FBI reopens case on Clinton private email server

The above is not the first time you've suggested that you do. But perhaps I get your drift. That damned liberal bias.

You're being too cute by half, george. Your implicit charge might have a bit more heft if I had quoted opinions about Clinton written in a newspaper published by her daughter.

Here's a fine comment from another one of those goddamned lefty types

Wasn't the point, the point was Lash and company act as though there is a majority of people who feels as she does and according to the polls and some votes already cast, there is not.

I take you do not follow the news because according to all reports, Comey did in fact go against FBI protocol by informing congress and making an announcement about the FBI reopening that case. Almost all experts have weighed in and agreed his announcement and informing was questionable. Protocols are there for reasons of safe guarding the public's trust and Comey broke it.

Incorrect. Comey had been pressured to close the Clinton corruption investigation by Loretta Lynch, who Bill Clinton has obviously bribed or threatened during his widely-reported, completely inappropriate meeting during the investigation.

He did as he was told, despite his statements that Clinton was grossly negligent.

He lost respect of colleagues for caving to Lynch and Clinton, paving her royal procession to the presidency.

For about two weeks, agents withheld information about emails pertinent to corruption at the sham foundation, the smoking guns re pay for play and DNC officials and Clinton associates swapping money and insider US secure information...found during a weiner foray. How appropriate. Hillary surrounds herself with the very best sort, doesn't she?

They withheld the findings from Comey thinking there was no way he'd release information that could be criticized as affecting an election. They bluffed him and he screwed them proper.

So, Comey had been strong-armed to effectively lie and say there was no reason to recommend charges. He hated what he did.

He was not going to continue to mislead the American public when he was told about the existence of proof he'd been looking for.

yada yada

As usual you are missing the point I suspect on purpose as a way of deflection. The point here is comey did not make this statement of his own accord... he was forced into it he had no choice. And I wouldn't worry so much about him breaking the public trust by violating some interdepartmental policy when you should be worried about a Secretary of State and a potential president who according to the FBI has most certainly violated the public Trust on several levels and also jeopardized National Security and has certainly put many lives in danger by her gross negligence and should be charged with no less than treason.

How you can possibly defend this woman just boggles the mind.


From Real Clear Politics



Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment"

Posted By Tim Hains
On Date November 2, 2016

Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment"

Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.

2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.

3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.

4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.

5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.

Transcript:

BRET BAIER: Breaking news tonight -- two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation tell Fox the following:

The investigation looking into possible pay-for-play interaction between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been going on for more than a year. Led by the white collar crime division, public corruption branch of the criminal investigative division of the FBI.

The Clinton Foundation investigation is a, quote, "very high priority." Agents have interviewed and reinterviewed multiple people about the Foundation case, and even before the WikiLeaks dumps, agents say they have collected a great deal of evidence. Pressed on that, one sources said, quote, "a lot of it," and "there is an avalanche of new information coming every day."

Some of it from WikiLeaks, some of it from new emails. The agents are actively and aggressively pursuing this case. They will be going back to interview the same people again, some for the third time.

As a result of the limited immunity deals to top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the Justice Department had tentatively agreed that the FBI would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. We are told definitively that has not happened. Those devices are currently in the FBI field office here in Washington, D.C. and are being exploited.

The source points out that any immunity deal is null and void if any subject lied at any point in the investigation.

Meantime, the classified e-mail investigation is being run by the National Security division of the FBI. They are currently combing through former Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener's laptop and have found e-mails that they believe came from Hillary Clinton's server that appear to be new, as in not duplicates.

Whether they contain classified material or not is not yet known. It will likely be known soon. All of this just as we move inside one week until election day.





Baier gives more details to Fox News Channel's Brit Hume.

Transcript:

BRET BAIER: Here's the deal: We talked to two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations. One: The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far... Several offices separately have been doing their own investigations.

Two: The immunity deal that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, two top aides to Hillary Clinton, got from the Justice Department in which it was beleived that the laptops they had, after a narrow review for classified materials, were going to be destroyed. We have been told that those have not been destroyed -- they are at the FBI field office here on Washington and are being exploited. .

Three: The Clinton Foundation investigation is so expansive, they have interviewed and re-interviewed many people. They described the evidence they have as 'a lot of it' and said there is an 'avalanche coming in every day.' WikiLeaks and the new emails.

They are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case." Remember the Foundation case is about accusations of pay-for-play... They are taking the new information and some of them are going back to interview people for the third time. As opposed to what has been written about the Clinton Foundation investigation, it is expansive.

The classified e-mail investigation is being run by the National Security division of the FBI. They are currently combing through Anthony Weiner's laptop. They are having some success -- finding what they believe to be new emaisls, not duplicates, that have been transported through Hillary Clinton's server.

Finally, we learned there is a confidence from these sources that her server had been hacked. And that it was a 99% accuracy that it had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that things had been taken from that...

There has been some angst about Attorney General Loretta Lynch -- what she has done or not done. She obviously did not impanel, or go to a grand jury at the beginning. They also have a problem, these sources do, with what President Obama said today and back in October of 2015...

I pressed again and again on this very issue... The investigations will continue, there is a lot of evidence. And barring some obstruction in some way, they believe they will continue to likely an indictment.




Because what you state is pretty much ridiculous.
- Using a private email server did not violate the public trust on several levels. That's just crazy talk. Powell did it, Jeb Bush did it, thousands of Americans have done it. Having your own server for personal email was something people did a decade ago.
- It also did not jeopardize National Security. The emails on the server show that Clinton had a group that exchanged daily devotional psalms, not the lists of undercover agents around the world. Nor did her server get hacked.
- No lives were put in danger. That's just the longest reach possible. It's been said many times, but State Department business was not being transacted on this server. On a few occasions, Clinton's personal and work emails crossed paths but no one was ever put at risk. You leap from "a few emails that should have been classified were on her server" to "lives were at risk" and wonder why no one else is particularly alarmed?
- Just to be clear, even if Clinton was guilty of "gross negligence", that is not treason. You throw that word around carelessly. If she had packed up the emails and used a secret server in her tower to transmit them to a Russian bank, that could be treason, but that's what Trump has been doing, not Clinton.

You're wrong... according to two FBI sources with a 99% certainty her emails were hacked by no less than five foreign National Security intelligence agencies to include SAP information. Her decision to use a private server is an intentional Act and the result of exposing SAP programs to foreign governments is treasonous and she should be in a federal prison.

As President Obama said, we don't operate on "innuendo." The conclusion of the investigation of the matter you are referring was she didn't do anything which prosecutable. Now all we know is there was some emails on Anthony Wieners laptop of which at the time of Comey announcement they hadn't reviewed yet which may be related Hillary's server. We haven't heard anything new, so we know nothing new. Comey should have waited until after the election and after they knew if there was anything important on them to avoid influencing the election with "might be."

You're paddling down that famous river... Denial.

Waited till after the election so that she could be impeached? Why would you want to put the country through that?

I doubt that will happen, doubt there will be anything to come of the reviewing of the discovered emails other than duplicates and what not. In any case, she seems to weathering it all just fine.

A Hillary impeachment followed by a Kaine presidency would be MUCH greater than a Donald Trump one.

But strangely enough, those sources did not testify that to Congress nor have the emails turned up on Wikileaks. Strange how that works that these "sources" seem to not reflect reality.

Reality? Whose reality? Those who live in that drug-induced dream world where Hillary Clinton is a paragon of virtue never lies never cheats and has the best interest of all Americans at heart?

In "reality", Clinton is neither a "paragon of virtue" nor has she "jeopardized National Security and has certainly put many lives in danger". I'm willing to concede the former. Are you willing to concede the latter? Is it just possible that those espousing that are a bit deluded themselves?

I don't see how I can in as much as we know that as Secretary of State she was privy to special access program information which if exposed to Bad actors put operatives lives in danger and we may not see the results of it for months or years to come.

Gotcha. Of course the election will establish the facts of that. But as I've noted before, in six of the last seven presidential elections up to the present, Republican voters were a majority only once so such a claim as you suggest she's made is just untenable.