You are skipping the facts you find inconvenient.

Posted on: January 1, 2018 at 22:06:43 CT

Comey said that he did not make the decision to not charge her until after he interviewed her on July 2nd, and yet his actions belied his words as noted in the transcript of his testimony before Congress pasted below. It was also later revealed that he had been plotting with trusted advisors back in May on how to break the news which would undoubtedly cause a firestorm of controversy so they wanted him to do so by himself rather than with Loretta Lynch at his side.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/08/senators-say-comey-drafted-clinton-exoneration-memo-before-she-was-interviewed.php

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/114-91_22125.pdf
Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, did you make the decision not to recommend criminal charges relating to classified information before or after Hillary Clinton was interviewed by the FBI on July the 2nd?

Mr. COMEY. After.

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Okay. Then I am going to need your help in trying to understand how that is possible. I think there are a lot of prosecutors or former prosecutors that are shaking our heads at how that could be the case.

Because if there was ever any real possibility that Hillary Clinton might be charged for something that she admitted to on July the 2nd, why would two of the central witnesses in a potential prosecution against her be allowed to sit in the same room to hear
the testimony?

And I have heard your earlier answers to that. You said that, well, it was because the interview was voluntary and they were her lawyers. But I think you are skirting the real issue there, Director.

First of all, the fact that it was voluntary, it didn’t have to be, right? You could have empaneled an investigative grand jury, she could have been subpoenaed. And I know you have said that you

well, it was because the interview was voluntary and they were her lawyers. But I think you are skirting the real issue there, Director.

First of all, the fact that it was voluntary, it didn’t have to be, right? You could have empaneled an investigative grand jury, she could have been subpoenaed. And I know you have said that you can’t comment on that, and I don’t really care about the decision about whether or not there should have been a grand jury here, but since you didn’t have one, it goes to the issue at hand about whether or not this interview should have ever taken place.

With due respect to the answers that you have given, the FBI and the Department of Justice absolutely control whether or not an interview is going to take place with other witnesses in the room. Because the simple truth is that under the circumstances as you have described those interviews never take place. If there was ever any possibility that something Hillary Clinton might have said on July 2 could have possibly resulted in criminal charges that might possibly have resulted in a trial against her relating to this classified information, well, then, to use your words, Director, I don’t think that there is any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution proving the case against her to sit in the room with the interview, the FBI interview, of the subject of that investigation.

And if I heard you earlier today, in your long career, I heard you say that you have never had that circumstance. Is that—did I hear you correctly?

Mr. COMEY
. That is correct, but——

Mr. RATCLIFFE
. Okay. And I never have either, and I have never met a prosecutor that has ever had that.

So, to me, the only way that an interview takes place with the two central witnesses and the subject of the investigation is if the decision has already been made that all three people in that room are not going to be charged.