poor Huma gets no respect now

2010 Clinton: "I have one daughter. But if I had a second daughter, it would (be) Huma."

Today: 'Now they apparently want to look at emails of one of my staffers – and by all means they should look at them,'


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...decision-emails.html

So, now Huma has gone to being "just a staffer" - from vice-chair of her campaign, chief of staff, and "like a second daughter"...


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton blasted the FBI again Monday – and this time brought up the bureau's probe into emails maintained by longtime aide Huma Abedin – dismissing the idea she did anything wrong while minimizing the close role of her staffer.

'Now they apparently want to look at emails of one of my staffers – and by all means they should look at them,' Clinton said, bring up the FBI attack at the start of a rally before a room packed with students at Kent State University. 'And I am sure they will reach the same conclusion they did when they looked at my emails for the last year. There is no case here. And they said it wasn’t even a close call,' Clinton said.
The staffer Clinton failed to name was Abedin, who has been at her side since Clinton was first lady. Clinton considers her like a surrogate daughter as well as longtime confidant.
Abedin has been known for years to be Clinton's gatekeeper, and has been revealed in State Department emails as someone constantly consulted on matters relating to Bill Clinton, top donors, close friends, celebrities, who gets face time with the first lady, and paid speeches that pose potential conflicts.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...s.html#ixzz4OhCSVSNG

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Piers Morgan gets it…

https://www.google.com/amp/www...ma-Bill-Hillary.html

Holy catfish, I am astounded. After watching him talk about guns, I was sure he was a blithering, slobbering idiot. Reading his comments above though, he is right on the mark. Color me shocked!

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Question.... does a past high crime count, or must it be one committed while in the present office?

Read on some law website that such high crime has to occur during her term as president.

Basically, unless this news sway enough voters, there will be nothing anyone can do to stop her. She can be tried and jailed after her term but that's hardly any consolation!!

ETA from Foxnews:

"9.) Could Clinton be impeached over this?

Historically, no. Presidents can only be impeached for actions committed during their presidency. Alleged crimes committed before a president takes office were never considered impeachable offenses. At least that was the conclusion of Congress dating back to the latter half of the 19th century.

But an examination of Article II, section 4 of the Constitution reveals no defining limitation. Other than precedent, there is nothing to prevent a new and different Congress from taking a completely different view. As Gerald Ford famously said, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” So the question is an interesting one… and the answer is debatable.

There is one obvious caveat: If Clinton were to do something as president which constitutes new alleged crimes, such as obstructing an investigation or lying about what she did, then she could be impeached."

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:

And I don't really know if she's the most corrupt person ever to run for the presidency or not. Lyndon was pretty scummy.

Seriously, dawg?

There ain't any one who can hold a candle to this broad when it comes to corruption.

You need to become more familiar with Lyndon then. I recommend Robert Caro's excellent multivolume biography of the man.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

Holy catfish, I am astounded. After watching him talk about guns, I was sure he was a blithering, slobbering idiot.

He is. It doesn't mean that, on occasion, all the synapses won't fire correctly and an actual spark of intellect radiates in his brain, if only for a brief moment.



.

There is an Op-Ed in the WSJ today , written by Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
I will not post the entire article because it is for subscribers only and would violate my agreement as a subscriber.
Mukasey has been very open about his disagreement with the DoJ and FBI investigation of the Clinton email affair.
His knowledge of federal laws and DoJ procedures makes him an authority on the matter.
(I think the Op-Ed columns and Editorials in the WSJ are worth the price of a subscription.)

Here are some excerpts which I think count as “fair-use”:

The FBI Director’s Unworthy Choice
Comey acceded to the apparent wish of Obama that no charges be brought against Clinton

…………………. we don’t know what is actually in the emails of Huma Abedin, Mrs. Clinton’s close aide, but we can nonetheless draw some conclusions about how FBI Director James Comey came to issue his Delphic notice to Congress, and what the near-term future course of this investigation will be. Regrettably, those conclusions do no credit to him, or to the leadership of the Justice Department, of which the FBI is a part.
=======================================================
Friday’s announcement had a history. Recall that Mr. Comey’s authority extends only to supervising the gathering of facts to be presented to Justice Department lawyers for their confidential determination of whether those facts justify a federal prosecution.
Nonetheless, in July he announced that “no reasonable prosecutor” would seek to charge her with a crime, although Mrs. Clinton had classified information on a private nonsecure server—at least a misdemeanor under one statute; and although she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information such that it was exposed to hacking by hostile foreign nations—a felony under another statute; and apparently had caused the destruction of emails—a felony under two other statutes…………………………………….
Those decisions were not his to make, nor were the reasons he offered for making them at all tenable: that prosecutions for anything but mishandling large amounts of classified information, accompanied by false statements to investigators, were unprecedented; and that criminal prosecutions for gross negligence were constitutionally suspect.
========================================================
And what of the future? Mr. Comey reportedly wrote his letter to Congress over the objection of the attorney general and her deputy. Thus, regardless of what is in the newly discovered emails, the current Justice Department will not permit a grand jury to hear evidence in this case. And because only a grand jury can constitutionally bring charges, that means no charges will be brought.

Daily Mail reports Clinton campaign knew for five years about Weiner and underage girls


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...age-girl-did-it.html

DOJ Tells Congress It Will Work "Expeditiously" To Review Huma's Emails... There Is Just One Problem

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...ls-there-just-one-pr

Now that the FBI has obtained the needed warrant to start poring over the 650,000 or so emails uncovered in Anthony Weiner's notebook, among which thousands of emails sent from Huma Abedin using Hillary Clinton's personal server, moments ago the Us Justice Department decided to also finally join the probe, and as AP reported moments ago, it vowed to dedicate all needed resources to quickly review the over half a million emails in the Clinton case.

In the letter to Congress, the DOJ writes that it “will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” assistant attorney General Peter J. Kadzik writes in letters to House and Senate lawmakers.

So far so good, even if one wonders just how active the DOJ will be in a case that has shown an unprecedented schism between the politically influenced Department of Justice and the FBI.

And yet, something felt odd about this.

Kadzik... Kadzik... where have we heard that name?

Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, "Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary's Benghazi Hearing" in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony?

It was Peter Kadzik.

In other words, the best friend of John Podesta, Clinton's Campaign char, at the DOJ will be in charge of a probe that could potentially sink Hillary Clinton.

For those who missed it, this is what we reported:

The day after Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October, John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman met for dinner with a small group of well-connected friends, including Peter Kadzik, who is currently a top official at the US Justice Department serving as Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs.



The post-Benghazi dinner was attended by Podesta, Kadzik, superlobbyist Vincent Roberti and other well-placed Beltway fixtures. The first mention of personal contact between Podesta and Kadzik in the Wikileaks dump is in an Oct. 23, 2015 email sent out by Vincent Roberti, a lobbyist who is close to Podesta and his superlobbyist brother, Tony Podesta. In it, Roberti refers to a dinner reservation at Posto, a Washington D.C. restaurant. The dinner was set for 7:30 that evening, just one day after Clinton gave 11 hours of testimony to the Benghazi Committee.



Podesta and Kadzik met several months later for dinner at Podesta’s home, another email shows. Another email sent on May 5, 2015, Kadzik’s son asked Podesta for a job on the Clinton campaign.

As the Daily Caller noted, the dinner arrangement "is just the latest example of an apparent conflict of interest between the Clinton campaign and the federal agency charged with investigating the former secretary of state’s email practices." As one former U.S. Attorney tells told the DC, the exchanges are another example of the Clinton campaign’s “cozy relationship” with the Obama Justice Department.

The hacked emails confirm that Podesta and Kadzik were in frequent contact. In one email from January, Kadzik and Podesta, who were classmates at Georgetown Law School in the 1970s, discussed plans to celebrate Podesta’s birthday. And in another sent last May, Kadzik’s son emailed Podesta asking for a job on the Clinton campaign.

“The political appointees in the Obama administration, especially in the Department of Justice, appear to be very partisan in nature and I don’t think had clean hands when it comes to the investigation of the private email server,” says Matthew Whitaker, the executive director of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, a government watchdog group.

“It’s the kind of thing the American people are frustrated about is that the politically powerful have insider access and have these kind of relationships that ultimately appear to always break to the benefit of Hillary Clinton,” he added, comparing the Podesta-Kadzik meetings to the revelation that Attorney General Loretta Lynch met in private with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix days before the FBI and DOJ investigating Hillary Clinton.

Kadzik's role at the DOJ, where he started in 2013, is particularly notable Kadzik, as helped spearhead the effort to nominate Lynch, who was heavily criticized for her secret meeting with the former president.

It gets better because, as we further revealed, if there is one person in the DOJ who is John Podesta's, and thus the Clinton Foundation's inside man, it is Peter Kadjik.

Kadzik represented Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. And in the waning days of the Bill Clinton administration, Kadzik lobbied Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich, the fugitive who Bill Clinton controversially pardoned on his last day in office. That history is cited by Podesta in another email hacked from his Gmail account. In a Sept. 2008 email, which the Washington Free Beacon flagged last week, Podesta emailed an Obama campaign official to recommend Kadzik for a supportive role in the campaign. Podesta, who would later head up the Obama White House transition effort, wrote that Kadzik was a “fantastic lawyer” who “kept me out of jail.”



Podesta was caught in a sticky situation in both the Lewinsky affair and the Rich pardon scandal. As deputy chief of staff to Clinton in 1996, Podesta asked then-United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson to hire the 23-year-old Lewinsky. In April 1996, the White House transferred Lewinsky from her job as a White House intern to the Pentagon in order to keep her and Bill Clinton separate. But the Clinton team also wanted to keep Lewinsky happy so that she would not spill the beans about her sexual relationship with Clinton.

Richardson later recounted in his autobiography that he offered Lewinsky the position but that she declined it.

Podesta made false statements to a grand jury impaneled by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr for the investigation. But he defended the falsehoods, saying later that he was merely relaying false information from Clinton that he did not know was inaccurate at the time. “He did lie to me,” Podesta said about Clinton in a National Public Radio interview in 1998. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate in Feb. 1999 of perjury and obstruction of justice charges related to the Lewinsky probe. Kadzik, then a lawyer with the firm Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, represented Podesta through the fiasco.

Podesta had been promoted to Clinton’s chief of staff when he and Kadzik became embroiled in another scandal.

Kadzik was then representing Marc Rich, a billionaire financier who was wanted by the U.S. government for evading a $48 million tax bill. The fugitive, who was also implicated in illegal trading activity with nations that sponsored terrorism, had been living in Switzerland for 17 years when he sought the pardon. To help Rich, Kadzik lobbied Podesta heavily in the weeks before Clinton left office on Jan. 20, 2001. A House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.”

The report noted that Kadzik contacted Podesta at least seven times regarding Rich’s pardon. On top of the all-hands-on-deck lobbying effort, Rich’s ex-wife, Denise Rich, had doled out more than $1 million to the Clintons and other Democrats prior to the pardon. She gave $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate campaign and another $450,000 to the Clinton presidential library.

Kadzik's current role

In his current role as head of the Office of Legislative Affairs, Kadzik handles inquiries from Congress on a variety of issues. In that role he was not in the direct chain of command on the Clinton investigation. The Justice Department and FBI have insisted that career investigators oversaw the investigation, which concluded in July with no charges filed against Clinton.

But Kadzik worked on other Clinton email issues in his dealings with Congress. Last November, he denied a request from Republican lawmakers to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation.

In a Feb. 1, 2016 letter in response to Kadzik, Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis noted that Kadzik had explained “that special counsel may be appointed at the discretion of the Attorney General when an investigation or prosecution by the Department of Justice would create a potential conflict of interest.”

DeSantis, a Republican, suggested that Lynch’s appointment by Bill Clinton in 1999 as U.S. Attorney in New York may be considered a conflict of interest. He also asserted that Obama’s political appointees — a list which includes Kadzik — “are being asked to impartially execute their respective duties as Department of Justice officials that may involve an investigation into the activities of the forerunner for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.”

It is unknown if Kadzik responded to DeSantis’ questions.

Kadzik’s first involvement in the Clinton email brouhaha came in a Sept. 24, 2015 response letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley in which he declined to confirm or deny whether the DOJ was investigating Clinton. Last month, Politico reported that Kadzik angered Republican lawmakers when, in a classified briefing, he declined to say whether Clinton aides who received DOJ immunity were required to cooperate with congressional probes.

Kadzik also testified at a House Oversight Committee hearing last month on the issue of classifications and redactions in the FBI’s files of the Clinton email investigation.

* * *

And now it seems that Kadjik will be in charge of the DOJ's "probe" into Huma Abedin's emails. Which is why we are a little skeptical the DOJ will find "anything" of note.

The DOJ will get the FBI off the email review? So they can do it themselves with a Clinton-friendly staff?

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
The DOJ will get the FBI off the email review? So they can do it themselves with a Clinton-friendly staff?

This would be a turning point in the history of America. The pitchforks would appear.

“Now, according to the WSJ, it appears that Federal agents are preparing to scour roughly 650,000 emails that, as we reported moments ago were discovered weeks ago on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, to see how many relate to a prior probe of Hillary Clinton’s email use, as metadata on the device suggests there may be thousands sent to or from the private server that the Democratic nominee used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.”

650,000 is a staggering number of e-mails. Frankly, the earlier report suggesting there were tens of thousands of e-mails sounded like it could contain all the e-mails between Huma and Hillary over a 20 year period. When I hear a number of 650,000 e-mails, I begin to wonder if Huma may have been doing espionage for a foreign power and if she somehow had obtained the e-mails of every member of Congress.

An earlier news article noted that the e-mails were found in a file or folder named “Life Insurance.” Now this deserves some analysis.
I don’t think Huma picked that folder name by accident. If she has any brains, she should know what happened to Vince Foster, Ron Brown, James MacDougal, and dozens of others.

If the Life Insurance folder was meant to be real “life insurance” for Huma -as in keeping Hillary from murdering her, then it will probably contain extremely damaging e-mails for Hillary that could send her to jail many times over.

If Huma did have an extensive blackmail file on Hillary (and possibly others), and the FBI has just stumbled across it while investigating her pervert husband for sexting a 15 year old girl, and if corrupt forces in the FBI don’t burn or destroy this evidence, it’s likely “game over” for Hillary. Her next residence is going to be the “big house” with the steel bars, not the White House.

An article on RedStateWatcher reports “Hillary throws Huma Abedin off her plane! Huma Abedin has VOIDED her immunity deal with the FBI. This means she has to sing or face jail time. Hillary Clinton no longer wants her around. According to reporters on Hillary’s campaign, Abedin is no longer sitting near the front cabin on her plane to Florida. She’s no where to be found this morning.”

First of all, Huma is lucky she wasn’t thrown off Hillary’s plane while it was still in the air. It’s a good bet that at a minimum Hillary went into yet another screaming tirade, this time against Huma for being so careless that she left a treasure trove of e-mails on one of Anthony Weiner’s computers.

It could be weeks for information to trickle out to the public about whether it was a blackmail file on Hillary or possibly even espionage by Huma Abedin on American politicians for a n power. The important thing is that the FBI criminal investigation of Hillary (and now Huma for lying to the FBI) has reopened and a dark cloud will be squarely over Hillary's head from now until election day. The massive volume of e-mails, 650,000, suggests that the FBI will likely find everything from top secret e-mails to evidence of bribery to evidence of crimes to evidence of treason.

DID THE FBI DISCOVER HUMA’S BLACKMAIL FILE ON HILLARY?

quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

Holy catfish, I am astounded. After watching him talk about guns, I was sure he was a blithering, slobbering idiot.

He is. It doesn't mean that, on occasion, all the synapses won't fire correctly and an actual spark of intellect radiates in his brain, if only for a brief moment.

He didn't speak it either, it was written under his byline. I supposed it could have been ghostwritten by someone with a functional cerebral cortex...

Asst AG Kadzik runs legislative affairs at DOJ, not investigations.

I don't think *christ, I hope he doesn't* he will have a role...

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Question.... does a past high crime count, or must it be one committed while in the present office?

Read on some law website that such high crime has to occur during her term as president.

Respectfully differ - I think Congress could do what they like here. There is no precedent for giving a President a pass for earlier crimes. Nor is there precedent for trying one for past crimes.

So if they had the votes, and the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, out she'd go. It is not clear whether there is an appeal right, but if one was extant, it would have to go to the Supreme Court. 4-4 would uphold, so she'd have to win 5 of the 8.

This has been a surprising week.

And now Fox is stating FBI is doing a "preliminary inquiry" into Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort's business dealings with Russia.

October surprise, surprise, surprise...

quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:

quote:

Originally posted by saigonsmuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Question.... does a past high crime count, or must it be one committed while in the present office?

Read on some law website that such high crime has to occur during her term as president.

Respectfully differ - I think Congress could do what they like here. There is no precedent for giving a President a pass for earlier crimes. Nor is there precedent for trying one for past crimes.

So if they had the votes, and the House impeaches and the Senate convicts, out she'd go. It is not clear whether there is an appeal right, but if one was extant, it would have to go to the Supreme Court. 4-4 would uphold, so she'd have to win 5 of the 8.

This has been a surprising week.

No appeal on impeachment. It's not criminal, it's political.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
The DOJ will get the FBI off the email review? So they can do it themselves with a Clinton-friendly staff?

If the FBI gives this over to the DOJ without ,making a Back up of the Backup.. someone should hang.
because evidence has a way of disappearing in this case.

Trump may be in a condition where his supporters don't care about the attacks.

Similar to how the Dems wanted Obama, and Jeremiah Wright didn't even slow him down.

There is also an awful lot of internet based news that blasts right thru the BS and calls it out. I said earlier how smart Trump was to bring Steve Bannon on board.

"Honey badger don't give a shit"

quote:

I begin to wonder if Huma may have been doing espionage for a foreign power

I wouldn't be surprised to hear a report in the next 48 hours that they think Huma may have fled the country.
I have always wondered if she could have been a plant from the begining. Her marriage to Weiner never made sense to me it always seemed to be more of an arrangement of sorts.

Should this turn out to be the case I don't see any way of Clinton being able to distance herself from it.