Comey's Original Clinton Memo Revealed, Shows Deletions Of Felony Evidence

For months, speculation has swirled around what exactly former FBI Director James Comey said about Hillary Clinton's private email server (and handling of classified material). While much has been leaked, and admitted to, thanks to Senate Homeland and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), we now have the complete original Comey statement... and the subsequent rounds of deletions and edits that watered down the felonious Clinton actions to an embarrassing wrist-slap.



The Hill was first to report late last year that Comey originally concluded Clinton was “grossly negligent” – the statutory term supporting felony mishandling of classified information – when she and her aides transmitted 110 emails containing classified information through her nonsecure server but that subordinates edited the term to the lesser “extremely careless.”

As The Hill reports, the full draft, with edits, leaves little doubt that Comey originally wrote on May 2, 2016 that there was evidence that Clinton and top aides may have violated both felony and misdemeanor statutes, though he did not believe he could prove intent before a jury.

Full Draft:

As the document also shows, Comey's original statement was edited by subordinates to remove five separate references to terms like “grossly negligent” and to delete mention of evidence supporting felony and misdemeanor violations.

For example, as The Hill notes, Comey originally wrote:

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statute proscribing gross negligence in the handling of classified information and of the statute proscribing misdemeanor mishandling, my judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

That passage, however, was subsequently edited to remove the references to “gross negligence” and “misdemeanor mishandling,” leaving a much more generic reference to “potential violations of the statutes.”

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

Remarkably, though the original statement was written on May 6th 2016, Comey did not hold his infamous press conference until two months later... once all the edits were in.

As Senator Johnson exclaimed, "the edits to Director Comey’s public statement, made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions,” adding that...

"this effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election."

Rigged, indeed...


Chupacabra-322 Gap Admirer Thu, 01/04/2018 - 20:20 Permalink

The minimum requirement to be found guilty of mishandling of States Secrets is Gross Negligence. It’s why Criminals at Large Comey, Muellar &

Strzok changed the language in their report.


An earlier draft included tougher language describing Clinton as “grossly negligent.” Comey then used a softer tone, saying Clinton was “extremely careless” in her use of private emails. According to federal law, “gross negligence” in handling the nation’s intelligence is a felony.


“If the government puts into your hand for safe keeping [the] state’s secrets and you failed to keep them safe by intentionally exposing them or grossly negligently exposing them, you can be prosecuted,” Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said during an interview with FOX Business’ Stuart Varney.

In reply to by Gap Admirer

Fed Supporter jeff montanye Fri, 01/05/2018 - 00:07 Permalink


"I know there will be intense public disagreement in the wake of this result, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."  said James Comey

 No outside influence was applied, only the leftist liberal traitorous treasonous FBI agents that want to overthrow Trump had any influence.

In reply to by jeff montanye

Fed Supporter Fed Supporter Fri, 01/05/2018 - 00:21 Permalink

BTW, why does the FBI continue to stonewall, are they waiting for the statute of limitations to pass so Hillary is out of the woods?  Why does the FBI continue to redact text when submitting these docs to Congress?  The redacted their personal notes, and I wonder why.  Why does Trump let this shit slide.  Why doesn't he grow some balls and call the FBI director and say "box up every fcking thing you got on clinton her her email, no redactions.  Jeff Sessions is on his way over right now to pick it all up.  If one damn thing is redacted, I fire the motherfcker that did it.  If one document is left out the motherfcker that did will go to prison."  Or something like that.

In reply to by Fed Supporter

JSBach1 Fed Supporter Fri, 01/05/2018 - 00:52 Permalink

Partial post of my response on an earlier thread, yet it applies here as well (in response to Obama admin trying to dodge its responsibility in the 2016 elections):

Of course, except for when your own agency uses the FBI, DOJ and intel sources to conjure up dubious dossiers, which are then brought forth to FISA courts, in order to begin and expand spying operations on your own political opponents, whilst using the same agencies for secret meetings on jets ,which are parked virtually next to each other on a tarmac for sole purposes of discussion golf games and family well-wishing, and using political-plants to stack an "independent investigation" with officials who, while taking a break from extra-marital affairs, text each other about their true agenda and their own insurance plans in the unlikely event one dies before they are 40 and who are all know to have contributed $$ to the subject of their investigation's opponents.

And in the other breath, white-wash incriminating evidence of smashed hard drives, smashed cell phones, bleach bit [wipe with a cloth] of servers used to store "back-ups" of classified information, make disappear leakers and laptops of close aides' spouses, conduct interviews with blanket immunity and in the presence of legal counsel who are also themselves aides, yet help to "view" carefully selected evidence on their personal laptops only to having said evidence erased after "viewing" it all while the conclusion of the investigation is pre-etched shortly before hand, then perform some tidy work by ways of changing legally detrimental wording from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless", which can then be used to announce to the law-abiding citizenry: "After a thorough and careful investigation we have conclude there is no evidence to purse any charges"....and while chucking it up to a good day's work can be overheard in the corridors of the Department of Justice, with weaselly sounding voices: "now let's grab some lunch", after padding themselves on their backs...

disclaimer: [run-on sentence structure has been added for your viewing pleasure and in order to add a bit more pizzaz to the content]

In reply to by Fed Supporter

Zoobs Fed Supporter Fri, 01/05/2018 - 13:27 Permalink

As with all Progressives, words have meaning. Comey told the truth that there was no "outside" influence. These committees need to learn how to ask questions.  He would have perjured himself if they had asked if there were any influence brought to bear.  The FBI was corrupted, first from the Obama administration, then by the FBI management. Plausible deniability.

In reply to by Fed Supporter

Bes Bay of Pigs Thu, 01/04/2018 - 22:08 Permalink

1.  I was referencing someone in Congress to drop something about her emails.  Not the Tylers.

2. When did ZH become a safe space?

3. Have all your free independent thought and critical thinking skills left AWOL?  Or do you simply take marching orders from orange julius?

4. Even if Cankles is swinging from a tree, that dowsn't change that Trump is the Swamp:

Zionism, MIC buildup, Police Militarization, Silent on the War on Cash, Wall Street Bubble Pumper, Goldman loyalist, MENA wars forever, and that's just getting started

5. Man up buttercup.


In reply to by Bay of Pigs

nmewn Bes Fri, 01/05/2018 - 06:01 Permalink

Obama, the

Sold out to what exactly? Socialism? All the giddy euro-peon youngsters he appeared before while Europe...or those he targeted for being "young & healthy" here? MIT professors like Gruber perhaps? Nobel Peace Prize presenters? ;-)

In reply to by Bes

jeff montanye Bumpo Thu, 01/04/2018 - 22:10 Permalink

eventually she and so, so many more will be found guilty of treason and murder, many as accessory after the fact for 9-11. that there was a reportable fire (with fire engines) at the clinton's place in westchester is, imo, a forward going bid, as my mother lorraine used to say. events are coming to us this year (trump supporters, precious metals investors, constitutionalists and libertarians, peaceniks, doubters of the official line in general).

In reply to by Bumpo

lucyvp jeff montanye Thu, 01/04/2018 - 22:39 Permalink

I highly doubt anyone will be prosecuted.   Hopefull though.  BTW.  I have a friend who handles classified material.  He said the best that would happen to him if he mishandled classified information would be instant firing,  with likely criminal prosecution.  He told me of a person who accidentally removed materials from the building and was instantly terminated, and lost their clearance for life.  I don't think he was criminally prosecuted.  There was no intent of espionage, or negligence, just a brain fart.






In reply to by jeff montanye

J. Peasemold G… jeff montanye Thu, 01/04/2018 - 23:14 Permalink

Jeff, I not have yet seen anyone point this out, and correct me if I am wrong here, but the timing of the fire conveniently coincided with the stepping up of the investigation that is true, but it also provided plausible cover for the destruction of documents and other materials, possibly classified or at least incriminating HRC and WJC and/or the Fund.

It was reported that the fire broke out in an external building, a 'facility' of the SS which would divert suspicion that the fire was intended to destroy evidence. Faulty wiring in the second floor ceiling maybe? But the occupants were not at home at the time so no motive there of course.

How many SS agents were in the 'facility' at the time, and might one also ask the purpose of the 'facility'? Past presidents are of course entitled to protection but their own personal 'facility' on site? Where is the Obama 'facility' situated and how fire proof will it be? Did 'Poppy' ensure his and W's 'facility' met local fire codes?

So should events move to charges being laid and a customary search of the premises undertaken the 'fire protection insurance' will perhaps ensure nothing of an incriminating or indeed embarassing nature will turn up. On that last point the mind boggles as to what secrets that house must have witnessed and what might have been stored in the second floor ceiling.

A 'small' fire lays waste to a multitude of sins, even if the sins weren't in the ceiling at the time.

On a lighter note I heard that D. Trump turned up at the Clinton residence earlier in the week, knocked on the door and when HRC opened it he said "I'm here about the fire sale" to which she replied, while slamming the door in his face, "Come back tomorrow, dumbass!"


J. Peasemold Gruntfuttock


In reply to by jeff montanye

SybilDefense Chupacabra-322 Thu, 01/04/2018 - 21:48 Permalink

The stated not able to handle secure classified material when that's one of their primary functions.  Imagine the level of care they provide for handling the publics personal information. 

They can't handle stuff if their own life depended on it, I cant imagine them being more cautious protecting our information ( collected every 4/16).

Can't trust lot of em.

In reply to by Chupacabra-322

bkboy Chupacabra-322 Fri, 01/05/2018 - 01:26 Permalink

Serious question: in the original draft, Comey says the FBI found no cases brought under that statute based solely on a gross negligence standard.  He states that all cases brought have involved evidence supporting either a finding of gross negligence or obstruction of justice.

If that is true, it means that either there have been no cases investigated by the FBI that involved only gross negligence, or all such cases were not prosecuted after the FBI found no evidence of intent or obstruction.  In either case, would it have been appropriate for the DOJ to bring its first such case against one political party's presidential nominee, particularly if, on average, half of the jury will likely see a guilty verdict as denying them their choice of presidential candidates?

Napolitano nor any other legal expert has answered this question.  Any takers?

In reply to by Chupacabra-322

LetThemEatRand Gap Admirer Thu, 01/04/2018 - 20:22 Permalink

You're right, gross negligence is the standard.  But who cares?  I don't buy into this idea that there was no intent.  She clearly intended to violate the law for her convenience.  What Comey really means is that she did not intend to violate the law for nefarious purposes such as handing over state secrets to foreign governments.  But that's not why the law exists.  The law exists so that foreign governments can't get their hands on her communications via hacking (e.g., hacking Carlos Danger's laptop), which they probably did.  For all we know, Benghazi was the result of Hillary's private server or Carlos' laptop being hacked.  Either way, if anyone not sufficiently connected had done what she did, they would be in jail.  Period, end of story.

In reply to by Gap Admirer

not-me---it-wa… LetThemEatRand Thu, 01/04/2018 - 21:20 Permalink

if there were no "intent" then there would be no

private server.  (agreed intent is irrelevant, but..)

she didn't intend to avoid using the required

government system?  she didn't intend to set up

an alternate system?


even more important is another change.  the

wording as to whether foreign intel services

accessed her server changed from "reasonably

likely" to "possible".  can't wait to read the

leaked passages from the intel agency responses

to the fbi investigators!


i can guarantee her unprotected server was accessed

by a multitude of foreign entities.....everything that

passed thru that server, including 33k emails containing

yoga schedules, were downloaded.


now 'splain "intent" again.


In reply to by LetThemEatRand

bkboy LetThemEatRand Fri, 01/05/2018 - 14:33 Permalink

LTER, good point.  I believe the Ninth Circuit, even as liberal as it is, has stated that "intentional" conduct is not limited to conduct designed with a particular result in mind.  Rather, conduct is "intentional" if the defendant understood what she was doing at the time she was doing it and did it anyway.

For example, if you pick up a stack of papers, a la Sandy Berger, stick them in your briefcase and later claim that the stack "accidentally" included a couple of classified documents, the DOJ can prove intent if they can show that you knew the stack contained the classified documents at the time you walked out the door.  They don't have to prove that you intended to reveal government secrets, just that you intended to remove the classified documents from the classified building.  That is why the phrase "sheer volume" in the original Comey memo was deleted, as that is one clear evidence on intent (i.e., a few pages can be accidental, but tens of thousands of emails cannot).

Of course, in Sandy Berger's case they had him on camera stuffing the documents in his pockets, so there was no need to prove intent by inference.

In reply to by LetThemEatRand