Comey’s non-answers:

• Said “I don’t remember” 71 times.

• Said “I don’t know” 166 times.

• Said “I don’t recall” 8 times.

Scott Free

The phrase is based on Scandinavian word that dates back to the Viking Age.

That term is "scat", and it describes "tax".

While the meaning stayed inact as the expression traveled to England, the word morphed into "scot" and specifically referenced municipal fees proportional to a persons wealth or amount of owned property.

Those who were to poor to pay it or rich enough to work out a workaround were said to be getting off "scott free".

Notably, the phrase has also been rumored to be a reference to Dred Scott, a slave who fought a lenghty legal battle for his family freedom.

Further, the Supreme Court ultimately decided to not allow the Scott family to live free.

I think Comey’s plan to implement “the buck stops elsewhere” was to point the finger at Priestap. This may be the reason why Priestap flipped. Why should Priestap take the knife in the gut when Comey is the one who should be on the hook for all of it?

I’m hopeful that the questions that were asked of Comey were all informed by testimony and help from Priestap. Comey may have perjured himself multiple times.

At any rate, these people tend to be slick like a wet bar of soap but one thing’s clear from his most recent testimony – the original FISA applications exploded in a ball of fire yesterday. I hope the FISC can press for criminal proceedings to come from all of this.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Okay. So, when the team of FBI agents and lawyers interviewed Hillary Clinton, what questions did they ask

Secretary Clinton about the tarmac meeting?

Mr. Comey. I don't know.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Would that be reflected in the 302 or in the FBI summary of the interview?

Mr. Comey. I would expect so. You're asking about whether they asked Hillary Clinton about the meeting that Bill Clinton had with Loretta Lynch.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Yes.

Mr. Comey. I don't know whether they asked that. I would expect if it was asked, it would likely be reflected in the 302.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Would you like to review those?

Mr. Comey. Not unless you really want me to.

Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I've read them, and I've asked folks about them. There's no mention of the word "tarmac" or "Loretta Lynch" anywhere that appears in the 302 or the summary that the FBI has made publicly available.

Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. So I guess as I try and

summarize what I've heard today, Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information more than a hundred times. She made

false statements about it. The FBI was aware that at least one of her aides also mishandled classified information. And one of the folks employed on behalf of Secretary Clinton

intentionally destroyed evidence known to be subject to a congressional subpoena and preservation order and lied to the FBI about it.

And on July 5th, 2016, you stood before the American people and said that neither you nor any reasonable prosecutor would bring any charges in this fact pattern. Is that accurate?

Mr. Comey. Yep. I believed it then, I believe it now. And anybody that thinks we were on team Clinton trying to cut her a break is smoking something.

>>4224747

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Comey-interview-12-7-18_Redacted.pdf

Page 227-228

Comey’s Decision Not to Tell Department Leadership Comey acknowledged that he made a conscious decision not to tell Department leadership about his plans to make a separate statement because he was concerned that they would instruct him not to do it.

He also acknowledged that he made this decision when he first conceived of the idea to do the statement, even as he continued to engage the Department in discussions about the “endgame” for the investigation. Comey admitted that he concealed his intentions from the Department until the morning of his press conference on July 5, and instructed his staff to do the same, to make it impracticable for Department leadership to prevent him from delivering his statement.

We found that it was extraordinary and insubordinate for Comey to do so, and we found none of his reasons to be a persuasive basis for deviating from well-established Department policies in a way intentionally designed to avoid supervision by Department leadership over his actions. On the morning of July 5, 2016, Comey contacted Lynch and Yates about his plans to make a public statement, but did so only after the FBI had notified the press—in fact, the Department first learned about Comey’s press conference from a media inquiry, rather than from the FBI.

When Comey did call Lynch that morning, he told her that he was not going to inform her about the substance of his planned press statement. While Lynch asked Comey what the subject matter of the statement was going to be (Comey told her in response it would be about the Midyear investigation), she did not ask him to tell her what he intended to say about the Midyear investigation.

We found that Lynch, having decided not to recuse herself, retained authority over both the final prosecution decision and the Department’s management of the Midyear investigation. As such, we believe she should have instructed Comey to tell her what he intended to say beforehand, and should have discussed it with Comey. Comey’s public statement announced that the FBI had completed its Midyear investigation, criticized Clinton and her senior aides as “extremely careless” in their handling of classified information, stated that the FBI was recommending that the Department decline prosecution of Clinton, and asserted that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute Clinton based on the facts developed by the FBI during its investigation.

We determined that Comey’s decision to make this statement was the result of his belief that only he had the ability to credibly and authoritatively convey the rationale for the decision to not seek charges against Clinton, and that he needed to hold the press conference to protect the FBI and the Department from the extraordinary harm that he believed would have resulted had he failed to do so.

While we found no evidence that Comey’s statement was the result of bias or an effort to influence the election, we did not find his justifications for issuing the statement to be reasonable or persuasive.

We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors.

https://www.justice.gov/file/1071991/download

We were surprised to learn that FBI leadership decided to assign many of the key members of the Midyear team, immediately after determining that no charges should be brought

against then candidate Clinton, to the Russia investigation, which touched upon the campaign of then

candidate Trump. This is particularly so given the questions being raised by candidate Trump and his

supporters regarding the declination decision in the Midyear investigation. While we recognize that

staffing decisions are for management to make, we question the judgment of assigning agents who

had just determined that one candidate running in an election should not be prosecuted to an

investigation that relates to the campaign of the other candidate in the election. The appearance

problems created by such a staffing decision were exacerbated here due to the text messages

expressing political opinions that we discuss later in this report. Surely, the FBI’s Counterintelligence

Division had talented agents who were not involved in the Midyear investigation who could have fully

staffed the Russia investigation.

Mr. Gowdy. Some of our friends in the media use the word "collusion" from time to time. What is the crime of collusion?

Mr. Comey. What is the crime of collusion? I do not know.

==I've never heard the term "collusion" used in the way it's been used in our world over the last couple years before that. I don't know of a crime that involves collusion. I think in terms of

conspiracy or aiding and abetting.==