‘There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the handling of classified information.’
That’s what Comey ORIGINALLY wrote about Hillary’s classified emails … before an FBI reviewing official suggested some ‘changes’.
See for yourself.
Document 34: What Comey originally proposed to say about Clinton classified email, and the changes FBI reviewing official suggested: pic.twitter.com/HB6cmU7rku
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) June 6, 2018
Holy cow, right?
So very, very desperate to make sure the first words at the beginning of the sentence were, ‘… we did not find clear evidence.‘
Which is very, very different from Comey’s original remark, ‘There IS EVIDENCE …’
Sharyl Attkisson’s timeline is the most fascinating, terrifying, and infuriating thing on Twitter these days.
And "Intent" was not part of the relevant law. Mishandling classified information for ANY reason was a violation, & a lack of intent should have had no effect on a decision to prosecute. Comey simply invented an reason not to act. Then he watered down even that bogus explanation.
— John Sheridan (@JohnSheridan12) June 6, 2018
But Trump? Russia Russia Russia? Stormy?
Oh wait, we know.
WHERE IS MELANIA?!
Most of them involved had no form of real honest accountability. This stuff has gone on for too many years. True justice served would be nice. Seems a lot of “get out of jail free” cards have been distributed to the elite pac.
— Christine Jackman (@cmj2911) June 6, 2018
It certainly is starting to feel like some of these people are made of Teflon because nothing seems to stick.
That’s the exact paragraph I stopped at too. Incredible.
— Rich Weinstein (@phillyrich1) June 6, 2018
If, as originally worded… indictment https://t.co/8hCsdUOZqW
— BayAreaFrau (@bayareahausfrau) June 7, 2018
Comey’s original statement seems far more damning than the revised version.
What else is going to bubble up out of that old swamp?