Given everything in this thread is what we know or at least what has been reported and presumed to be true and knowing that is most likely a fraction of what really has gone on, can you imagine what Comey must know?!?

Then ask yourself how can he not recommend a indictment.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Given everything in this thread is what we know or at least what has been reported and presumed to be true and knowing that is most likely a fraction of what really has gone on, can you imagine what Comey must know?!?

Then ask yourself how can he not recommend a indictment.

It does not matter what the FBI recommends.

The Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General either for DC or Southern New York must agree. They must then take the case to a federal grand jury, who must hear the fed.gov's evidence and conclude sufficient evidence exists to support criminal prosecution. The Assistant Attorney General or the Attorney General must choose to act upon the indictment and go before a federal judge to obtain a federal warrant to arrest Mrs. Clinton.

I do not believe the politically appointed Assistant Attorney General or the Attorney General will take this case before a grand jury prior to January 21, 2017.

Why would they when they can punt this matter to the next adminstration?

If Democrats win its someone else's problem, and it won't be anyone's problem if Clinton wins.

If Republicans win its some evil, fundamentalist Christian, homophobic, mysogenistic, racist Wall Street white guy's problem.

It is a game of delay, deny, obfuscate, and make counter allegations.

State Dept. investigators subpoena Clinton Foundation....

https://www.washingtonpost.com...1b4289c2f_story.html

Investigators with the State Department issued a subpoena to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation last fall seeking documents about the charity’s projects that may have required approval from the federal government during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state, according to people familiar with the subpoena and written correspondence about it.

The subpoena also asked for records related to Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide who for six months in 2012 was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the foundation, Clinton’s personal office, and a private consulting firm with ties to the Clintons.

The full scope and status of the inquiry, conducted by the State Department’s inspector general, were not clear from the material correspondence reviewed by The Washington Post.

A foundation representative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing inquiry, said the initial document request had been narrowed by investigators and that the foundation is not the focus of the probe.

A State IG spokesman declined to comment on that assessment or on the subpoena.

Representatives for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Abedin also declined comment.

There is no indication that the watchdog is looking at Clinton. But as she runs for president in part by promoting her leadership of the State Department, an inquiry involving a top aide and the relationship between her agency and her family’s charity could further complicate her campaign.

For months, Clinton has wrangled with controversy over her use of a private email server, which has sparked a separate investigation by the same State Department inspector general’s office. There is also an FBI investigation into whether her system compromised national security.

Clinton was asked about the FBI investigation at a debate last week and said she was “100 percent confident” nothing would come of it. Last month, Clinton denied a Fox News report that the FBI had expanded its probe to include ties between the foundation and the State Department. She called that report “an unsourced, irresponsible” claim with “no basis.”

During the years Clinton served as secretary of state, the foundation was led by her husband, former president Bill Clinton. She joined its board after leaving office in February 2013 and helped run it until launching her White House bid in April.

Abedin served as deputy chief of staff at State starting in 2009. For the second half of 2012, she participated in the “special government employee” program that enabled her to work simultaneously in the State Department, the foundation, Hillary Clinton’s personal office and Teneo, a private consultancy with close ties to the Clintons.

Abedin has been a visible part of Hillary Clinton’s world since she served as an intern in the 1990s for the then-first lady while attending George Washington University. On the campaign trail, Clinton is rarely seen in public without Abedin somewhere nearby.

Republican lawmakers have alleged that foreign officials and other powerful interests with business before the U.S. government gave large donations to the Clinton Foundation to curry favor with a sitting secretary of state and a potential future president.

Both Clintons have dismissed those accusations, saying donors contributed to the $2 billion foundation to support its core missions: improving health care, education and environmental work around the world.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic primary, has largely avoided raising either issue in his campaign. Last spring, Sanders expressed concerns about the Clinton Foundation being part of a political system “dominated by money.”

Sanders has batted away questions about the email scandal, famously saying at a debate last fall that, “The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”

The potential consequences of the IG investigation are unclear. Unlike federal prosecutors, inspectors general have the authority to subpoena documents without seeking approval from a grand jury or a judge.

But their power is limited. They are able to obtain documents, but they cannot compel testimony. At times, IG inquiries result in criminal charges, but sometimes they lead to administrative review, civil penalties or reports that have no legal consequences.

The IG has investigated Abedin before. Last year, the watchdog concluded she was overpaid nearly $10,000 because of violations of sick leave and vacation policies, a finding that Abedin and her attorneys have contested.

Republican lawmakers, led by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), have alleged that Abedin’s role at the center of overlapping public and private Clinton worlds created the potential for conflicts of interest.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:


Williams: "It has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.

And of course there is still no evidence that she broke any law."

Classic obfuscation (muddying the waters). The emails were allegedly stripped of their classification markings, knowingly, by her and/or her staff, with her direction, approval, or apathy. So, she could have transmitted/received 10 million classified messages, "but they weren't marked classified." It's a way to lie while still appearing (to the simple-minded) to be honest. Reminds me of mr clinton saying "he didn't have sex with Lewinsky," while conveniently defining oral sex as something other than 'sex.'



And they conveniently ignore ANY contrary or damning new information that comes to light (such as the marked imagery).



And the part about 'no evidence.' This, again, is a way of lying, as it's not 'evidence' until it's entered in a court proceeding (which, of course, hasn't happened yet). Reminds me of another scandal she was in years ago - they wanted to investigate her for something, and she was saying "there's no evidence of wrongdoing." The evidence would have arose from the investigation that she was desperately trying to block.

That woman is the antichrist or something. It just astounds me how corrupt and downright evil she is. It's downright Biblical.

And now they're reporting that the State Dept. subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last fall. They say the investigation is not about the foundation, so it must be about influence peddling or maybe just conflict of interest by Shrillary? I dunno, but the pile is getting deeper... All signs point to deep corruption in that group, not that anyone with half a clue would be surprised, her whole adult life has been nothing but one corruption and ethical violation after another.

quote:

The Clinton Foundation was subpoenaed last fall by State Department investigators for records relating to charity projects that might have come before the department when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, a source confirmed Thursday.

The development was first reported by The Washington Post. A representative for the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation confirmed the details to Fox News.

The Post first reported that the State Department inspector general subpoena sought documents on foundation projects that might have needed approval from the department during Clinton’s tenure in charge.

The subpoena also reportedly sought records on Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Abedin has come under scrutiny for serving for several months in 2012 in multiple roles – working for the department and the foundation, as well as Clinton herself and a consulting firm

And multiple media reports over the past year – seized upon by Republicans -- have raised questions about whether foundation donors used their contributions to seek influence with the State Department.

The Clinton presidential campaign has rejected such assertions. Meanwhile, questions about Abedin’s role and the foundation largely have been overshadowed by the controversy over Clinton’s use of a personal server and email system while secretary. That matter is under investigation by the FBI.

According to the Post, the scope and status of the IG inquiry that prompted the subpoena is not clear. A foundation official told the newspaper that the foundation is not the focus.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...5.html?intcmp=hplnws

Its such good news it SHOULD be mentioned twice!

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
It does not matter what the FBI recommends.

I couldn't disagree with that comment more. It most certainly matters. If the FBI recommends indictment, Hillary's shot at the White House is over. The DOJ doesn't have to indict to kill her election chances. She's teetering with many voting groups right now because of her lack of credibility/honesty, and a positive FBI finding will drive a stake through her.

Now if you're hoping for Hillary to end up in court in front of a judge, and potentially in jail, your comment is valid, but I'm not confident that's ever going to happen given we are no longer a country of laws.

I'll grudgingly settle for killing her political career once and for all.

Let's assume that the FBI recommends an indictment. From there it goes to AG Lynch who now finds herself in an uneasy spot.

Further believe that Clinton is the Dem nominee. Does Lynch slow walk this to a grand jury? Maybe but what if she punts it to the next administration and Clinton becomes the next president?

How is there any substantive difference than with Nixon and Watergate in terms of harm to the country and the presidency as an institution? Nixon abused his executive power and as with most things, the coverup is worse than the crime but in the end, the nation and the confidence it had in the White House required him to leave. I don't see much of an intellectual distinction.

Comey was appointed by a Democrat president as was Lynch. It is hard to fathom a scenario where he recommends an indictment and she declines for partisan reasons. If you consider that Hillary becomes the president, how does she effectively stay in office when the chief law enforcement agency in the US recommends that charges be filed? It's untenable. What happens if Lynch delays a grand jury presentation, Hillary takes office and then a grand jury indicts? The presidency cannot survive such a scenario unless she steps down.

There simply is no way for the presidency to survive with an ounce of intregriy if the FBI recommneds an indictment and the people who sit around the kitchen dinner table each night know it too.

I am super frustrated in all this because we are getting such little hard information.

I keep day dreaming of what the FBI may have found in the 30,000 deleted emails. I wonder if we will ever know.

It would be very insightful to know how worried Clinton, Abedin, Mills, Sullivan, Pagliano, etc are right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Let's assume that the FBI recommends an indictment. From there it goes to AG Lynch who now finds herself in an uneasy spot.

Its only an uneasy spot when politics weigh into it. The AG is supposed to be a non-partisan protector of the law. Obviously, Lynch has not behaved as a non-partisan thus far.

quote:

Further believe that Clinton is the Dem nominee. Does Lynch slow walk this to a grand jury? Maybe but what if she punts it to the next administration and Clinton becomes the next president?

Wow, you actually appear to think the general public is more stupid than I do. Comey is an interesting guy. Read his bio. I'm not writing him off as someone who will do the right thing if the evidence dictates it. And if the FBI does recommend indictment, Clinton is done, even without the DOJ following through on it. The FBI referral would turn off enough voters to end Clinton for good.

Now her actually being charged, found guilty, and jailed, well that's a whole other topic.

quote:

If you consider that Hillary becomes the president, how does she effectively stay in office when the chief law enforcement agency in the US recommends that charges be filed? It's untenable. What happens if Lynch delays a grand jury presentation, Hillary takes office and then a grand jury indicts? The presidency cannot survive such a scenario unless she steps down.

If there is enough evidence that the FBI recommends criminal charges, but none are filed and Hillary wins in November, I believe there would be significant uprising to cause her to be immediately impeached.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
It does not matter what the FBI recommends.

I couldn't disagree with that comment more. It most certainly matters. If the FBI recommends indictment, Hillary's shot at the White House is over. The DOJ doesn't have to indict to kill her election chances. She's teetering with many voting groups right now because of her lack of credibility/honesty, and a positive FBI finding will drive a stake through her.

Now if you're hoping for Hillary to end up in court in front of a judge, and potentially in jail, your comment is valid, but I'm not confident that's ever going to happen given we are no longer a country of laws.

I'll grudgingly settle for killing her political career once and for all.

If the FBI recommends seeking an indictment, that document will be TS SAP classified and properly managed as such.

A gag order will be dropped on anyone with knowledge of the content, complete with guarantees of prosecution for letting it out.

We won't hear of the indictment recommendation or anything else until Hilly is either the nominee or POTUS.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
It does not matter what the FBI recommends.

I couldn't disagree with that comment more. It most certainly matters. If the FBI recommends indictment, Hillary's shot at the White House is over. The DOJ doesn't have to indict to kill her election chances. She's teetering with many voting groups right now because of her lack of credibility/honesty, and a positive FBI finding will drive a stake through her.

Now if you're hoping for Hillary to end up in court in front of a judge, and potentially in jail, your comment is valid, but I'm not confident that's ever going to happen given we are no longer a country of laws.

I'll grudgingly settle for killing her political career once and for all.

If the FBI recommends seeking an indictment, that document will be TS SAP classified and properly managed as such.

A gag order will be dropped on anyone with knowledge of the content, complete with guarantees of prosecution for letting it out.

We won't hear of the indictment recommendation or anything else until Hilly is either the nominee or POTUS.

I don't think it will happen like that. So far, whenever something needs to said, it's leaked. Hillary says something assine and usually within 48 hours someone well-connected but not authorized to speak will talk with a reporter.

There's no discernible reason to believe otherwise. If the FBI recommends an indictment, we'll hear about it in 64 point bold letters.

I believe that the FBI will recommend that Hillary and others (perhaps including WJC) be indicted both for the deliberate mishandling of classified information and corrupt practices involving her official duties and the Clinton Foundation plus WJCs "speaking" engagements.

I would not even begin to guess about when that recommendation may happen, because I am sure that every rock the FBI turns over exposes another crime.

As to what happens next, I would not even make a SWAG. I am not certain that the DoJ needs to take this before a Grand Jury, I think that it is prosecutorial discretion.

I am certain that the DoJ could select & empanel a DC grand Jury that would refuse to indict. Remember the DC Jury that failed to convict the Clinton Secretary of AG for accepting bribes but the bribers ended up with prison time?

I am certain that that will be an immense problem for the Administration if the FBI recommends an indictment and HRC is not indicted.

I don't see any way that this can end up without charges being filed. Now I don't expect her to necessarily face any serious penalties, but I expect she will be charged with multiple felonies.

You know we have no real clue on all the evidence that has been uncovered, and they're still digging. But, just what little has been released shows lots of evidence of multiple felonies, and ignorance is no excuse in these kinds of crimes, so she can claim all she wants that she didn't know, but that won't help.

Even though Comey was appointed by a democrat, everything I've seen says he doesn't allow politics to play in his decisions. The DOJ will have no choice but to present to a grand jury, and I expect Congress will demand a special prosecutor. I think the Clintons have enough influence due to all the bribery and influence peddling they do to avoid prison, but she'll get a felony conviction and will have to hang up her political aspirations. But, they'll still have influence and will still be selling it through the clinton foundation, so nothing will really change for them except she won't be POTUS.

However, since they're also looking at the Clinton Foundation, it's still possible that it will be shut down, the whole Clinton clan will be facing charges as well as Abedin and many other cohorts. We can only hope the gov't does the right thing. Even the little that has been released or leaked shows there is plenty of evidence of major felonies on the parts of most people involved with the Clintons.

This would be a great opportunity for the DOJ to cement it's reputation as a law enforcement branch rather than a political crony. This could be a HUGE and far branching investigation and prosecution, could make the reputation of several gov't lawyers and appointees, if they so choose to pursue it to the end like they should.

Time will end her political career. She's almost as old as I am. Unless she thinks she wants to be Golda Meir, this will the the last rodeo. Golda Meir left office at age 75 or so. She seemed like an old lady then!

The most important point is to keep her from office ever again.

quote:

The most important point is to keep her from office ever again.

Agreed
Bernie S. (bless his heart) is helping to expose her incompetence both as a politician and person.

I think that more and more Democrats realize that she will not win a General Election, soon the Democrat Establishment will be willing to throw her under the bus, that will be music to the DoJ's ears.

Bloomberg is standing in the wings and Webb is considering the reactivation of his campaign.

Sock it to her, Bernie!

Another possible reason for delay...

http://www.americanthinker.com...l.html#ixzz3ze9EOZjl

Obama may be Ensnared in the Clinton Email Scandal

Perhaps President Obama’s involvement is the reason that the FBI has not yet referred charges to the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. It may be metastasizing so quickly and so dangerously that not only are agents and lawyers within the agency having trouble keeping up with new evidence of wrongdoing, but that the scandal itself now threatens a constitutional crisis. The Department of State’s refusal to release 18 emails exchanged between President Obama and Clinton through her unsecured home server at best creates a conflict of interest for Obama (as explained by Andrew McCarthy here) while at worst it raises the likelihood that the President has run afoul of national security laws and ought to be impeached.

I always assumed that somewhere in the 55,000 plus pages of email that Clinton belatedly turned over to the State Department there must have been exchanges with the President. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said in March 2015 that the two occasionally emailed each other without specifying whether the emails went through Hillary’s private email. Earnest also said that Obama did not look at email addresses, though the President was aware that Clinton sometimes used private email. (Obama had originally said he learned about the private email through new reports -- a typical Obama story -- but backtracked later.) And remember in March, the only admitted concern was whether Clinton had complied with the Federal Records Act.

The more recent State action evidently concerns 18 specific emails that were sent/received over Clinton’s home server. It seems quite likely that in the eighteen emails classified information was discussed as conceived under federal statutes, and as McCarthy points out, one of Obama’s own executive orders regarding dissemination of foreign intelligence. That includes conversations with foreign officials and leaders that are what you would expect the Secretary of State to discuss with the President, and which are born classified. State Department spokesman John Kirby did not deny that these emails contain classified information, but rather only stated that that they “have not been determined to be classified,” claiming that they are being withheld because of concerns over confidentiality between the President and his aides. But again, if Obama and Clinton were not discussing foreign leaders and policy, then what on earth were they emailing each other about?

The White House tried to block the release of emails between Obama and Clinton last fall, with the same claim, denying that they were asserting executive privilege but rather maintaining confidentiality between the president and his top aides. Presumably, these 18 emails are these very same ones. The White House has gotten around using executive privilege to hide the emails by having State block court-ordered FOIA production on these vague confidentiality grounds. McCarthy says that this is a backhanded way of asserting executive privilege and effectively classifying the documents without saying so, since otherwise Obama’s transgressions might be obvious. It is hard to argue with that conclusion. Moreover, State’s action (clearly at Obama’s behest) is circumstantial evidence that the information contained within the emails is indeed classified -- born classified -- and thus subject to security protocols whether marked or not, which both Obama and Clinton violated. And circumstantial evidence is as probative of guilt as direct evidence if a jury (or the Senate) chooses to believe it.

Obama’s claim of “confidentiality” might circumvent the FOIA production order (with State’s connivance) but there is another issue pressing. There is no reason that the FBI should not have access to the Obama/Clinton emails. It is part of the executive branch, and its investigation is confidential, so FBI agents and lawyers should be allowed to review the email exchange. Have the emails been turned over to the FBI? If the FBI requests the emails, and the White House refuses to turn them over, what conclusion could be drawn other than that they somehow incriminate the President, since the FBI already has thousands of similar emails on Hillary?

Beneath all Clinton’s implausible denials and claims of right wing persecution, behind Josh Earnest’s improper insistence that nothing really serious is going on at the FBI, is the very real possibility that Clinton has now enmeshed the President into her scandalous intrigues, with serious constitutional implications. Obama cannot ethically continue to preside over this investigation (which, effectively, he does as the chief executive.) But removing himself would require Obama to actually care about the ethics of the matter, and secondly potentially expose himself to criminal liability. The situation is quite akin to the Watergate scandal at this point, in that government officials have hidden or erased potentially damaging documents, and the President effectively presides over investigations that could subject him, aides, and former aides, to criminal liability.

FBI Director James Comey appears to long have had sufficient evidence to charge Clinton, but seemingly has so far been stayed by countervailing influences. On the one hand there are obvious political concerns and pressures. On the other is a continuing flow of evidence against Clinton that only makes the case against her stronger. But the Obama emails now complicate the case to an extraordinary degree. Does Comey have them, and if not, has he demanded them? If Obama refuses, then the President is effectively hiding probative evidence.

If Comey were to get the emails, and they did contain born classified information (as is likely) it would be difficult for Comey to proceed against Clinton without implicating Obama. Almost certainly, the Obama Justice Department would never pursue a prosecution that exposed him to criminal liability.

If Obama were a man who could actually admit a mistake, and also one that legitimately cared for his country, he would cut the Gordian Knot on this brewing crisis by releasing his email exchanges with Clinton -- redacted as necessary -- taking a mea culpa for being caught up in Hillary’s malfeasance, and throw her under the bus, which is something he does well. There likely would be little appetite in the country for impeachment; Obama might actually earn some credit for doing the right thing, and the Democrats would be rid of a problematic and probably unelectable candidate.

That would put the Democrats into crisis mode, made worse perhaps, by the very real possibility that Vice-President Biden is also exposed to the scandal and thus might not be ready to step in. This might be part of the reason Biden -- with Obama’s evident approval -- declined to enter the race in the first place.

Since Obama is unlikely to take such a step, the only other way to achieve a semblance of justice might be through Congressional action. Obama would then have to formally invoke executive privilege to hide the emails, which would strongly echo Nixonian tactics and be politically damaging, though Republicans would be at risk too. Hillary would certainly claim that Congressional hearings prove the whole affair is political after all, and the Democrats would try to stymie matters and use the mainstream media to vilify Republicans as they always do.

All this makes FBI Director Comey’s situation increasingly untenable. He knows now that there is no way Attorney General Loretta Lynch can fairly and properly evaluate the evidence his agents are fast compiling. If he continues to hesitate, due to political pressure or in hopes of building the perfect case, the situation will fester and worsen. If Comey is really the stand-up guy that many say, he will act soon, in order to force the hands of Lynch and Obama, put Hillary in the legal peril that she has earned, and Obama in jeopardy too if that is where the evidence leads. In the probable event the administration does nothing or pushes back against an FBI referral, Comey will have to resign, and Congress will have to act.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:

quote:

If you consider that Hillary becomes the president, how does she effectively stay in office when the chief law enforcement agency in the US recommends that charges be filed? It's untenable. What happens if Lynch delays a grand jury presentation, Hillary takes office and then a grand jury indicts? The presidency cannot survive such a scenario unless she steps down.

If there is enough evidence that the FBI recommends criminal charges, but none are filed and Hillary wins in November, I believe there would be significant uprising to cause her to be immediately impeached.

Or worse, she will be the Nixon second term when sworn in. Even the die hard Dems will be staying away from her to avoid the toxic stench from her administration.

We need to put who ever she picks as Vice under the same microscope. Because when the DNC see's their supporters jumping ship, there might be the moment where Hilz friends come to her and say for the good of the party, you need to step down or she will be the last Democratic Party president. Remember it was the RNC that asked Nixon to step down to save the party. Hilz might have that sudden realization she is who she lied about to prosecute 40 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:

quote:

If you consider that Hillary becomes the president, how does she effectively stay in office when the chief law enforcement agency in the US recommends that charges be filed? It's untenable. What happens if Lynch delays a grand jury presentation, Hillary takes office and then a grand jury indicts? The presidency cannot survive such a scenario unless she steps down.

If there is enough evidence that the FBI recommends criminal charges, but none are filed and Hillary wins in November, I believe there would be significant uprising to cause her to be immediately impeached.

Or worse, she will be the Nixon second term when sworn in. Even the die hard Dems will be staying away from her to avoid the toxic stench from her administration.

We need to put who ever she picks as Vice under the same microscope. Because when the DNC see's their supporters jumping ship, there might be the moment where Hilz friends come to her and say for the good of the party, you need to step down or she will be the last Democratic Party president. Remember it was the RNC that asked Nixon to step down to save the party. Hilz might have that sudden realization she is who she lied about to prosecute 40 years ago.

Sorry, not the RNC. It was a delegation of Goldwater, minority leader Sen. Scott and Congressman Rhodes, House minirity leader.