When James Comey was terminated from employment as the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation by President Donald Trump, numerous Democrats such as the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) began — with the help of the honesty-deficient news media — the narrative that Trump’s firing of Comey was part of the cover up of the President’s collusion with Russian leader Vladimir Putin to beat Hillary Clinton on election day in November.
James Comey, who headed an agency that’s undergone much condemnation both internally and externally, gave a speech in front of police commanders and security directors attending the annual International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Conference earlier this year. Comey’s event was part of the IACP’s four-days of panel discussions, seminars and business meetings.
“Director Comey addressed the issues of alleged police racism, police brutality, excessive use of force by cops and other topics that are popular with his bosses [President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch]. Although millions of Americans are potential targets of Islamic terrorists, Comey couldn’t care less about such threats to our society,” said former police counter-terrorism unit commander, Neil Knudsen.
Capt. George Tinsdale, of the Kiowa County, MT, Police Department, is also disturbed by a news story stemming from the FBI investigation of the now-famous Hillary Clinton email server. He described the behind the scenes exchange between the FBI and the State Department: Patrick Kennedy, a senior U.S. State Department official, allegedly asked for the FBI investigators in 2015 to change the classification level from top secret to merely confidential of an email taken from Hillary Clinton’s private server in a “quid pro quo” deal. Assistant Secretary of State Kennedy offered to allow more FBI agents to be deployed in foreign countries, according to bureau records released to the government watchdog Judicial Watch and others.
The FBI ultimately rejected the request, which would have allowed the State Department to archive the message related to the 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in the basement of its Washington headquarters “never to be seen again,” according to the FBI files.
Capt. Tinsdale said,”Someone must have told Kennedy, who worked for Clinton, that the FBI would go for such a deal. I wonder how many other deals the FBI Director and his subordinates were offered by [President] Obama’s minions and Hillary’s alleged criminal enterprise.”
When Comey dismissed the case against Hillary Clinton he said it was because no reasonable attorney would take the case. Now we’ve learned that there were plenty who would have done so. “Only Attorney General Loretta Lynch and some other Democratic Party hacks would claim such a case had no chance for success. There are prosecutors all over the nation who would jump at the chance to bring Clinton before a federal judge,” Tinsdale added.
“I know that inside the FBI there is a revolt. There is a revolt against the director. The people inside the bureau believe the director is a dirty cop. They believe that he threw the [Hillary Clinton email] case. They do not know what he was promised in return. But the people inside the bureau who were involved in the case and who knew about the case are talking to former FBI people expressing their disgust at the conduct of the director.”
“The loss of faith in the bureau chief stems in part from a dishonest rendering of the decision not to indict Mrs. Clinton as unanimous rather than unilateral and in part from the bureau’s decision to destroy evidence in the case and grant blanket immunity to Clinton underlings for no possible prosecutorial purpose.”
“There is a consensus among the employees that the director has lost all credibility and that he cannot lead the bureau,” diGenova explains. “They are comparing him to L. Patrick Gray, the disgraced former FBI director who threw Watergate papers into the Potomac River. The resistance to the director has made the agency incapable of action. It has been described to me as a depression within the agency unlike anything that anyone has ever seen within the bureau. The director’s public explanation for the unorthodox investigation are viewed by people in the bureau as sophomoric and embarrassing.”