quote:

Originally posted by TMats:
WH Press Secretary, Josh Earnest, today responded to a direct question about Clinton being charged. He stated that Clinton "is not a target of the FBI investigation." Based on listening to Rush a couple of days this week, he seemed to think the FBI has to either press for indictment, or lose all credibility. Right now, I'd say things don't look so good for Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills--someone has to fall on this grenade and this President and the Democrats won't let it be Clinton.

From Obama's lips to Josh Earnest ears from Earnest lips. Earnest said the indications from the DOJ is she is not a target of the investigation.
Comey has already stated that he does not brief Obama on every detail of this on going investigation so he is holding back some things.
This has to be to give the White House the ability to steer clear of any comment and just simply say we are not aware of all the details and do not comment on ongoing investigations.

The last time Obama commented on this publicly in Hillary's favor it infuriated the FBI.
Keep poking the bear Josh.

quote:

This has to be to give the White House the ability to steer clear of any comment and just simply say we are not aware of all the details and do not comment on ongoing investigations.

Maybe if we are lucky Obama will read about Hillary's arrest in the paper seems to be where he gets most of his info.

Katherine Herridge just commented on Fox that the FBI is seriously pissed off in regards to Josh Earnest's comments today!
She actually used and emphasized the words "pissed off"!
Perfect!

The amazing thing is her absolute arrogance.

If she says:
"It's not a big deal"
"It's in the past"
"No body cares"

Then it really never happened, all is ok, and people will forgive and forget.

I wonder if Hillary and Huma are going to go to the same prison? This would make for an awesome cameo on "Orange is the New Black

This message has been edited. Last edited by: liner,

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm glad to see the BBC running it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35446455

I thought the exact same thing when I got a couple of notifications on my phone from news sources that I wouldn't have expected to send out alerts in regards to today's news. Let the tides keep turning.

Quite a coincidence that State Dept couldn't meet the deadline for releasing emails because of the "snow". When they knew about the slew of TS about to hit the fan.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm glad to see the BBC running it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35446455

I bet some of that overseas cash being funneled to the Clinton Foundation is drying up in a hurry. PSA Chelsea, McDonalds is hiring.

This is looking really bad for Hildabeast <tears action=shedding/>. I've read about 90% of this thread and I've noticed there are a bunch of govt. security experts posting here. I've got a question: If I am working for a government agency and I am contributing to an email thread where one of the people is SECRETARY OF STATE and the return address is slut@hillary.com how complicit am I by not bringing this to anyone's attention? I am having a hard time figuring out how this shit went on for so long

just saw the full statement from White House spokesman Josh Earnest today:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2000828/

A reporter asked, "Can you say with certainty and confidence that Secretary Clinton will not be indicted because of this email scandal?"

"That will be a decision made by the Department of Justice and prosecutors over there," said Earnest.

"What I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it's trending. But I'm certainly not going to weigh in on a decision or in that process in any way.

That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors but again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction."

This from Breitbart in mid October regarding Obama's fist attempt to influence the investigation. Apparently the FBI isn't appreciative of his meddling(s).



The FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s potential violations of the Espionage Act with her private email server were “angered” by President Obama’s attempt to defend her on national television, the New York Times reports.

“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it was a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton’s email setup had in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.

Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.

The White House quickly backed off the president’s remarks and said Mr. Obama was not trying to influence the investigation. But his comments spread quickly, raising the ire of officials who saw an instance of the president trying to influence the outcome of a continuing investigation — and not for the first time.

If we weren’t so numb to lawlessness and politicized bureaucracy from seven years of Obama scandals, this would be a national outrage. The President just tried to influence the outcome of a criminal investigation, on behalf of a powerful Democrat politician. Of course, he loves to insert himself into politically useful criminal matters, while having nothing to say about politically damaging ones, such as sanctuary-city murders by illegal aliens.

Outrage requires at least a pinch of surprise, and Obama has so numbed the American people to corruption and the lawless exercise of power that it’s not surprising to watch him influence an active FBI investigation. As the Times notes later in its article, Obama made similar thoughtless – and, as it turned out, incorrect – comments when former CIA director David Petraeus was under investigation. Petraeus did have to face the music, but Obama’s politicized Justice Department arranged a misdemeanor plea bargain for him… even though he demonstrably lied to FBI agents during the investigation.

Unfortunately for Clinton, Obama’s effort to tip the scales on her behalf doesn’t seem to be working well. The White House was obliged to issue an extraordinary retraction of the President’s remarks, and the FBI agents working the case seem to be more inspired than ever.

As former FBI official Ron Hosko told the New York Times, “Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case.”

Notice that in the White House walkback, spokesman Josh Earnest still tried to pump a little hot air into Clinton’s favorite narrative trial balloon, namely her contention that she knows more about what should be “classified” than everyone in the intelligence community combined, and was trying to correct the spy kids on their excessive zeal for securing documents.

“There’s a debate among national security experts, as part of their ongoing, independent review, about how or even whether to classify sections of those emails,” said Earnest. “But, as the president said, there is no evidence to indicate that the information in those emails endangered our national security.”

Earnest appears to have forgotten that one of the classification rules Clinton violated most promiscuously was an executive order signed by his boss, Barack Obama.

Also, classified documents are not defined as “something that will instantly destroy America if unauthorized people read it.” The standard for indictable violation of the Espionage Act does not require proof that the exposed information has been certified damaging to national security with 100 percent certainty by some secret tribunal.

One of the reasons violations of the classification system must be punished vigorously, without regard to the apparent significance of the documents years after the fact, is that people who handle such material must not get the idea they can make personal value judgments and disregard security markings they find excessive. No intelligence service can afford to send that signal. If Clinton gets away with it, the damage to national security in the future will be far worse than whatever Chinese and Russian hackers might have gotten by raiding her email server.

Fox News reports that a group of national security whistleblowers held a news conference on Thursday to denounce the double standard working for Clinton, and demand she be treated the same way they were. They noticed Obama’s effort to give her cover on 60 Minutes, too:

NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake was indicted in 2010 under the Espionage Act for sharing unclassified material with a Baltimore Sun reporter. Drake, who also went to Congress with his concerns about the NSA, said his goal was to expose government misconduct.

“This is the secretary of state, one of the most targeted individuals by other intelligence entities and agencies in the world using a private server to traffic highly sensitive information and no doubt including classified information and no doubt including info about sources and methods,”Drake said at Thursday’s event.

He added the whistleblowers’ treatment shows there is a law for the average citizen, and apparently a different set of rules for the powerful.

“But hey, I’m secretary of state,” Drake said in a sarcastic tone. ”Even Obama gave her cover.”

Another whisteblower, former Justice Department ethics adviser Jesselyn Radack, brought up the Petraeus case, recalling how he “gave away more secret information, classified at a much higher level, to his mistress and received a sweetheart plea deal for a minor misdemeanor,” consequences she described as a mere “slap on the wrist.”

Fox also suggests that in addition to possible Espionage Act violations, the FBI might be considering obstruction-of-justice charges:

A former FBI agent, who is not involved in the case, said the inconsistent release of emails, with new documents coming to light from outside accounts, such as that of adviser Sidney Blumenthal, could constitute obstruction. In addition, Clinton’s March statement that there was no classified material on her private server has proven false, after more than 400 emails containing classified information were documented.

The FBI agents working on Clinton’s case are obviously justified in fearing political involvement. Unfortunately, there isn’t much they can do about it.

FBI Director James B. Comey likes to boast that “if you know my folks, they don’t give a rip about politics.” Doubtless that is true, but their hyper-political superiors at the Justice Department most certainly do, and they’re not likely to allow anything but the most ironclad case derail the Democrat frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nomination… unless they get a thumbs-up from the White House.

There are many ways this particular lightning bolt of scandal could be grounded, most obviously including the use of a few select Clinton aides as lightning rods. On the other hand, the description recently offered of the Espionage Act investigation makes it seem like the charges would be difficult to pin on underlings, given Clinton’s overall responsibility for creating the email system. Downgrading the consequences to a misdemeanor “slap on the wrist,” as with Petraeus, might not contain the political fallout in this case. “Vote Hillary 2016: She Was Only Indicted For Misdemeanor Offenses” isn’t much of a campaign slogan.

If the FBI decides to float some charges against Clinton, they had better have battleship armor, or else the same DOJ that swept Operation Fast and Furious under the rug is going to sink them. What Obama said on 60 Minutes might not have been aimed at the FBI, but rather intended to prepare the media battlespace for a high-level torpedoing of whatever case the agents come up with.



http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...inton-investigation/

quote:

This will present another interesting challenge, how to have a fair and public trial with evidence that cannot be made public.

It seems clear to me that THIS is exactly what the Clinton team is banking on. They'll be doing everything they can to make people believe that this is all just a conspiracy against her.

quote:

If I am working for a government agency and I am contributing to an email thread where one of the people is SECRETARY OF STATE and the return address is slut@hillary.com how complicit am I by not bringing this to anyone's attention? I am having a hard time figuring out how this shit went on for so long

Most of the classified information went to HRC's Office in the State Department or to the SAP area by normal secure methods, some of it probably by courier.
Most of the classified traffic to Hillary came from her assistants (accomplices) in her State Department Office to her on the unsecured server. Strictly speaking this was an inside job. Hillary's assistants as far as I am aware were all Friends of Hillary hired specially for this job.

I have not seen any evidence that anyone outside of State sent classified info to the private server.
It seems unlikely to have happened, because as far as we know all of the classified documents were stripped of identifiers before they were sent. Only a fool or friend of Hillary would do that.

Some few people such as the POTUS evidently sent messages to her on her private server as did some cronies and others outside of government.

quote:

This will present another interesting challenge, how to have a fair and public trial with evidence that cannot be made public.

This is a normal problem for this type of crime, but convictions happen frequently.

Hillary is going to throw everyone of her aids, and assiociates under the bus on this one. Someone will eventually crack I would imagine, if Huma goes to jail, I guess Carlos Danger will be texting pictures of his junk all over again.

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:
...if Huma goes to jail, I guess Carlos Danger will be texting pictures of his junk all over again.

Hell there were 35,000 emails of his junk on HRC's outhouse server.

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:
Hillary is going to throw everyone of her aids, and assiociates under the bus on this one.

And the million dollar question to me is, if Hill's does toss ole Huma, Cheryl, or one of her other 'helpers' under the bus, will one or more of them reciprocate and attempt to bury her? Hill's shot at the White House is slipping away, so a presidential pardon for a co-conspirator may not be in the cards for them. So who buries who? Let's get to it and find out...

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:
Hillary is going to throw everyone of her aids, and assiociates under the bus on this one.

And the million dollar question to me is, if Hill's does toss ole Huma, Cheryl, or one of her other 'helpers' under the bus, will one or more of them reciprocate and attempt to bury her? Hill's shot at the White House is slipping away, so a presidential pardon for a co-conspirator may not be in the cards for them. So who buries who? Let's get to it and find out...

I would venture to say that Mills or Huma are hard core loyalists. The only way they might turn is if they are facing long prison terms.
They will absorb any fine or reprimand as long as they are not going to jail.

But somebody like Paglia who may know just as much as either of those two and perhaps even more of the details of by who's direction the server was set up and why could be someone who would turn on Hillary under far less pressure.

He just happened to be a useful hanger on who also happened to be a computer geek it doesn't appear he was in the close circle like Mills or Huma.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:


Most of the classified information went to HRC's Office in the State Department or to the SAP area by normal secure methods, some of it probably by courier.
Most of the classified traffic to Hillary came from her assistants (accomplices) in her State Department Office to her on the unsecured server. Strictly speaking this was an inside job. Hillary's assistants as far as I am aware were all Friends of Hillary hired specially for this job.

I have not seen any evidence that anyone outside of State sent classified info to the private server.
It seems unlikely to have happened, because as far as we know all of the classified documents were stripped of identifiers before they were sent. Only a fool or friend of Hillary would do that.

Some few people such as the POTUS evidently sent messages to her on her private server as did some cronies and others outside of government.

And the thing of it is, doing this is drummed into ANYONE who sends (as a matter of business) government documents around. It's "Export Control 101". Anything not marked as "EAR-99" (Not export controlled) has to be marked with an ECCN ( Export Control Classification Number) and, unless EAR-99, must be encrypted when sent to an unsecure location. And the ONLY one who can remove or alter the ECCN (and the requisite notice of export control restrictions) is the individual or department that applied the original classification. That's drummed into us in day 1 of "Export Control" training. And those export control regulations are under the State Department. We had to mark (at the direction of the State Department) even things as mundane as description documents of a battery charger as XV(f) (that classification has been redraws IIRC) which required us to encrypt it before emailing it to our customer. This isn't an "oversight" or slip up. State Department is in the business of export control restrictions. It's their regulations. So no one at Foggy Bottom can claim it is an obscure regulation from another agency. They swim in this pool daily. Anyone at State who says "we didn't know" is spouting massive quantities of pure unadulterated BS.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

...Some few people such as the POTUS evidently sent messages to her on her private server as did some cronies and others outside of government.

Doesn't that suggest that Osama KNEW she had a private server? And by inaction thus allowed it?