quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Thinking about some rough numbers.

147 FBI agents. They got the server in August.

So just say 6 months time period.

Guessing that an experienced agent would cost about 140 to 150k per year (salary, benefits, and assuming Washington DC locality scale of 25%)

147 * 140k * .5 = 10 million dollars

This is just to get in the ball park. Pretty significant investment for an investigation.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Thinking about some rough numbers.

147 FBI agents. They got the server in August.

So just say 6 months time period.

Guessing that an experienced agent would cost about 140 to 150k per year (salary, benefits, and assuming Washington DC locality scale of 25%)

147 * 140k * .5 = 10 million dollars

This is just to get in the ball park. Pretty significant investment for an investigation.

Think how much it is costing the Clintons to keep tabs in all this, and how much the defense will cost if it comes to that. Hush money for staff, lawyers to intimidate witnesses, investigators to pull dirt on the ones who won't "cooperate."

It's lucky they were able to extort all that money from foreign governments and corporations, or they'd be heading for the poor farm like they were when they left government housing.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Thinking about some rough numbers.

147 FBI agents. They got the server in August.

So just say 6 months time period.

Guessing that an experienced agent would cost about 140 to 150k per year (salary, benefits, and assuming Washington DC locality scale of 25%)

147 * 140k * .5 = 10 million dollars

This is just to get in the ball park. Pretty significant investment for an investigation.

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:
Heck, NFL dropped a cool $20 mil just to look for the missing PSI out of Brady's balls.

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Thinking about some rough numbers.

147 FBI agents. They got the server in August.

So just say 6 months time period.

Guessing that an experienced agent would cost about 140 to 150k per year (salary, benefits, and assuming Washington DC locality scale of 25%)

147 * 140k * .5 = 10 million dollars

This is just to get in the ball park. Pretty significant investment for an investigation.

$10 mil would be a drop in the bucket for this magnitude of an investigation. Heck, NFL dropped a cool $20 mil just to look for the missing PSI out of Brady's balls.

All said and done, with all expenses, travels and what not, I think it's a lot more than $10 mil. Hope the taxpayers get its worth.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
http://www.orbmagazine.com/the...r-who-has-final-say/

Not specifically about the email scandal, but a satisfying read about her campaign slowly imploding.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...email-investigation/

Update March 29 8:10 pm: The article cited in this piece said that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, citing a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that that figure is too high.

The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.

quote:

by PATRICK HOWLEY
27 March 2016
1,488
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is kicking its Hillary Clinton email investigation into high gear.

The Los Angeles Times reported Sunday that the FBI and federal prosecutors are setting up interviews with Clinton’s top aides, a group that presumably includes Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

According to the Los Angeles Times:

Her attorney, David Kendall, declined to comment. Her campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, said in an email that Clinton is ready to work with investigators to conclude the investigation.

‘She first offered last August to meet and answer any questions they might have,’ Fallon wrote. ‘She would welcome the opportunity to help them complete their work.’

Lawyers for her closest aides – Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, Cheryl Mills, and Philippe Renes – either did not respond to messages or declined to comment.

The case hinges on whether Clinton violated a provision of the Espionage Act of 1913.

The law (18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) makes clear that anyone who has materials “relating to the national defense” cannot lose or give them away. The law is broken if “through gross negligence permits [materials] to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”

The penalty? A fine, a prison term of up to ten years, or “both.”

Clinton used a non-secure BlackBerry to conduct classified State Department business, and there’s evidence that her device was compromised on her very first official trip to China as Secretary of State.

On March 11, 2009, a State Department official whose name is redacted sent an email to another State Department official whose name is redacted. That email, obtained in a lawsuit by Judicial Watch, just might be the smoking gun in the Hillary Clinton email case.

The official stated that Hillary Clinton approached Boswell and asked him about Blackberry use. Specifically, Clinton asked about the fact that the Department had “intelligence concerning the vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”

The official wrote:

After this mornings “management meeting” with the A/Secys, Secretary Clinton approached Ambassador Boswell and mentioned that she had read the IM and that she “gets it”. Her attention was drawn to the sentence that indicates we (DS) have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.

Secretary Clinton has asked Ambassador Boswell for this information. Please prepare a short informal paper OR provide the A/Secy with a briefing on this matter. Your assistance is appreciated. The Secretary did not provide a “due date”…BUT the Ambassador would like to close this loop as soon as possible.

Since the FBI seized Clinton’s emails in August, the scandal has haunted her campaign.

Senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett threw Clinton under the bus, saying that the White House provided guidance to the State Department, telling employees to use official government email accounts.

Breitbart News first reported, based on high-level government sources, that of seven emails originally being analyzed by investigators to determine their classification status, two were deemed “Top Secret” and at least two were already classified when they were sent. Meaning, Clinton was sending and receiving classified information that she knew to be classified. The classifications were made by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Our exclusive report galvanized our readers and other media outlets, quickly picking up more than 12,000 social media shares and 5,000 comments. The Clinton campaign could not find a suitable talking point on the issue. The campaign tried to claim that Clinton did not send emails that were classified “when originated.”

But Intelligence Community C, now under attack by Team Clinton, confirmed, “IC classification officials reviewed two additional emails and judged that they contained classified State Department information when originated.”

The inspector general went on to make a comprehensive report, filed earlier this month. He found that “several dozen” emails had classified information in them. “These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined… to be at the confidential, secret and top secret/sap levels,” McCollough wrote in a letter to Congress. That’s right. A “sap” level is an even higher classification status than “top secret.”

Clinton’s server was highly vulnerable to attack, like the kind that occurred to multiple of her email contractors and could have happened to her when she opened a virus-infected email from her friend.

Breitbart News reported that Clinton’s server was operating on the same email network, and was housed in the same exact physical space, as the server for the Clinton Foundation, indicating that they were sharing a server. Additionally, that space was in New York City, not in the basement of Clinton’s Chappaqua, New York, home, as she claimed. Daughter Chelsea Clinton’s office was also using the email network.

Numerous Clinton Foundation employees used the clintonemail.com server for their own email addresses, which means that they were using email accounts that, if hacked, would have given any hacker complete access to Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails, as well.

Clinton’s server had an open webmail portal that gave potential hackers unrestricted access to Clinton’s personal information.

In fact, Clinton’s server went down at least three times during her tenure as Secretary of State, including weeks after the Benghazi terrorist attack. Clinton never even told her own IT Help Desk at the State Department that she was using a private server, keeping them in the dark about her secret activities.

Clinton even went so far as to hide the identity of the people running her private server, paying a company called Perfect Privacy, LLC. That company, based in Jacksonville, enters its own meaningless contact information into official Internet databases so that its clients’ identities will not be exposed.

quote:

Originally posted by Dallas239:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...email-investigation/

Update March 29 8:10 pm: The article cited in this piece said that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, citing a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that that figure is too high.

The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.

I think we are going to be disappointed. I suspect that the thoroughness of the investigation is simply intended to make the exoneration that much more impressive when Hillary is cleared of any wrongdoing.

quote:

Judicial Watch: Obama Administration Withholds Draft Whitewater Indictment of Hillary Clinton

MARCH 28, 2016
Cites ‘Privacy’ and ‘Scintilla’ of Public Interest in Material about Potential Clinton Crimes

Draft Indictment Bears on ‘Mrs. Clinton’s honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness … for the position she currently seeks.’

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it is asking a federal court to order the National Archives and Records Administration to release draft criminal indictments of Hillary Clinton. In its motion for summary judgment, the National Archives claimed that “the drafts involve a significant [Clinton] privacy interest that is not outweighed by any public interest….” In its March 11 opposition brief, Judicial Watch counters that allegedly “making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators bears on Mrs. Clinton’s honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness … for the position she currently seeks,” rendering the National Archives claim “neither serious nor credible.”

These developments stem from an October 20, 2015, Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. National Archives and Records Administration (No. 15-cv-01740)) seeking:

All versions of indictments against Hillary Rodham Clinton, including but not limited to, Versions 1, 2, and 3 in box 2250 of the Hickman Ewing Attorney Files, the “HRC/_ Draft Indictment” in box 2256 of the Hickman Ewing Attorney Files, as well as any and all versions written by Deputy Independent Counsel Hickman Ewing, Jr. prior to September of 1996.

The draft indictments relate to allegations that Clinton provided false information and withheld evidence from federal investigators to conceal her involvement with the defunct Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, the collapse of which lead to multiple criminal convictions. Clinton provided legal representation to Madison Guaranty as an attorney at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas. Clinton’s Rose Law Firm billing records, long sought by prosecutors, were found in the private quarters of the White House shortly after an important statute of limitations had expired.

In its motion for summary judgment, the National Archives confirmed that it has located the Clinton draft indictments, stating, “Included among the records of Mr. Starr and his successors are drafts of a proposed indictment of Hillary Rodham Clinton.” It adds, “Box 2250 contains a folder labeled ‘Draft Indictment.’ Box 2256 contains a folder labelled ‘Hillary Rodham Clinton/Webster L. Hubbell Draft Indictment.’ Multiple drafts of the proposed indictment of Mrs. Clinton were located by NARA [National Archives and Records Administration] within these folders.”

The National Archives claims that Clinton’s right to privacy supersedes the public interest concerning the draft indictments. It also claims that the release would violate grand jury secrecy protections and that Mrs. Clinton has ‘a strong interest in not being associated unwarrantedly with alleged criminal activity.’

The National Archives asserts:

While there may be a scintilla of public interest in these documents since Mrs. Clinton is presently a Democratic presidential candidate, that fact alone is not a cognizable public interest under FOIA, as disclosure of the draft indictments would not shed light on what the government is up to.

Judicial Watch counters that the public interest in finding what Mrs. Clinton was up to in the White House is paramount:

[A]t the time Mrs. Clinton was being investigated by the independent counsel for making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators, she was First Lady of the United States. The alleged false statements and withholding of evidence also allegedly occurred while Mrs. Clinton was First Lady of the United States. The D.C. Circuit has found that, as First Lady of the United States, Mrs. Clinton was an officer of the United States, at least for purposes of the Federal Advisory Committee Act….

Obviously, making false statements and withholding evidence from federal investigators bears on Mrs. Clinton’s honesty, credibility, and trustworthiness, not only as First Lady, but also in her subsequent government service as a U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State and for the position she currently seeks … The Archives’ assertions to the contrary are neither serious nor credible.

In its opposition brief, Judicial Watch also notes that when it comes to any grand jury secrecy, “there is no secrecy left to protect:”

Finally, enormous amounts of grand jury information about the independent counsel’s investigation of the First Lady have already been made public and are widely available. The relevant section of the January 5, 2001 Final Report [by the independent counsel] – which, again, the D.C. Circuit approved for publication and which is readily available on the Government Publishing Office’s website – cites to, references, or quotes testimony from at least 25 grand jury appearances by 21 witnesses between 1995 and 1998… Once published, independent counsel reports effectively eliminate grand jury secrecy. Similarly, the 206-page “Summary of Evidence” produced by the Archives to Judicial Watch pursuant to a separate FOIA request also discloses even more grand jury information.

In response to a separate Judicial Watch FOIA investigation, the National Archives released 246 pages of previously undisclosed Office of Independent Counsel internal memos revealing extensive details about the investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton for possible criminal charges involving her involvement with Madison Guaranty, including the infamous Whitewater/Castle Grande land transaction. The memos are “statements of the case” against Hillary Clinton and Webster Lee “Webb” Hubbell, Hillary Clinton’s former law partner and former Associate Attorney General in the Clinton Justice Department. Ultimately, the memos show that prosecutors declined to prosecute Clinton because of the difficulty of persuading a jury to convict a public figure as widely known as Clinton.

“It is absurd for the Obama administration to argue that Hillary Clinton’s privacy would keep a draft indictment from the American public,” said Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton. “One can’t help but conclude that the Obama administration is doing a political favor for Hillary Clinton at the expense of the public’s right to know about whether prosecutors believed she may have committed federal crimes.”

###

quote:

The Democratic Party failed to submit Sanders' primary registration paperwork on time to the D.C. Board of Elections. While the party received paperwork and fees from both Sanders and Hillary Clinton's campaign, it only turned over Clinton's forms on time.

quote:

Originally posted by Bisleyblackhawk:
Democrats did not inform the board of its oversight mistake until a day after the March 16 registration deadline, which will create another hurdle to including him. A Washington, D.C., voter has already filed a challenge against Sanders' eligibility.