Comey ADMITS FBI Leadership Run By KEYSTONE COPS Issuing FIVE Immunity Agreements with Nothing To Show For them SAYS IT ALL

Home  »  Elections  »  Comey ADMITS FBI Leadership Run By KEYSTONE COPS
Print This Post Print This Post
Sep 29, 2016 No Comments ›› admin

By Ben Barrack

Chaffetz apoplectic

Chaffetz apoplectic

Imagine you’re investigating a murder. The gun is found at the scene and you interrogate the man whose fingerprints are on the gun. You have significant reason to suspect that the trigger man was actually hired by a much bigger fish, who is part of an organized crime family. You tell the suspect that he will receive immunity from first degree murder and the death penalty if he gives up the name. The suspect takes the deal and then continues to maintain he acted alone.

To top it off, he still gets the deal.

That’s exactly what happened to the man who deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails after those emails were subpoenaed. FBI Director James Comey admitted it.

In questioning before the House Judiciary Committee, Comey was asked about the immunity agreement given to Paul Combetta, an IT specialist for Platte River Networks (PRN). The FBI found that Combetta deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails after a preservation order and subpoena was issued by Congress.

Under sworn testimony, Comey said that Combetta wanted immunity because he had deleted the emails after the subpoena had been issued. He then said that the reason nothing happened after granting Combetta immunity was because Combetta said he did it on his own and wasn’t asked to delete the emails.

Video is queued up:

This is essentially an admission by Comey that the FBI is inept and its leadership is run by Keystone Cops. The reason immunity agreements are issued in the first place is to get bigger fish. Those agreements can also be issued on contingency. If the subject gives up the ghost, immunity is granted. In this case, Combetta wouldn’t talk and was granted immunity.

Consider a book entitled, Informants and Undercover Investigations: A Practical Guide to Law, Policy, and Procedure by Dennis G. Fitzgerald, an expert in criminal prosecutions.

Check out pages 94-95 of his book:

fitzgerald_95-95

If the FBI was conducting a serious investigation, it should have threatened Combetta with prosecution unless someone told him to delete those emails and if he gave up the name(s) of any such individuals. If Combetta was found to have acted alone, the immunity agreement would be null and void.

Upon receiving immunity – in exchange for giving the FBI a bigger name like… say Cheryl Mills – Combetta told the FBI he deleted the emails on his own. The FBI gained absolutely NOTHING in exchange for that immunity agreement.

Instead of telling Combetta that immunity would be contingent on him telling FBI officials who told him to delete the emails or at least with new information, immunity was given to Combetta without any such conditions.

Unfortunately, Chaffetz didn’t pursue the answer to the bigger question.

That question is: Why wouldn’t the immunity deal given to Combetta be contingent on him giving up the name of the person who told him to delete the emails?

Tagged with: , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: