Bolton Coming! Presidential Voices and Sticks. Pathetic West. Finally The Clinton's Turn?

Skidaway Island Republican Club

Presidents’ Day Dinner

Monday, February 19, 2018

Special Guest

Ambassador John Bolton

U.S. Ambassador to U.N. during G.W. Bush Administration

Ambassador Bolton is currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News               Channel contributor and of counsel to D C law firm Kirkland & Ellis.

This event is selling out. Don’t miss out! Reserve now!

Plantation Club – The Landings

Member Bar: 5:30 PM – Dinner with wine 7:00 PM

Cost is $150 per person

Coat and tie requested

Advance reservations and payment required. Mail check to

 Mary Ann Senkowski, 8 Mainsail Crossing or contact at masenkowski@gmail.com  598-0493

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

In my previous memo ,I mistakenly wrote Carter was Obama's Sec. of State when I meant to put Clinton. Several fellow memo readers brought this error to my attention. Thanks.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Changes are in the air. (See 1 below.)

++++++++++++++++++++++
I hear from certain liberal friends what a great president Obama was and what a disaster Trump is and will be even worse over time. I understand where they are coming from but basically disagree.

We once had a president who said 'speak softly but carry a big stick.'

Obama, to my mind, had a pip-squeak voice and carried nothing.  As for Trump, he has a "uge" voice and time will tell whether he has a stick at all.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feferman asks the same question going through my mind. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The pathetic West. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Trump, the unconventional and often brash president, is generally making logical and sensible decisions.I track those not his tweets and commentary. It gives me a much clearer insight into the man and his policies than the tripe I read from the biased mass media, the maudlin comments from up chuck Schumer and his ding bat associate, Rep. Waters.

America will never be great, never be respected if we continue to act like a patsy Obama pushover.

Obama allowed others to play him like the silver tongued fool he was expressing his contempt for the fact that we were  a strong nation. (See 4 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is it the Clinton's turn finally? (See 5 and 5a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++
1)Trump and Haley change the game for the Palestinians

By Thomas Lifson

Palestinians facing a new reality, and they don’t like it a bit. They are discovering that their old game doesn’t work with President Trump and Nikki Haley.

At last, the United States is calling an end to the decades-long game that the Palestinians have played with the US. They have been able to simultaneously extract hundreds of millions of dollars from the United States every year, while funding terrorists that kill Americans and Israelis. Only a “foreign policy expert” could believe that this is a wise policy, which is why it takes a man accustomed to accomplishing big things in the real world (as opposed to endlessly “advancing the peace process” to no effect) to call a halt to the madness.

President Trump signaled that the game is over two days ago:

 UN Ambassador Nikki Haley is not just on board, she is an effective advocate and trench warrior:

Responding to a reporter’s question on whether the US will continue to provide funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency, which provides aid to millions of Palestinian refugees, in light of a non-binding UN General Assembly resolution last month condemning the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, Haley said Trump was prepared to cut aid to UNRWA if the Palestinians refuse to return to peace talks.

“I think the president has basically said that he doesn’t want to give any additional funding until the Palestinians are agreeing to come back to the negotiation table,” Haley said. “We’re trying to move for a peace process but if that doesn’t happen the president is not going to continue to fund that situation.”

 “The Palestinians now have to show their will — they want to come to the table. As of now they are not coming to the table but they ask for aid. We’re not giving the aid,” added Haley. “We’re going to make sure they come to the table and we want to move forward with the peace process.”

The implicit threats that the Palestinians have used all these decades to keep the money flowing are:

1.    The Arab and Muslim worlds will explode.

2.    If the Palestinian Authority falls, it will be replaced by Hamas and/or Hezb’allah, and the cooperation with Israeli security forces by PA forces will end.

As any skilled and artistic dealmaker would, President Trump has already addressed both of these threats. With Saudi Arabia more concerned about Iran than the Palestinians, there will be desultory fury whipped up, at best. The protests against the Jerusalem embassy move have not exactly plunged the world into chaos, after all. And Hezb’allah depends on Iranian funding and arms, and that may not be a secure support base, as Iranians threaten to topple the mullahs and complain bitterly about their wealth flowing outside their country. As for Hamas, their base of power in Gaza in awfully vulnerable, and could be wiped out if push really does come to shove. 

Most of the US aid to the Palestinians flows through UNWRA, the UN agency that operates as a de facto enabler of Palestinian radicalism. The US contribution overwhelms all other sources of funding.

 

Hat tip: Streiff, Red State

The status quo has not been working well for a long time. The PA is in a corner now, with few good options. 

Let the “experts” rant against this “escalation.” Politically, this is a loser, as Americans understand the idiocy of funding Palestinian terrorists. Diplomatically, it may downsize the careers of people who have “expertly” managed the “peace process” to no avail,  but that is a downside only for the individuals involved. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2)The People of Iran Are Watching the World

Bob FefermanBob Feferman is Outreach Coordinator for United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), a not-for-profit, non-partisan, advocacy group .

The pictures of the grassroots protests in Iran against the regime are both inspiring and heart wrenching. As of today, more than 20 protesters have been killed and hundreds have been arrested. The pictures also raise several questions. President Trump tweeted, “The world is watching”.  I would argue that Iranians are watching the world.  And the most important question is this: How will the international community respond to the legitimate demands of the people of Iran?

The facts is that since the signing of the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the people of Iran have not seen the expected benefits of relief from economic sanctions.

Unemployment among young people is high (estimated at over 30%), the prices of basic food staples are rising, and there is inflation.

There are basically three causes for Iran’s economic problems: widespread corruption, mismanagement of the economy and Iran’s reckless polices in the wider Middle East.

The slogans chanted in the streets of Mashad, Qom and Tehran tell it all. Protesters are shouting: “Forget about Palestine, forget about Gaza, think about us”, “Death to Hezbollah“, and “Leave Syria alone, think about us instead”.

Putting it simply, the people of Iran, who are hungry for a government that meets their basic needs, are fed up with a regime that is obsessed with “exporting the Islamic revolution”.

For decades, Iran has spent billions of dollars funding terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Last year, it was estimated that Iran spentmore than $800 million on Hezbollah, alone.

In addition to Iran’s financial support for Hezbollah, we have seen disturbing developments on Israel’s northern border.  Iran has been building factories for the production of long-range accurate missiles for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. There is no doubt that the target of these missiles will be Israel. And this comes in addition to the 120,000 rockets and missiles supplied by Iran to Hezbollah since the 2006 Second Lebanon War.

And then there is Iran’s pivotal role in Syria detailed in this report by the non-partisan advocacy group, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI).

Since the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, Iran has provided the Assad regime with massive financial support, an endless supply of ammunition and weapons and tens of thousands of fighters from its Revolutionary Guard Corps and from its loyal proxy, Hezbollah. In addition, Iran has recruited, trained and deployed thousands of loyal Shia militants from Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to Syria.

And all this to prop up a brutal dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who is guilty of committing war crimes against his own people.

The cost for the people of Syria: nearly half a million dead and more than five million refugees. And who is footing the bill for all this? The people of Iran.

Experts estimate that since 2011, Iran has been spending between $6 billion and $35 billion per year in Syria.

Unfortunately, the international community has been sending Iran mixed messages on its support for terrorism and the Syrian regime. Since Iran is still designated as a state sponsor of terrorism, U.S. law forbids most American companies from returning to Iran. However, this is not the case for the rest of the world.

Following the signing of the Iran nuclear deal (the JCPOA) in 2015, hundreds of major multinational companies have sought to return to do business in Iran.

So here’s the catch: You can’t condemn Iran’s support for terrorism and the Syrian regime on one day, and sign lucrative business deals in Iran the next day. This irresponsible corporate behavior sends the Iranian regime the message that there is an economic reward for defying all norms of international behavior.

That is why the organization I represent, United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), has been working hard to highlight the risks of doing business in Iran. Since the signing of the Iran nuclear deal, UANI has sent letters to hundreds of major multinational companies to highlight those risks.

According to the UANI website, “There remain serious legal, political, financial, and reputational risks associated with doing business in Iran, particularly in sectors of the Iranian economy dominated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which remains sanctioned by the U.S. Government and the international community as a terrorist organization…In light of such risks, it should be clear to all responsible companies that Iran is not genuinely “open for business.”

Through their grass-roots protests, the people of Iran are not only sending a message to their own government, they are also a sending a cry for help to the international community.

For too long, the world has turned a blind eye to Iran’s destructive behavior in the Middle East. For too long, the prospect of profits from business with Iran have come at the cost of the lives of tens of thousands of innocent victims of Iran’s violent proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Syrian regime.

While the world is watching, the people of Iran are watching us. The real question is: How will we respond?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)

The West should stop dithering and show its support for the protesters in Iran

By Natan Sharansky

In recent days, Iranian citizens from various places and diverse walks of life have taken to the streets in protest against their clerical rulers. Outside of Iran, meanwhile, we have seen experts in the world’s most powerful capitals insisting that their leaders should not get involved. The usual argument is that external support for the protesters will only harm their cause by tainting it with endorsement from the West.

As an opinion piece in the New York Times recently put it, the best way for the U.S. government to help the Iranian protesters is to “Keep quiet and do nothing.”

Fortunately, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have already shown themselves unwilling to follow this advice. Even so, it is vital to understand why failing to support the protesters at this critical juncture would constitute a moral and strategic mistake — one of potentially historic proportions.

Consider what happened in 2009, when Iranians came out in large numbers to denounce their country’s rigged presidential election. The response they received from the American government was decidedly tepid. The priority of then-President Barack Obama was to reach an agreement with Tehran over its nuclear program, and he and his advisers feared that they would alienate the regime by vocally supporting its detractors.

Yet subsequent events have proved these views completely wrong. This policy of non-interference discouraged protesters and reinforced the regime at the very moment when the opposite could have led to genuine change.

My experiences as a political prisoner and my decades of involvement with democratic dissidents around the world have shown me that all democratic revolutions have some elements in common. It is the drive of ordinary citizens to free themselves from government control over their thought, speech and livelihoods — to shed the burden of having to conform in public despite their private misgivings and grievances against the regime — that has propelled dissidents and revolutionary movements around the world, from Communist Russia to the Arab Spring to today’s Islamic Republic of Iran.

Any regime that refuses to respect its citizens’ most basic rights, and especially the right to think and speak freely, can maintain its power only by intimidation and force. While some true believers may genuinely accept these official dogmas, others — I call them “double-thinkers” — question their government but are too afraid of retribution to publicly speak out against it. For these people, fear of the harsh consequences of dissent makes all the difference between silent critique and open protest.

Dissidents know the penalties of speaking out but are compelled more by the desire for freedom than by fear. They are willing to brave the consequences, including the loss of their livelihoods, physical freedom and even their lives, to gain the liberty to speak their minds. Revolutions take place when enough people simultaneously cross that fateful line between silent questioning and open dissent, between cowering in fear and standing up for freedom. Once they do so, the regime can no longer contain the upsurge of opposition and must either begin to liberalize or collapse.

This is why a policy of silence on the part of world leaders is so misguided. What matters to Iranians debating whether to cross this decisive threshold is how much they dislike their owngovernment, as well as their knowledge that the free world — those who share the basic principles for which they are fighting — stands behind them in their moment of truth.

The last time Iran stood on the brink of such a change, the Obama administration’s policy implicitly told Iranians that the United States did not stand behind them. By assuring Iran’s rulers that he preferred the status quo to any policy that would weaken or destabilize the regime, the president took the wind out of the protesters’ sails and gave courage to their oppressors. What could have been a moment of genuine liberalization gave way instead to another brutal government crackdown.

Now that history is repeating itself, the free world has a chance to avoid making the same mistake. Our leaders must not be misled by the argument that publicly siding with Iran’s dissidents will give the regime an excuse to blame the protests on foreign meddling or crack down even harder on dissidents. The government in Tehran will do these things no matter what, since a regime as threatened as Iran’s is right now will take any steps in its power to deflect and suppress opposition.

Yet, world powers should go even further than this. They should warn Tehran — and thereby reassure protesters — that it must respect its citizens’ rights if it wishes to continue receiving benefits from their countries. Articulating a clear policy of linkage would put pressure on the regime to make genuine changes and give hope to protesters that their sacrifices will not be in vain.

It is time for all those who value freedom to state clearly that the Iranian people — like all people — deserve to be free, and that when they fight for this right, those of us who already enjoy it will stand unequivocally by their side.

Natan Sharansky served nine years as a prisoner in Soviet Gulag for his human rights activities. He is Chairman of the Executive of the Jewish Agency for Israel.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4) Why Trump’s Palestinian aid cut threat makes sense

By Jonathan S. Tobin

We didn’t need the publication of a new book filled with behind-the-scenes gossip to know that Donald Trump is an unconventional and, at times, inappropriate president. His use of Twitter provides many examples of this fact. 

But amid another flurry of questionable tweets on Jan. 4, Trump also talked about threatening aid cuts to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Most of the mainstream media treated that idea as being as loopy as the latest exchange of insults with North Korea’s dictator. But while it’s easy to mock Trump’s social media habits, this one made sense and showed that, not for the first time, the president’s instinctual distrust of experts and the foreign policy establishment may have served him well.

The minuscule amount of the national budget that goes to foreign nations generally serves American interests. In the case of Israel, which is the largest recipient, almost all of the money it gets is spent in the U.S. It’s also part of a strategic alliance in which America receives a great deal back in terms of intelligence and technology.

But not all foreign aid serves U.S. interests. The money sent to the Palestinians illustrates this painfully obvious conclusion. Yet despite the abundant proof that keeping it flowing is counterproductive, the so-called experts seeking to restrain Trump can’t seem to grasp this fact.

Aid to the PA is seen as necessary to prop up the only available interlocutor for peace with Israel. We’re also told that funding the PA is a necessary part of its security cooperation with Israel.

There are elements of truth to these assertions. If the PA were to collapse, that would likely lead to Israel having to reassert direct control of the West Bank rather than the current situation in which the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are governed by the corrupt Fatah party led by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas. But the PA’s need for cash to prop up its kleptocracy is exactly why the U.S. should be using its financial leverage to make it clear to Abbas that a quarter century of his organization holding the U.S. hostage in this manner can’t continue. Abbas’s threats of dissolving the PA are bluffs that should have been called long ago.

The same is true of security cooperation. Abbas relies on Israel to ensure his survival against the plots of his Islamist rivals as much, if not more, than the Israelis rely on the PA to help keep terror under control in the West Bank.

The PA also uses the hundreds of millions of dollars it gets from the U.S. to provide salaries and pensions to terrorists and their families. Congressional efforts to hinge U.S. aid to ending the PA’s subsidies via the Taylor Force Act deserve the president’s support.

The same is true about the massive American contributions to UNRWA, the United Nations refugee agency that is solely devoted to the Palestinians. While UNRWA is credited with feeding and educating Palestinians, its main role is in maintaining the Arab refugees as a stateless people to perpetuate an ongoing threat to Israel’s existence. An equal number of Jews were forced to flee their homes in Arab and Muslim countries after 1948, but they were absorbed in Israel and the West. Yet UNRWA has been part of the effort to prevent Palestinian Arabs from being absorbed elsewhere, thereby allowing them to cling to their dream of destroying the Jewish state.

UNRWA’s schools have courses and books that promote hatred of Israel and Jews. Just as outrageous is the fact that UNRWA employees are often involved with Palestinian terror organizations, and its schools and other facilities have been used to store Hamas weapons where they would presumably be safe from Israeli retaliation.

American governments have tolerated this situation because they felt there was no alternative. But whether or not it is because he isn’t so versed in policy, and therefore is not burdened with the conventional wisdom that has made destructive programs seem reasonable, Trump appears to be unwilling to keep throwing good money after bad.

You don’t have to be supporter of Trump or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government to understand that he is right to demand that if the Palestinians want U.S. money they must, at the very least, come back to the negotiating table and cease funding and fomenting terror.

It isn’t so much a case of “America First” to demand that recipients of U.S. largesse cooperate with U.S. policy, as it is one of common sense. Whatever his other faults, Trump’s insistence on this is neither foolish nor proof of his being unfit for office.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

5)FBI launches new Clinton Foundation investigation

BY JOHN SOLOMON

The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.

FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the Foundation was started, have taken the lead in the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in coming weeks.

The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government outcomes.

The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials said.

One witness recently interviewed by the FBI described the session to The Hill as “extremely professional and unquestionably thorough” and focused on questions about whether donors to Clinton charitable efforts received any favorable treatment from the Obama administration on a policy decision previously highlighted in media reports.

The witness discussed his interview solely on the grounds of anonymity. He said the agents were from Little Rock and their questions focused on government decisions and discussions of donations to Clinton entities during the time Hillary Clinton led President Obama's State Department.

The FBI office in Little Rock referred a reporter Thursday to Washington headquarters, where officials declined any official comment.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, and Craig Minassian, a spokesman for the Foundation, did not immediately return calls or emails seeking comment Thursday evening. But the Foundation and Merrill have previously told The Hill that the Clintons never traded any government policy decisions for donations and that the continued focus on the issue was solely designed as a conservative distraction from President Trump's Russia election probe.

Former Clinton White House aide Bruce Lindsey, who oversees the Foundation, also did not respond immediately to an email seeking comment.

The Wall Street Journal reported late last year that several FBI field offices, including the one in Little Rock, had been collecting information on the Clinton Foundation for more than a year. The report also said there had been pushback to the FBI from the Justice Department.

A renewed law enforcement focus follows a promise to Congress late last year from top Trump Justice Department officials that law enforcement would revisit some of the investigations and legal issues closed during the Obama years that conservatives felt were given short shrift. It also follows months of relentless criticism on Twitter from President Trump, who has repeatedly questioned why no criminal charges were ever filed against the “crooked” Clintons and their fund-raising machine.

For years, news media from the New York Times to The Daily Caller have reported countless stories on donations to the Clinton Foundation or speech fees that closely fell around the time of favorable decisions by Hillary Clinton's State Department. Conservative author Peter Schweizer chronicled the most famous of episodes in a book called Clinton Cash that gave ammunition to conservatives, including Trump, to beat the drum for renewed investigation.

Several GOP members of Congress have recently urged Attorney General Jeff Sessions to appoint a special counsel to look at the myriad of issues surrounding the Clintons. Justice officials sent a letter to Congress in November suggesting some of those issues were being re-examined, but Sessions later testified the appointment of a special prosecutor required a high legal bar that had not yet been met.

Officials also said the Justice Department was re-examining whether there are any unresolved issues from the closed case into Hillary Clinton's transmission of classified information through her personal email server. Former FBI Director James Comey in 2016 concluded Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling that classified information and that there was some evidence of legal violations but he declined to recommend charges on the grounds that he could not prove Clinton and her top aides intended to break the law. - DPS Note: The statute in question does not require the prosecution to prove intent. I don’t understand why almost everyone who writes about this neglects to say that. Comey never mentioned it and he had to have known that intent is not a prerequisite to proving that a crime has been committed. The only person who has made this point over and over is Andy McCarthy in many of his op-eds and columns. 

His decision was roundly criticized by Republicans, and recent revelations that his statement was watered down by edits and that he made the decision before all witness interviews were finished have led to renewed criticism.

A senior law enforcement official said Justice was exploring whether any issues from that probe should be re-opened but cautioned the effort was not at the stage of a full investigation.

One challenge for any Clinton-era investigation is that the statute of limitations on most federal felonies is five years and Clinton left office in early 2013. 

-------------

5a)

Comey’s original Clinton memo released, 

cites possible violations

BY JOHN SOLOMON - 01/04/18 07:01 PM EST

Ex-FBI Director James Comey’s original statement closing out the probe into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server was edited by subordinates to remove five separate references to terms like “grossly negligent” and to delete mention of evidence supporting felony and misdemeanor violations, according to copies of the full document.

Comey also originally concluded that it was “reasonably likely” that Clinton’s nonsecure private server was accessed or hacked by hostile actors though there was no evidence to prove it. But that passage was also changed to the much weaker “possible,” the memos show.

The full draft and edits were released on the website of Senate Homeland and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), providing the most complete public accounting to date of Comey’s draft and the subsequent edits.

The draft, released in full for the first time on Thursday, offers new details on the FBI's Clinton investigation and controversial conclusion.

The Hill was first to report late last year that Comey originally concluded Clinton was “grossly negligent” – the statutory term supporting felony mishandling of classified information – when she and her aides transmitted 110 emails containing classified information through her nonsecure server but that subordinates edited the term to the lesser “extremely careless.”

The full draft, with edits, leaves little doubt that Comey originally wrote on May 2, 2016 that there was evidence that Clinton and top aides may have violated both felony and misdemeanor statutes, though he did not believe he could prove intent before a jury.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statute proscribing gross negligence in the handling of classified information and of the statute proscribing misdemeanor mishandling, my judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,” Comey originally penned.

That passage, however, was edited to remove the references to “gross negligence” and “misdemeanor mishandling,” leaving a much more generic reference to “potential violations of the statutes.”

The FBI has told Congress the edits were made by subordinates to Comey and then accepted by the then-director before he made his final announcement July 5, 2016 that he would not pursue criminal charges against Clinton.

Johnson recently sent a letter to new FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding to know why such significant edits were made to Comey’s draft and whether they were part of an effort by FBI subordinates to politically protect Clinton from a harsher assessment during the 2016 election.

“The edits to Director Comey’s public statement, made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions,” Johnson wrote, noting recently released text messages show some senior FBI officials involved in the case harbored political hatred for Trump or preference for Clinton.

“This effort, seen in light of the personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior agents leading the Clinton investigation and their apparent desire to create an ‘insurance policy’ against Mr. Trump’s election, raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election,” Johnson wrote.

One edit that concerned Johnson was a decision to delete from Comey’s original draft a reference to the FBI working on a joint assessment with the intelligence community about possible national security damage from the classified information that passed through Clinton’s nonsecure email servers.

“We have done extensive work with the assistance of our colleagues elsewhere in the Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation,” Comey originally wrote.

The reference to the rest of the intelligence community was edited out, the memos show.

Johnson now wants to know whether other intelligence agencies had assessments of damage that differed or were more negative than that of the FBI.

Johnson also demanded the FBI provide him the “editing comments” in the margins of the Comey memo that were redacted before Congress was given the document, so lawmakers can better understand the intent of some of the changes that were made.

The full document shows that when Comey first sent to his top deputies the draft statement May 2, 2016, announcing Clinton wouldn't face criminal charges, he imagined it would be part of an austere news conference where he took no questions from reporters. That event did not happen until two months later.

"I’ve been trying to imagine what it would look like if I decided to do an FBI only press event to close out our work and hand the matter to DOJ," Comey wrote. "To help shape our discussions of whether that, or something different, makes sense, I have spent some time crafting what I would say, which follows. In my imagination, I don’t see me taking any questions."

Read Comey's draft as released by Johnson below.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/367528-comeys-original-clinton-memo-released-cites-possible-violations

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++