Chuck Grassley Decries James Comey's Failure in the Hillary Server Probe, and Guess What? He's Taking Over

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, stops in to speak to workers at a campaign office for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., left, in Davie, Fla., Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, right, stops in to speak to workers at a campaign office for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., left, in Davie, Fla., Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2016. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

 

 

In a statement, congressman Chuck Grassley blasted former FBI Director James Comey over his coming-up-short in the investigation of 2016 (and 2020?) presidential candidate Hillary Rodham “I’m really the president” Clinton.

Furthermore, Chuck’s gonna pick up where James left off.

He’s gonna get to the bottom of whether officials deliberately sent classified information over nonsecure systems.

The Iowa senator laid it out Tuesday:

The State Department report said: “Instances of classified information being deliberately transmitted via unclassified email were the rare exception and resulted in adjudicated security violations.” That clearly says some individuals deliberately transmitted classified information on unclassified systems. Those individuals were subject to security sanctions but the State Department failed to describe who the violators were and what the sanctions were. Those answers ought to be forthcoming and I intend to follow up. Ensuring the proper handling of highly classified information is an issue that should garner bipartisan support.

As reported by The Daily Wire, Chuck pointed out he’d recently released State Department evidence that Hillary’s use of a shady server resulted in 588 security violations.

And, in his view:

If the average American did that, they’d lose their clearance, their job, and might even go to jail.

That sounds right.

Still, Comey exonerated the former First Lady on July 5, 2016.

About that, Chuck’s sayin’ naw:

During the course of my oversight activities, I acquired drafts of Comey’s July 5, 2016, public statement exonerating Clinton. Comey’s initial draft stated the following:

“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 material.”

He also said:

“Similarly, the sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the up-classified emails) supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their handling of that information.”

You heard him — it’s gross. And negligent:

Gross Negligence is a criminal standard under Title 18, Section 793.

He later dumbed-down his statement to a non-criminal standard:

“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.”

Negligent and withholding:

And that was before he finished the investigation and interviewed 17 witnesses, including Secretary Clinton. Comey never once said that some individuals deliberately sent classified information on unclassified systems. According to State’s findings, he should have. Clearly, deliberate conduct rises beyond gross negligence.

Chuck wants disclosure and justice:

The public ought to know if those folks involved were punished according to the letter of the law or were given special treatment. Equal application of the law without regard to power, party, or privilege ought to be the norm.

Now how about this potential scenario:

Hillary joins the race for 2020, just in time for Chuck to dredge all this back up. And we’ve got a major déjà vu.

And how about the Triple Crown? — she runs again, the server’s all the rage again, and Trump wins again?

It’s like that saying:

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy and second as farce.”

Hillary should like that one; it’s by Karl Marx.

For her, the first time was tragedy. For us, are we looking at an upcoming farce?

Will Clinton come closer to the race for Oval Office triumph? Will she defy Bill Maher? An advisor says Yes.

What do you say?

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Hillary Clinton: Trump’s ‘An Illegitimate President’ And ‘Obsessed With Me’

Trump’s Campaign Begs Hillary To Get In The Ring: ‘We Would Love It’

CNN Democrat Van Jones Slams Hillary Over Her Atrocious Attack Of Tulsi

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.