Theoretically, Congress can enforce such things, but with the Department of Just Us, it might not go smoothly this time.

Thankfully, Congress can't actually toss someone in the clink, not directly, anyway. Congress sends over the citations and paperwork and the DOJ opens an investigation, maybe it will go to court.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Theoretically, Congress can enforce such things, but with the Department of Just Us, it might not go smoothly this time.

Thankfully, Congress can't actually toss someone in the clink, not directly, anyway. Congress sends over the citations and paperwork and the DOJ opens an investigation, maybe it will go to court.

You mean like the last FBI response by comey?

Leaked Powell email: "Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris.”

"kind of"? There's no "kind of" about it.

Yeah, well Powell is an asshole too! He supported BHO, BHO made HRC Sec State, Powell is not supporting DJT. He deserves to be mixed in with this whole criminal bunch - because he is one. Waa f'n waa, I told her not to blame me.

But thanks Colin for trying to save your sorry butt and admitting she screws up everything.

Driving to work this morning I heard that the next Wikileaks dump will contain lots of info on Clinton Foundation major donors getting appointments to ambassadorships.

I haven't found the story or link yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:
Driving to work this morning I heard that the next Wikileaks dump will contain lots of info on Clinton Foundation major donors getting appointments to ambassadorships.

I haven't found the story or link yet.

You don't need wikileaks to know that large donors are often nominated to various posts, including Ambassadorships. Gratitude is not completely dead, ya know.

I set out to raise money for El Diablo's campaign. I figured if I raised enough, maybe I could be Ambassador to Fiji. It's pretty plush, and after you are done, important people are nice to you and call you "Mr. Ambassador" for the rest of your life. You probably get invited to some pretty fancy dinners, parties, ribbon cuttings, grocery store openings, etc.

Anyway, my wife reminded me that I hate that stuff and am distinctly lacking in diplomatic temperament and skills. I gave it up.

Thank God Bush won anyway.

This might concern some people. How about the USPS and Department of Treasury donating to the DNC?

http://louderwithcrowder.com/d...ks-reveal-donations/

Remember the DNC leaks? (see Surprise! #DNCLeaks Exposes Media’s Collusion with Democrats…) Well they’re back at it again. That is, the hackers are hacking while Democrats are still sneaking about like sneaky sneaks. Corruption. It’s one of the perks. But don’t take my word for it, just refer to the hacks themselves for verification…

The hacker who has previously hacked the Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, released more DNC documents Tuesday that reportedly reveal more information about the group’s finances, personal contact information for donors, as well as its IT infrastructure.



The info above? It details who donated what to the DNC. Yeah, that’s the Postal Service at the very top of the list… As in the Postal Service who’s broke as all get out. Some financial advice? Might I suggest maybe not throwing loads of dough away while you’re drowning in bankruptcy. Just a thought. There’s also another huge government body listed among these DNC donating dingleberries – the Department of Treasury. Sensing a pattern?

CsT0cBCW8AE5lzN
For most, this won’t come as a shock. Democrats and corruption? Hardly news (see Surprise! New Hillary Emails Reveal Blatant Criminal Activity). The irony? The Democrat party attacks big businesses for “financial corruption” (see Bernie Sanders)… but is pretty financially corrupt itself. Leftists and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand. Transparency and integrity? Not so much.

Should be an open and closed email server, yes? Democrats are corrupt. Government entities fund the party which keeps the entity funded. But not so fast. Behold, pivoting to make it “Trump’s fault.”

Interim DNC Chair Donna Brazile [said in a statement] there’s “one person who stands to benefit from these criminal acts, and that’s Donald Trump.” “Like so many of the words Trump has uttered this election season, his statements encouraging cybercrime are dangerous, divisive, and unprecedented.”
BrendanFrasierLaughReaction GIF
Ah, look how quickly leftists jump to shift the blame onto anyone but themselves! Democrats could have avoided this scandal had they simply opted for honesty instead of digging new levels of corruption even the Devil finds enviable. For instance, encouraging people to use money in other ways. Ways which are not swaying politics. Like funneling money into the party which keeps paying for your existence (here’s looking at you, USPS!). Maybe a charitable organization. Hamster rescue, for an example. Helping someone kick start their new Mary Kay business. Ideas. Just ideas.

Democrats don’t care about corruption…
Here’s the sad part. You and I? We’ve always known the Democrats were in bed with other governmental agencies. We’re not surprised by this leak, we only feel justified in our suspicions. What’s sad is, people will still pull the lever for Hillary. Some of our fellow Americans will read this story, nod, and vote Democrat. Regardless of corruption. Millions of hamsters, meanwhile, will go homeless.

That’s our real problem. The DNC knows it’s going to get away with this. Because the Democrat base? They hate conservatives and conservatism far more than they hate corruption in their own party. Think about that.

Hillary Clinton is corruption defined. She’s the presidential candidate for the Democrats. Sleep tight.

How in hell is it even legal for a gov't organization, one funded by the taxpayers, to donate to any political party/person?

SEIU lobbying.

DNC - obviously being run by the best and brightest - "top men"...

"Hey, everyone, our server has been hacked - so this e-mail has your replacement password."

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Theoretically, Congress can enforce such things, but with the Department of Just Us, it might not go smoothly this time.

Thankfully, Congress can't actually toss someone in the clink, not directly, anyway. Congress sends over the citations and paperwork and the DOJ opens an investigation, maybe it will go to court.

Last night on The Factor they discussed the non show for subpoena, the way it works is Congress would have to vote with majority to issue orders to arrest a person that doesn't comply with the subpoena, then the Senate has to meet, discuss and vote with a majority, once that's done it's sent to the Just Us AG over the DC region, not the top AG, then the AG has to impanel a grand jury to indict that person.

Basically as o'reilly said, nothings going to happen, they'll never do it (congress) so you don't have to show for congressional subpoenas because you'll never get prosecuted.

I have a thought, though I may be a bit slow on the draw on this, how many yoga emails have been recovered by the hackers? Statistically speaking, how many actual personal emails have been recovered? Actual personal emails as in those meeting her criteria for deletion- ie yoga, wedding planning etc.

Good point. FBI knows 33,000 emails were deleted. They recovered a few thousand.

Take the sample of the ones they recovered and look at the ratio of work related to the total.

Then do the arithmetic to estimate how many of the 33,000 were likely work related. Wouldn't that be an interesting number to know ?

FBI Comey:

http://www.politico.com/story/...-twitter-bias-228174

things like Twitter offer us the opportunity only to encounter views consistent with our own, 24 hours a day,” Comey explained at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event Wednesday. “There’s an opportunity to feed that monster of a bias, that confirmation bias, all the time. So it accelerates that fractionalizing of our society, and it makes it much harder for people like me, like you, like the people in here, to speak reason to folks about our institutions.”

“I’m not going to talk about the email investigation but I see some of the things people say about this thing, I’m like, ‘really?’ But it becomes truth to so many people. And I don’t know how to unring that bell,” he said. “So I do think it’s become enormously challenging for people in institutions that depend upon the trust of the citizens to recapture trust where it’s been lost, explain ourselves in a way that allows them to resist demagoguery or the Twitterverse.”

Comey said he takes personally the perception that the FBI has been biased in its work because of how vital the public’s trust is to what the bureau does.

“I don’t know what your parents taught you, mine always taught me ‘you can’t care what people think about you.’ I do,” he said. “I do because the institution I’m lucky enough to lead depends upon the American people believing that we are honest, competent and independent.

So when we rise before a jury or we speak in Congress or we speak at a cookout, we are believed because they understand we are in the middle in American life. We don’t carry water for somebody else.”

********************
Director Comey, there is more intelligent & accurate discussion of Clinton's emails in this thread than is in your report.

"Bob Lee Swagger. You're free to go."

Unshackle the sergeant.

quote:

Originally posted by Kadin:
How in hell is it even legal for a gov't organization, one funded by the taxpayers, to donate to any political party/person?

It's the sum of the individual donations of the employees.

What Is the FBI Hiding?

By Andrew P. Napolitano

September 15, 2016

Earlier this week, Republican leaders in both houses of Congress took the FBI to task for its failure to be transparent. In the House, it was apparently necessary to serve a subpoena on an FBI agent to obtain what members of Congress want to see; and in the Senate, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee accused the FBI itself of lawbreaking.

Here is the back story.

Ever since FBI Director James Comey announced on July 5 he was recommending that the Department of Justice not seek charges against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a result of her failure to safeguard state secrets during her time in office, many in Congress have had a nagging feeling that this was a political, not a legal, decision. The publicly known evidence of Clinton’s recklessness and willful failure to safeguard secrets was overwhelming. The evidence of her lying under oath about whether she returned all her work-related emails that she had taken from the State Department was profound and incontrovertible.

And then we learned that people who worked for Clinton were instructed to destroy several of her mobile devices and to remove permanently the stored emails on one of her servers. All this was done after these items had been subpoenaed by two committees of the House of Representatives.

Yet the FBI — which knew of the post-subpoena destruction of evidence and which acknowledged that Clinton failed to return thousands of her work-related emails as she had been ordered by a federal judge to do, notwithstanding at least three of her assertions to the contrary while under oath — chose to overlook the evidence of not only espionage but also obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, perjury and misleading Congress.

As if to defend itself in the face of this most un-FBI-like behavior, the FBI then released to the public selected portions of its work product, which purported to back up its decision to recommend against the prosecution of Clinton. Normally, the FBI gathers evidence and works with federal prosecutors and federal grand juries to build cases against targets in criminal probes, and its recommendations to prosecutors are confidential.

But in Clinton’s case, the hierarchy of the Department of Justice removed itself from the chain of command because of the orchestrated impropriety of Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton, who met in private on the attorney general’s plane at a time when both Bill and Hillary Clinton were subjects of FBI criminal investigations. That left the FBI to have the final say about prosecution — or so the FBI and the DOJ would have us all believe.

It is hard to believe that the FBI was free to do its work, and it is probably true that the FBI was restrained by the White House early on. There were numerous aberrations in the investigation. There was no grand jury; no subpoenas were issued; no search warrants were served. Two people claimed to have received immunity, yet the statutory prerequisite for immunity — giving testimony before a grand or trial jury — was never present.

Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying — all captured on live nationally broadcast television.

Now the FBI, which usually serves subpoenas and executes search warrants, is left with the alternative of complying with this unwanted subpoena by producing its entire file or arguing to a federal judge why it should not be compelled to do so.

On the Senate side, matters are even more out of hand. There, in response to a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI sent both classified and unclassified materials to the Senate safe room. The Senate safe room is a secure location that is available only to senators and their senior staff, all of whom must surrender their mobile devices and writing materials and swear in writing not to reveal whatever they see while in the room before they are permitted to enter.

According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material.

Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the FBI have to hide? Whence comes the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials?

Who cares about this? Everyone who believes that the government works for us should care because we have a right to know what the government — here the FBI — has done in our names. Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI unclassified records, it would be of profound interest to American voters.

What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law — a pillar of American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War — mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath their protection, and no one is above their requirements. To enforce the rule of law, we have hired the FBI.

What do we do when the FBI rejects its basic responsibilities?


Andrew P. Napolitano [send him mail], a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written nine books on the U.S. Constitution. The most recent is Suicide Pact: The Radical Expansion of Presidential Powers and the Lethal Threat to American Liberty. To find out more about Judge Napolitano and to read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit creators.com.

Copyright © 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano

quote:

Last night on The Factor they discussed the non show for subpoena, the way it works is Congress would have to vote with majority to issue orders to arrest a person that doesn't comply with the subpoena, then the Senate has to meet, discuss and vote with a majority, once that's done it's sent to the Just Us AG over the DC region, not the top AG, then the AG has to impanel a grand jury to indict that person.

Basically as o'reilly said, nothings going to happen, they'll never do it (congress) so you don't have to show for congressional subpoenas because you'll never get prosecuted.

Yes, and here is why, the Senate Democrats can and will filibuster the attempt to vote for a subpoena.
Assuming that the Senate manages to pass the vote for a subpoena, the Dept. of Justice(?) will do nothing.

This late in Obama's term and given how slowly the wheels turn, there is effectively no time left for action even if the DoJ wanted to pursue it, which they certainly do not want to do.

For those of you who think POTUS Trump can fix this, I suggest that Obama will clean this all up with pardons on his last day.
A clean house at Justice next term, might investigate and could end the abuses of the Clinton Slush Funds, but most of the players will skate.

We had a chance to keep Obama out of office for a second term when there was no doubt what he would do, but the people spoke and the voters got what they deserved.

I know nothing of this source but I am curious if there is anything to this "deep web" and would love an explanation of what that is exactly.


Sources: Tens of Thousands of Files from Clinton, Blumenthal Computers Available on Deep Web

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2...ailable-on-deep-web/

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:
Yeah, well Powell is an asshole too! He supported BHO, BHO made HRC Sec State, Powell is not supporting DJT. He deserves to be mixed in with this whole criminal bunch - because he is one. Waa f'n waa, I told her not to blame me.

But thanks Colin for trying to save your sorry butt and admitting she screws up everything.

A racist asshole, why else did he jump ship to BHO?

quote:

Originally posted by TXJIM:
I know nothing of this source but I am curious if there is anything to this "deep web" and would love an explanation of what that is exactly.


Sources: Tens of Thousands of Files from Clinton, Blumenthal Computers Available on Deep Web

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2...ailable-on-deep-web/

That would be explosive if true. Though nothing will come of it. Too late to make any difference to Hillary's campaign and too late to bring down the traitors who knowingly covered this up and let it slide.