quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
God i hope that evil bitch loses

I'd settle for her eating shit and dying.

So go for the trifecta - losing, eating shit and dying.

^^^^ That is so wrong, starting a sentence with "So".

quote:

Originally posted by Himiko:
^^^^ That is so wrong, starting a sentence with "So".

So...I see what you did there

BOSS

quote:

Originally posted by Himiko:
^^^^ That is so wrong, starting a sentence with "So".

Not in this context. It's a logical way to smoothly tie what I posted to what rburg posted that provides an easy transition for the reader rather than an attempt to stall or demand attention before saying something pissy.

So...

I heard that they recently discovered more pieces of the missing Dead Sea Scrolls, documents written over 2,000 years ago. Thus proving that it's easier to find documents hidden and buried two centuries ago than emails from Hillary Clinton.

http://www.americanthinker.com..._wikileaks_dump.html

The Man Who Taught Hillary How to Shred Haunts Wikileaks Dump

By Jack Cashill
October 12, 2016

"Before I begin,” Hillary Clinton told an audience at the Brookings Institute in December 2015, “I want to acknowledge the loss of a beloved member of our foreign policy family, Sandy Berger.”

In fact, Berger appears repeatedly in the Wikileaks dump of emails from and to John Podesta, chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In reading through them, one gets the impression that if Berger was not an architect of the Iranian nuclear deal, he was at least a major salesman.

Hillary had good cause to praise Berger. In the run-up to the 2004 9/11 hearings, Berger taught Hillary by example that, if you were a prominent Democrat, it was possible to destroy damaging classified information and get away with it.

Like Pulp Fiction’s Winston Wolf, Berger’s job in the Clinton White House was to “solve problems.” In his first term, Clinton named Berger the deputy national security advisor job and promoted him to national security advisor in the second.

Unlike virtually all of his predecessors -- Colin Powell, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger -- Berger, a trade lawyer and lobbyist, had no foreign policy expertise. What he did have was the president’s confidence. Clinton had entrusted the then deputy with some highly sensitive assignments, most notably the astonishingly corrupt deals with China, and Berger delivered.

In April 2002, the former president called in his chits. He designated Berger as his representative to review intelligence documents in advance of the various hearings on 9/11. As a 2007 report by the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform specified, Berger did not welcome this assignment.

According to the archivists, Berger “indicated some disgust with the burden and responsibility of conducting the document review.” It was hard to blame him. To purge the archives of incriminating documents, Berger risked everything -- his reputation, his livelihood, his very freedom.

According to the House report, Berger made four trips to the National Archives. The first of his visits was in May 2002, the last in October 2003. He clearly left his mark. “The full extent of Berger’s document removal,” said the House report, “is not known and never can be known.”

On his first day in the archives, according to archives staff, “Had Berger seen ‘a smoking gun’ or other documents he did not want brought to an investigatory panel’s attention, he could have removed it on this visit.”

Unlike so many career bureaucrats, Paul Brachfeld, the inspector general of the National Archives, spoke out forcefully about the criminal activity he was witnessing. Unfortunately, Brachfeld met resistance from career bureaucrats more powerful than he. On January 14, 2004, the day Berger first testified privately before the 9/11 Commission, Brachfeld conferred with DOJ attorney Howard Sklamberg.

Concerned that Berger had obstructed the 9/11 Commission’s work, Brachfeld wanted assurance that the commission knew of Berger’s crime. He did not get it. On March 22, 2004, two days before Berger’s public testimony, senior attorneys John Dion and Bruce Swartz informed Brachfeld the DOJ was not going to notify the 9/11 Commission of the Berger investigation before his appearance.

DOJ’s failure to notify the commission set up one of the most bizarre days in the annals of American history -- Wednesday, March 24, 2004. Berger had already been apprehended stealing and destroying documents that the commission was expected to review. The commission members, at least the Republicans, did not know this. This much was evident in Chairman Thomas Kean’s initial exchange with Berger.

“We are pleased to welcome before the commission a witness who can offer us considerable insight into questions of national policy coordination, Mr. Samuel Berger,” said Kean. To those in the know what Kean asked next must have sounded like a punch line: “Mr. Berger, we would like to ask you to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?”

On April 6, 2004, two weeks after Berger’s appearance before the 9/11 Commission, Brachfeld called DOJ’s Inspector General Glenn Fine and again expressed his concern that the commissioners remained unaware of Berger’s theft.

Fine organized a meeting for April 9. Brachfeld reported to those gathered, “Berger knowingly removed documents and therefore, may have purposely impeded the 9/11 investigation.” Some of those documents, Brachfeld added, might have been “original.”

For all of his efforts, Brachfeld was unable to persuade the DOJ to inform the 9/11 Commission of Berger’s actions. The commissioners remained in the dark until July 19, 2004, three days before the 9/11 Commission released its final report, too late for any significant amendment.

They might not have known even then had there not been a leak from somewhere in the Bush administration. At the time this story broke in July 2004, Berger was serving as a campaign advisor to Senator John Kerry.

“Last year, when I was in the archives reviewing documents, I made an honest mistake,” he lied to reporters. A year later, when Berger pled guilty, the Times wrote off the theft and the surrounding hoopla as “a brief stir” in the campaign season.

In truth, Berger’s actions were no more honest than Hillary Clinton’s a decade later. Among his more flagrantly criminal acts, Berger swiped highly classified documents, and then, during a break, stashed them under a trailer at a construction site. He retrieved them at the end of the day and admittedly used scissors to cut the documents into little pieces before throwing them away.

These repeated thefts should have caused a whole lot more than a brief stir. “His motives in taking the documents remain something of a mystery,” reported the New York Times after Berger pled guilty. How different history would have been had the Washington Post contented itself with writing, “The motives of the Watergate burglars remain something of a mystery.”

Finally, on Friday, April 1, 2005, the Bush Department of Justice announced its plea deal with Berger, an embarrassingly lenient one at that -- a $10,000 fine and the loss of his top-level security clearance for three years, just in time for him to advise Barack Obama starting in 2008.

With John Ashcroft gone, it seems that the Bush White House lost control of its own Justice Department. For the record, Dion, Swartz, Sklamberg, and Fine were all holdovers from the Clinton administration. As far as I can tell, Fine, Swartz, and Sklamberg have only contributed to Democratic candidates in federal races and Dion has no record of federal contributions.

Less than a year later, Berger was back in the news. The global strategy firm over which he presided, Stonebridge International, added a new member to its advisory board. That member just happened to be the vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, a former congressman.

“A friend and counselor to me and to many of us, Sandy was a wise and brilliant man,” said Hillary of her departed consigliere, the man who risked his all to preserve the Clinton legacy.

On a personal note, after writing this, I have to ask, “Are there really Republicans willing to let these people back into the White House?” By the way, Tom Kean is one of them.

Prosecutorial incompetence has reached uncharted territory in these cases. The resources of the DOJ have been brought to bear in solving and successfully prosecuting many involved, complex crimes, but for some reason, they turn into ham fisted buffoons when there is any Clnton connection.

Jail time offense, but of course it won't happen:

Incompetence or corruption?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Prosecutorial incompetence has reached uncharted territory in these cases. The resources of the DOJ have been brought to bear in solving and successfully prosecuting many involved, complex crimes, but for some reason, they turn into ham fisted buffoons when there is any Clnton connection.

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ls-says-insider.html

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.


The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted .

More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

Especially angering the team, which painstakingly pieced together deleted emails and interviewed witnesses to prove that sensitive information was left unprotected, was the fact that Comey based his decision on a conclusion that a recommendation to charge would not be followed by DOJ prosecutors, even though the bureau’s role was merely to advise

“I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”

Latest Wikileaks all catagorized:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wiki-2/

New FBI files contain allegations of 'quid pro quo' in Clinton's emails

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...clintons-emails.html

FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a "quid pro quo" between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News.

"This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who has been briefed on the FBI interviews, told Fox News.

He said "there was an alleged quid pro quo” involving Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and the FBI “over at least one classified email.”
Related Image
AP Photo Expand / Contract

AP (Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT))

“In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed,” Chaffetz said.

As Fox News previously reported, interviews released earlier this month, known as 302s, reveal the serious allegation that Kennedy applied pressure to subordinates to change classified email codes so they would be shielded from Congress and the public. Fox News was told as far back as August 2015 that Kennedy was running interference on Capitol Hill. But Kennedy, in his FBI interview on Dec. 21, 2015, “categorically rejected” allegations of classified code tampering.

Chaffetz has not read the new documents, which include classified records that must be read in a security facility. But based on a briefing from staffers, Chaffetz said there are grounds for at least "four hearings" after the recess. Chaffetz, who is currently out of town campaigning, said allegations came from witnesses though there is some conflict in the record.
Predictions Map

See the Fox News 2016 battleground prediction map and make your own election projections.
See Predictions Map →

"Both myself and Chairman Devin Nunes of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence are infuriated by what we have heard," he added.

"Left to their own devices the FBI would never have provided these [records] to Congress and waited until the last minute. This is the third batch because [the FBI] didn’t think they were relevant," Chaffetz said.

The second congressional source backed the assessment, and both added that they expect the FBI interviews will be released as early as Monday as part of ongoing FOIA requests.

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
God i hope that evil bitch loses

I hope someone with some balls investigates her and Bill and brings appropriate charges for every underhanded thing they've ever done.

One more disturbing report.

It is from the Weekly Standard. They hate Trump, but check this:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...erup/article/2004907

A senior State Department official repeatedly pressed the FBI to change the classification of emails stored on Hillary Clinton's private server, according to FBI interview summaries set to be released in the coming days . Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, discussed providing additional overseas slots for the FBI in exchange for revisions to classifications of the sensitive emails.

The 34 summaries, known as FBI "302s," will be released in connection with a Freedom of Information Act request and after pressure from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Two additional 302s are being withheld because they contain information classified at the Top Secret/SAP level.

The summaries, described to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by five intelligence and congressional officials familiar with their contents, are sure to bolster Donald Trump's criticism of corruption at Clinton's State Department, the FBI and Washington, D.C., with just more than three weeks until the 2016 presidential election.

The story about potential reclassification of Clinton emails unfolds over three of the summaries. A senior FBI official in the international operations division describes conversations with Kennedy about the classification of emails.

In his interview, this official says his section of the FBI had attempted to contact Kennedy repeatedly over the course of several months in the spring of 2015. Kennedy did not return the calls. In the late spring or early summer of 2015, the FBI official reported to work surprised to find a note indicating that Kennedy had called.

According to the summary, Kennedy wanted help. The FBI official spoke with Kennedy and Kennedy raised the possibility of keeping at least one Clinton email from public disclosure by obtaining a "B9" exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, a rarely used exemption that refers to "geological and geophysical information and data." One email in particular concerned Kennedy and, according to the FBI summary, providing a B9 exemption "would allow him to archive the document in the basement of the department of state never to be seen again."

The FBI official told Kennedy that he would look into the email if Kennedy would authorize a pending request for additional FBI personnel in Iraq.

A summary of an interview with the section chief of the FBI records management division provides further evidence of Kennedy's attempts to have the classification of some sensitive emails changed. The FBI records official, whose job includes making determinations on classification, told investigators that he was approached by his colleague in international operations after the initial discussion with Kennedy.

The FBI records official says that his colleague "pressured" him to declassify an email "in exchange for a quid pro quo," according to the interview summary. "In exchange for making the email unclassified State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden." The request was denied.

In the days that followed, the FBI records official attended an "all-agency" meeting at the State Department to discuss the ongoing "classification review of pending Clinton FOIA materials." One of the participants at the meeting asked Kennedy whether any of the emails were classified. Kennedy purposely looked at the FBI records chief and then replied: "Well, we'll see."

After the all-agency meeting, the FBI records section chief met privately with Kennedy. According the FBI interview summary, he reported that "Kennedy spent the next 15 minutes debating the classification of the email and attempting to influence the FBI to change its markings."

The FBI records section chief also told investigators that he sat in on a conference call between Kennedy and FBI Counterterrorism chief Michael Steinbach. Kennedy again pressured Steinbach to change an email from classified to unclassified. Steinbach declined.

*****************************
guess Comey forgot to mention this

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:
Incompetence or corruption?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Prosecutorial incompetence has reached uncharted territory in these cases. The resources of the DOJ have been brought to bear in solving and successfully prosecuting many involved, complex crimes, but for some reason, they turn into ham fisted buffoons when there is any Clnton connection.

Pure, and blatant corruption

But what is new about that? Those 2 slimy crooks have been doing that stuff for decades.

quote:

Incompetence or corruption?

The Special Ops guy in the interview said the security was characterized as having, "a lack of integrity and a lack of discipline". A good description of this administration in a nutshell.
I'm leaning toward heavy on the corruption with just enough incompetence to get our country in the shape it's in today.

"...you mean like wipe it with a cloth?..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rha6Wamfp0

So the FBI attempted to contact Kennedy by phone over several months but he would not return their calls? "Shoot Bob, he won't return our calls. I guess that lead is a dead end. Who's next on the list to call"? You are the friggin FBI! Go to his place of work or home and ask him in person! Fumbling Bumbling Idiots is right. I'd be willing to be that if the FBI needed to ask me questions I would come home to see them sitting on my doorstep. The piss poor "investigation" and corruption is just incredible...

So now Hillary is all upset and butt hurt that the Russkies have hacked her email. But we're not supposed to be worried about her incompetence which led to our enemies being able to hack her private email server? We're not supposed to hold her accountable for exposing important secret information to our enemies? We're not supposed to worry about her judgment regarding national security, but we are supposed to be upset at this fictional connection between Trump and Putin?

Were this a Mel Brooks movie we'd all be rolling in the aisles with laughter at the insanity of it all.