Does anyone still believe that comey was not in the tank for the hildabeast?

Give everyone associated with the whole shit show immunity, then you cannot prosecute any of them. Great job on the part of the FBI.

Yet more, belated, proof that the corruption has spread to that organization(?) as well.

Some how not surprised.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
wow.

Comey didn't mention that did he?

Combetta, Cheryl Mills, and Heather Samuelson were central in selecting and deleting the emials. And the FBI gave them immunity.

Who was left to prosecute ?

John Bentel was the State Dept person who reportedly said not to bring up the Clinton email subject ever again to State Dept employees. As I recall, he denied saying that in his FBI interview.

Mills, who was given immunity, is also Hillary's personal attorney and was allowed to sit and advise Hillary when the FBI interviewed her.

Give me an example of where in the history of the US that has ever occurred. A material witness in a criminal investigation who has been given immunity being allowed to act as the attorney for the subject of that investigation. Ever? Any examples, even one?

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
I've spoken with two contractors that claimed to have the exact same security clearance as "The Hill "

and both stated that if they had done the exact same thing that Hill did, (as reported to the public anyway )

They would have been fired on the spot, stripped from ever working under a security clearance and gone through 5 months or more worth of N.S.A. legal b.s. at great legal expense, and most likely , some jail time.

Those of us that have been in the military understand what mishandling confidential documents means. Your career is over. Punishment will follow. At best, you will be able to serve out your term of service.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
FBI Director James Comey said in July that the agency determined Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling classified information, but recommended against bringing charges against her.

As I recall, he did not recommend against prosecution, what he said was that he didn't think a reasonable prosecutor would indict. It's not quite the same thing.

I'm a little perplexed about the immunity deals. My understanding (apparently faulty) is that immunity is tendered to obtain testimony by making it impossible to prosecute the witness based on what is revealed in the testimony. It is implicit in the deal that such testimony will be given and that the 5th Amendment excuse is not allowed. So if a person given immunity refuses to in fact testify, why can't the immunity be revoked? Or why can't the witness be charged with interfering with an investigation?

flashguy

Everything slowly coming out reinforces my initial impression that Comey let a criminal walk. I don't know his motive, but I will never respect the FBI again. Credibility is everything for a government agency. The FBI has squandered theirs to protect this evil witch.

Criminals walk sometimes, while thumbing their noses at the DA, because they can't get evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of a statutory crime.

Look at the former US District Court Judge Alcee Hastings who was impeached and removed from office by Congress. He was never convicted criminally of taking that bribe, because they couldn't get the other party to testify, proving all the required elements.

Look how many times John Gotti walked. There are many more.

Sometimes they "know" what you are doing, but don't quite have a case.

These 2 reports are the saddest interpretation of the FBI position.

Clinton said she never had training on classified info and she relied on everyone else to only send unclassified to her email.

The FBI said "ok". Who looks incredibly stupid ? Clinton ? FBI ? ("Both" would be a good answer)

http://www.politico.com/story/...on-emails-fbi-228607

“Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,” the FBI said in its Sept. 2 report. “She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

http://www.politico.com/story/...227689#ixzz4L7S9PAVX

Hillary Clinton never received training on how to handle classified information. By her own admission, she had little ability to discern whether a document included sensitive information.

ponder that for a minute. She routinely dialoged w foreign heads of state, but didn't know what was classified

And when she did handle sensitive materials, she relied on her subordinates to ensure that nothing important was compromised.
Taken together, her responses to questions from FBI investigators reveal a high-level government executive who apparently had little grasp of the nuances and complexities around the nation’s classification system — a blind spot that helped allow classified communications to pass through her private email server.


if this is true, the State Dept Security team should be fired. All of them.

breaking news this afternoon on Drudge is that Obama used a pseudonym when sending and receiving emails from Hillary

http://www.politico.com/story/...on-emails-fbi-228607

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
breaking news this afternoon on Drudge is that Obama used a pseudonym when sending and receiving emails from Hillary

http://www.politico.com/story/...on-emails-fbi-228607

What is the pseudonym? Carlos Danger II, or Zero?

quote:

I'm a little perplexed about the immunity deals. My understanding (apparently faulty) is that immunity is tendered to obtain testimony by making it impossible to prosecute the witness based on what is revealed in the testimony. It is implicit in the deal that such testimony will be given and that the 5th Amendment excuse is not allowed. So if a person given immunity refuses to in fact testify, why can't the immunity be revoked? Or why can't the witness be charged with interfering with an investigation?

I too am puzzled.
As soon as I read above that Comey had "given" various subjects immunity I wondered how Comey had the power to grant blanket immunity to various of these people. In fact I don't think he does have that power. I think that somewhere Federal Judges have to be involved.

Perhaps one of the learned members of the bar will come alone and enlighten us.

As to what good this all does since Hillary is obviously not going to be indicted before the election; I think it's doing a lot of good for the never-Hillary crowd out here.

Hillary cannot be elected based upon the vote of the Liberal-Progressive crowd alone. There are not enough registered Democrats and fellow travelers to come even close to getting the job done. Every part of this water torture results in fewer independent votes and lower turnout of the Democrat faithful.

I am reasonably confident that BHO will pardon some of the political actors in this farce and while I would like to see them in the Federal Prison system, I can settle for them being out of office.

quote:

She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.”

Well, duh!

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:

quote:

I'm a little perplexed about the immunity deals. My understanding (apparently faulty) is that immunity is tendered to obtain testimony by making it impossible to prosecute the witness based on what is revealed in the testimony. It is implicit in the deal that such testimony will be given and that the 5th Amendment excuse is not allowed. So if a person given immunity refuses to in fact testify, why can't the immunity be revoked? Or why can't the witness be charged with interfering with an investigation?

I too am puzzled.
As soon as I read above that Comey had "given" various subjects immunity I wondered how Comey had the power to grant blanket immunity to various of these people. In fact I don't think he does have that power. I think that somewhere Federal Judges have to be involved.

Perhaps one of the learned members of the bar will come alone and enlighten us.

As to what good this all does since Hillary is obviously not going to be indicted before the election; I think it's doing a lot of good for the never-Hillary crowd out here.

Hillary cannot be elected based upon the vote of the Liberal-Progressive crowd alone. There are not enough registered Democrats and fellow travelers to come even close to getting the job done. Every part of this water torture results in fewer independent votes and lower turnout of the Democrat faithful.

I am reasonably confident that BHO will pardon some of the political actors in this farce and while I would like to see them in the Federal Prison system, I can settle for them being out of office.

As far as I can tell, formal immunity is pursuant to an order of the district court, but it is only entered upon request of a US Attorney or the Attorney General. If that has been agreed, I'm not sure the formality has to be followed up.

"Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."

Because that is what we all say to the FBI during an interview about our knowledge of national security violations.

FBI dumped more Clinton docs today.

link:

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-...n-part-03-of-03/view

12MB pdf

This is all a well choreographed performance to simply wear out the attention span of the American people...it's an endurance contest.

'They' know as long as they keep point fingers in every other direction and keep people running in endless circles long enough, eventually, it'll become 'old news,' people will lose interest, give up, and go on with their lives, and everybody walks.



And a year from now, people will scratch their heads going 'What the H#ll happened? HOW did this happen?' But the boat will not only have sailed, it'll be long gone and over the horizon...

It's just yet another incremental increase in the blatant actions of the top .01% to condition the population.

Best case is it becomes a major focal point that can be used to awaken some voters in the election process. As such, perhaps more than ever, this election is critical opportunity to make your one, single vote be heard. Make it count. It's like a raindrop. One drop alone does nothing, but when joined with countless others, you can create river that can reshape an entire landscape.

BOSS

If it's an endurance contest, then the drums keep beating all the way through the next six weeks - easily.

We have the cards we have. Play them we must.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...te-email-server.html

tech expert Bryan Pagliano revealed to FBI agents that one of his State Department colleagues told him "in late 2009 or early 2010" that Clinton's use of a private email address to handle her correspondence "may be a federal records retention issue."

In a separate conversation, Pagliano's IT colleague, whose identity is redacted in the documents, said that "he wouldn’t be surprised if classified information was being transmitted."

Pagliano said his colleague asked him to convey the concern to Clinton's inner circle.

When he did so, however, Pagliano said Cheryl Mills shrugged off the warning, telling Pagliano that "former Secretary [sic] of State had done the same thing, [including] Colin Powell."

For her part, Mills told the FBI that she "may have" discussed federal records retention rules with Pagliano, "but was not sure." She also said she did not recall any conversations with the unknown State Department IT expert about the issue.

********************

Other Mills stuff:

As a Whitewater investigator for the Senate in the mid-1990s, Comey sought information from Mills; but wouldn’t you know, the then-deputy White House counsel claimed a burglar stole her notes.

Comey concluded that Hillary Clinton ordered Mills to block investigators. The obstruction, the Senate committee found, included the “destruction of documents” and other “highly improper . . . misconduct.”

Two years later, Mills was in the middle of another Hillary scandal, involving the then-first lady’s integration of White House and Democratic National Committee computer databases.

This time the House subpoenaed information from Mills, who not only withheld the documents but, a government committee said, “lied under oath” — prompting staff lawyers to send a criminal referral to the Justice Department demanding prosecutors charge Mills with obstruction of justice and perjury.

In 2000, a Commerce Department official testified that Mills ordered her to “withhold” from investigators e-mails and other documents exposing yet another scandal involving the first lady — the selling of seats on foreign trade junkets for campaign cash.

At the same time, a federal judge suggested Mills helped orchestrate a cover-up that blamed a technical “glitch” in the White House archiving system that conveniently resulted in the loss of 1.8 million e-mails under subpoena in the Monica Lewinsky, Filegate and other scandal investigations.

Fast-forward to Hillary’s tenure as secretary. In October 2012, Mills sorted through key Benghazi documents and decided which to withhold from a review board. She also leaned on witnesses. Deputy ambassador to Libya Gregory Hicks testified before Congress in 2013 that Mills told him in an angry phone call to stop cooperating with investigators.

The FBI chief was fully aware of Mills’ M.O. when he launched his investigation. Yet even after discovering she was in the middle of everything improper, if not illegal, he treated her with kid gloves.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/24/w...ighly-improper-aide/

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:

Makes bill clintons airport meeting with AG lynch then them dropping the investigation that much more interesting.