Jon Rappoport | 11 July 2016
It’s unthinkable—but not surprising—that the FBI didn’t record their interview with Hillary Clinton.
We’re told the FBI has a policy, in most cases, of not recording interviews with suspects. If true, this case and this suspect should have been vital exceptions.
Among other matters, the Presidency of the United States is at stake.
Numerous press reports reveal that the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton was not recorded.
The interview took place just prior to FBI Director Comey recommending no prosecution for Hillary in the email scandal.
The New York Times: “Mr. Comey said he did not take part in the interview of Mrs. Clinton last Saturday. Five or six agents carried it out and provided a summary to him. She was not under oath, but he quickly noted that ‘it’s still a crime to lie to the F.B.I.’ There was no transcript.”
There was no transcript of the Hillary-FBI interview.
There was no recording.
FBI agents merely took notes.
These notes are typically boiled down and summarized later in 302 Forms. Of course, we don’t know what was contained in the notes or the 302s. And we’ll never know, because the FBI will never release them.
FBI Director Comey wasn’t even there during the Hillary interview; he simply read the 302 Forms. Then he made his decision not to recommend prosecution.
It’s impossible that the 302 forms provided Comey with a detailed analysis of all the complex questions and answers required in this investigation.
In other words, the FBI Director, in making his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary, was flying blind. It was his choice—he decided to fly blind. And he decided not to be present at the interview. He wanted to maintain personal distance and deniability.
But it gets worse. In any possible follow-up investigation of this email scandal, Hillary Clinton’s own words, from her interview, will be gone. Gone forever.
Therefore, she would be able to challenge every note taken by every FBI interviewer and every Form 302 by saying, “That was a misinterpretation of what I said.” As we know, the Clintons are experts in wheedling and parsing and evading—otherwise known as lying.
Everything I’ve written so far in this article was well understood by the FBI Director, his investigators, and interviewers—before the interview with Hillary ever took place. None of it was a mystery.
Therefore, there was conscious FBI intent to eradicate/omit the interview. It was no accident, no slip-up.
There was intent to demolish the entire interview by failing to record it or make a stenographic transcript.
That intent to destroy evidence—and then destroying it by omitting it, should be a crime, a felony.
Testifying in front of Congress the day after he recommended no-prosecution, Director Comey was adamant in insisting the FBI investigation was carried out in-house, and there was no collusion with any other person or department outside the Bureau. Even if that’s true, Comey is blowing smoke, because under his supervision, the most crucial moments of the investigation—the Hillary interview—were left to blow away in the wind.
Any lies Hillary told, any obfuscations, any evasions, any refusals to answer—gone forever.
She was the target of the investigation, the suspect. Of all the people FBI agents interviewed, she would be the one whose exact words should be preserved. And they weren’t.
The FBI’s purpose in omitting the whole interview is clear: Hillary Clinton had to escape prosecution. She had to be protected from incriminating herself.
In Comey’s testimony before Congress, he admitted there were at least four lies Hillary told at some point in the investigation. Taken together, as anyone can see, they constitute a prosecutable crime:
When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.
When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.
When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.
When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.
In the FBI interview, did Hillary admit to any of these lies?
Did she try to squirm out of them, and in the process obviously reveal her guilt?
Did she bluntly refuse to answer questions about those lies?
Did she bluster and bloviate, in an effort to hide those lies?
Were the FBI interviewers overly polite? Did they grant her absurdly wide latitude and permit her to mouth vague generalities? Did they fail to press her for precise answers? Did they treat her with fawning respect and deference? Did they rig the whole interview to let her off the hook?
We’ll never know—courtesy of the FBI. On purpose.
If Comey had insisted the Hillary interview would be recorded, then, if Hillary had refused to sit down and submit to questioning, Comey could have used the refusal to announce it was a tacit admission of guilt on her part. He could have done what any honest law-enforcement officer would do. But he avoided that whole prospect, and therefore he was actually the person making a tacit admission:
His job was to exonerate Hillary and free her to continue her run for the Presidency.
That’s what he did.
It’s worth remembering that Hillary’s husband Bill was impeached, in part, because he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. In that instance, his false statements were on the record.
But not this time. Not with this Clinton.
This time, there was no record, no oath, no independent prosecutor, and the FBI and the Department of Justice were on her side, backing her up.
Hillary hit the sweet spot.
Unabated, her pursuit of her dream job now moves on.
Her dream, the country’s nightmare.
A gift from the FBI.
Silently condoned from above, by the number-one law-enforcement official in the land, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.
And from the work-a-day Congress and mainstream reporters, we get nothing. No serious attempt to go after Comey on the failure to make a record of her FBI interview. No attempt to show what that failure really implies.
We only get the silence of the lambs.