quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm telling you- the FBI is going to recommend charges against her. I now have no doubt. Probably mid to late April or early May, from what I gather.

I agree. I think they have to, or risk an 80 year legacy. The FBI has to have credibility (even if the rest of the Justice Department has been recklessly politicized) or the whole idea of the Rule of Law is exposed as a sham and anarchy will reign. The FBI indicts and if the AG doesn't follow through watch the entire Obama Administration come apart like a $10 souvenir cowboy hat in a rain storm.

It is going to be a very sweet day when the FBI announces it is recommending charges.

I can't wait to see Hillary's public statement. My guess is she will not withdraw from the race. There will be talk of the vast right-wing conspiracy, over classification, did nothing wrong, etc., but she is going to keep fighting for the people who need her as their champion in Washington.

quote:

I agree. I think they have to, or risk an 80 year legacy. The FBI has to have credibility (even if the rest of the Justice Department has been recklessly politicized) or the whole idea of the Rule of Law is exposed as a sham and anarchy will reign. The FBI indicts and if the AG doesn't follow through watch the entire Obama Administration come apart like a $10 souvenir cowboy hat in a rain storm.

The process in the past has been for the FBI to make a recommendation to the DoJ in private. That is to say the people and press would not be informed directly.
In important cases the AG or some high ranking assistant usually announces that the DoJ has decided to empanel a Grand Jury and seek an indictment based upon the FBI recommendation.
Some people have theorized that this matter may be before an existing Grand Jury even now because the DoJ has lawyers working with the investigators.

As far as I know, there is nothing but protocol that stops the FBI from holding a press conference and announcing that they have clear evidence of felonies committed by Hillary and several of her associates and that they have passed the evidence on to the DoJ with a recommendation she be indicted.

That would clearly put the DoJ in a very difficult position since no doubt they want this all to go away.

If the corrupt Justice Dept. refuse to indict, I hope the honest and loyal-to-America FBI people DO NOT resign in protest.

That couldn't be a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by TMats:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'm telling you- the FBI is going to recommend charges against her. I now have no doubt. Probably mid to late April or early May, from what I gather.

I agree. I think they have to, or risk an 80 year legacy. The FBI has to have credibility (even if the rest of the Justice Department has been recklessly politicized) or the whole idea of the Rule of Law is exposed as a sham and anarchy will reign.

Indeed, this is how we'll know if we still have rule of law and a country.
This entire mess reeks of corruption, at ALL levels of gov't.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

I agree. I think they have to, or risk an 80 year legacy. The FBI has to have credibility (even if the rest of the Justice Department has been recklessly politicized) or the whole idea of the Rule of Law is exposed as a sham and anarchy will reign. The FBI indicts and if the AG doesn't follow through watch the entire Obama Administration come apart like a $10 souvenir cowboy hat in a rain storm.

The process in the past has been for the FBI to make a recommendation to the DoJ in private. That is to say the people and press would not be informed directly.
In important cases the AG or some high ranking assistant usually announces that the DoJ has decided to empanel a Grand Jury and seek an indictment based upon the FBI recommendation.
Some people have theorized that this matter may be before an existing Grand Jury even now because the DoJ has lawyers working with the investigators.

As far as I know, there is nothing but protocol that stops the FBI from holding a press conference and announcing that they have clear evidence of felonies committed by Hillary and several of her associates and that they have passed the evidence on to the DoJ with a recommendation she be indicted.

That would clearly put the DoJ in a very difficult position since no doubt they want this all to go away.

I believe the FBI recommendation to the AG will be confidential. Then the AG will have to decide what to do. Then, and only then, will an official announcement be made public.

Of course, there may be unauthorized off the record briefings. The Ship of State is the only ship that leaks from the top.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

I agree. I think they have to, or risk an 80 year legacy. The FBI has to have credibility (even if the rest of the Justice Department has been recklessly politicized) or the whole idea of the Rule of Law is exposed as a sham and anarchy will reign. The FBI indicts and if the AG doesn't follow through watch the entire Obama Administration come apart like a $10 souvenir cowboy hat in a rain storm.

The process in the past has been for the FBI to make a recommendation to the DoJ in private. That is to say the people and press would not be informed directly.
In important cases the AG or some high ranking assistant usually announces that the DoJ has decided to empanel a Grand Jury and seek an indictment based upon the FBI recommendation.
Some people have theorized that this matter may be before an existing Grand Jury even now because the DoJ has lawyers working with the investigators.

As far as I know, there is nothing but protocol that stops the FBI from holding a press conference and announcing that they have clear evidence of felonies committed by Hillary and several of her associates and that they have passed the evidence on to the DoJ with a recommendation she be indicted.

That would clearly put the DoJ in a very difficult position since no doubt they want this all to go away.

I appreciate your clarification. I looked at my post and recognized I was crossing a line from investigation to actually bringing charges. I figured I made the point I was trying to make and a clarification post would only enhance the discussion--and you have

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

I can't wait to see Hillary's public statement. My guess is she will not withdraw from the race. There will be talk of the vast right-wing conspiracy, over classification, did nothing wrong, etc., but she is going to keep fighting for the people who need her as their champion in Washington.

No doubt about that. She's going to be a victim, just like so many democrat voters. And she'll probably still get the nomination.

Not sure of the impact of this, just makes a confusing picture more confusing. Hope the FBI also is looking into the additional private emails described below.

All of the attention over H Clinton's emails has focused on various accounts at clintonemail.com

One of H Clinton's accounts was HDR22@clintonemail.com (there were others also)

Now it has come out that Clinton's aids were also using an additional set of non-govt email accounts.

hillaryclinton.com is the web and email domain of Friends of Hillary (the principal 2008 candidate campaign committee of H Clinton)

This is a different domain than clintonemail.com

During H Clinton’s period as Sec State, Bryan Pagliano, Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin also used email accounts from hillaryclinton.com


bpagliano@hillaryclinton.com

HAbedin@hillaryclinton.com

cmills@hillaryclinton.com



Another Clinton email acct is

Hr15@att.blackberry.net

which Clinton used when she was a senator.

All of this is from:

http://causeofaction.org/asset...n-Campaign-Email.pdf

which is a Feb 2016 letter from Senator Grassley.


note in the Grassley letter, that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has a "senate.gov" email account. But Clinton's senate email was
Hr15@att.blackberry.net

quote:

Originally posted by Kadin:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

I can't wait to see Hillary's public statement. My guess is she will not withdraw from the race. There will be talk of the vast right-wing conspiracy, over classification, did nothing wrong, etc., but she is going to keep fighting for the people who need her as their champion in Washington.

No doubt about that. She's going to be a victim, just like so many democrat voters. And she'll probably still get the nomination.

Doesn't matter if she attempts to 'soldier on' or not. My bet is, the money backing her will disappear and reappear behind Binden or someone else. They know she's a hopelessly weak candidate to begin with, and even the recommendation of charges by the FBI will send any independents, undecideds, or even some blue dog Dem's for the exit door.

The FBI 'can', and I believe 'will' sink the S.S. Hillary once and for all.

video at link

http://video.foxnews.com/v/481...dept/?#sp=show-clips

Fox reporting that Clinton skipped a cybersecurity briefing in 2011

lots of stuff happening

https://news.vice.com/article/...email-server-details

The FBI submitted a classified declaration to a federal court judge late Friday explaining details about the bureau's "pending investigation" into the use of a private email server by Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

The declaration addresses why the FBI can't publicly release any records about its probe in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by VICE News.

In a separate public declaration, David Hardy, the chief of the FBI's FOIA office, said there are a number of documents exchanged between the FBI and the State Department relating to the FBI's ongoing investigation of Clinton's use of a private email server, which stored all of the official government emails Clinton sent and received during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the FBI, which consulted with attorneys within its Office of General Counsel "who are providing legal support to the pending investigation," cannot divulge any of them without "adversely affecting" the integrity of its investigation.

Some of the documents at issue concern "server equipment and related devices obtained from former Secretary Clinton," Hardy said. The documents "consist of memoranda from the FBI to the Department of State regarding evidence. The purpose of these communications with the Department of State was to solicit assistance in furtherance of the FBI's investigation."

The FBI has asked the judge to dismiss VICE News' FOIA lawsuit on grounds that the documents it has about Clinton's private email server are located in files pertaining to a pending investigation that is exempt from disclosure because their release would interfere with active law enforcement proceedings.

"Materials that were retrieved from any server equipment and related devices obtained from former Secretary Clinton for the investigation, which would be responsive to [VICE News' FOIA request], are potential evidence in the FBI's investigation, or may provide leads to or context for potential evidence," Hardy wrote. "As this is an active and ongoing investigation, the FBI is continuing to assess the evidentiary value of any materials retrieved for the investigation from any such server equipment/related devices. Disclosure of evidence, potential evidence, or information that has not yet been assessed for evidentiary value while the investigation is active and ongoing could reasonably be expected to undermine the pending investigation by prematurely revealing its scope and focus."

Hardy noted that the FBI's probe was launched after the bureau received a referral from inspectors general of the State Department and the intelligence community about Clinton's use of a private email server.

FBI Director James Comey acknowledged during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee last October that the FBI received a "security referral" from the watchdogs. But beyond that, "the FBI has not and cannot publicly acknowledge the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation."

"As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said," according to the Washington Post report.

Motion for Summary Judgment at link.

The motion is 43 pages long and submitted by David Hardy of the FBI.

A few snap shots:

The FBI is the primary investigative agency of the federal government with authority and responsibility to investigate all violations of federal law not exclusively assigned to another agency, to conduct investigations and activities to protect the United States and its people from terrorism and threats to national security, and to further the foreign intelligence objectives of the United States.

Other than its acknowledgment of the security referral from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State, the FBI has not and cannot publicly discuss the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation without adversely affecting the investigation.

For example, if individuals become aware of the scope and focus of a pending investigation, they can take defensive actions to conceal their activities, elude detection, and/or suppress or fabricate evidence.

Additionally, in pending investigations, disclosure of evidence, potential evidence, or information that has not been assessed for evidentiary value could reasonably lead to the public identification of potential witnesses. This could reasonably be expected to impact a pending investigation by compromising witnesses

David Hardy of the FBI: “My responsibilities also include the review of FBI information for classification purposes”

“I have been designated by the Attorney General of the Unites States as an original classification authority and a declassification authority”

As part of the FBI Motion for Summary Judgment, there was a classified portion for the court.

quote:

"As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said," according to the Washington Post report.

This is speculation on the part of WoPo because the FBI has not indicated when they may “wrap-up” their investigation.


Hillary has repeatedly said she wants State to release all of her emails; this is cheap political theater because she knows that State cannot release the classified material.

The active investigation presents problems for those with FOIA requests because State and the FBI can stonewall on the grounds;
“that the documents it has about Clinton's private email server are located in files pertaining to a pending investigation that is exempt from disclosure because their release would interfere with active law enforcement proceedings.”

So the dance continues while we wait for the “Feebies” to “grind small and exceedingly fine”.

Remember the FBI is not noted for speed, and the case will have to be bulletproof or a DC jury will find that “she did the crime, but she not guilty”.

Bernie Sanders projected winner in Alaska and Washington today.

Hawaii results later.

if Hilz somehow survives this and somehow gets elected, she is going to find the rank and file DoJ hostile towards her the day she enters office.

I'm confused. Not particularly unusual.

From reading here and there and relying on my own meager experience, this is a potential criminal investigation and not exactly a "security review". US Attorney General Lynch has already stated that the DOJ is involved, "non-career" lawyers, among others, is the term she used. Which makes me think of Special Assistant US Attorneys, of those I know reasonably well.

We also "know" that a Grand Jury is involved because immunity has been granted. Grand Juries are involved with those issues unless it went through a Magistrate. I don't believe it's a Magistrate because by now we should know if it was.

So far, the FBI is involved, the DOJ and a Grand Jury. If that is correct, the Grand Jury will decide if an indictment is forthcoming. If the Grand Jury refuses to issue an indictment, then the matter could be brought to a Magistrate in what is called an Initial Appearance. Btw, usually not much happens there. Reading of rights and "do you have anything to say"...off to the slammer you go if considered a risk. HRC would presumably bond out. Political commentary aside.

Bear with me:

"In the case of federal offenses that are colloquially known as white-collar crimes (e.g., violations of the federal securities laws), agents often will need to obtain documents from suspects and innocent parties as part of the investigation. To do so, the agents can apply for a search warrant from a magistrate (or judge) to search a particular site for relevant evidence. Alternatively, the agents can request a subpoena from a grand jury.

A grand jury is an impartial body of citizens drawn from the community that has the responsibility to investigate whether a crime has been committed and by whom. In order to make that determination, a grand jury may issue subpoenas to whoever may have evidence relevant to the grand jury’s investigation. As part of its investigation, the grand jury also has power to compel testimony, including the testimony of a crime victim. If the grand jury concludes that there is probable cause to believe that a particular individual committed a crime, the grand jury will issue a charging document known as an indictment. Whenever a grand jury is involved in an investigation, the agents will work closely with an attorney from the U.S. government, either from the local U.S. Attorney’s Office or the U.S. Department of Justice, before making an arrest in order to determine whether a crime was committed and, if so, who is responsible.

Initial Appearance

If a magistrate has issued a search warrant for a suspect or if a grand jury has returned an indictment against a suspect, federal agents will arrest the suspect and place him or her in custody pending court proceedings. If there has been no arrest warrant or indictment, the arresting agents must bring the suspect before a magistrate (or judge), who then will determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the arrestee committed a crime. This initial appearance generally will occur as soon as practicable following arrest and must occur before 72 hours have passed." https://www.fbi.gov/stats-serv...inal-justice-process

Here's my confusion. Unless a different process has been selected, and I hardly think so but I'm always open to new and exciting possibilities, the Grand Jury decides. Not Comey, not Lynch, not the President.

Unless this follows, "If there has been no arrest warrant or indictment, the arresting agents must bring the suspect before a magistrate (or judge), who then will determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the arrestee committed a crime.(previously cited)" That's where discretion comes in. Grand Juries refusing to indict is not a common occurrence.

Good day for Sanders yesterday


Hawaii Sanders 23,530 votes // Clinton 10,125

Washington Sanders 19,159 // Clinton 7,140

Alaska Sanders 440 // Clinton 99

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Good day for Sanders yesterday


Hawaii Sanders 23,530 votes // Clinton 10,125

Washington Sanders 19,159 // Clinton 7,140

Alaska Sanders 440 // Clinton 99

Yet if you look at turnout numbers in those states and compare to 2008, turnout was down by around 11% overall. This is a trend throughout all Dem primaries, and one that could kill the eventual nominee.

jehzsa,

Wouldn't the prosecutors decide what to present to the grand jury ?

Both in exactly what the charges would be and who would be charged ?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Good day for Sanders yesterday


Hawaii Sanders 23,530 votes // Clinton 10,125

Washington Sanders 19,159 // Clinton 7,140

Alaska Sanders 440 // Clinton 99

It's funny though because it doesn't even matter.

The whole democrat primary is a giant sham. A farce. A huge make-believe, fictional production. The outcome was preordained years ago. There was always a zero percent possibility that Bernie would get the nomination.

I wonder if any of his supporters will figure out that they've been taken for a ride by the DNC.