Thread by @JewhadiTM

A press blackout on news that former top FBI lawyer James Baker wanted @HillaryClinton prosecuted americanthinker.com/blog/2019/02/a…

The news is out that @Comey did indeed have some credible prosecutors for Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified documents during her stint as secretary of state.

"No reasonable prosecutor" would take the case, Comey intoned, who then let the former secretary of state and then-presidential candidate off the hook.

Actually, there was one, at least one, and he was sitting right next to Comey: none other than FBI general counsel James Baker, who admitted in congressional testimony that he did think Clinton's dishonest act merited prosecution.

The FBI's top lawyer in 2016 thought Hillary Clinton and her team should have immediately realized they were mishandling "highly classified" information based on the obviously sensitive nature of the emails' contents sent through her private server.

And he believed she should have been prosecuted until "pretty late" in the investigation, according to a transcript of his closed-door testimony before congressional committees last October.

Former FBI general counsel James Baker said high-level officials at the bureau were "arguing about" whether to bring charges against Clinton, "I think, up until the end" — and he initially thought Clinton's behavior was "alarming" and "appalling."

Up until now, Comey's "narrative" was that Clinton was "extremely careless" (not "grossly negligent," which is actionable) and the book was closed on the matter, as Dems brushed the whole thing off, while hackers and Russians and Chinese and terrorists got to dig into the goodies

Clinton was supposed to be charged with mishandling classified documents, and she wasn't.

Only three news sources are reporting this bombshell: John Solomon of The Hill, Catherine Herridge of Fox News, and Sara Carter, all respectable heavyweights in investigative reporting.

Their reports should easily merit news pickups. But the nets are nowhere, the New York Times doesn't think such a revision to its "narrative" is fit to print, and the Washington Post is going to let that one die in darkness.