Closing the gap

Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah led the committee hearing on FBI Director Comey's justification for his findings regarding Hillary Clinton's email uses and abuses. Chaffetz said whatever the FBI needed to investigate her lies before Congress, he would get.  Comey dodged a reciprocal answer when asked for information from the FBI. "As much as I can," was his answer.






Congressman Cummings begged, not asked, FBI Director Comey to "close the gap," indicating that even he doesn't understand why Comey excoriated Hillary Clinton and then said there wasn't enough there to prosecute.  Today, Comey is being cross-examined by the Congressional oversight committee because of that gap that even Democrat Cummings acknowledges.

Has he done it? I've listened to the majority of the questions and answers and I have to say a resounding NO for a few of the following reasons.

1. The law clearly states that intent does not have to be proved, but Comey's entire defense is just that. Does that mean, as one Congressman suggested, he believes he has the right to rewrite the law? And, a former judge states Comey's very wrong when he said no one has

been prosecuted for being ignorant of the law.  Trey Gowdy stated he'd prosecuted many who didn't believe there were laws against murder.

2. Comey stated that Clinton did not lie to the FBI.  Repeatedly, she lied to Congress and the American people. He refused to discuss what she said to Congress. Why? How can he say with certainty that she did not lie to the FBI? He did admit at one point he hadn't paid attention to what he said to Congress.

3. He stated that the decision was unanimous among all who worked the case, yet he admitted he did not canvas or even speak to all the agents. How then, does he know?


4. He claims Clinton to be technologically naive and that's reason enough to say she should not be prosecuted.  However, he did admit that she signed the document that clearly states what she was doing was wrong.  Nor does he believe anyone who worked for her and knew it was wrong should be prosecuted, either.

5. He has repeatedly defended himself and yet, he has NOT closed the gap. He has the same answers for the questions that Republicans are asking him in different ways, trying to get him to explain himself, but he has not done it. If anything, the gap is even wider.  It almost seemed to me like he had made up his mind going in what the decision would be, regardless of the facts.

6. He continually refused to accept the fact that lawyers erasing and then scrubbing computers to keep the FBI from getting to the truth was a strong indication of intent. No one asked him if he just might be wrong.  I'd have loved to hear his answer to that. Even honorable, honest men with integrity can make mistakes.

7. The FBI would review any person working for them and have consequences for such behavior, but he doesn't believe the evidence reaches the prosecutorial level with Clinton.  Why not?

It seemed as though every one of his answers only exacerbated the feeling that government workers are above the law.  It was very sad.