As President Trump undergoes one of the largest ever investigations, his supporters are feeling hard done by in terms of fairness and equality. The supposed crimes of this administration seem, to many, to be “small potatoes” compared to the crimes of the Clinton campaign, yet they did not receive the same condemnation.
Documents obtained by Fox News show that the suspicious-minded among you may have been right all along. It appears that the statement finally released by former FBI head, James Comey, was edited numerous times to downplay not only the likelihood of “foreign actor’s” involvement but also the negligence of Hillary Clinton herself.
One of the most contentious issues was whether or not foreign actors had gained access to Hillary Clinton’s private email server that she used as Secretary of State (against all guidelines). In the edited report, this likelihood was presented as merely “possible.” Yet in the original version, it stated that access by “hostile actors” was “reasonably likely.”
This is a major difference that appears to be covering up the fact that national security was compromised by former Secretary Clinton. It suggests that through her negligence, state-secrets may not have been quite so secret.
Where Does Fault Lie?
According to the edited report, Clinton’s actions were considered “extremely careless.” Not quite so damning? Yet in the original, it stated that her decision to continually use a private, unsecured server was “grossly negligent.” This distinction has huge legal ramifications. Violations of legal statutes attached to the claim of “gross negligence” were also removed from the final document.
The Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis), is the man responsible for bringing these edits to light. On Thursday, he wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray that the original documents “could be read as a finding of criminality in Secretary Clinton’s handling of classified material.” He added:
“The edited statement deleted the reference to gross negligence – a legal threshold for mishandling classified material – and instead replaced it with an exculpatory sentence.”
Johnson further suggests that the editing of the documents appears to have been done so to limit “Secretary Clinton’s culpability in mishandling classified information.”
It is unknown who all of the people involved in the editing process and decision making were; yet one name mentioned does stand out. The FBI official, Peter Strzok, the man removed from the Mueller investigation over active bias against Trump, is the same man who changed the statement wording from “grossly negligent,” to “extremely careless.”
As Johnson intimates, it would appear that the “watering down” of the charges against Hillary Clinton, may well have been done as an “insurance policy” against the election of Candidate Trump. Johnson writes:
“This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI 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 and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation by President Trump.”
Did lead members of the FBI actively work against the nomination and election of a U.S. president in favor of a preferred candidate? It is difficult to see this in any other way. And what impact will this now have on Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative team? Were they (alongside Strzok) also working to install a person of their choice in the White House?
The one fact we know without a doubt is that Hillary Clinton was spared criminal charges by the opinion and assessment of James Comey; if his report was tampered with by “rogue actors,” then surely the charges should be back on the table.