Testimony of FBI Director Compromised by HRC Sullied Investigation

“TWO DIFFERENT CRITERIA”

by Cody Robert Judy, ©2016, Presidential Candidate

(Jul. 8, 2016) — After watching the four-plus-hour hearing held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chaired by UT (R) Representative Jason Chaffetz with FBI Director James Comey under sworn testimony, it is my review that the director has not conducted the investigation in a thorough consideration of the interest of the public, in consideration of the standard of the laws, by subscribing to the interest of the facts presented in the case held to the standard of laws of the United States of America which any reasonable director of an investigation would report publicly so as to conclude rather than prolong the matter.

This “self-appreciated” grandstanding held by the director as “transparency” is a disservice to the public and has acted in a couched way of denying evidence that  existed. Any reasonable prosecutor would prosecute the case with the facts; he has become familiar, under a tiny scope, of the laws least likely to succeed while ignoring the broader scope of laws most likely to succeed under the exact same facts or circumstances as evidence.

If I may parlance the varying sets, or standards of laws, under the parameters of the investigation as victims of a predator. One victim was acknowledged alive and well, though carelessly victimized but without any real physical injury. The other victim was repeatedly stabbed over thirty thousand times and suffered an agonizing death.

The laws that suffered a death were the felony charges of: obstruction of justice by destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice to avoid FOIA in the usurpation of the office of the Secretary of State.

Director James Comey, in his investigation as I understand it, held [two] types of depositions under the circumstances surrounding the events described as the conduct of officials and aids surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private server in the duties and obligations of the Office of Secretary of State she held under the nomination of Barack Obama from approximately 2009 to 2013. One set of depositions placed lower aides and professionals associated under oath during FBI questioning, and another set placed an official under no oath: Hillary Clinton.

If two sets of styles exist in even taking depositions by the FBI as evidence, if the collecting of evidence seen as testimony has two different criteria depending upon position under an FBI investigation, clearly the investigation has one set of rules for common people and another set of rules for higher-ups, and this [fact] alone decries and substantiates the conduct of the FBI in this investigation as a disservice to the public and a calculated bias understood by all.

We know other witnesses in this case were placed under oath. Why were they subject to different treatment if lying to the FBI is a crime, why does the FBI place anyone under an oath to collect evidence by testimony?

The FBI director was placed under oath for this hearing. The FBI certainly patted itself on the back for integrity of the investigation as non-partisan, but who is helped and who is hurt in this affair? The People’s office of Secretary of State was usurped! Hillary Clinton in effect privatized the People’s office of Secretary of State.

Read the rest here.