Gowdy asked Comey to appear? FTA I don't see the ask.
This is not going to end well for Gowdy and his committee, should he call Comey back. It will look like a witch hunt or show trial, which it will be.
This is being done to give the APPEARANCE that Comey did something wrong. The reality is, there is no there there.
Comey didnt take the decision away from Lynch, she gave it to him after the meeting with Bill Clinton was criticized.
If he testifies he will explain to them that there was nothing wrong with writing a preliminary memo on May2, since all the available emails had been examined, and he knew the facts of the case. It's basically that simple , no matter how much "shade" the right wants to make up and throw on it.
You're wrong John. He writes an email a month early clearing her, without even interviewing her? And then he tells the committee that his decision to clear her was made when the tarmac meeting took place? Sounds like he lied to Congress.
Sorry Bruce, there is no there there . But get your hopes up if it makes you happy.
This is the equivalent to the ninth Benghazi hearing. Nothing there.
You get your news from Infowars and Gateway Pundit. In other words your judgements lack credibility.
Yep. And I bet Clinton is starting to regret ever claiming Russian interference now. Careful what you wish for...
John, you're beginning to sound like:
How many times does this story have to be debunked for it to sink in? Besides the fact that ALL uranium stayed under US control, the donations to the Clinton foundation of which the Clinton's get exactly $0 from, was made by a guy 2 years before any deal was struck with the 9 members of which Hillary was just one. This is such a non-story it's getting hilarious that so many half wits still believe it. Do yourself a favor and actually research it instead of believing that bald insane Muppet Alex Jones.
www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Maybe you should read the NYT article down below, unless you think the NYT is a POS news source as I do.
I do. I read everything I can and listen and watch everyone I can. I even read Raw Story and Salon like John.
I did and nothing in it refutes the points made in the Snopes fact checking article. The Russians never gained any control over actual Uranium, they got a "stake in the company" much like any other foreign investment. The "chairman used his family foundation to make four donations" to the Clinton foundation two years before any "deal" was made and years before Hillary was secretary of State or had any influence over the deal, and the 9 board members remained in control so unless the Russians also bought off the other 8 the claim is spurious. On top of that, the Clinton's get no money from their foundation. Trying to tie in speaking fee's that were in line with any other major political figure giving speeches to this is simply ridiculous as a supposed "pay-for-play" scheme. And the article points out that no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” and that "multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary." “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,”.
So stop trying to make connections where there are none.
I wish that were the case, but its not. Nothing will get done, even if they uncover the most damning evidence a prosecutor could wish for. It's a big show...arched backs, bawling, whining, screaming, circling, rinse and repeat the next day.
John, do you even know the first rule of an investigation? Don't jump to conclusions before all the witnesses are interviewed and evidence collected. What did Comey do? He jumped to a conclusion long before Hillary (the CHIEF witness about the emails and the server) was interviewed. Heck, the timing of the clearing of Hillary 2 days after her interview is proof of that. In a true, full investigation; it takes weeks before something as complicated as an email chain and verbal testimony about said chain is fully and properly vetted; yet they cleared her in 2 days...something stinks in Denmark and it is not the fish...
There is no "appearance" that he did something wrong. This is more a he did do something wrong and now has to explain it and take responsibility for it.
This was from NYT April 23, 2015.
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Why don't you reply to the multiple ways this story has been found completely bogus? I never hear you discussing how the US remained in control of all the uranium, the Russians were simply foreign investors who never got any uranium. I never hear you mention how the supposed "cash flow" to the foundation was years before the deal and how the Clintons have no access to any of the money going to the foundation? I never hear you mention how Hillary had almost no control over the deal as it was decided by the Canadian government and 8 other members of the board? Funny how all you can manage is giant bold type making a spurious accusation that if true would have led to another dozen partisan Republican investigations like the other spurious claims of Clinton wrongdoing, all of which came up with nothing. Are the Republicans so incompetent that they can't get to the truth behind these right wing conspiracy theories? You'd think by reading any of the right wing blogs that of course Hillary should be in jail if all the claims were true, but when you dig a little deeper you realize it's nothing but a bunch of invented conjecture created to obfuscate truth, not reveal it. But sadly, that's all that is needed to confuse and manipulate poorly educated voters, and the right wing smoke machines were out in full force combined with Russian smoke machines that got Trump elected. I find it sad that so many Americans were so easily manipulated by them, it's truly embarrassing for any educated American who is able to read through all the blown smoke and continues to find nothing but Russian bots, right wing exaggeration actors like Alex Jones, conjecture masquerading as truth coupled with wanton ignorance.