Justice Department Employees gave $75,000 to Hillary's campaign

Now more than ever a special prosecutor is necessary, Trump got $380 in donations, department is in the bag for Hitlery

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Not a damned thing will happen to Hilary.
Nothing.
They let the IRS blatantly and illegally discriminate against Conservatives and what happened - Nothing.
They let the Black Panther Radicals on camera intimidate voters illegally and what happened - Nothing.
They covered up incompetence in Benghazi and what happened - Nothing.
Nothing will happen to her.

Para has asked for the negative Nancy comments to stop more than a few times. The last thing anyone wants is for this thread to get locked because of you Debbie Downers who don't get the hint

It is interesting that there have been two articles in major newspapers in the last week with leaks about how the FBI has not found evidence of criminal wrongdoing. It would seem to conflict with earlier leaks how about the plethora of evidence that they have found and how there was more than enough for them to recommend indictment, but I guess we'll find out in a couple weeks or so what the truth is

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
Para has asked for the negative Nancy comments to stop more than a few times.

Yes, he has.

quote:

It is interesting that there have been two articles in major newspapers in the last week with leaks about how the FBI has not found evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

I would imagine that "Friends of Hillary" can be relied upon to plant this sort of leak frequently.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
Para has asked for the negative Nancy comments to stop more than a few times.

Yes, he has.

And he has been way more than tolerant of this idiocy.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
It is interesting that there have been two articles in major newspapers in the last week with leaks about how the FBI has not found evidence of criminal wrongdoing. It would seem to conflict with earlier leaks how about the plethora of evidence that they have found and how there was more than enough for them to recommend indictment, but I guess we'll find out in a couple weeks or so what the truth is

There are enough sources and documents involved that there may be no contradiction at all. The press has a habit of depicting one slice of a story in great detail and then acting as if that adequately describes the whole whether it does or not.

WaPo
By Matt Zapotosky May 10 at 2:30 PM

Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.

Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said.

Investigators consider Mills — who served as chief of staff while Clinton was secretary of state — to be a cooperative witness. But the episode demonstrates some of the tension surrounding the criminal probe into possible mishandling of classified information involving the leading Democratic presidential candidate. In the coming weeks, prosecutors and FBI agents hope to be able to interview Clinton herself as they work to bring the case to a close.

The incident was described to The Washington Post by several people, including U.S. law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing and those involved could face professional consequences for discussing it publicly.


It is not completely unknown for FBI agents and prosecutors to diverge on interview tactics and approach, and the people familiar with the matter said Mills answered investigators’ questions. Mills and her lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, also asked for breaks more than once to confer, the people said.

The questions that were considered off limits had to do with the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department so they could possibly be released publicly, the people said. Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about that — and ultimately never was in the recent interview — because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege, the people said.


So far, investigators have found scant evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing, though they are still probing the case aggressively and charges have not been ruled out. In recent weeks, they have been interviewing Mills and other aides. One former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, Bryan Pagliano, was granted immunity so he would cooperate as part of the probe.

There is no indication a grand jury has been convened in the case.

In response to this story, Wilkinson said, “Ms. Mills has cooperated with the government.” The Clinton campaign also did not provide a response, but spokesman Brian Fallon has said repeatedly that Clinton is willing to answer investigators’ questions, and he added in a recent statement that “we hope and expect that anyone else who is asked would do the same.”

Clinton herself said on CBS’s “Face The Nation” Sunday that she has “made it clear I’m more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime” and that she looked forward to the inquiry being “wrapped up.”
[Cheryl Mills’s Q&A with The Washington Post]


In an interview with The Washington Post last year, Mills agreed of Clinton’s email “if you could do it again, you’d just do it again differently,” but Mills said she did not recall the topic “being a major area of conversation or engagement.”

“I wish there had been a lot more thought and deliberation around it, but I can’t tell you that I can offer you that insight that there was,” she said. “I think it was just a continuation of a process that she had been engaged in, in terms of using her own account, and it was consistent with what the Department had seen in the past.”


Mills said in the interview that she did not recall having conversations about security vulnerabilities. She would not say then whether she had spoken to the FBI but offered the general assurance that “we’ve obviously sought to be, to cooperate with the FBI and to provide them whatever information they’ve needed to be able to conduct the inquiry that they’re doing.”

Her attorney, Wilkinson, is a seasoned lawyer who handled many high-profile cases when she worked at the Justice Department as an assistant U.S. attorney. She received the department’s highest award for the prosecution of the Oklahoma City bombers.

Spokesmen for the FBI, the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia declined to comment.


The issue of Clinton’s use of a private email server was referred to the FBI in July after the Office of the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community found that some of the emails that traversed her server contained classified material. A Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence found Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information. The Post also found, though, emails with classified information written by about 300 other people inside and outside the government.

Critics of Clinton have said her use of a private server exposed sensitive information to a possible breach, and Clinton herself has said using it was a mistake.

Adam Goldman contributed to this report.

Just thinking about Cheryl Mills FBI testimony.

She walked out because of a question about the procedure to produce emails for the State Dept. She claimed attorney-client privilege. There was an agreement made w DoJ.

Clinton has publicly said that her attorneys handled the filtering of the emails between work related and personal. It was reported that they sorted w a word search.

Why would there be attorney-client privilege over something like how they produced emails for State Dept ? Seems like a straight forward question.

I really hope that question is important because perhaps the FBI found things of interest in the deleted emails.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Just thinking about Cheryl Mills FBI testimony.

She walked out because of a question about the procedure to produce emails for the State Dept. She claimed attorney-client privilege. There was an agreement made w DoJ.

Clinton has publicly said that her attorneys handled the filtering of the emails between work related and personal. It was reported that they sorted w a word search.

Why would there be attorney-client privilege over something like how they produced emails for State Dept ? Seems like a straight forward question.

I really hope that question is important because perhaps the FBI found things of interest in the deleted emails.

I'm surprised by this claim of attorney client privilege, how much reverence it seems to be receiving.

In 40 years as a lawyer, deposed dozens of times in connection with business I handled, not once did attorney client privilege prevent me from having to answer questions.

The elements of a successful assertion of the privilege are quite narrow, specific and rarely met in my experience.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Just thinking about Cheryl Mills FBI testimony.

She walked out because of a question about the procedure to produce emails for the State Dept. She claimed attorney-client privilege. There was an agreement made w DoJ.

Clinton has publicly said that her attorneys handled the filtering of the emails between work related and personal. It was reported that they sorted w a word search.

Why would there be attorney-client privilege over something like how they produced emails for State Dept ? Seems like a straight forward question.

I really hope that question is important because perhaps the FBI found things of interest in the deleted emails.

I'm surprised by this claim of attorney client privilege, how much reverence it seems to be receiving.

In 40 years as a lawyer, deposed dozens of times in connection with business I handled, not once did attorney client privilege prevent me from having to answer questions.

The elements of a successful assertion of the privilege are quite narrow, specific and rarely met in my experience.

In my job, we only mark communications with attorney client privilege internally when we are dealing with strategy regarding the other party so it can't be subpoenaed. Maybe that's what they're trying? Who knows..... This constant lawyering shit with these politicians gets old.

I was listening to one of the talk shows yesterday and they mentioned the fact that Bryan Pagliano has seemed to drop off the face of the earth.

Witness protection maybe ??

pretty scary:

Cheryl Mills won't answer FBI questions, but

http://www.bloomberg.com/polit...esta-cheryl-mills-ap

Clinton VP search to be headed by John Podesta and Cheryl Mills

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
pretty scary:

Cheryl Mills won't answer FBI questions, but

http://www.bloomberg.com/polit...esta-cheryl-mills-ap

Clinton VP search to be headed by John Podesta and Cheryl Mills

Is Mills her consigliere or is she just a caporegime? Hillary should use more accurate title so we can keep up.

Shotgun Joe is still in the bullpen loosening up his arm. Says he "would have been the best president".


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...nt/story?id=39023077

Vice President Joe Biden says he “would have been the best president” if he had mounted a successful campaign in the 2016 election, but that forgoing the race was the right decision for his family.

Speaking with “Good Morning America” co-anchor Robin Roberts in an exclusive interview that aired today, Biden said he had planned to run but changed course only after his eldest son Beau died last May.

“No one should ever seek the presidency unless they're able to devote their whole heart and soul and passion into just doing that,” he said. “And, Beau was my soul. I just wasn't ready to be able to do that. But, so, my one regret is my Beau's not here. I don't have any other regrets.”

For months last year the question of whether Biden would run loomed over the Democratic presidential contest. Then in October he announced that he and his family were still dealing with the grief over Beau’s death and he would not seek the presidency.

Beau Biden died in May 2015 at the age of 46 after a battling brain cancer for years.

The vice president’s comments came during an interview with Roberts about his “Cancer Moon Shot” initiative, which aims to accelerate the effort to improve treatments for cancer and to possibly find a cure.

“It's kind of bittersweet,” Biden told Roberts of his role leading the administration’s fight against the disease that took his son. “But this is -- this allows me to pour all my energies into -- doing somethin' that -- hopefully will -- five years from now if -- someone's diagnosed with what my Beau was diagnosed with, they -- they live.”

His decision last year not to run was viewed as a boost to Hillary Clinton’s run for the Democratic Party’s nomination.

Biden has not endorsed either Clinton or Sen. Bernie Sanders, her opponent in the primary, but he said he thinks Clinton will be the nominee.

“I feel confident that Hillary will be the nominee," Biden said, "and I feel confident she’ll be the next president."

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Clinton VP search to be headed by John Podesta and Cheryl Mills

So her Veep candidate is tarred with the same brush before even being chosen? Cool.

Charity fraud? I'm sure there's a mistake.


http://video.foxnews.com/v/488...hpvid1#sp=show-clips

quote:

Originally posted by dusty3030:

Is Mills her consigliere or is she just a caporegime?

Mills' family would never allow a Clinton or Rodham in. They have standards, after all.

So she's gotta be the consigliere.

Draft Indictment of Hillary withheld by Archives

Judicial Watch


MAY 10, 2016
New details continue to emerge from Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act fight with the National Archives over the release of draft indictments of Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater case. According to the Archives, release of the indictments—drafted by an independent counsel examining the Clintons’ relationship to a corrupt Arkansas S&L and an alleged cover-up—would violate grand jury secrecy and Mrs. Clinton’s personal privacy. FOIA request denied.

Judicial Watch declined to take “no” for an answer, and so off to court we went. The case is now in the hands of a federal judge.

In the course of litigation, new facts have come to light. Under FOIA, the Archives must produce a “Vaughn Index”—a tantalizing and at times maddening document. A Vaughn Index is the government saying: we are not giving you the documents, but here is an “index” of what we are not giving you, and why we are not giving it to you. Your tax dollars at work.

In the National Archives Vaughn Index for the case, we learn that the government is sitting on at least twelve versions of the the draft indictment of Mrs. Clinton, including one “listing overt acts.” From the public record, we know that the Whitewater case centered around whether Mrs. Clinton, while First Lady, lied to federal investigators about her role in the corrupt Arkansas S&L, concealed documents (including material under federal subpoena), and took other steps to cover-up her involvment. Prosecutors ultimately decided not to indict Mrs. Clinton, concluding that they could not win the complicated, largely circumstantial case against such a high-profile figure.

The draft indictments range from three to forty pages—the former likely excerpts or “scraps” from longer documents, the Vaughn Index indicates. Some of the drafts doubtless are copies but many clearly are not. A total of 451 pages of draft indictments are being withheld by the Archives.

In its final brief in the case, Judicial Watch took a wrecking ball to the Archives’ grand jury secrecy and personal privacy claims. Judicial Watch noted “the truly enormous quantities of grand jury material already made public” in the independent counsel’s final report. Judicial Watch provided the court with a detailed list of grand jury and non-grand jury material that had already been made public. If there ever was a valid claim to grand jury secrecy in this closely scrutinized case, it is long gone.

The Judicial Watch brief noted that the Archives “fails to identify a single, specific privacy interest Mrs. Clinton still has in the draft indictments” following publication of the independent counsel’s report and “hundreds of pages of grand jury materials, non-grand jury materials, and independent counsel legal theories and analysis that are already in the public domain.”

A typical FOIA privacy claim centers on unwarranted invasions of personal privacy. But in Mrs. Clinton’s case, the brief noted, the Archives “makes no claims that disclosure of the draft indictments will reveal any particular personal, medical or financial information about Mrs. Clinton, much less anything intimate or potentially embarrassing.”

Mrs. Clinton of course is one of the most famous women in the world, a former First Lady, senator and secretary of state, and the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for president of the United States. The findings of an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton told the truth to federal investigators and withheld evidence under subpoena while she was First Lady is clearly matter of public interest as voters weigh her suitability for the highest office in the land.

Link

FBI director rebuffs Hillary's claim that the FBI is only conducting "security inquiry" on emails.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...s.html?intcmp=hphz10

Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere “security inquiry.”

But when asked Wednesday by Fox News about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn’t know what "security inquiry" means -- adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

The FBI director reiterated that he’s “not familiar with the term security inquiry” when told that is the phrase Clinton has used.

As for the timeline for the investigation, Comey, during a briefing with reporters, said he prefers doing the investigation “well” over promptly and said he’s not “tethered” to a schedule.

The briefing comes amid reports that FBI investigators have been meeting with top aides in Clinton’s inner circle, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. The interviews have stoked speculation that the investigation may soon be drawing to a close, in the heat of the 2016 political season.

Asked Wednesday if he would make a public report, regardless of whether criminal charges are pursued, Comey said he would not say at this time. But he said there are “no special set of rules for anybody that the FBI investigates.”

Clinton and her campaign team repeatedly have described the probe as a security inquiry. Most recently on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Clinton used the term when asked how she’d respond to people worried the FBI probe is a “big deal.”

“I say what I’ve said now for many, many months,” Clinton said. “It’s a security inquiry. I always took classified material seriously. There was never any material marked classified that was sent or received by me, and I look forward to this being wrapped up.”

The FBI probe is proceeding as Clinton tries to wrap up the Democratic presidential nomination. Though she leads by hundreds of delegates, she has not yet clinched the nomination and rival Bernie Sanders is vowing to take the fight to the convention – he fueled his own underdog bid with a primary win Tuesday in West Virginia.

There appear to be several moving parts in the FBI investigation.

Former State Department IT staffer Bryan Pagliano, who installed and maintained the server, has been granted immunity by the Department of Justice and is cooperating with the FBI.

In another development, the infamous Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer,” who was extradited to the U.S. to face cyber charges, recently told Fox News he easily breached Clinton’s personal email server in early 2013.

Fox News could not independently confirm the claims. But an intelligence source told Fox News last month that Guccifer, whose real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar, could help the FBI make the case that Clinton’s email server may have been compromised by a third party. Lazar told Fox News that he spoke with the FBI at length on the plane when extradited from Romania to Virginia last month.

Speaking from the Virginia jail where he’s being held, Lazar said the conversation was "80 minutes ... recorded," and he took his own notes. A government source confirmed that the hacker had a lot to say on the plane but provided no other details.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch also was asked earlier this week about the timeline for the Clinton email probe, but said she could not make any “prediction.”