quote:

Originally posted by IrishWind:

quote:

Originally posted by Himiko:
A question. If the Super Delegates are going to determine the nominee, why do the Dems bother with the expenses add troubles of primaries?

Because even third word dictators have rigged elections to try to look legitimate.

And just think of all the money that gets dished around during these primaries....

Leaked audio: Hillary promises gun grab

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lP3wjxJwlk

She states "The Supreme Court is wrong on the 2nd Amendment"

Wonder what else she thinks is wrong with our constitution. Perhaps the 1st Amendment. She probably thinks that conservatives have too much freedom to speak out against her. Maybe she will revise the 4th Amendment. That will make it much easier for her to just break down someone's door and take away their guns. The 5th Amendment is probably wrong too. Much easier to convict if we are guilty until proven innocent

http://www.politico.com/story/...-plead-guilty-223473

Marcel Lazar (Guccifer) is scheduled to appear in federal court in Alexandria, Va. Wednesday morning for a change of plea hearing, according to court records.

A prosecution spokesman did not immediately respond to a message seeking confirmation that the guilty plea is part of a plea bargain with prosecutors.

A defense attorney declined to comment. Such plea deals usually oblige a defendant to assist authorities in all ongoing investigations.

Lazar was indicted in 2014 on nine felony charges stemming from his alleged hack into the emails of several prominent Americans, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a relative of former President George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, and former Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal.

A bit more on this ^^^ from FOX:



The Romanian hacker who claimed he easily breached Hillary Clinton’s personal email server is finalizing a plea deal with the FBI and U.S. attorney, Fox News has learned.

Marcel Lehel Lazar, the 44-year-old hacker also known as “Guccifer,” first gave indications he wanted to cooperate with the U.S. government in mid-April, during an interview with Fox News. Lazar, in a subsequent discussion, said he was working on a plea deal – he then suspended media contact earlier this month.

On Monday, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia confirmed that a change of plea hearing is now scheduled for Lazar on Wednesday morning. He originally had pleaded not guilty to the nine-count indictment when he was extradited to the U.S.

He is now expected to plead guilty to some charges.

It is not publicly known whether the deal being worked out has a provision for cooperating with federal authorities – and whether that has anything to do with the investigation into Clinton’s exclusive use of a private email server for government business while secretary of state.

But an intelligence source familiar with the FBI probe said if Guccifer pleads guilty to compromising Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL account – which is one of the nine charges – it will show that Clinton’s use of a personal server put sensitive information outside secure government channels and made it accessible to foreign hackers.

“[Clinton’s] gross negligence allowed this material to get out to an adversary,” the source said. “Through her communications with Blumenthal, [Clinton] contributed exposure and risk.”

Fox News was first to report about Lazar’s claims that he breached former secretary of state Clinton’s server. Lazar said he breached Blumenthal's AOL account by correctly guessing his security questions, and then using it as a stepping stone to the Clinton server.

While his claims could not be independently verified and he offered no hard evidence, he made similar statements during another interview in Romania with NBC News which aired after Fox’s reporting. Further, it was through Lazar’s hack of Blumenthal’s account that Clinton’s personal account was first revealed.

During an April 29 phone call with Fox News, Lazar said he wanted to work with the U.S. government.

"I was always showing that I want to cooperate … like two years [ago] when I met with the American authorities,” he said, adding that he showed he wanted to “cooperate and talk to the FBI agents” during the plane journey to the U.S. when he was extradited.

Though Lazar had agreed to meet again with Fox News the week of May 16, an official at the detention center in Alexandria, Va., where he’s being held, later informed Fox News Lazar was no longer taking visitors at this time.

A former Justice Department official, who declined to speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the FBI investigation, said it is not usual for defense attorneys to advise their clients to cut contact with the media as a plea agreement is finalized – as any discrepancies between the agreement and comments to the media can diminish the value of a client’s statement.

National security defense attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., agreed.

“If he was my client, I would strongly advise against talking to press,” he said. MacMahon recently represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling, who was convicted of leaking classified information. “You want to be in control of the process as best you can, having different people interact with your client does not serve your purpose.”

Lazar, who was extradited to the U.S. before his Romanian jail term was complete, currently faces a September trial for separate hacking charges. The charges, made public in June 2014, include alleged hacking of accounts belonging to a member of George W. Bush’s family, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and longtime Clinton confidant Blumenthal.

A review of recent federal cases by Fox News found that Guccifer’s extradition appears to be an outlier. Hackers typically are extradited once their prison terms are over in their native countries -- and typically for major financial theft.

The former Justice Department official said the U.S. government would not go to such extremes, “unless [Guccifer] has something they want.” Guccifer was effectively neutralized in a Romanian jail, when he was extradited to the U.S.

Lazar, speaking with Fox News, said he accessed the former secretary of state’s private server “like twice,” though he described the contents as “not interest[ing]” to him at the time.

Throughout the interviews, Lazar stressed that he used Russian proxy servers for his hacking because “they are the best” and claimed he could determine who else was inside by the looking at the IP addresses. Lazar said this included IP addresses from other countries.

"As far as I remember, yes, there were … up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he said.

After Lazar was flown to the U.S. on March 31, U.S. government officials confirmed that federal agents from three agencies previously met with Lazar in Romania where he was serving a seven-year sentence for breaching the accounts of Romanian officials.

Two independent sources also confirmed in recent weeks that Lazar spoke at length to an FBI agent during his extradition flight from Romanian to Virginia.

Asked why he agreed to be extradited when he faces the possibility of more than five decades in an American prison, Lazar said, "It was not my call." Then Lazar claimed that his extradition agreement contains conditions that block further charges.

While the claim cannot be independently verified, the statement could help explain why Lazar felt comfortable discussing his supposed hacking of the Clinton server – which was not mentioned in the nine-count federal indictment.

During an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Clinton was not asked about the FBI investigation or claims the server was hacked, but her campaign said in early May: "There is absolutely no basis to believe the claims made by this criminal from his prison cell. … We have received no indication from any government agency to support these claims, nor are they reflected in the range of charges that Guccifer already faces and that prompted his extradition in the first place.”

A review of her emails found more than 2,100 containing classified information – though she claims nothing was considered classified at the time.



http://www.foxnews.com/politic...al.html?intcmp=hpbt1

What is going on with Comey's investigation of Hillary? Is it typical of an FBI investigation to go on and on and on and on? The man is aware that there is national primary going on for the presidency, and the woman he is investigating is the presumptive nominee--right? He knows that a recommendation that she be indicted would affect her candidacy-- right? And yet-- it drags on interminably.

Seriously, is this investigation of Hillary within the time boundaries of what ordinarily happens in a major FBI investigation?

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
What is going on with Comey's investigation of Hillary? Is it typical of an FBI investigation to go on and on and on and on? The man is aware that there is national primary going on for the presidency, and the woman he is investigating is the presumptive nominee--right? He knows that a recommendation that she be indicted would affect her candidacy-- right? And yet-- it drags on interminably.

Seriously, is this investigation of Hillary within the time boundaries of what ordinarily happens in a major FBI investigation?

If I knew I was going to take her down and was more aligned with the Republican party I believe I would wait as long as possible to do so. That would give the Bern less time to strengthen his run or for Joe to get something going.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
What is going on with Comey's investigation of Hillary? Is it typical of an FBI investigation to go on and on and on and on? The man is aware that there is national primary going on for the presidency, and the woman he is investigating is the presumptive nominee--right? He knows that a recommendation that she be indicted would affect her candidacy-- right? And yet-- it drags on interminably.

Seriously, is this investigation of Hillary within the time boundaries of what ordinarily happens in a major FBI investigation?

Personally, I'm hoping Comey is waiting for the Democrat Convention to let out his findings and recommendation. That would be a terrific bombshell to drop at exactly that moment.

Apparently, a response I have made here has a "trigger word" in it. I think I prolly know what that word is, but wasnt aware there was even such a thing.

So...sorry to the admins if I have crossed the line. It was unintentional.

I am still optimistic that I will wake up one day and find earth-shakingly good news headlines on this process.

quote:

Originally posted by RichardC:
I am still optimistic that I will wake up one day and find earth-shakingly good news headlines on this process.

That would indeed be cause for a MAJOR party!!!

Some info on the Judicial Watch schedule

http://www.breitbart.com/hilla...llary-clinton-email/

The depositions are part of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit that seeks records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment (the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton, Inc. entities) while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

We have permission from the court to question these individuals for as long as seven hours:

May 18 – Lewis A. Lukens, deputy assistant secretary of state and executive director of the State Department’s Executive Secretariat from 2008 to 2011, who emailed with Patrick Kennedy and Cheryl Mills about setting up a computer for Clinton to check her clintonemail.com email account. (This testimony took a little over two hours.)

May 27 – Cheryl D. Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff throughout her four years as secretary of state.

June 3 – Stephen D. Mull, executive secretary of the State Department from June 2009 to October 2012, who suggested that Clinton be issued a State Department BlackBerry, which would protect her identity and would also be subject to FOIA requests.

June 6 – Bryan Pagliano, State Department Schedule C employee who has been reported to have serviced and maintained the server that hosted the “clintonemail.com” system during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

June 8 – 30(b)(6) deposition(s) of the State Department regarding the processing of FOIA requests, including Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, for emails of Clinton and Abedin both during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state and after.

June 28 – Huma Abedin, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff and a senior advisor to Clinton throughout her four years as secretary of state and also had an email account on clintonemail.com.

June 29 – Patrick F. Kennedy, undersecretary for management since 2007 and the secretary of state’s principal advisor on management issues, including technology and information services.

What legal obligation do any of these people have to open their yap on this. Can they not just sit there and give the JW attorneys the finger? I know JW has been instumental in bringing some of this stuff up, but wonder what effect their ongoing pursuit has in the bigger scheme....

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
What legal obligation do any of these people have to open their yap on this. Can they not just sit there and give the JW attorneys the finger? I know JW has been instumental in bringing some of this stuff up, but wonder what effect their ongoing pursuit has in the bigger scheme....

They are under oath to tell the truth.

BFD, you may say, but the bitterly contested proceedings often have unforeseeable twists and turns, you cannot be sure your questioner is letting on all (s)he knows, and the transcribed proceedings are certain to be fascinating to the FBI which will review them with enthusiasm.

Denying what you know, or making up details, can have severe ramifications, ranging from perjury to embarrassment, assuming you are susceptible to that ever more old-fashioned emotion. Impeaching a witness with a lie justifies the fact finder to ignore all testimony from that witness.

You should have the experience of catching someone in a lie while they are under oath.

If they actually refuse to answer, the court willl order them to do so, failing to obey which it is contempt of court. Stoney Lonesome! Remember Judith Miller, a reporter jailed for refusing to answer questions?

My feelings on this entire thing were summarized in a reply full of trigger words that has not seen the light of day here. Probably for the best as I let my frustration with this particular event, as well as things on the larger scale get the best of me and my keyboard.

We are exponentially approaching the point in this Country where serious civil unrest will erupt if the rule of law is not upheld and enforced. The good people will throw their collective hands up, and the evil will see it as open season. I believe this is indeed the plan by those who are arrogant enough to think they can reassemble the resultant pieces into a society of their dreams.

They obviously slept hard in history class.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Remember Judith Miller, a reporter jailed for refusing to answer questions?

Ah, no?

I do remember the case of DC-area surgeon Elizabeth Morgan, who spent 25 months in detention from 1987 to 1989 for contempt of court. She refused to reveal her daughter's whereabouts in a bitter custody case. This case brought a limit on how long you can be held in contempt in federal court.

quote:

Seriously, is this investigation of Hillary within the time boundaries of what ordinarily happens in a major FBI investigation?

Oh yeah.

Depending on how interesting the character is, it could take years for surveillance alone. Two, four, six...

Of course, during surveillance, evidence is gathered. And then you add on top of that---follow leads, hunches, consultations with Miss Cleo...

Fortunately, there is no set timetable. It takes what it takes, it is what it is. Ten years or more under surveillance is not unheard of. Where and what he had for breakfast, visits to .onion, does he use deodorant or not?

As to HC, I do believe that the deodorant thing is still ongoing.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Remember Judith Miller, a reporter jailed for refusing to answer questions?

Ah, no?

I do remember the case of DC-area surgeon Elizabeth Morgan, who spent 25 months in detention from 1987 to 1989 for contempt of court. She refused to reveal her daughter's whereabouts in a bitter custody case. This case brought a limit on how long you can be held in contempt in federal court.

quote:

Miller was later involved in the Plame Affair, in which the status of Valerie Plame as a member of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) became widely known. When asked to name her sources, Miller invoked reporter's privilege and refused to reveal her sources in the Central Intelligence Agency leak and spent 85 days in jail protecting her source, Scooter Libby.

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
Apparently, a response I have made here has a "trigger word" in it. I think I prolly know what that word is, but wasnt aware there was even such a thing.

Armageddon!

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:

quote:

Seriously, is this investigation of Hillary within the time boundaries of what ordinarily happens in a major FBI investigation?

Oh yeah.

Depending on how interesting the character is, it could take years for surveillance alone. Two, four, six...

Of course, during surveillance, evidence is gathered. And then you add on top of that---follow leads, hunches, consultations with Miss Cleo...

Fortunately, there is no set timetable. It takes what it takes, it is what it is. Ten years or more under surveillance is not unheard of. Where and what he had for breakfast, visits to .onion, does he use deodorant or not?

As to HC, I do believe that the deodorant thing is still ongoing.

Sooo let me take this scenario to a ridiculous stage...

What if nothing is brought forth this year and (God forbid) Clinton wins the election. Would she have the legal authority to fire Comey and squash the investigation? I would guess yes...

What if she wins the election but the FBI formally reccomends that charges be brought before she is inaugurated. Then WTH happens?

quote:

What if she wins the election but the FBI formally reccomends that charges be brought before she is inaugurated. Then WTH happens?

Let us pray.

"Our Father, Who art in the Heavens..."