‘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?
Recommended
Oh wait, we know.
WHERE IS MELANIA?!
https://twitter.com/cmj2911/status/1004324857071439872
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
Jarring, yes?
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?
Related:
HUME-ILIATED: Brit Hume OWNS Matthew Dowd with FACTS in back-and-forth about impeaching Trump
Join the conversation as a VIP Member