quote:

Originally posted by Ironmike57:
Good Lord, imagine the visual.

Yes, and one of Hillary's favorite things to do was Huma. [/QUOTE]

Tunin' the tuna.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I'd rather not.

Don't be so hasty. It can loosen up the jaw and tongue tendons of someone with a flat Midwestern accent sooo much that their Wonder Bread ass can tell a crowd of black voters that they "ain't in no 'way taaarred" and make it sound totally realistic!!

Or at least that's what Huma said.

quote:

FOXNEWS.COM: Lynch used email alias 'Elizabeth Carlisle' to write about Clinton tarmac meeting
Published August 07, 2017
Fox News

Loretta Lynch used the alias “Elizabeth Carlisle” for official emails as attorney general, including those related to her infamous tarmac meeting last summer with former President Clinton.

The emails were included in 413 pages of Justice Department documents provided to conservative watchdog groups Judicial Watch and American Center for Law and Justice.

Top federal officials using email aliases is not illegal or new, considering others in the former Obama administration also used them, arguing security concerns and spam to their official email addresses swamping their in-boxes.

Eric Holder, Lynch’s predecessor, used “Lew Alcindor,” the former name of retired NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

However, critics of the practice argue that such aliases can result in some requested emails to and from officials going undetected.

Lynch used the alias to help craft responses to media requests about the meeting, the documents show.

And former IRS official Lois Lerner, who was at the center of the agency’s targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, also used an alias -- Toby Miles.

Internet sleuths say Elizabeth Carlisle is the birth name of Lynch’s maternal grandmother. But an actress who has done a number of sultry roles -- including “prostitute” and “tipsy” -- also has that name.

The Lynch documents were provided to the groups in connection with lawsuits seeking information about the June 27, 2016, meeting on the tarmac of a Phoenix airport.

The meeting came amid an FBI investigation into whether Clinton’s wife, then the Democratic presidential nominee, had revealed classified information when using private email servers while secretary of state.

About a week later, FBI Director James Comey concluded the case by saying Clinton was “extremely careless,” but recommended the Justice Department not pursue criminal charges.

In Senate testimony earlier this year, Comey said the meeting was a "deciding factor" in his decision to act alone to update the public on the investigation.

He also said Lynch had directed him to call the investigation “a matter,” which “confused” him.

The former president left his private plane and boarded Lynch’s uninvited. Lynch said in the aftermath that they talked about grandchildren and other matters, but that the investigation was not discussed.

However, Lynch later said she “regrets” having allowed the meeting.

Lynch’s attorney Robert Raben on Monday told The Daily Caller that Justice Department staffers who process Freedom of Information Act requests are aware of the alias.

He also said the agency acknowledged in February 2016 that Lynch was using the Elizabeth Carlisle alias.

And here 13 months and one election for President later, Judicial Watch is just now getting the Elizabeth Carlisle emails.

The FOIA Office knew about the alias Lynch used to obfuscate the fact she was letting a criminal skate.

Yeah. Sure. Unhugh.

President Trump needs to find a way to fire every last person in the Executive Branch who has a grade higher than GS-2, Manure Taster Trainee.

FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Hillary Clinton’s case isn’t interesting enough to the public to justify releasing the FBI’s files on her, the bureau said this week in rejecting an open-records request by a lawyer seeking to have the former secretary of state punished for perjury.

Ty Clevenger, the lawyer, has been trying to get Mrs. Clinton and her personal lawyers disbarred for their handling of her official emails during her time as secretary of state. He’s met with resistance among lawyers, and now his request for information from the FBI’s files has been shot down.

“You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the public’s interest in disclosure outweighs personal privacy interests of the subject,” FBI records management section chief David M. Hardy told Mr. Clevenger in a letter Monday.

“It is incumbent upon the requester to provide documentation regarding the public’s interest in the operations and activities of the government before records can be processed pursuant to the FOIA,” Mr. Hardy wrote.

Mrs. Clinton, is the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, former chief diplomat, former U.S. senator, and former first lady of both the U.S. and Arkansas. Her use of a secret email account to conduct government business while leading the State Department was front-page news for much of 2015 and 2016, and was so striking that the then-FBI director broke with procedure and made both a public statement and appearances before Congress to talk about the bureau’s probe.

In the end, the FBI didn’t recommend charges against Mrs. Clinton, concluding that while she risked national security, she was too technologically inept to know the dangers she was running, so no case could be made against her.

The FBI says it will only release records from its files if a subject consents, is dead, or is of such public interest that it overrides privacy concerns.

Mr. Clevenger said he thought it would have been clear why Mrs. Clinton’s case was of public interest, but he sent documentation anyway, pointing to a request by members of Congress for an investigation into whether Mrs. Clinton perjured herself in testimony to Capitol Hill.

“I’m just stunned. This is exactly what I would have expected had Mrs. Clinton won the election, but she didn’t. It looks like the Obama Administration is still running the FBI,” Mr. Clevenger told The Washington Times.

“How can a story receive national news coverage and not be a matter of public interest? If this is the new standard, then there’s no such thing as a public interest exception,” he said.

The FBI didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday on how it balances public interest versus privacy in open-records requests.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...-justifies-withhold/

The balls on these communist assholes. There is definitely nothing to see her. Move along. As if it is their decision to do so or not.

The FBI-- and the AG Sessions-- are scared shitless of the Clintons.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
FBI says lack of public interest in Hillary emails justifies withholding documents

The "public interest" is a different concept than the interest of the public, of course.

The whole damn system is dirty and corrupt.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
The FBI-- and the AG Sessions-- are scared shitless of the Clintons.

It seems likely that old age will catch up with the Clintons before the law does.

My only but big disappointment with Trump is that he did not appoint a special prosecutor like he had said he would. Not only because I hate the Clinton's and everything they have done and everything they represent but because holding her accountable would have done more to change the culture in Washington than anything else he could do.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
Don't be so hasty. It can loosen up the jaw and tongue tendons of someone with a flat Midwestern accent sooo much that their Wonder Bread ass can tell a crowd of black voters that they "ain't in no 'way taaarred" and make it sound totally realistic!!

Or at least that's what Huma said.

And the pandering continued
[FLASH_VIDEO]


Link to original video: https://youtu.be/fWPZ2TFr1Uk [/FLASH_VIDEO]

quote:

It looks like the Obama Administration is still running the FBI,” Mr. Clevenger told The Washington Times.

And is why President Trump needs to fire every one of them from the Director on down.

"Is it workin'?"...

NO!...

...idiot

New Evidence Reveals Comey Drafted Statement Exonerating Hillary Before Key Witness Interviews

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...-key-witness-intervi

A new letter from Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham reveal testimony from new witnesses suggesting that former FBI Director James Comey had already started drafting documentation exonerating Hillary Clinton long before interviewing key witnesses, including Hillary herself.

According to the letter, which is based on testimony from James Rybicki, Comey’s Chief of Staff, and Trisha Anderson, the Principal Deputy General Counsel of National Security and Cyberlaw, Comey began drafting a statement to announce the conclusion of the Hillary investigation in April or May 2016, well before he had interviewed up to 17 key witnesses.

Meanwhile, as if that weren't bad enough, the Comey statement was also drafted before immunity deals were struck with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson who seemingly ran point, along with Platte River Networks, to destroy Hillary's emails after a Congressional subpoena had been issued mandating their preservation.

https://www.grassley.senate.go...ior-interviewing-key

WASHINGTON – Transcripts reviewed by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal that former FBI Director James Comey began drafting an exoneration statement in the Clinton email investigation before the FBI had interviewed key witnesses. Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, requested all records relating to the drafting of the statement as the committee continues to review the circumstances surrounding Comey’s removal from the Bureau.

“Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy,” the senators wrote in a letter today to the FBI.

Last fall, following allegations from Democrats in Congress, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) began investigating whether Comey’s actions in the Clinton email investigation violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from using their official position to influence an election. In the course of that investigation, OSC interviewed two FBI officials close to Comey: James Rybicki, Comey’s Chief of Staff, and Trisha Anderson, the Principal Deputy General Counsel of National Security and Cyberlaw. OSC provided transcripts of those interviews at Grassley’s request after it closed the investigation due to Comey’s termination.

Both transcripts are heavily redacted without explanation. However, they indicate that Comey began drafting a statement to announce the conclusion of the Clinton email investigation in April or May of 2016, before the FBI interviewed up to 17 key witnesses including former Secretary Clinton and several of her closest aides. The draft statement also came before the Department entered into immunity agreements with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson where the Department agreed to a very limited review of Secretary Clinton’s emails and to destroy their laptops after review. In an extraordinary July announcement, Comey exonerated Clinton despite noting “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information.”

In their letter, the two chairmen requested all drafts of Comey’s statement closing the Clinton investigation, all related emails and any records previously provided to OSC in the course of its investigation.

OSC is the permanent, independent investigative agency for personnel matters in the federal government and is not related to Robert Mueller’s temporary prosecutorial office within the Justice Department.

Full text of the letter from Grassley and Graham follows.

August 30, 2017

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Christopher Wray
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20535

Dear Director Wray:

The Senate Judiciary Committee has been investigating the circumstances surrounding Director Comey’s removal, including his conduct in handling the Clinton and Russia investigations. On June 30, 2017, the Committee wrote to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)[1] requesting transcripts of OSC’s interviews with then-Director Comey’s Chief of Staff, Jim Rybicki, and the Principal Deputy General Counsel of National Security and Cyberlaw, Trisha Anderson. OSC investigators had interviewed them as part of the OSC’s investigation into whether then-Director Comey’s actions in the Clinton investigation violated the Hatch Act.[2] OSC closed its inquiry after Mr. Comey’s removal pursuant to its standard policy of not investigating former government employees. On August 8, 2017, the OSC provided transcripts of those interviews at the Committee’s request.[3] Since then, Committee staff has been asking the Department informally to explain the reasons for the extensive redactions to the transcripts.

According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts.

OSC attorneys questioned two witnesses, presumably Mr. Rybicki and Ms. Anderson, about Mr. Comey’s July 5, 2016, statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. The transcript of what appears to be Mr. Rybicki’s interview contains the following exchanges:

Q: … We talked about outcome of the investigation, … how did
the statement – I guess the idea of the statement come about?
A: Sure. We’re talking about July 5th, correct?
Q: Yes. I’m sorry. July 5th.
A: The – so in the – sometime in the spring – again, I don’t remember exactly when, I – early spring I would say, the Director emailed a couple folks – I can’t remember exactly; I know I was on there, probably the Deputy Director, not the full, what I’ll call the briefing group, but a subset of that – to say, you know, again knowing sort of where – knowing the direction the investigation is headed, right, what would be the most forward-leaning thing we could do, right, information that we could put out about it…And -- and, you know, by that -- you know, so that -- and he sent a draft around of, you know what - what it might look like. . . .

***
A: …So that was the early spring.
Q: Yeah. And I think we've seen maybe that email where he sent it out, it was early May of 2016; does that sound about right?
A: That sounds right. That -- quite honestly, that strikes me as a little late, but may --
Q: Okay.
A: -- but again, I definitely remember spring. I had in my head like the April timeframe, but May doesn't seem out of the -- out of the realm.

***
Q: And so at that point in time, whether it was April or early May, the team hadn’t yet interviewed Secretary Clinton –
A: Correct.
Q: – but was there – I guess, based on what you’re saying, it sounds like there was an idea of where the outcome of the investigation was going to go?
A: Sure. There was a – right, there was – based on – [redacted section].

Similarly, the transcript of what appears to be Ms. Anderson’s interview states:

Q: So moving along to the first public statement on the case or Director Comey’s first statement the July 5, 2016 statement. When did you first learn that Director Comey was planning to make some kind of public statement about the outcome of the Clinton email investigation?
A: The idea, I’m not entirely sure exactly when the idea of the public statement um first emerged. Um it was, I just, I can’t put a precise timeframe on it um but [redaction]. And then I believe it was in early May of 2016 that the Director himself wrote a draft of that statement …

Q: So when you found out in early May that there was, that the Director had written a draft of what the statement might look like, how did you learn about that?
A: [Redacted] gave me a hard copy of it…
Q: So what happened next with respect to the draft?
A: I don’t know for sure um, I don’t know. There were many iterations, at some point there were many iterations of the draft that circulated…

As of early May 2016, the FBI had not yet interviewed Secretary Clinton. Moreover, it had yet to finish interviewing sixteen other key witnesses, including Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Heather Samuelson, Justin Cooper, and John Bentel.[4]

These individuals had intimate and personal knowledge relating to Secretary Clinton’s non-government server, including helping her build and administer the device. Yet, it appears that the following key FBI interviews had not yet occurred when Mr. Comey began drafting his exoneration statement:
1. May 3, 2016 – Paul Combetta
2. May 12, 2016 – Sean Misko
3. May 17, 2016 – Unnamed CIA employee[5]
4. May 19, 2016 – Unnamed CIA employee[6]
5. May 24, 2016 – Heather Samuelson
6. May 26, 2016 - Marcel Lehel (aka Guccifer)
7. May 28, 2016 – Cheryl Mills
8. June 3, 2016 – Charlie Wisecarver
9. June 10, 2016 – John Bentel
10. June 15, 2016 – Lewis Lukens
11. June 21, 2016 – Justin Cooper
12. June 21, 2016 – Unnamed State Dept. Employee[7]
13. June 21, 2016 – Bryan Pagliano
14. June 21, 2016 – Purcell Lee
15. June 23, 2016 – Monica Hanley
16. June 29, 2016 – Hannah Richert
17. July 2, 2016 – Hillary Clinton

Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy.

Mr. Comey’s final statement acknowledged “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information” but nonetheless cleared Secretary Clinton because he claimed there was no intent or obstruction of justice. Yet, evidence of destruction of emails known to be under subpoena by the House of Representatives, and subject to congressional preservation requests, was obtained in interviews around the time that Mr. Comey began drafting his exoneration statement.[8] Moreover, the Justice Department entered into highly unusual immunity agreements with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson in June 2016—after Mr. Comey began drafting his exoneration statement—to review Clinton email archives on their laptops.[9]

The immunity agreements limited the FBI’s ability to review Clinton email archives from Platte River Networks that were created after June 1, 2014, and before February 1, 2015, and which had been sent or received from Secretary Clinton’s four email addresses during her tenure as Secretary of State.[10] These limitations prevented the FBI from reviewing records surrounding a March 2015 conference call that Paul Combetta, an employee of Platte River Networks, had with David Kendall and Ms. Mills, the attorneys for Secretary Clinton.[11] After having been initially untruthful and then receiving his own immunity agreement, Mr. Combetta admitted in his third FBI interview, in May 2016, that after a March 2015 conference call with Secretary Clinton’s attorneys, he used BleachBit to destroy any remaining copies of Clinton’s emails.[12]

The limitations in the immunity agreements with Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson also kept the FBI from looking at emails after Secretary Clinton left office—the period in which communications regarding destruction or concealment of federal records would have most likely taken place.[13] And finally, the agreements provided that the Department would destroy any records which it retrieved that were not turned over to the investigative team and would destroy the laptops.[14] Despite public claims by the FBI that the laptops were not in fact destroyed, the purpose of that promise to destroy them has not been explained.[15] However, Judiciary Committee staff reviewed the immunity agreements as part of their oversight work, so there is no question that the terms of the agreement called for the Department to destroy evidence that had not been fully and completely reviewed.[16]

It is unclear whether the FBI agents actually investigating the case were aware that Mr. Comey had already decided on the investigation’s outcome while their work was ongoing. However, it appears that the answer to that question may be underneath some of the extensive redactions that the Department made to the transcripts.[17] In testimony before Congress, Mr. Comey was asked whether his decision to not recommend charges “was [a] unanimous opinion within the FBI…” to which he responded, “[w]ell, the whole FBI wasn’t involved, but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists, yes.”[18] Seeing under the redactions is necessary for the Committee to assess Mr. Comey’s testimony before Congress.

Pursuant to the Committee’s responsibility and authority to review the circumstances of the Director’s removal, please provide the following without redactions by September 13, 2017:

1. All drafts of Mr. Comey’s statement closing the Clinton investigation, from his original draft in April or May to the final version.

2. All records related to communications between or among FBI officials regarding Comey’s draft statement closing the Clinton investigation, including all memoranda or analyses of the factual or legal justification for the announcement.

3. All records previously provided to the Office of Special Counsel in the course of its now-closed Hatch Act investigation of Mr. Comey.

We anticipate that your written response and most of the responsive documents will be unclassified. Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee. In keeping with the requirements of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information, please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security. The Committee complies with all laws and regulations governing the handling of classified information. The Committee is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by any handling restrictions or instructions on unclassified information unilaterally asserted by the Executive Branch.

Sham: Transcripts Reveal Comey Decided He Was Going to Let Hillary Skate Long Before Investigation Was Over

CONFIRMED: Comey Decided He Wasn't Going to Refer Hillary For Prosecution Long Before FBI Investigation Was Over
|
According to new transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey made the decision not to refer then Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for prosecution long before ever interviewing key witnesses. Members of the Committee allege Comey made the decision months before FBI agents were finished with the criminal investigation into her mishandling of classified information during her time as Secretary of State.

The transcripts were revealed in a letter sent to current FBI Director Christopher Wray, in which lawmakers are demanding an explanation and more documents surrounding the case.

"According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts," the letter, signed by Chairman Chuck Grassley and Committee member Lindsey Graham states. "Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy."

"It is unclear whether the FBI agents actually investigating the case were aware that Mr. Comey had already decided on the investigation’s outcome while their work was ongoing. However, it appears that the answer to that question may be underneath some of the extensive redactions that the Department made to the transcripts," the letter continues.

According to the letter and an ongoing investigation into the matter, Comey started drafting a statement exonerating Clinton in April or May of 2016. At this point, he had not interviewed Clinton herself or her closest aides. This included Bryan Pagliano, who set up the personal server where Clinton hosted and shared top secret information, and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, who was granted immunity. On July 5, 2016, Comey made his public statement that the FBI would not be referring Clinton to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

You can read the letter, which contains excerpts from the transcripts, below.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...y-witnesses-n2375767

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Sham: Transcripts Reveal Comey Decided He Was Going to Let Hillary Skate Long Before Investigation Was Over

CONFIRMED: Comey Decided He Wasn't Going to Refer Hillary For Prosecution Long Before FBI Investigation Was Over
|
According to new transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey made the decision not to refer then Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for prosecution long before ever interviewing key witnesses. Members of the Committee allege Comey made the decision months before FBI agents were finished with the criminal investigation into her mishandling of classified information during her time as Secretary of State.

The transcripts were revealed in a letter sent to current FBI Director Christopher Wray, in which lawmakers are demanding an explanation and more documents surrounding the case.

"According to the unredacted portions of the transcripts, it appears that in April or early May of 2016, Mr. Comey had already decided he would issue a statement exonerating Secretary Clinton. That was long before FBI agents finished their work. Mr. Comey even circulated an early draft statement to select members of senior FBI leadership. The outcome of an investigation should not be prejudged while FBI agents are still hard at work trying to gather the facts," the letter, signed by Chairman Chuck Grassley and Committee member Lindsey Graham states. "Conclusion first, fact-gathering second—that’s no way to run an investigation. The FBI should be held to a higher standard than that, especially in a matter of such great public interest and controversy."

"It is unclear whether the FBI agents actually investigating the case were aware that Mr. Comey had already decided on the investigation’s outcome while their work was ongoing. However, it appears that the answer to that question may be underneath some of the extensive redactions that the Department made to the transcripts," the letter continues.

According to the letter and an ongoing investigation into the matter, Comey started drafting a statement exonerating Clinton in April or May of 2016. At this point, he had not interviewed Clinton herself or her closest aides. This included Bryan Pagliano, who set up the personal server where Clinton hosted and shared top secret information, and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, who was granted immunity. On July 5, 2016, Comey made his public statement that the FBI would not be referring Clinton to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

You can read the letter, which contains excerpts from the transcripts, below.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...y-witnesses-n2375767

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Beat you by 3 minutes ^^^^^^^^

Well, I did look for it before I posted!

In anyone doubts Comey was in the tank for Clinton:

"it appears that the following key FBI interviews had not yet occurred when Mr. Comey began drafting his exoneration statement:
1. May 3, 2016 – Paul Combetta
.
.
.
17 July 2, 2016 – Hillary Clinton"

Muellar should be investigating Comey rather than President Trump

Any bets on what becomes of any of this? I'm betting not a damn thing!
All these reports do is further frustrate and piss us all off even further.

quote:

Originally posted by lastmanstanding:
Any bets on what becomes of any of this? I'm betting not a damn thing!
All these reports do is further frustrate and piss us all off even further.

That's pretty much where I am with all of this, sir.