James Comey’s legacy is the destruction of integrity in the justice system

By 37 Comments 2,066 views



Hillary Clinton dodged a legal bullet because the Director of the FBI dodged his responsibility, not wanting to affect Presidential politics. On Bill O”Reilly’s show last night, the WSJ’s Bret Stephens had this to say:

“In any normal political season this would destroy her candidacy,” Stephens declared, “because the evidence that James Comey laid out shows that she has been telling untruths consistently for fifteen months. This ought to play into Trump’s sweet spot, his view that the system is rigged, except that in a week when he should be gaining strength he’s talking about Saddam Hussein being terrific in the war on terror.” Stephens also accused James Comey of being less than principled, saying, “This was a purely political decision.”

Watch the entire interview. Without a doubt it was a purely political decision but it leads to other concerns.

We know for a fact that Hillary Clinton lied to the public and repeatedly. We know for a fact that Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” with top secret information. Normally, this has consequences- like prosecution. That’s not going to happen now, but there are other concerns- including loss of security clearance. The evaluation for security clearance includes the following:

  • Allegiance to the United States

  • Possible Foreign Influence or Preference

  • Sexual Behavior

  • Personal Conduct

  • Financial Considerations – Credit Reports and Rating

  • Alcohol Use and Drug Involvement

  • Psychological Conditions

  • Criminal Conduct

  • History of Handling and Use of Protected Information

  • Other Personal or Political Activities

See anything interesting in there? Here are six ways to lose your security clearance:

1. Debt
Spending too much time shopping and not enough time paying down your debts is a surefire way to getting your security clearance revoked. Not only does it show signs of laziness, but also lack of responsibility.

2. Sloppiness
Being a slob at work or even revealing classified information will immediately red flag you for clearance removal. No one wants to work with someone who can’t take care of their desk or office, so why would you want to give them private information?

3. Associate with the wrong people
Beginning friendships with criminals or those who lead destructive lives will not go over well with security clearance reviewing officials. Even if you are friendly by nature, be cautious to who befriend, you never know who they are and what they are capable of.

4. Foreign Influence
Giving the government any doubt as to your country allegiance will give them reason to invalidate your security clearance. Make sure you report any overseas trips, not matter the length or friendships/relationships with those of a foreign allegiance.

5. Inappropriate Sexual Behavior
Engaging in perverted or lewd and vulgar behavior will bring up serious character issues with the security clearance review board. Not only does it raise personality and reputation questions, but if the controversial behavior gets into the wrong hands you could be blackmailed.

6. Alcoholism and Drugs
Lastly, partying like a rockstar does not show signs of responsibility and will ultimately end with your clearance being rescinded. Additionally, DUI and DWI’s or any additional criminal charges relating to drugs and alcohol are not taken lightly by the review board.

“Being a slob at work or even revealing classified information will immediately red flag you for clearance removal.”

That is, unless you’re a Clinton. In fact, security clearances can be stripped without even informing the holder of why. Again, his name isn’t Clinton. So here’s the question:

When does someone in government who is found to be “extremely careless” with top secret information and lie about it repeatedly get to keep their job or security clearance, let alone run for President? 

One wonders how it is that Clinton and her minions still maintain security clearances. The State Department won’t comment on it, which means nothing has been done.




James Comey has done a great disservice to the country. In choosing to avoid a precedent, he has established a precedent. He has solidified a two tier system of justice and decriminalized the gross mishandling of top secret information.

See how the obama regime treated a Marine who it accused of “mishandling” classified information:

A senior Navy Department official decided Monday to force a Marine Corps officer out of the service for his handling of classified information, three years after he was first investigated after sending a warning to deployed colleagues about an Afghan police chief whose servant later killed three Marines.

Maj. Jason Brezler will be separated from the Marine Corps following a decision by acting Assistant Navy Secretary Scott Lutterloh, said Michael Bowe, Brezler’s attorney. The case grabbed attention in Congress and among highly decorated senior officers in the military, some of whom advocated on Brezler’s behalf to let him stay in the Marines. Other service officials maintained that retired Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine Corps’ top officer when the investigation began, and other generals involved handled the case well.

“We will now proceed to a real court and prove that Commandant Amos and his generals illegally retaliated against Major Brezler because they were more concerned with politics and their careers than the lives of their Marines and the service of a good Marine who did the right thing,” Bowe said in an e-mailed statement. “I look forward to their cross-examination.”

rule of law

A marine who tried to save the lives of his fellow soldiers is punished while a Clinton who abused the system for personal gain is likely to become President, not even having to face any consequences of her actions. What other government employee could do what Clinton and her minions did and not lose their jobs, let alone their security clearances? Lie repeatedly to the public, mishandle top secret information- nothing. Exactly WHAT would she have to do to face consequences?

This is all so very wrong. Mr. Comey, you have a legacy now.

not a smart man

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

37 Responses to “James Comey’s legacy is the destruction of integrity in the justice system”

  1. 2


    Hillary Clinton dodged a legal bullet because the Director of the FBI dodged his responsibility, not wanting to affect Presidential politics.

    Why be so charitable?

    Comey is a Clinton Stooge and partisan hack who has undermined the credibility of the FBI and the security of the country.

  2. 3


    I’m watching the House’s interrogation of FBI Director James Comey at the moment. The most intelligent, competent, and politically unbiased person in the room appears to be FBI Director James Comey.

  3. 4


    So, Lynch and Bill Clinton had a secret meeting in her plane in Phoenix less than a week out from all of this hitting the fan. But, not to worry, they were only talking about grandchildren and golf…although Lynch has no grandchildren and does not play golf. They talked about this for thirty minutes…but nothing else.

    This story insults the intelligence of even the mostly unintelligent American voter. The corruption is all out in the open now. What are we going to do about it?

  4. 5

    Richard Wheeler

    @Skookum: “Clinton hack” Don’t think so—Did you hear his statement re. her negligence? This is gonna help Trump. Irony??
    Nearly half the Repubs. and more than 65% of the American people think he’s unfit to be Prez. We should have had Kasich or Rubio VS. Biden or Webb.
    Sad times for the American electorate.

  5. 7


    FBI Director James Comey isn’t defending Hillary Clinton. He’s defending his own integrity, that of the FBI, that of their investigative process, and the reasonableness of the conclusions members of the FBI investigative team were evidently unanimous on.

    I think any attentive, intelligent person can get a pretty clear picture of what republicans are up to with this hearing. There have been several clear efforts to entrap Comey into saying what they want him to say. The problem is he’s smarter than they are, and clarifies the question to the point where he can give a straight, honest, unambiguous response. You can see the disappointment and anger on their faces as he escapes each verbal trap.

  6. 8



    I think any attentive, intelligent person can get a pretty clear picture of what republicans are up to with this hearing.

    Sure. Congress, who wrote the law, wants to know why the FBI director made a statement saying, “Hillary is guilty” then said, “but there will be no charges.”

    To people that respect the law, this is a pertinent question. To this wanting Hillary as President, at all costs no matter how corrupt she is, it is a nuisance.

  7. 9


    Some people will be led to believe that’s a pertinent question. Others will listen closely to FBI Director Comey and understand what he has said: There was no evidence that Hillary Clinton is guilty of any criminal violation.

  8. 11


    @Petercat, #10:

    The decision Director Comey made not to recommend prosecution was not a departure from from precedent. It is in accordance with precedent. As he pointed out, there has only been one case over the past 100 years where an effort was made to prosecute on the basis of gross negligence. An effort to establish criminal misconduct on that basis would never stand up in court. It wouldn’t even get through a Grand Jury to go to court.

  9. 13


    @Bill: the Republic is lost. We are now in an Oligarchy. We either rescue the Constitution or admit defeat. We do so bye either the ballot box or bullets. Posture is now 1775.

  10. 14


    This just gets curiouser and curiouser… Based on the evidence the FBI discovered, we know that Hillary lied to the public. We have the television footage. Based on that same evidence, we know she lied when she testified in front of Congress last October. We have the Congressional Record.

    But Director Comey claims that she didn’t lie to the FBI, something which would have forced him to act. To be specific, he claims that, “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”

    Well, given that the record conflicts with statements she has previously made, can we check the transcript of her FBI interview against the evidence? For instance, did the FBI ASK her if, as she has stated so often, that she never sent nor received classified information on her server?

    What? There’s no transcript?
    Excuse me? The interview wasn’t recorded?
    Wait, the Director wasn’t even THERE, for the most high-profile interview the FBI has done in decades?

    As distasteful as I find Trump, it’s difficult to disagree with him on this one.
    The Fix in In.
    1775 indeed.

  11. 15


    The oligarchy is doing its best to protect itself. That is why they chose not to press charges. The idea of INTENT is a red herring. what you do with classified docs has NOTHING to do with intent. All you have to do is to make them available to anyone without a Security clearance and the need to know. She did this. But there are a separate set of rules for those FUCKS in DC. Again we are no longer a Republic. We have an official ruling class! Exactly what B Franklin warned us about. ” A Republic it you can keep it ” Well we lost that. I am going to fly my American flag upside down because the republic is in distress and WE THE PEOPLE need to rescue and re-apply the Constitution.

  12. 17


    @DrJohn, #16:

    There was no need for her to be under oath, as Director Comey pointed out. Lying to the FBI in the context of an official investigation is itself a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001. It’s not a little “slap on the wrist” crime, either. It can result in imprisonment for 5 to 8 years.

    The maximum federal sentence for lying under oath is 5 years.

  13. 18

    smoking man

    @Common Sense:
    Greg isn’t giving his own personal opinion he is simply showing what the Director of the FBI had to say about it
    Greg’s personal opinion isn’t really all that important, as is yours

  14. 19

    smoking man

    The FBI do not normally put anyone under oath, you should know that just from watching TV
    What kind of legal analyst are you if you don’t even know THAT ?

  15. 20

    dick G

    Why are we embroiled in an argument over whether she met the EXACT definition of the statute in question? If it were anybody but a Clinton (regardless of her being a presidential candidate) she would have been called into the boss’s office and given her notice!! No if’s, and’s or maybe’s! Oh, wait; her boss is just as guilty of self serving, political, obfuscations as she. Now I get it!

  16. 21


    What? There’s no transcript?
    Excuse me? The interview wasn’t recorded?
    Wait, the Director wasn’t even THERE, for the most high-profile interview the FBI has done in decades?
    They would not want any of these things, a transcript may be proof of lying to the FBI or that they only chatted about golf and grandkids. Chelseas baby blues that made her delete every damn thing as the server was blank when handed over.

    Makes one wonder if Chelsea knew what her mother had done was bad why the FBI couldn’t figure it out, and Her mommy just thought Chelsea felt the emails on flower arrangements for her wedding should not be public information.

  17. 22


    It’s a long-standing standard policy of the FBI that it doesn’t record such interviews. Having no recording of the interview with Hillary Clinton isn’t an exception; it’s the normal situation. Whether that should be their standard policy or not is a separate issue. My own thought is that if no recording is made, anything said during the interview itself should not be admissible as evidence in court by either party.

  18. 23


    @Greg: What I would like to know since Director Comey says Hillary was treated no different than any other average person. The next time I see the FBI investigate . They wont come busting in and remove all the records there are right? The practice now seems to be they will call the citizen request all the documents and computer records. The citizen may have personal info mixed in so we then get to send all of this to our attorney’s. The attorney’s will then decide what the FBI can have and what they cant have? We all do have this right correct? If I am misunderstanding something let me know.

  19. 24

    dick G

    Kitt, let me get this straight. You’re not suggesting that Hillary was treated differently in any way than the ordinary citizen who might be under some suspicion of having done something wrong; are you??

  20. 25

    dick G

    To hell with the discussion about prosecutable offenses. (I’m 72 years old and have never gotten a satisfactory answer to “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin.) In my career I have never been high enough up the ladder to not nat someone to whom I had to “report”. Additionally I almost always had someone or more who reported to me. In all those cases I was responsible for reviewing the individual and making a decision as to whether to give a raise in pay, keep them at the current rate with increased overview, or to separate them from current employment. At no time did any employee ever bring suit, successful or otherwise, against me or my company. Since when is the Hillary issue any different?? Why are we not asking the question as to why Obama hadn’t asked her for her resignation?

  21. 26


    @kitt: they can only do that if a magistrate or judge gives them a search warrant to do so
    To get that they must already have evidence that a crime has been committed
    If they do it without a warrant it is illegal
    Sounds like you have been watching to much tv

  22. 29


    @John: Isnt stealing government documents of any type a crime? Thats what she did by not turning over the server at the time of her end of service. And There was testimony that government records were deleted thats destruction of government property as well. https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1666-destruction-government-property-18-usc-1361
    Section 1361 protects “any property” of the United States or an agency or department thereof, or any property being manufactured or constructed for the United States or an agency or department thereof, from willful depredation or attempted depredation. “Depredation” has been characterized as the act of plundering, robbing, pillaging or laying waste.
    Seems she might have committed this crime and a federal judge could have signed a warrant, based upon this.
    She was aware of government documents in her basement and they did not belong to her.
    They cannot claim she was treated like everybody else, that is ridiculous.
    here is a time line https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

  23. 30

    Andrew Garland



    — The L.A. Times, May 22, 2014.
    Shot: FBI and other federal agents must now tape interviews with suspects. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said: “Creating an electronic record will ensure that we have an objective account of key investigations and interactions with people who are held in federal custody.”

    — Breitbart.com, today July 7, 2016.
    Chaser: Comey: Hillary’s FBI Testimony Wasn’t Under Oath Or Recorded, But It Would Still Be a Crime To Lie.

    As Sean Davis of the Federalist asks, “I would very much like to know which political appointee in the FBI ordered agents to not record or transcribe their Hillary interview.”

    —The Daily Caller today.
    Hangover: “Congress To Ask FBI To Investigate Hillary For Lying Under Oath.”

  24. 31


    @Andrew Garland, #30:

    Holder’s 2014 directive to tape interviews applied only to those having to do with drug and gun crimes. From your linked article:

    “Under a new policy announced Thursday by Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr., federal agents investigating drug and gun crimes, as well as the U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI, will videotape or audiotape suspects starting July 11. The interviews will be recorded between the arrest and first appearance in federal court.”

    As Sean Davis of the Federalist asks, “I would very much like to know which political appointee in the FBI ordered agents to not record or transcribe their Hillary interview.”

    No appointee would have given such an order. Taping or transcribing such an interview wouldn’t normally take place to begin with, because it wasn’t a drug or gun investigation.

    I don’t believe there are any positions in the FBI filled by presidential appointment, other that of the Director.

  25. 32


    @dick G:

    Why are we not asking the question as to why Obama hadn’t asked her for her resignation?

    Why ask questions you already know the answer to? Obama has never ONCE reprimanded anyone in his administration that has been guilty of wrongdoing. Not in the DOJ, not the IRS, not the EPA, not the VA. Obama has only pursued whistle-blowers that reveal the failures of his administration.

    @kitt: #29 Those just apply to little people. Liberal deities are, of course, immune.

  26. 33


    When asked during the hearing whether classified or top secret data was accessed, read or seen on her server – Comey clearly and adamantly stated that he is sure that between 2 – 10 people without security clearance have accessed and read the many secret/classified data.
    Comey was forced/pressured exonerating Clinton simply because it would have snared up a host of others that were involved in her treasonous crimes such as – the president. He knew and they corresponded back and forth with each other. Think all the coups, the switch and join the jihadists while using them as tools such as killing the 200,000+ Syrians and Libyans as well as others. Assad was their next target although Vladimir Putin stopped them. He copied 22,000 emails from her server before they were deleted. He observed them shipping 400 tons of weapons and other military hardware via Turkey into Syria with the approval of Erdogan. Hillary, Obama are responsible and the cause of the existence of ISIS. Has any of you ever wondered why our Armed Forces do not defeat or wipe out these demonic savages? They own the city of Raqqa/Syria where their government HQ is located showing their building simply using Google and yet – not one bomb feel there. ISIS provides the shock value the globalists need to get their one-world-government. It is that reason that the west is flooded with these parasites – they are their tools. The Rothschilds mission statement reads: “Out of chaos – comes order”!
    We are just pawns in their scheme of things and are dispensible. Hillary and this administration with 8 of their helpers in both parties were busy during Hillary’s term as SOS to set it all up nicely while we were asleep. That is the secret that is protected and Comey was forced into hiding it. There is a lot more!

  27. 36


    @cali: No secret, Asad was next after Gadhafi, supressed in the media yes. The Left will call it conspiracy theory, or rantings refuse to look at all at any proof. End game would be the entire Middle east in flames, to what end? I cannot look that far into the heart of evil. I dont want to understand the insanity of murder and of power lust.
    Behold the Clinton / Obama legacy

  28. 37


    @Vollero: I was shocked that the FBI needed a referral from Congress to access her testimony under oath to Congress. Chavez (sp?), Co chair did not know this! Common sense thinking and rules don’t apply in D.C.

    I don’t understand how the FBI concluded she did not lie to them. I guess that rule was part of it. Public lies are not evidence to them. I also want to know how they concluded she was unsophisticated, not knowledgeable about the internet. Did she show them how she just couldn’t get that FB thing to work?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *