FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

One more clue that the fix is in

by Jon Rappoport

July 11, 2016

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)

It’s unthinkable—but not surprising—that the FBI didn’t record their interview with Hillary Clinton.

We’re told the FBI has a policy, in most cases, of not recording interviews with suspects. If true, this case and this suspect should have been vital exceptions.

Among other matters, the Presidency of the United States is at stake.

Numerous press reports reveal that the FBI’s interview of Hillary Clinton was not recorded.

The interview took place just prior to FBI Director Comey recommending no prosecution for Hillary in the email scandal.

The New York Times: “Mr. Comey said he did not take part in the interview of Mrs. Clinton last Saturday. Five or six agents carried it out and provided a summary to him. She was not under oath, but he quickly noted that ‘it’s still a crime to lie to the F.B.I.’ There was no transcript.”

There was no transcript of the Hillary-FBI interview.

There was no recording.

FBI agents merely took notes.

These notes are typically boiled down and summarized later in 302 Forms. Of course, we don’t know what was contained in the notes or the 302s. And we’ll never know, because the FBI will never release them.

FBI Director Comey wasn’t even there during the Hillary interview; he simply read the 302 Forms. Then he made his decision not to recommend prosecution.

It’s impossible that the 302 forms provided Comey with a detailed analysis of all the complex questions and answers required in this investigation.

In other words, the FBI Director, in making his recommendation not to prosecute Hillary, was flying blind. It was his choice—he decided to fly blind. And he decided not to be present at the interview. He wanted to maintain personal distance and deniability.

But it gets worse. In any possible follow-up investigation of this email scandal, Hillary Clinton’s own words, from her interview, will be gone. Gone forever.

Therefore, she would be able to challenge every note taken by every FBI interviewer and every Form 302 by saying, “That was a misinterpretation of what I said.” As we know, the Clintons are experts in wheedling and parsing and evading—otherwise known as lying.

Everything I’ve written so far in this article was well understood by the FBI Director, his investigators, and interviewers—before the interview with Hillary ever took place. None of it was a mystery.

Therefore, there was conscious FBI intent to eradicate/omit the interview. It was no accident, no slip-up.

There was intent to demolish the entire interview by failing to record it or make a stenographic transcript.

That intent to destroy evidence—and then destroying it by omitting it, should be a crime, a felony.

Testifying in front of Congress the day after he recommended no-prosecution, Director Comey was adamant in insisting the FBI investigation was carried out in-house, and there was no collusion with any other person or department outside the Bureau. Even if that’s true, Comey is blowing smoke, because under his supervision, the most crucial moments of the investigation—the Hillary interview—were left to blow away in the wind.

Any lies Hillary told, any obfuscations, any evasions, any refusals to answer—gone forever.

She was the target of the investigation, the suspect. Of all the people FBI agents interviewed, she would be the one whose exact words should be preserved. And they weren’t.

The FBI’s purpose in omitting the whole interview is clear: Hillary Clinton had to escape prosecution. She had to be protected from incriminating herself.

In Comey’s testimony before Congress, he admitted there were at least four lies Hillary told at some point in the investigation. Taken together, as anyone can see, they constitute a prosecutable crime:

* When Hillary said she didn’t use her personal server to send or receive emails marked “classified,” she lied.

* When Hillary said she didn’t send classified material, she lied.

* When Hillary said she used only one device that was connected to her personal server, she lied. She used four.

* When Hillary said she returned all work-related emails from her personal storage to the State Department, she lied. She didn’t return thousands of emails.

In the FBI interview, did Hillary admit to any of these lies?

Did she try to squirm out of them, and in the process obviously reveal her guilt?

Did she bluntly refuse to answer questions about those lies?

Did she bluster and bloviate, in an effort to hide those lies?

Were the FBI interviewers overly polite? Did they grant her absurdly wide latitude and permit her to mouth vague generalities? Did they fail to press her for precise answers? Did they treat her with fawning respect and deference? Did they rig the whole interview to let her off the hook?

We’ll never know—courtesy of the FBI. On purpose.

If Comey had insisted the Hillary interview would be recorded, then, if Hillary had refused to sit down and submit to questioning, Comey could have used the refusal to announce it was a tacit admission of guilt on her part. He could have done what any honest law-enforcement officer would do. But he avoided that whole prospect, and therefore he was actually the person making a tacit admission:

His job was to exonerate Hillary and free her to continue her run for the Presidency.

That’s what he did.


power outside the matrix


It’s worth remembering that Hillary’s husband Bill was impeached, in part, because he lied under oath about an extramarital affair. In that instance, his false statements were on the record.

But not this time. Not with this Clinton.

This time, there was no record, no oath, no independent prosecutor, and the FBI and the Department of Justice were on her side, backing her up.

Hillary hit the sweet spot.

Unabated, her pursuit of her dream job now moves on.

Her dream, the country’s nightmare.

A gift from the FBI.

Silently condoned from above, by the number-one law-enforcement official in the land, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

And from the work-a-day Congress and mainstream reporters, we get nothing. No serious attempt to go after Comey on the failure to make a record of her FBI interview. No attempt to show what that failure really implies.

We only get the silence of the lambs.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

16 comments on “FBI-Hillary interview lost; and the silence of the lambs

  1. dorandana says:

    “You just gotta believe…” With the aid of Comey, Hillary has set herself up to escape any responsibility for her untruthful statements…..she’s going to insist when she made those false statements, that she “believed” she was telling the truth, therefore she didn’t perjure herself. It’s like Bill’s logic – depends on what your meaning of “is” is.

  2. Terry Schiller says:

    What interview? Didn’t you know that the FBI, having 3 and 1/2 hours to kill, threw a brunch for our gal, Hillary? Lots of yummy stuff was served, including some deli. I hear Hillary couldn’t get enough lox for her white bread and mayo. And she insisted on adding Dill pickles instead of Kosher. Then came the pastrami on rye! Hillary crammed those tasty sandwiches down after switching rye bread to white. Looks like our gal may need to take off a few pounds after her lovely brunch.

  3. RAW says:

    I thought this was common knowledge… The FBI was created for this sole purpose: to protect criminals in government, a buffer between the criminal class and the courts, all the while feigning to be an investigative agency ‘for the people’…

  4. Molecule says:

    Even more suspicious is “the 302 …”

    There were 5 or 6 agents doing “the interview.” (It’s very curious that the agents were merely interviewing, and not interrogating, or questioning, but that is irrelevant by comparison to the 302.)

    As I understand it (I’m not FBI, CIA or whatever) … any notes that an agent takes are his or her personal property, even if they are taken on a government notepad, with a government pencil. The agent then prepares his or her 302, and signs it and submits that, whereupon the 302 becomes FBI property. The 302 forms are often written in long hand.

    When Comey testified, he suggested that there was only ONE 302 form. That means that ALL five or six agents had to agree UNAMINOUSLY as to their memory of the interview, and they ALL had to sign that one copy of the 302.

    There is only one way that can happen.

    The 302 form was written out by someone … IN ADVANCE of the interview. The interveiw was then conducted in accodance with the prescripted 302, whereupon each agent could sign off on the form, effectively testifying that each comment, phrase and memory thought on the 302 was exactly as if it was their own note or comment.

    Five or six agents interview a “person of interest” (or whatever) and the ALL agree to EXACTLY what was said and discussed?? and they ALL sign off on the same 302 summary??

    To me, this means the 302 was prepared in advance. The idea that five or six agents would have exactly the same memory of the interview is ABSURD! If all agents signed the same 302, that is proof that the fix was in … that the 302 had been written BEFORE the meeting ocurred.

    Perhaps Bill gave Lynch a copy of a typed or computer printed 302 when he met her by accident on the tarmac at Phoenix airport. She then passed the 302 off to Comey, who then recruited 5 or 6 agents who would agree to sign off on it.

  5. artemisix says:

    This is a disgusting lack of justice in this banana republic. Our only hope now, is a freak act of nature…like the perfectly timed fog that helped Washington cross the Delaware or the storm that dashed the Spanish armada on the Irish steps. These things do not happen very often.

  6. kcidsuktub51 1999 says:

    “It” committed perjury in front of congress with sworn in testimony. The ball is back in their court. We need a Serena!
    Look what happened to coach hasert, anything is possible.

  7. flyingcuttlefish says:

    Reblogged this on flying cuttlefish picayune and commented:
    Comey ….Comey ….Comey …..

  8. Dave Lindorff says:

    As outrageous as it may seem, Comey is right that the FBI doesn’t record interviews. I’m an investigative reporter and I’ve had experience with this. It’s official policy. The Bureau uses what’s called a 302 form which is notes taken by a second agent while the other one interviews a perp. The signed form is all the evidence there is of an interview’s having taken place. These get used in court, but of course it becomes an agent’s word against a suspect’s word, If the suspect is so low-life person, the agent is believed, but if it’s a VIP like a Clinton, then a jury or judge believes the suspect. Another example of why our national system of “equal justice under the law” is a fraud.

    Of course, if the FBI wants to do a wire tap, or have some agent or informant wear a wire, then they’ll have a tape recording of the “interview,” but for actual interviews? Never a taping.

    Dave Lindorff
    founding editor of ThisCantBeHappening.net

    • PJ London says:

      That may have been true, but :
      “The DOJ’s new policy, which went into effect on July 11, 2014, flips its previous presumption against recording to one in favor of it. Agents no longer need to obtain supervisory approval to record interviews: FBI, DEA, ATF, and USMS agents are now expected to electronically record statements of individuals suspected of any federal crime in their custody when in a “place of detention with suitable recording equipment.”
      “Any decision not to record an interview that falls under the presumption should be documented and made available to the U.S. Attorney and reviewed as part of periodic assessments of the policy.24×
      24. Id.
      The DOJ also encourages agents to record in situations not covered by the presumption, such as interviews conducted with persons not in custody or not within a place of detention.”
      “There are numerous reasons to record custodial interviews — benefiting both defendants and law enforcement — and under the new policy, federal agents will record far more interrogations than before.”
      It is FBI policy to record and NOT recording has to be justified to FBIHQ.
      The whole story stinks.

  9. legal eagle says:

    Federal Bumbling Idiots in collusion with criminals

  10. Defiant says:

    It’s just unreal. This kind of thing wouldn’t even happen in some Central American dictatorship!

  11. franklin says:

    That was a BRIBERY NEGOTIATION, not an “interview”.
    comey did more actual DAMAGE to America than did Benedict Arnold.
    “COMEY” Joins language history alongside Benedict Arnold.
    I’ve been COMEIED (sold out, betrayed)

  12. chuck says:

    It is amazing at a time when the FBI says they need to record and spy
    on every US citizen for our safety. They refuse to record a future presidential candidate’s
    interview so the public could make a opinion of their own. I guess they just
    think we’re not smart enough or something.

  13. bob klinck says:

    In Canada, in the appeal of a case against an alleged Moslem terrorist (Farkat), the national Supreme Court ruled it acceptable to use as evidence summaries of interrogations of the accused furnished by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, which had deliberately destroyed the recordings of those interrogations. Not even a purported transcript was compiled! How can this be perceived otherwise than as an attempt to eviscerate and thereby inevitably bias the evidence in the case, as has also been achieved by the FBI’s method of exculpating Hillary Clinton?

  14. johnbarleycorn12 says:

    Nailed it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s