http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...ild-card-for-clinton

FBI chief is wild card for Clinton

By Bob Cusack and Ian Swanson
December 01, 2015, 06:00 am

FBI Director James Comey is the pivotal figure in the 2016 presidential race that no one is talking about.

Comey, a Republican appointed by President Obama who enjoys a stellar reputation on both sides of the aisle, is investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of State.

Clinton is the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination next year and is expected to be a tough candidate for any Republican to face in 2016.

Yet the controversy surrounding her private email account remains an Achilles’ heel.

The GOP-created House Benghazi Committee flopped in October when Clinton testified for 11 hours. That hearing failed to produce anything newsworthy about her use of a private server and attracted criticism from liberals and conservatives alike.

Its failure makes it clear that the FBI will have the final say on whether Clinton did anything wrong or illegal. And whatever the verdict is, both parties will have to accept it because Comey is, in many ways, untouchable.

The 54-year-old FBI chief, confirmed by the Senate to a 10-year term in a 93-1 vote this summer, is known for his independence and aggressive prosecutions.

The grandson of a police officer in Yonkers, N.Y., he has repeatedly stressed his nonpartisan approach.

When he served in former President George W. Bush’s Justice Department, Comey made headlines by rushing to a Washington hospital to prevent White House counsel Alberto Gonzales from getting a bedridden Attorney General John Ashcroft to sign off on reauthorizing a domestic surveillance program.

It’s the moment that made Comey’s reputation and underlines why Republicans and Democrats expect he’ll call the Clinton email investigation as he sees it, no matter the political stakes.

“My folks don’t give a rip about politics,” the 6-foot-8-inch Comey said earlier this year. “We’re competent, we’re independent and we’re honest.”

Comey donated to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in his 2008 run for the White House and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in his 2012 bid for the GOP nomination, but Obama still reportedly considered asking him to serve on the Supreme Court before tapping him for the FBI instead.

Since then, Comey has broken with Obama on a host of issues.

While Obama mocked Republicans for being scared of “widows and orphans” in the debate over accepting Syrian refugees, for example, Comey told Congress that national security officials can not effectively vet all of the refugees for terrorism ties.

Comey and Obama have also disagreed on the “Ferguson effect” — the theory that police are now reluctant to enforce the law because of racial tensions over the killings of young black men.

In an October speech, Comey said he favored legislation to change encryption law, which would compel the private sector to provide access to data and devices for law enforcement when it has a warrant. But the Obama White House has not pushed lawmakers to pass legislation on the matter, which is now back in the headlines following the November terrorist attacks in Paris.

Throughout his career, Comey has taken on some of the most powerful figures in the country. And he has been especially tough when dealing with national security cases.

Comey reportedly pushed for more stringent charges to be brought against David Petraeus for giving classified information to his mistress when he was director of the CIA. Petraeus reached a plea deal to avoid prison time.

Morgan Wright, a cybersecurity expert who has testified before Congress, noted that Comey in May 2014 said Army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan’s killing of 13 people at the Fort Hood Army base in 2009 was inspired by al Qaeda, while others in the administration were more circumspect.

“That statement alone tells me everything I need to know about the current investigations,” Wright told The Hill. “The investigations will be done, and they will be done right. Comey is not afraid to stake out his position, regardless of which way the political winds blow or who is being investigated. This should provide comfort to the taxpayers and voters and fuel sleepless nights for the targets of the investigation.”

In 2004, Comey was a major player in investigating the mishandling of classified information by former President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger.

“We take issues of classified information very, very seriously,” Comey told reporters at the time. “It’s our lifeblood, those secrets.”

It’s unclear what exactly the FBI is reviewing regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails or when the agency will release its findings. Comey has only said he is briefed regularly and following the case closely.

The FBI and Clinton campaign declined to comment for this column.

There have been a number of leaks to the press on the FBI’s probe, such as in September when the agency reportedly uncovered emails from Clinton’s private server that were thought to have been deleted.

After Obama said this fall that he didn’t think Clinton’s email system posed a national security problem, The New York Times reported that FBI agents were “angered” that the commander in chief would comment on an ongoing investigation. The White House walked back Obama’s comments.

Some political observers believe that should the FBI find something incriminating against Clinton, the Democratic Party would seek out another standard-bearer such as Vice President Biden, former Vice President Al Gore or Secretary of State John Kerry. Many establishment Democrats don’t believe Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) would be a viable nominee in the general election.

But such a move wouldn’t be easy.

In a recent white paper published by the Brookings Institution, Elaine Kamarck and Ashley Gabriele point out that in order to secure the Democratic nomination, the winning candidate must be on ballots.

They wrote, “A candidate who is not on a primary ballot can’t win delegates from that state — pure and simple. ... The candidate who has missed filing deadlines through the end of January has potentially forfeited 2,232 delegates, the number to win the Democratic nomination!”

These bylaws mean that Democrats will likely go into the general election with Clinton as their nominee. But what the FBI concludes will have a major impact on her chances to become the nation’s 45th president.

Asked on “60 Minutes” last year what motivated him to rush to Ashcroft’s bedside and tell the Bush White House it couldn’t have what it wanted, Comey responded, “The rule of law. Simple as that.”

I hope Comey sticks to his guns and drives the harpy away with an actual criminal investigation and not a watered down version.

I also hope he surrounds himself with honest people he can trust. Running a mirror under his car every time he's about to drive it couldn't hurt either.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...ild-card-for-clinton

FBI chief is wild card for Clinton

Despite overwhelming evidence that the IRS was specifically targeting conservative groups, the FBI did nothing - barely even investigated it. Several groups who were targeted said that they were never even contacted by the FBI. I don't know where this 'confidence' on both sides of the aisle comes from? Have there been any prosecutions of the numerous scandals of the past 7 years? Maybe I'm missing some or just forgot. I do remember the investigation of the Dem NJ Senator Menendez after he came out against the Iran deal, but are there others?

The Hill is selling more hope that the Hill who wants to be president actually has some trouble here. They failed to mention the DOJ will have something to say about all this.
As Bama mentioned Comey couldn't or wouldn't even go after Lerner and she is small potatoes compared to Clinton.

He's non-partisan, but the most partisan hack to ever occupy the Oval Office is so high on him that he considered Comey as a Supreme Court nominee as well as FBI Director? How moderate have Obama's SCOTUS appointments been so far?

My BS detector just went into overload.

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...ild-card-for-clinton

All that may be true, but it is not the FBI which files cases and prosecutes them. If the DOJ doesn't chose to file charges, all the FBI can do is resign, or maybe release tidbits on the chain of command it has accumulated over the years, but that would be very wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
All that may be true, but it is not the FBI which files cases and prosecutes them. If the DOJ doesn't chose to file charges, all the FBI can do is resign, or maybe release tidbits on the chain of command it has accumulated over the years, but that would be very wrong.

We all know how the Justice Department operated
under Holder. We will all see how it operates under Loretta Lynch.

A possible explanation for Benghazi

Obviously I don't know the truth, but this seems like a plausible explanation for the reactions we've seen since. For those who don't want to click the link, the author essentially postulates that Benghazi was a gun running scheme (which was illegal) to send Qaddafi's weapons to Syrian Rebels. Some of whom were AQ and IS. It would be a simple guess piece, logical but unprovable. Except some verification from the CIA is mixed in.

Figured I'd put this here instead of starting another thread on this witch.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
All that may be true, but it is not the FBI which files cases and prosecutes them. If the DOJ doesn't chose to file charges, all the FBI can do is resign, or maybe release tidbits on the chain of command it has accumulated over the years, but that would be very wrong.

I've long held that the best we can hope for is that the FBI finds reason to recommend prosecution of Clinton for security violations (i.e. like Patreus) and the DOJ refuses to pursue it. That will at least further damage the Clinton campaign with independents.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
All that may be true, but it is not the FBI which files cases and prosecutes them. If the DOJ doesn't chose to file charges, all the FBI can do is resign, or maybe release tidbits on the chain of command it has accumulated over the years, but that would be very wrong.

I've long held that the best we can hope for is that the FBI finds reason to recommend prosecution of Clinton for security violations (i.e. like Patreus) and the DOJ refuses to pursue it. That will at least further damage the Clinton campaign with independents.

Except the American public may never find out what the FBI recommends.And if we do it will be long after the election.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
All that may be true, but it is not the FBI which files cases and prosecutes them. If the DOJ doesn't chose to file charges, all the FBI can do is resign, or maybe release tidbits on the chain of command it has accumulated over the years, but that would be very wrong.

I've long held that the best we can hope for is that the FBI finds reason to recommend prosecution of Clinton for security violations (i.e. like Patreus) and the DOJ refuses to pursue it. That will at least further damage the Clinton campaign with independents.

Except the American public may never find out what the FBI recommends.And if we do it will be long after the election.

No, I think there are plenty of groups watching this that will insure the FBI's recommendation gets out into the public. I'd also like to believe that if the FBI truly feels they have a viable prosecution, and the DOJ refuses to take up the case, they'll leak whatever they need to to make sure everyone has the information. I guess time will tell...

JMHO, but if the FBI Director truly thought someone should be prosecuted on serious charges, and the DoJ wouldn't go forward, there are ways to make it known publicly how bad the DoJ was subverting justice.

Including leaks to conservative media or direct testimony to congress.

I am very disappointed that the FBI has let serious crime go on without aggressive action.

I hope Comey proves me completely wrong.

But come on, how many hundreds of classified emails have to dribble out, how many obvious security procedure violations have to be identified, how many lies under sworn testimony, how many State Dept/ IRS people have to plead the 5th, before the FBI goes after this like this was an organized crime investigation.

I have wondered why the congressional committee hasn't had security officers from DoD, Intel, and State Dept right there at the hearings. When some BS lie about procedures gets spewed out, the committee should immediately ask the security officers to comment.

At some point it would look like the committee was trying to beat up on a witness or elicit an answer that suits its purpose rather than the truth. We've already seen how well the Dems on committees play the "the Republican committee chair is a bully on a witch hunt" card on multiple occasions. It might also redound to the scumbags' favor if the matters discussed in committee hearings ever get taken into criminal court - the more moving parts there are involved, the more opportunities there'll be for weasels to weasel out of taking responsibility for what they did.

It'll be interesting to see how well the committee's decision to talk to Huma Abedin in a closed hearing works out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12...aban-forum.html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that the Islamic State had become “the most effective recruiter in the world” and that the only solution was to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militant websites, videos and encrypted communications.

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

Well, she is an expert in American technology taking down communications

I have exactly zero faith the system will work on behalf of the people in this case. Why would this one be any different than the dozens that preceded it? So, best case scenario, the FBI recommends charges, the DOJ refuses to prosecute, so we have a scandal. Ooooohhh, another scandal. Hard to see how this make a difference, voters being so astute and well informed.

I also have great difficulty understanding how we reached a point where the DOJ has become completely political yet the FBI is still expected to be independent. This country desperately needs an independent DOJ.

FWIW, the theory is that the Attorney General is an appointee and therefore may rise or fall according to politics whereas the FBI is staff and will remain the FBI as political trends come and go.

I'm not saying the theory perfect, mind.

This post isn't about emails, but just listen to this recent interview.

Hillary Clinton says she did not tell the families of the 4 people killed at Benghazi that they would get the person "who put out the video".

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/g...ernet-video-n2090274



But:

"I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand. And she said 'we are going to have the film maker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son,'" recalls Tyrone Woods' father, reading directly from his written record from that day.

Sean Smith's mother and uncle remember the same thing, as does Glen Doherty's sister



Here is a link to a report from October 2012 where Charles Woods says Clinton blamed the video.

http://www.breitbart.com/video...e-man-that-did-this/

What a lying POS this woman is.
The only person who gives her competition in this category is Obama.

It seems the Pentagon was "ready to roll" in response to the Benghazi attack, but could not get approval....

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2...attack/?intcmp=hpbt1

As the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was unfolding, a high-ranking Pentagon official urgently messaged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top deputies to offer military help, according to an email obtained by Judicial Watch.

The revelation appears to contradict testimony Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave lawmakers in 2013, when he said there was no time to get forces to the scene in Libya, where four Americans were killed, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

“I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton],” reads the email, from Panetta’s chief of staff Jeremy Bash. “After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.”

The email was sent out at 7:19 p.m. ET on Sept. 11, 2012, in the early stages of the eight-hour siege that also claimed the lives of Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith and two former Navy SEALs, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, private CIA contractors who raced to the aid of embattled State Department workers.

Although the email came after the first wave of the attack at the consulate, it occurred before a mortar strike on the CIA annex killed Woods and Doherty.

“This leaves no doubt military assets were offered and ready to go, and awaiting State Department signoff, which did not come,” Judicial Watch, a nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement.

Parts of the email from Bash were redacted before release, including details on what military forces were available.

In defending the Obama administration’s lack of a military response to the attack, Panetta told the Senate Armed Services Committee nearly two years ago that “time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.”

The first assault occurred at the consulate at 3:40 p.m. ET. The second attack on the CIA annex a little over a mile away began three hours later. Bash’s email was sent approximately 40 minutes after that attack began.

Bash’s email, which bore the subject line “Libya,” was sent to Clinton’s then-deputy chief of staff Jacob Sullivan, Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman and Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Thomas Nides.

The attack came in three waves at two locations. It began when a handful of attackers scaled the wall of the diplomatic post at dusk and opened a gate, allowing dozens of armed men inside who then set the building on fire. Stevens and Smith died after breathing in smoke while hiding in a safe room, and later died.

Hours later, a nearby CIA annex was attacked twice. Woods and Doherty died there while defending the annex from the rooftop. A team of six security officials summoned from Tripoli and a Libyan military unit helped evacuate the remaining U.S. personnel who were taken to an airport and flown out of Benghazi.

The Obama administration later falsely claimed that the attack was triggered by an Internet video that insulted Islam.

Lawmakers investigating the events surrounding Benghazi already had acquired the e-mail, along with tens of thousands of others related to the probe, according to Matt Wolking, spokesman for the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

“The Select Committee has obtained and reviewed tens of thousands of documents in the course of its thorough, fact-centered investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attacks, and this information will be detailed in the final report the Committee hopes to release within the next few months," Wolking told FoxNews.com. "While the Committee does not rush to release or comment on every document it uncovers, I can confirm that we obtained the unredacted version of this email last year, in addition to Jake Sullivan’s response."

The email of the above post was released by Judicial Watch

http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...out-in-new-document/

The newly released email reads:

From: Bash, Jeremy CIV SD [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19 PM
To: Sullivan, Jacob J; Sherman, Wendy R; Nides, Thomas R
Cc: Miller, James HON OSD POLICY; Wienefeld, James A ADM JSC VCJCS; Kelly, John LtGen SD; martin, dempsey [REDACTED]
Subject: Libya

State colleagues:

I just tried you on the phone but you were all in with S [apparent reference to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton].

After consulting with General Dempsey, General Ham and the Joint Staff, we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak. They include a [REDACTED].

Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to procure the approval from host nation. Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us [REDACTED].

Jeremy


The timing of the Bash email is particularly significant based upon testimony given to members of Congress by Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission of the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attack.

According to Hicks’ 2013 testimony, a show of force by the U.S. military during the siege could have prevented much of the carnage. Said Hicks, “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split.

They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

The new email came as a result of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed on September 4, 2014