Clinton Walks: FBI recommends no charges against Clinton in email probe

[Ares]

FBI Director James Comey announced that an investigation has uncovered that while Hillary Clinton “used several different” email servers and numerous devices during her time as secretary of state, the agency is not recommending the Justice Department bring charges against Clinton.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges,” Comey said.

Comey prefaced the announcement by saying that he has not coordinated his statement with the Justice Department or any other government agency.
“They do not know what I'm about to say,” Comey said, thanking the agents who worked on the case.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/fbi-recommends-no-charges-against-clinton-in-email-probe-225102#superComments

[boogietillyapuke]

FBI Director James Comey announced that an investigation has uncovered that while Hillary Clinton “used several different” email servers and numerous devices during her time as secretary of state, the agency is not recommending the Justice Department bring charges against Clinton.

“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges,” Comey said.

Comey prefaced the announcement by saying that he has not coordinated his statement with the Justice Department or any other government agency.
“They do not know what I'm about to say,” Comey said, thanking the agents who worked on the case.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/fbi-recommends-no-charges-against-clinton-in-email-probe-225102#superComments


If we had reasonable prosecutors, they wouldn't present half the charges that they do. Intent= thought crimes.

[Joshua01]

This is pure bullshit.


“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges,” Comey said.

What the fuck does this mean anyway?

[EE_]

The witch is free and clear. The system and the FBI is a rigged corrupt piece of shit!

She was grossly negligent and she lied may times that she did not send classified emails...but no charges will be filed.

RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED!
RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED!
RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED!
RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED! RIGGED!

[SWRichmond]

The system can always be relied upon to continually come up with reasons why it must be deposed.

[Joshua01]

The system can always be relied upon to continually come up with reasons why it must be deposed.

Perfectly put!

[Twisted Titan]

So what you are saying is you suspect there was a slight chance Mrs. Clinton handled the situation incorrectly?

You need to be a bit more clear on this matter.

[Cebu_4_2]

Not charged because if the Clitons pushed back there is no longer anyone to testify.

[Shami-Amourae]

What the creepy occultist guy said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bo5bcLBc32Y

Basically the FBI hates Hillary and thinks she's guilty, but they believe they won't get a fair trial since the justice department is so corrupt. The FBI basically is saying "Yeah she's corrupt and committed these crimes but we can do anything." The FBI did this as a smear against Hillary since they probably think it's the worst they can do to her.

[Ares]

Comey has covered for the Clinton's before.

Comey’s first brush with them came when Bill Clinton was president. Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

Comey parlayed the Whitewater job into top posts in Virginia and New York, returning to Manhattan in 2002 to be the top federal prosecutor there. One of his first cases as a line attorney in the same office 15 years earlier had been the successful prosecution of Marc Rich, a wealthy international financier, for tax evasion. But on his last day as President in 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned Rich. “I was stunned,” Comey later told Congress. As top U.S. prosecutor in New York in 2002, appointed by George W. Bush, Comey inherited the criminal probe into the Rich pardon and 175 others Clinton had made at the 11th hour.

Despite evidence that several pardon recipients, including Rich, had connections to donations to Bill Clinton’s presidential library and Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, Comey found no criminal wrongdoing. He was careful not to let the investigation be used for political purposes by either party. When pressed for details in one case, he said, “I can’t really go into it because it was an investigation that didn’t result in charges. That may be a frustrating answer, but that’s the one I’m compelled to give.”


http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

[EE_]

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
July 5, 2016 12:45 PM

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

[Joshua01]

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/13603534_992664134188205_6078707938621456952_o.jpg

[EE_]

Court: Private-account email can be subject to FOIA
By JOSH GERSTEIN 07/05/16 12:00 PM EDT Updated 07/05/16 02:10 PM EDT

On the same day that the FBI announced that the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server is likely to conclude without any charges, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that could complicate and prolong a slew of ongoing civil lawsuits over access to the messages Clinton and her top aides traded on personal accounts.

In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests.

The case ruled on by the D.C. Circuit focused on a relatively obscure White House unit: the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

At least one federal judge handling a FOIA suit focused on Clinton's emails said last month he was watching to see how the D.C. Circuit ruled in the dispute involving Obama science adviser John Holdren and an account he kept on a server at the non-profit Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.

After the free-market-oriented Competitive Enterprise Institute filed suit over a request for work-related emails sent to or from that private account used by Holdren, U.S.

District Court Judge Gladys Kessler ruled last year that the government had no duty to search an email account that wasn't part of OSTP's official system.

But the three D.C. Circuit judges who ruled Tuesday all said Kessler was too rash in throwing out the suit and they agreed the case should be reinstated.

While the opinions in the case make no mention of Clinton or her private server, it seems evident that all three appeals judges involved are aware of the obvious analogy.

"If a department head can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to by the simple expedient of maintaining his departmental emails on an account in another domain, that purpose is hardly served. It would make as much sense to say that the department head could deprive requestors of hard-copy documents by leaving them in a file at his daughter’s house and then claiming that they are under her control," Judge David Sentelle wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Harry Edwards.

Judge Sri Srinivasan wrote separately, but came to much the same conclusion: that the fact a different domain name was used was not a sufficient basis—standing alone—to defeat a FOIA lawsuit.

"A current official’s mere possession of assumed agency records in a (physical or virtual) location beyond the agency’s ordinary domain, in and of itself, does not mean that the agency lacks the control necessary for a withholding," Srinivasan wrote.

It was not entirely clear on what points Srinivasan disagreed with his colleagues, but his opinion seemed a tad friendlier towards Clinton's predicament. He suggested that an agency might have no duty to obtain a former official's records in response to a FOIA request or suit, and might not even have the legal obligation to do so even if a current official was involved.

Still, some of the suits in litigation over Clinton's emails involve requests sent to State while Clinton was still secretary.

While it's difficult to predict exactly how the appeals court's decision will affect the ongoing Clinton-related FOIA litigation, the ruling seems likely to bolster efforts by conservative groups to press for more answers from Clinton, her aides and the State Department about how her private server system was set up, why it wasn't searched in response to FOIA requests and how Clinton's lawyers determined that about 32,000 messages in her account were purely personal.

Clinton had that set of messages erased at about the same time she turned over to the State Department about 30,000 messages her team deemed work-related. The FBI recovered some of the deleted messages during its investigation and the new D.C. Circuit ruling could make it more likely some of those messages will eventually be made public.

A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the decision, but the loss could not have come as much of a surprise since at oral arguments in the Holdren case in January the judges were clearly deeply skeptical of the government's position.
The group pressing for broader access to Holdren's email hailed the ruling as an important precedent.

"While today’s ruling is a major victory for government transparency, it’s stunning that it takes a court decision for federal employees to be held accountable to the law,” CEI senior fellow Marlo Lewis said. “The ‘most transparent administration in history’ has proven over and over that it has no intention of actually letting the American public know what it is doing. ... Director Holdren is not the first agency head to be found using private email for his government work, but as we continue our legal battle in this case, we seek for this unlawful behavior to come to an end.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/private-email-freedom-of-information-225100#ixzz4DYn4e586
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

[EE_]

Peak FBI Corruption? Meet Bryan Nishimura, Found Guilty For "Removal And Retention Of Classified Materials"
by Tyler Durden
Jul 5, 2016 12:51 PM

In a scandalous announcement, FBI director James Comey moments ago said that "although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information" and he gave extensive evidence of just that, "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." He added that "prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."

What is shocking is that the FBI director was clearly ignoring the US code itself, where in Section 793, subsection (f),"Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", it makes it quite clear that intent is not a key consideration in a case like this when deciding to press charges, to wit:

Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
What is even more shocking is that according to Comey, "we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

Well, we did. Here is the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom, who pleaded guilty to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials" without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t @DavidSirota):

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.

According to court documents, Nishimura was a Naval reservist deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008. In his role as a Regional Engineer for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, Nishimura had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers. Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media. He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment. In the United States, Nishimura continued to maintain the information on unclassified systems in unauthorized locations, and copied the materials onto at least one additional unauthorized and unclassified system.

Nishimura’s actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura’s home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.

This case was the product of an investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant United States Attorney Jean M. Hobler prosecuted the case

Here is Nishimura, this man charged after committing the same crimess as Hillary:

It doesn't end there.

Here is former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker who told CNBC moments ago, that in his view Comey should have brought charges as "he seemed to be building a case for that and he laid out what I thought were the elements under the gross negligence aspect of it, so I was very surprised at the end when he said that there was a recommendation of no prosecution and also given the fact-based nature of this and the statement that no reasonable prosecutor would entertain prosecution, I don't think that's the standard."

His conclusion: "The facts are the facts, and in this case I think there are a lot of things that are very unusual about this."

And then there is Ian Bremmer who said that "it's very clear that in trying to make it go away actually lied, repeatedly, about whether or not these materials were classified at the time. And it's the cover up frequently that gets people in trouble, it's not the actual misdeed. This was very badly mishandled by Hillary all the way through."

But then she got some much needed help from the FBI to complete the cover up.

In retrospect, perhaps former Attorney General Eric Holder said it best when he justified with the US DOJ simply refuses to bring up criminal cases against those it deems "too big to prosecute":

if you do bring a criminal charge it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps world economy
And just like that, Hillary is "systemically important", if mostly for her countless Wall Street donors.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/peak-fbi-corruption-meet-bryan-nishimura-found-guilty-removal-and-retention-classifi

[Shami-Amourae]

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1467/74/1467743693937.jpg

[Ares]

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1467/74/1467743693937.jpg

Unless that individual too big to jail is me!


All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

-George Orwell - Animal Farm.

[Ares]

FBI twitter feed is getting an ear full on this from pissed off people.

Here are a couple gems.

Sandy ‏@RightGlockMom 2h2 hours ago
Sandy Retweeted Sandy
.@FBI Faith completely eroded.Sandy added,
Sandy @RightGlockMom
Justice for thee, not for HRC [link to twitter.com (secure)]

Colorado Grandma ‏@CoFemale 2h2 hours ago
Well they did let the Orlando shooter go. We can't trust any Obama federal office. @RightGlockMom @DanRiehl @FBI


Chassie ‏@24Nobodysfool 1h1 hour ago
@CoFemale @RightGlockMom @DanRiehl @FBI it was a hoax no shooter just actors


View other replies
Colorado Grandma ‏@CoFemale 1h1 hour ago
Get off my TL loser. @24Nobodysfool @RightGlockMom @DanRiehl @FBI


Dissident Biker ‏@DissidentBiker 2h2 hours ago
@FBI YOU PEOPLE CAVED TO POLITICAL PRESSURE AND YOU KNOW IT. THIS CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AWAY. YOU HAVE IRREPARABLY DAMAGED YOUR CREDIBILITY.



Chassie ‏@24Nobodysfool 1h1 hour ago
@DissidentBiker @FBI They lost their credibility a long time ago. It's just now ppl are awake...

3XT1 AJ Bains ‏@3XT1 2h2 hours ago
@FBI made sure #RuleofLaw is decimated.

They have destroyed everything themselves.

No trust left in Gov't.


View other replies
wait what ‏@JustMYOB 1h1 hour ago
@3XT1 @FBI The rule of law is only for the little people.


Calvin Dodge ‏@caldodge 2h2 hours ago
@FBI His statement on "no reasonable prosecutor" is purest horse dung. People have been imprisoned for accidentally doing far less.


View other replies
#Bossy CPA ‏@colleencpa 1h1 hour ago
Where were these "reasonable prosecutors" for General Patreus? @caldodge @FBI #ComeyCriminal #MakeAmericaGreatAgain


View other replies
Ted Simmons ‏@SIMMONSWeeney 1h1 hour ago
@colleencpa @_donaldson @caldodge @FBI As a disabled vet I can assure U military personnel r expendable.


View other replies
#Bossy CPA ‏@colleencpa 1h1 hour ago
Sad. @SIMMONSWeeney @_donaldson @caldodge @FBI


:::: ‏@jaejooongs 2h2 hours ago Ohio, USA
@FBI y'all have seriously failed us but am i surprised ? no ....nope not at all


wait what ‏@JustMYOB 2h2 hours ago
@jaejooongs @FBI Bought and paid for.


Marcus Porcius ‏@Marcus_Porcius 1h1 hour ago
@JustMYOB @jaejooongs @FBI Worse. Not even paid for lol. Just bent over for free.


Kuato ‏@PhillipCMcGuire 2h2 hours ago
@FBI You no longer work for an honorable or respected agency. Any person with a shred a self-respect would look for other employment.


Karyn Kattermann ‏@kkat0125 2h2 hours ago
@FBI Comey will now forever in my eyes be known as "the gutless wonder" What deals were made so Hillary could get off? Disgraceful.


Say It Aint So ‏@SayIts_So 1h1 hour ago
@kkat0125 @JoyfulGrandma @FBI There's always a deal with HRC. That's why her Money Laundering Foundation is overflowing.


Trump Grandma ‏@JoyfulGrandma 1h1 hour ago
@SayIts_So @kkat0125 @FBI How can we now trust the @FBI with any investigation in the future

https://twitter.com/FBI/status/750358920015646721?lang=en

[vacuum]

Hillary getting off the hook in he long run should help Trump, but the fact that it was the FBI who let her off the hook, and not the Attorney General, is not so good.

[Joshua01]

Hillary getting off the hook in he long run should help Trump, but the fact that it was the FBI who let her off the hook, and not the Attorney General, is not so good.

Of course it's good. Know your enemy!

[Cebu_4_2]

Hillary getting off the hook in he long run should help Trump, but the fact that it was the FBI who let her off the hook, and not the Attorney General, is not so good.


They are working together, the AG said a couple days back she would support what the FBI recommended.

[Joshua01]

They are working together, the AG said a couple days back she would support what the FBI recommended.

Correctamundo! Bill told Lynch what was going down and told her what she needed to say to the press. They didn't plan on them being seen (or maybe they did, who knows?) but they decided to go forward with the plan anyway

[singular_me]

no charge?

because she is going to become prez, highly likely.

[Cebu_4_2]

Correctamundo! Bill told Lynch what was going down and told her what she needed to say to the press. They didn't plan on them being seen (or maybe they did, who knows?) but they decided to go forward with the plan anyway

They are showing the power they have, and a bitch president doesn't usualy have much power until they succeed in showing that anyone can be killed and nothing is beyond the power she seeks, alas the alpha cunt. Leftists dig this stuff. Let's be gay and plunder the country with no offence. This is deepening at progressing levels until it just overflows with filth. Just a matter of time now.

[Twisted Titan]

Correctamundo! Bill told Lynch what was going down and told her what she needed to say to the press. They didn't plan on them being seen (or maybe they did, who knows?) but they decided to go forward with the plan anyway

Each department can blame the other and everybody gets to keep their fat pension

[Glass]

when she gets in, I think everyone who criticized her will get picked up.

[midnight rambler]

when she gets in, I think everyone who criticized her will get picked up or harassed by the Individuals Representing Satan, EPA, FDA, USDA, etc., etc.

That's a safe bet.

[Joshua01]

when she gets in, I think everyone who criticized her will get picked up.

Come get me

[EE_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYWGVSZw8LA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGtxkgu-Cbo

[EE_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60oyTT9Q_X0

[Joshua01]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60oyTT9Q_X0

I want to give this woman a tongue bath

[EE_]

I want to give this woman a tongue bath

What about this woman?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKFT118nP3Q

[EE_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD6Ykxlvddk

[7th trump]

I want to give this woman a tongue bath

Spoken like a true and true atheist who has no limitations.........considering you're probably white you follow the jews protocol for whites in mating with a different race.

What tribe are you from Hillbilly?

[Joshua01]

Spoken like a true and true atheist who has no limitations.........considering you're probably white you follow the jews protocol for whites in mating with a different race.

What tribe are you from Hillbilly?

I'd concentrate on her ample bosom first until her breasts were wet and shiny, then work my way down to her crotch

[Joshua01]

What about this woman?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKFT118nP3Q

That's not fair EE, can't I have them both???

[7th trump]

I'd concentrate on her ample bosom first until her breasts were wet and shiny, then work my way down to her crotch

Without a doubt you would promote impurity between races in such a progressive new age filthy way.

[midnight rambler]

I'd concentrate on her ample bosom first until her breasts were wet and shiny, then work my way down to her crotch

You're referring to an unknown concept to trumpstein the clueless commie dung beetle, I seriously doubt he gets it.

[Shami-Amourae]

From Morrakiu:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dONZUSvnlMA

[EE_]

I'd concentrate on her ample bosom first until her breasts were wet and shiny, then work my way down to her crotch

Stay away from the crotch, that old broad has a big ol brown hangin' cooch.

[Joshua01]

Stay away from the crotch, that old broad has a big ol brown hangin' cooch.

It would be interesting to find out, wouldn't it?

[Joshua01]

Without a doubt you would promote impurity between races in such a progressive new age filthy way.

What's the matter Trumpstein....not getting any lately? Try leaving Mom's basement once in a while and meet new people

[EE_]

They're all above the law...

Nancy Pelosi blows off traffic laws — to shop at shoe store!
JULY 6, 2016
BY VICTOR SKINNER

U.S. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is above the law, as St. Helena, California residents learned last month.

Nancy Pelosi2Local Paul Smith wrote in to the St. Helena Star in June to describe Pelosi’s recent shoe shopping excursion at a fancy boutique, prompting a response from police chief Bill Imboden about the former House Speaker’s special status.

“Last Saturday afternoon (June 4) I’m standing on the west side of Main Street directly across from the Hunt Avenue intersection chatting with friends. Of course, traffic was heavy in both directions,” Smith wrote.

“A large perfectly polished and gleaming black SUV is attempting a left turn from Hunt onto southbound Main (not easy). Suddenly blue/red lights are flashing from the windshield area of the SUV (like you would see in an official fire/police vehicle),” he continued. “I said to my friends, I’ve never seen that before on a ‘regular’ vehicle and I’d think that’s illegal and dangerous. They agreed.”

That’s when the large black SUV jolted across two lanes of traffic, lights flashing, to park in front of a fire hydrant at the high end shoe boutique Footcandy.

“A St. Helena police car happens to be going northbound and pulls into the center lane and the officer starts shaking his arm and hollering at the driver of the SUV. While this goes on a man exits the SUV assisting a woman from the vehicle. She dashes off to Footcandy while he waits by the SUV in the red zone,” Smith explained.

The police officer then drove off without confronting the driver, he wrote.

“My friends and I are puzzled, say goodbye and I walk south on Main. As I approach Footcandy, Nancy Pelosi comes out with her shopping bags and the man assists her into the awaiting SUV. The SUV, with lights flashing, bursts back into southbound traffic,” Smith said.

“Wow! Privilege? Power? Whose SUV, taxpayers?” he questioned. “Say it ain’t so, Nancy.”

The Star contacted Imboden about the episode.

Imboden responded:

The St. Helena Police Department has received similar complaints in the past, and on occasion we come across a scenario like what is mentioned in the complaint. Unfortunately local law enforcement has no authority to prevent this type of activity. The U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Secret Service provide dignitary protection for certain high-ranking members of the Federal Government, and this protection comes with the discretion to violate some state and local laws (illegal U-turns, parking in a red zone) under the guise of providing the best possible protection to the dignitary. In the case of Congresswoman Pelosi, she receives her protection detail from the Capitol Police. As the Chief of Police in St. Helena I can assure you we don’t like or condone their behavior, but I can tell you from personal experience that while they sympathize with the position they put us in, they will not alter their tactics to appease us.

Anyone who wishes to lodge a complaint about Congresswoman Pelosi can email her at the following website: pelosi.house.gov.

You can also lodge a complaint with the protection agency at: U.S. Capitol Police Office of Professional Responsibility — OPR@uscp.gov.

“This didn’t look like any official business to me,” Smith told the San Francisco Chronicle, which confirmed the high security shopping trip with Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

Hammill, of course, insisted that Pelosi’s entourage “always complies with appropriate laws and regulations.”

Twitchy pointed out Tuesday that Pelosi’s special treatment is another example of “the double standard that benefits Democrat politicians to whom laws simply don’t apply” that’s similar to the recent decision by the FBI not to recommend criminal charges against former secretary of state Hillary Clinton over her use of a private unsecured email server for official government business.

Clinton is expected to escape criminal charges for her “extremely careless” handling of classified information, despite the fact that the Department of Justice has prosecuted military personnel for very similar, less critical, offenses, the Daily Caller reports.
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/nancy-pelosi-driver-cuts-across-traffic/

[mick silver]

there no laws in this country for the high up folks but they have more laws then I will ever be able to learn that they hold over my fucking head and yours . I just hope now that they have open a big ass box that can not be shut ....... then maybe people will see just how f.cked up the laws are

[mick silver]

Washington Has Been Obsessed With Punishing Secrecy Violations — until Hillary Clinton

[Glass]

This guy is very anti Trump. He's been getting a bit of coverage on Zerohedge (which is disappointing)


Dilbert Creator Calls FBI Director A Hero... Here's Why

The primary goal of government is its own credibility.

...
Governments do many things, including building roads, providing social services, defending the homeland, and more. But no matter what the government is trying to accomplish, its macro-responsibility is to maintain its own credibility. Governments without credibility devolve into chaos. Credibility has to be job one.
...
This gets me to FBI Director James Comey’s decision to drop the case against Hillary Clinton for her e-mail security lapses. To the great puzzlement of everyone in America, and around the world, Comey announced two things:

1. Hillary Clinton is 100% guilty of crimes of negligence.

2. The FBI recommends dropping the case.
From a legal standpoint, that’s absurd.
...
But what was the alternative?
The alternative was the head of the FBI deciding for the the people of the United States who would be their next president. A criminal indictment against Clinton probably would have cost her the election.
How credible would a future President Trump be if he won the election by the FBI’s actions instead of the vote of the public? That would be the worst case scenario even if you are a Trump supporter. The public would never accept the result as credible.
...
Thanks to Comey, the American voting public will get to decide how much they care about Clinton’s e-mail situation. And that means whoever gets elected president will have enough credibility to govern effectively.
Comey might have saved the country. He sacrificed his reputation and his career to keep the nation’s government credible.
It was the right decision.
Comey is a hero.



Link to ZH (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-07/dilbert-creator-calls-fbi-director-hero-heres-why)

I guess he's counting on the bulk of the people to either no know of the facts or not care OR all those people who will now think there was nothing there because the FBI didn't do anything.

[osoab]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn0M_2xzuw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn0M_2xzuw8

[Cebu_4_2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn0M_2xzuw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn0M_2xzuw8


Great observation.

[Neuro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn0M_2xzuw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn0M_2xzuw8

So this is just the beginning...

[EE_]

US State Department to conduct internal probe of Clinton email case
Thomson Reuters
Jul 7th 2016 7:32PM

WASHINGTON, July 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. State Department said on Thursday it will conduct an internal review of whether Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her aides mishandled classified information, after the Justice Department declined to bring criminal charges.

The State Department said in April it had suspended plans for an internal review at the request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which conducted a yearlong probe of Clinton's use of private email servers while she was secretary of state.

The outcome of the investigation may also have a big impact on her presidency if elected in November. Her closest confidants involved in the scandal could face severe punishment, according to the Associated Press, the most serious being the loss of security clearances. This will be a major roadblock if she hopes to appoint any of them to her national security team.

"Given the Department of Justice has now made its announcement, the State Department intends to conduct its internal review," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

"I cannot provide specific information about the Department's review, including what information we are evaluating. We will aim to be as expeditious as possible, but we will not put artificial deadlines on the process," he said.

On Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she would accept the recommendations of the FBI not to bring criminal charges against Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for the Nov. 8 election.

FBI Director James Comey said on Tuesday Clinton had been "extremely careless" in the handling of classified information, and Republicans have criticized the decision not to prosecute.

Comey told a congressional hearing on Thursday that FBI employees who mishandled classified material in the way Clinton did as secretary of state could be subject to dismissal or loss of security clearance.

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/07/07/us-state-department-to-conduct-internal-probe-of-clinton-email-c/21426131/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D-1433100351_htmlws-main-bb

[EE_]

COMEY HAS LONG HISTORY OF CASES ENDING FAVORABLE TO CLINTONS
In Berger probe said 'we take issues of classified information very seriously'
Published: 10 hours ago

NEW YORK – FBI Director James Comey has a long history of involvement in Department of Justice actions that arguably ended up favorable to the Clintons.

In 2004, Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National Archives. The documents were relevant to accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the 9/11 terrorist attack.

On Tuesday, Comey announced that despite evidence of “extreme negligence by Hillary Clinton and her top aides regarding the handling of classified information through a private email server, the FBI would not refer criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department.

Curiously, Berger, Lynch and Cheryl Mills all worked as partners in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, which prepared tax returns for the Clintons and did patent work for a software firm that played a role in the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was secretary of state.

With Hillary making another run for president, don’t get caught up in the lies and spin! In “Hillary Unhinged: In Her Own Words,” find out who the true Hillary is with this raw and humorous collection of quotes that pitilessly underscores her hypocrisy

Lynch and Comey both served as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. They crossed paths in the investigation of HSBC bank, which avoided criminal charges in a massive money-laundering scandal for which the bank paid a $1.9 billion fine.

After Attorney General John Aschroft recused himself in the Valerie Plame affair in 2004, Comey appointed as special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who ended up convicting “Scooter” Libby, a top aide to then Vice President Dick Cheney, of perjury and obstruction of justice. The charge affirmed the accusations of Plame and her former ambassador husband, Joe Wilson – both partisan supporters of Bill and Hillary Clinton – that Libby outed her as a CIA agent.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s 2015 memoir strongly suggests Fitzgerald improperly manipulated testimony and withheld crucial evidence in obtaining a conviction against Libby in his 2007 trial.

Prosecutor in Berger case

As deputy attorney general, Comey was involved in the investigation of Berger, as Fox News reported in 2004

Berger at that time was under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for removing from the National Archives various classified documents that should have been turned over to the independent commission investigating the 9/11 terror attacks and for removing handwritten notes he made while reviewing the documents.

The New York Times reported in 2005 that Republican leaders speculated Berger removed the documents from the National Archives because he was trying to conceal material that could be damaging to the Clinton administration.

There is no evidence Comey’s investigation for the Justice Department made any attempt to determine if anyone affiliated with the Clinton White House prompted Berger or coordinated with him in the decision to remove the classified documents.

Various statements Comey made about Berger’s mishandling of classified documents bear comparison to his comments regarding Hillary Clinton’s email server.

In 2004, Fox News noted Comey told reporters he could not comment on the Berger investigation but did address the general issue of mishandling classified documents.

“As a general matter, we take issues of classified information very seriously,” Comey said in response to a reporter’s question.

He added that the department had prosecuted and sought administrative sanctions against people for mishandling classified information.

“It’s our lifeblood, those secrets,” Comey continued. “It’s against the law for anyone to intentionally mishandle classified documents either by taking it to give to somebody else or by mishandling it in a way that is outside the government regulations.”

On April 1, 2005, Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of intentionally removing documents from the National Archives and destroying some of them. He was fined $50,000, sentenced to 100 hours of community service and two years probation. Also, his national security license was stripped for two years.

Messages found stored on Clinton’s private email server show that Berger – a convicted thief of classified documents – had been advising Clinton while she served as secretary of state and had access to emails containing classified information.

For example, in an email dated Sept. 22, 2009, Berger advised Clinton advised how she could leverage information to make Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu more cooperative in discussions with the Obama administration over a settlement freeze.

Law firm ties Berger, Lynch, Mills

Berger worked as a partner in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson from 1973 to 1977, before taking a position as the deputy director of policy planning at the State Department in the Carter administration.

When Carter lost his re-election bid, Berger returned to Hogan & Hartson, where he worked until he took leave in 1988 to act as foreign policy adviser in Gov. Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaign.

When Dukakis was defeated, Berger returned to Hogan & Hartson until he became foreign policy adviser for Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992.

On March 28, WND reported Lynch was a litigation partner for eight years at Hogan & Hartson, from March 2002 through April 2010.

Mills also worked at Hogan & Hartson, for two years, starting in 1990, before she joined then President-elect Bill Clinton’s transition team, on her way to securing a position as White House deputy counsel in the Clinton administration.

According to documents Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign made public in 2008, Hogan & Hartson’s New York-based partner Howard Topaz was the tax lawyer who filed income tax returns for Bill and Hillary Clinton beginning in 2004.

In addition, Hogan & Hartson in Virginia filed a patent trademark request on May 19, 2004, for Denver-based MX Logic Inc., the computer software firm that developed the email encryption system used to manage Clinton’s private email server beginning in July 2013. A tech expert has observed that employees of MX Logic could have had access to all the emails that went through her account.

In 1999, President Bill Clinton nominated Lynch for the first of her two terms as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, a position she held until she joined Hogan & Hartson in March 2002 to become a partner in the firm’s Litigation Practice Group.

She left Hogan & Hartson in 2010, after being nominated by President Obama for her second term as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, a position she held until Obama nominated her to serve in her current position as attorney general.

A report published April 8, 2008, by The American Lawyer noted Hogan & Hartson was among Hillary Clinton’s biggest financial supporters in the legal industry during her first presidential campaign.

“Firm lawyers and staff have donated nearly $123,400 to her campaign so far, according to campaign contribution data from the Center for Responsive Politics,” Nate Raymond observed in The American Lawyer article. “Christine Varney, a partner in Hogan’s Washington, D.C., office, served as chief counsel to the Clinton-Gore Campaign in 1992.”

While there is no evidence that Lynch played a direct role either in the tax work done by the firm for the Clintons or in linking Hillary’s private email server to MX Logic, the ethics of the legal profession hold all partners jointly liable for the actions of other partners in a business.

“If Hogan and Hartson previously represented the Clintons on tax matters, it is incumbent upon U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch to [disclose] what, if any, role she had in such tax matters,” said Tom Fitton, president of Washington-based Judicial Watch.

HSBC link

When Lynch’s nomination as attorney general was considered by the Senate one year ago, as WND reported, the Senate Judiciary Committee examined her role in the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute the banking giant HSBC for laundering funds for Mexican drug cartels and Middle Eastern terrorists.

WND was first to report in a series of articles beginning in 2012 money-laundering charges brought by John Cruz, a former HSBC vice president and relationship manager, based on his more than 1,000 pages of evidence and secret audio recordings.

The staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee focused on Cruz’s allegations that Lynch, acting then in her capacity as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, engaged in a Department of Justice cover-up. Obama’s attorney general nominee allowed HSBC in December 2011 to enter into a “deferred prosecution” settlement in which the bank agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine and admit “willful criminal conduct” in exchange for dropping criminal investigations and prosecutions of HSBC directors or employees.

Cruz called the $1.92 billion fine the U.S. government imposed on HSBC “a joke” and filed a $10 million lawsuit for “retaliation and wrongful termination.”

From 2002 to 2003, Comey held the position of U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the same position held by Lynch.

On March 4, 2013, he joined the HSBC board of directors, agreeing to serve as an independent non-executive director and a member of the bank’s Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee, positions he held until he resigned on Aug. 3, 2013, to become head of the FBI.

Comey, Fitzgerald and Valerie Plame

On Jan. 1, 2004, the Washington Post reported that after Attorney General John Aschroft recused himself and his staff from any involvement in the investigation of who leaked the name of CIA employee Valerie Plame after journalist Robert Novak named her in print as a CIA operative, Comey assumed the role of acting attorney general for the purposes of the investigation.

Comey appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a U.S. attorney in Chicago, to act as special counsel in conducting the inquiry into what became known as “Plamegate.”

At the time Comey made the appointment, Fitzgerald was already godfather to one of Comey’s children.

On April 13, 2015, co-authoring a USA Today op-ed piece, Plame and her husband, retired ambassador Joseph Wilson, made public their support for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, openly acknowledging their political closeness to both Hillary and Bill Clinton.

The first two paragraphs of the editorial read:

We have known Hillary Clinton both professionally and personally for close to 20 years, dating back to before President Bill Clinton’s first trip to Africa in 1998 — a trip that they both acknowledge changed their lives, and gave considerable meaning to their post-White House years and to the activities of the Clinton Foundation. Joe, serving as the National Security Council Senior Director for African Affairs, was instrumental in arranging that historic visit.

Our history became entwined with Hillary further after Valerie’s identity as a CIA officer was deliberately exposed. That criminal act was taken in retribution for Joe’s article in The New York Times in which he explained he had discovered no basis for the Bush administration’s justification for the Iraq War that Saddam Hussein was seeking yellowcake uranium to develop a nuclear weapon.

In January 2016, Chuck Ross in the Daily Caller reported that Hillary Clinton emails made public made clear that one of her “most frequent favor-seekers when she was secretary of state was former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a longtime Clinton friend, an endorser of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, and an Africa expert with deep business ties on the continent.”

Ross noted that Wilson emailed Clinton on Dec. 22, 2009, seeking help for Symbion Power, an American engineering contractor for whom Wilson consulted, in the company’s bid to pursue a U.S. Agency of International Development contract for work in Afghanistan.

In the case of the Afghanistan project, Ross noted, Clinton vouched for Wilson and Symbion as she forwarded the request to Jack Lew, who served then as deputy secretary of state for management and resources.

Ross further reported Wilson’s request might also have been discussed with President Obama, as one email indicates.

In 2005, Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby, a prominent adviser to then Vice President Dick Cheney, in the Plame investigation, charging him with two counts of perjury, two counts of making false statements to federal prosecutors and one count of obstruction of justice.

On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of four of the five counts, and on June 5, 2007, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton to two and a half years in federal prison.

On April 6, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported the publication of New York Times reporter Judith Miller’s memoir “The Story: A Reporter’s Journey” exposed “unscrupulous conduct” by Fitzgerald in the 2007 trial of Libby.

WSJ reporter Peter Berkowitz noted Miller “writes that Mr. Fitzgerald induced her to give what she now realizes was false testimony.”

“By withholding critical information and manipulating her memory as he prepared her to testify, Ms. Miller relates, Mr. Fitzgerald ‘steered’ her ‘in the wrong direction.’”

http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-has-long-history-of-clinton-related-cases/#aclJR4YDW4CQC9D3.99

[EE_]

Here Are the 6 Crimes Hillary Clinton Should Have Been Charged With
July 6, 2016

(ZHE Op-Ed) When the Obama Administration, on July 5th, ruled that in regard to Hillary Clinton’s privatized email system while she was Secretary of State, “Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” to a grand jury, because “We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges,” they ignored the following six U.S. criminal laws, each of which undeniably describes very well what she did:
18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure
Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction

Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant
(c) Whoever corruptly

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 641 — Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, …

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …

18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —

Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Those laws are consequently null and void, by Executive action. When Congress (which is supposed to be the Legislative branch of the government) passed those laws, what were they describing, if not this? Of course, they did describe there what Clinton has, in fact, done.

If we are a nation “of laws, not of men” (as that old basic description of democracy phrased it), then Ms. Clinton will be prosecuted, at least through the grand jury stage, on (at least) those grounds. The decision regarding her innocence or guilt will be made by jurors (first by the grand jurors, of course, and if they find there to be a case, then by a trial jury), not by the broader public – and also not by the nation’s Executive: the President and his appointed Administration. That is what it means for a government to be a functioning democracy. Any government which violates this principle – that it is “of laws, not of men [including women]” – is not functioning as a democracy: it’s something else.

In addition to these criminal laws, there are also federal regulations against these matters, but violations merely of federal regulations (such as these) are far less serious than are actions that violate alsofederal criminal laws (such as the six laws that are listed above).

She isn’t even being sanctioned for the violations the the State Department’s own regulations (or “rules”).

This is not a partisan issue. I was until recently an active Democrat, and I joined with millions of other Democrats who expressed condemnation when George W. Bush was allowed to get away with many severe crimes (such as this) while he was in office; and one of the reasons why I was trying to find someone to contest against President Obama in Democratic primaries for the 2012 Democratic Presidential nomination was that Obama had refused to prosecute his predecessor’s crimes against this nation. But now this same Obama is nullifying at least these six laws in order to win as his successor Hillary Clinton, who surely will not prosecute Obama for his many crimes (such as this and this) while he has been leading this nation and destroying our democracy.

I parted company from the Democratic Party when I gave up on both Parties in 2012 as they and the government they operate have been since at least 1980 — not at all democratic, but instead aristocratic:holding some persons to be above the law (that researcher there called the U.S. an “oligarchy,” which is simply another word for the same thing — rule by the top wealth-holders, not by the public: not a “democracy”).

There can be no excuse for Obama’s depriving the public, via a grand jury decision, of the right to determine whether a full court case should be pursued in order to determine in a jury trial whether Hillary Clinton’s email system constituted a crime (or several crimes) under U.S. laws. The Obama Administration’s ‘finding’ that “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information” would need to have been proven, in order for her to have been prosecuted under any U.S. criminal law, is a flagrant lie: none of the above six U.S. criminal laws requires that, but the only way to determine whether even that description (“clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information”) also applies to Clinton would be to go through a grand jury (presenting the above-cited six laws) and then to a jury case (to try her on those plus possibly also the charge that there was “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information”).

But now, those six laws are effectively gone: anyone who in the future would be charged with violating any one of those six laws could reasonably cite the precedent that Ms.

Clinton was not even charged, much less prosecuted, for actions which clearly fit the description provided in each one of those U.S. criminal laws. Anyone in the future who would be charged under any one of these six laws could prove discriminatory enforcement against himself or herself (in the particular case discussed there, discriminatory enforcement was ruled not to have existed because the enforcement of the criminal law involved was judged to have been random enforcement, but this condition would certainly not apply in Clinton’s case, it was clearly “purposeful discrimination” in her favor, and therefore enforcement of the law against anyone else, where in Clinton’s case she wasn’t even charged — much less prosecuted — for that offense, would certainly constitute discriminatory enforcement).

So: that’s the end of these six criminal laws. The U.S. President effectively nullified those laws, which were duly passed by Congress and signed into law by prior Presidents

And that’s the end, the clear termination, of a government “of laws, not of men.”

http://theantimedia.org/6-crimes-clinton-charged/

[Cebu_4_2]

FBI Source: Clinton Foundation Can Bring Down Entire Government

The real point of interest is the Clinton Foundation, not the email servers, source reveals

Kit Daniels (http://www.infowars.com/author/kit-daniels/) - July 7, 2016 Comments (http://www.infowars.com/fbi-source-clinton-foundation-can-bring-down-entire-government/#disqus_thread)
http://hw.infowars.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Hillary-Clinton-Red.jpg (http://www.infowars.com/fbi-source-clinton-foundation-can-bring-down-entire-government/)Image Credits: Gage Skidmore / Flickr (https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1463/24338774540_53610dbc1c_b.jpg).

The Clinton Foundation is a “massive spider web of connections and money laundering implicating hundreds of high-level people,” according to an anonymous insider who revealed why the FBI stopped short of indicting Hillary Clinton.

Before FBI Director James Comey announced the FBI wouldn’t recommend pressing charges against Clinton, an insider with “intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton case” hosted an little-publicized AMA session on 4Chan (https://i.sli.mg/WuG4nP.png), and the statements he made on July 2 corroborate with later developments of the scandal.

“There is enough for her and the entire government to be brought down,” he revealed. “People do not realize how enormous this whole situation actually is.”

“Whether she will be [indicted] or not depends on how much info others involved gets out, and there are a lot of people involved.”
Since then, both the FBI and the DOJ declined to press charges against Clinton, and other sources revealed the Clinton Foundation is now under scrutiny.

“The problem is with the Clinton Foundation as I mentioned, which you should just imagine as a massive spider web of connections and money laundering implicating hundreds of high-level people,” the source said. “Though I do not have a high opinion of Hillary, she is just a piece – albeit a big piece – of this massive sh*tstorm.”

Those implicated extends to the Justice Dept.
“The DOJ is most likely looking to save itself,” he continued. “Find everyone involved in the Clinton Foundation, from its donors to its Board of Directors, and imagine they are all implicated.”

This would explain why Bill Clinton forced himself on Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s plane at the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport last week; Clinton insider Larry Nichols said blackmail was likely involved.

“Bill Clinton met with Lynch, and he was there to assure her that when Hillary gets to be president she’ll be able to keep her job,” said Nichols on the Alex Jones Show Friday (http://www.infowars.com/clinton-insider-lynch-wont-indict-hillary/). “I would imagine he gave Lynch a slip of paper that had on it a couple of things about the career prosecutors that are working the case. What was on that? The things they have on them. The drugs, women, men, whatever.”

The source indicated the Clinton Foundation is likely a nexus of blackmail material keeping everyone in D.C. in line behind the Clintons – even those with tremendous influence.

“The real point of interest is the Clinton Foundation, not the email server,” he said. “We received the server from Benghazi, then from the server we found data on the Clinton Foundation.”

“Then we realized the situation is much worse than previously thought.”

The server was in Benghazi? Was that one of the reasons why the embassy was attacked, to destroy evidence on the Clinton Foundation?
Additionally, the source said the investigation took so long because FBI Director James Comey didn’t want to face the “Clinton Machine” and the “rest of Washington D.C.”

“…This case would explode into a million other cases if fully brought to light, and then we would be one agency competing against the entire government and a hoard of other interests,” he continued. “It is a very tense and uncomfortable position.”

Interestingly, the insider spoke more about Clinton’s relationship with President Obama, which seems frosty at times despite Obama currently campaigning for his former Secretary of State.

“Obama and Hillary do hate each other,” he said. “Hillary hates black people and Obama dislikes recklessness.”
On Thursday, Breitbart reported the FBI is “is still investigating Hillary Clinton in connection with possible corruption related to the Clinton Foundation.”

[Joshua01]

Where's a BLM sniper when you need one?

[Ares]

very interesting read: https://i.sli.mg/WuG4nP.png

[EE_]

Clinton Foundation Raked in Cash from Right-Wing Regimes, Corporations
By Tom Hall
Global Research, July 07, 2016

This incisive WSWS article (originally posted on Global Research in March 2015) confirms the racketeering charges of the FBI against the Clinton Foundation

Several press reports [late February 2015] highlight details of the major donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, including right-wing Persian Gulf monarchies, big defense contractors, and an array of corporations and governments seeking influence with the US political establishment—and potentially in the next White House.

Founded in 2001 after the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president, the Foundation has raised and distributed huge amounts of money, reaching nearly $2 billion. After a brief drop in fundraising coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, when most foreign donations were discouraged because of conflict-of-interest concerns, donations jumped $100 million in 2013, reaching $262 million.

The list of the Foundation’s largest donors, available on the Foundation’swebsite, is a virtual who’s who of the super-rich and major corporations. The largest donors, having given over $25 million since 2001, include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, well known for its leading role in the dismantling of public education, Chicago multimillionaire and top Democratic Party donor Fred Eychaner, and, strangely, the Dutch national lottery.

Major corporations appear in spades in the list of 168 individuals and organizations that have given more than $1 million. Defense contractors such as Boeing and Booz Allen Hamilton, both gave between $1 and $5 million, joined by Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and the American Federation of Teachers.

The reactionary Persian Gulf monarchies have poured tens of millions into the Clinton Foundation, including Saudi Arabia ($10 to $25 million), Kuwait, ($5 to $10 million), Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates ($1 to $5 million). In addition, several groups and individuals close to the Saudi government have also made tens of millions in contributions.

The Clinton Foundation made an agreement with the Obama administration not to accept new donations from foreign sources during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, a policy which has now expired. However, tens of millions of overseas dollars continued to flow into the Foundation through an exemption which allowed existing donors to continue making contributions at a similar level.

Claims by Clinton Foundation donors that they were genuinely interested in charity are belied by the circumstances of many of the donations. For example, the Wall Street Journal cited an incident in 2009 in which Hillary Clinton convinced Russia to purchase 50 Boeing 737s; seven months later, Boeing made its first-ever donation to the Clinton Foundation, $900,000 to help “rebuild” Haiti’s school system. Perhaps admitting more than she intended, a Boeing spokeswoman said in a written statement, “Secretary Clinton did nothing for Boeing that former US presidents and cabinet secretaries haven’t done for decades.”

In another case, the Foundation received a $500,000 donation from the government of Algeria for its pro-market “relief” effort in Haiti. TheWashington Post notes that the donation, which violated the Foundation’s earlier agreement with the Obama administration, came in the midst of a particularly heavy lobbying push from Algeria in Washington in the aftermath of a report by Clinton’s State Department condemning Algeria’s human rights record. The donation was more than the Algerian government spent on lobbying for the entire year.

Two years later, Secretary of State Clinton lobbied successfully on behalf of GE in its bids to construct power plants in Algeria, described by the company as “some of its largest power agreements in company history.” A month later, GE donated from $500,000 to $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The focus in the media, especially from Journal and other ultra-right outlets, has been on the fact that foreign countries, companies and individuals comprise a third of the foundation’s major donors, implying that they are purchasing political influence through the Clintons. While there is a degree of truth to this, this is also a two-way street, as the Clinton Foundation is fully integrated into the political apparatus as an instrument of American imperialist foreign policy.

Instructive in this regard is their role in the “rebuilding” of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, in which some 300,000 died. The Clinton Foundation played a major role, with Bill Clinton himself co-chairing the panel that distributed all international aid to Haiti. The entire aid effort was used to ram through pro-market restructuring, while American and then UN “peacekeepers” patrolled the country to prevent any opposition from the population. The Obama administration made no objection to the Algerian donation to the Clinton Foundation for the simple reason that it was entirely in line with American foreign policy in Haiti.

The Clinton Foundation’s version of “charity” also involves imperialist intrigue. This included secret maneuvers last year against Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakse, which ultimately led to his electoral defeat last month. The country’s former president Chandrika Kumaratunga, who joined the Clinton Foundation in 2005, played the major role in backroom deals that led to Maithripala Sirisena’s sudden departure from the government and announcement that he would be the “common opposition candidate.” Earlier this month Kumaratunga admitted that unnamed “foreign governments” had urged her to maneuver against Rajapakse.

During her time as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton took the lead in denouncing the Sri Lankan government’s “human rights record” in order to pressure it to move away from its ties with China as part of the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia.” She presented resolutions in 2011 and 2012 in her capacity as secretary of state demanding that the UN take action against Sri Lanka for human rights violations during the civil war against Tamil separatist guerrillas.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/clinton-foundation-raked-in-cash-from-right-wing-regimes-corporations/5434117

[EE_]

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department
By David Sirota
Global Research, July 07, 2016
ibtimes.com

This report was first published in December 2015. No criminal charges against Hillary in relation to her emails. The FBI has also been investigating the Clinton Foundation.

By David Sirota and Andrew Perez

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 – contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed salesto those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

Read complete article at ibtimes

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

[EE_]

State Department seeks 27-month delay for release of Clinton Foundation emails
Published July 01, 2016 FoxNews.com

The State Department has sought to delay the court-ordered release of emails between four of Hillary Clinton's top aides and officials at the Clinton Foundation and a closely associated public relations firm.

The motion, filed in federal court by the Justice Department late Wednesday, seeks to put off the release of the emails by 27 months. It was first reported on by The Daily Caller.

In the filing, the State Department says it originally estimated that approximately 6,000 emails and other documents were exchanged between the aides — identified as former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, former Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin — and the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a communications shop that former President Bill Clinton helped launch.

However, the State Department said that due to errors in the initial document search, the number of "potentially responsive documents" was in fact more than 34,000. The department estimated that it had more than 13,000 pages still left to review.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras had previously ordered the State Department to release the requested documents by July 21.

If the State Department request is granted, the emails would not be released until October 2018, nearly halfway through the first term of a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. The documents are being sought by the conservative nonprofit group Citizens United.

"The American people have a right to see these emails before the election," Citizens United President David Bossie told The Daily Caller, adding that the delay was "totally unacceptable."

The motion was filed two days after Attorney General Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport. Lynch denied the meeting was anything other than a chance encounter, but Republicans and Democrats have criticized her for at least creating the appearance of a conflict of interest in the midst of a federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's time as America's top diplomat.

On Thursday, State Department spokesman John Kirby cited a surge in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in explaining the State Department extension request.

"The Department handles FOIA in an entirely nonpartisan manner," Kirby said.

The former secretary of state has come under scrutiny over whether she used her position to aid corporate and foreign government donors to the Clinton Foundation.

In addition, Abedin worked as an employee at Teneo while simultaneously working at the State Department while Mills held a position at the Clinton Foundation while also serving in the State Department. Both matters have been flagged by Congress as possible conflicts of interest.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/01/state-department-seeks-27-month-delay-for-release-clinton-foundation-emails.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

[Joshua01]

State Department seeks 27-month delay for release of Clinton Foundation emails
Published July 01, 2016 FoxNews.com

The State Department has sought to delay the court-ordered release of emails between four of Hillary Clinton's top aides and officials at the Clinton Foundation and a closely associated public relations firm.

The motion, filed in federal court by the Justice Department late Wednesday, seeks to put off the release of the emails by 27 months. It was first reported on by The Daily Caller.

In the filing, the State Department says it originally estimated that approximately 6,000 emails and other documents were exchanged between the aides — identified as former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Fuchs, former Ambassador-At-Large Melanne Verveer, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin — and the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings, a communications shop that former President Bill Clinton helped launch.

However, the State Department said that due to errors in the initial document search, the number of "potentially responsive documents" was in fact more than 34,000. The department estimated that it had more than 13,000 pages still left to review.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras had previously ordered the State Department to release the requested documents by July 21.

If the State Department request is granted, the emails would not be released until October 2018, nearly halfway through the first term of a potential Hillary Clinton presidency. The documents are being sought by the conservative nonprofit group Citizens United.

"The American people have a right to see these emails before the election," Citizens United President David Bossie told The Daily Caller, adding that the delay was "totally unacceptable."

The motion was filed two days after Attorney General Loretta Lynch met Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport. Lynch denied the meeting was anything other than a chance encounter, but Republicans and Democrats have criticized her for at least creating the appearance of a conflict of interest in the midst of a federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's time as America's top diplomat.

On Thursday, State Department spokesman John Kirby cited a surge in Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in explaining the State Department extension request.

"The Department handles FOIA in an entirely nonpartisan manner," Kirby said.

The former secretary of state has come under scrutiny over whether she used her position to aid corporate and foreign government donors to the Clinton Foundation.

In addition, Abedin worked as an employee at Teneo while simultaneously working at the State Department while Mills held a position at the Clinton Foundation while also serving in the State Department. Both matters have been flagged by Congress as possible conflicts of interest.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/01/state-department-seeks-27-month-delay-for-release-clinton-foundation-emails.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

Manipulation, corruption and coverups in broad daylight with no attempt to hide the lies. 'Merica...fuck yeah!

[singular_me]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRnkN9C7gDw




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0vHZqVn-io

[singular_me]

I have other things to do than following the story as it unfolds, but know that some of you may like to hear about any related update


http://www.govtslaves.info/comey-oversaw-hsbc-laundered-drug-money-going-to-the-clinton-foundation/
http://www.govtslaves.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Screen-Shot-2016-07-14-at-10.47.09-AM.png

[monty]

Dave Hodges


http://youtu.be/mIo7w01dJbA

https://youtu.be/mIo7w01dJbA

How does the citizenry arrest these criminals when they are in the highest offices of government? They are all guilty of nothing less than treason. We are allowing them to get away with it.

[singular_me]

while fear can bind/freeze everything together, it also can dismantle and shatter

========================

Polls Show Americans Distrust Clinton, Supporters Begin to Panic
21 July 2016 GMT

Some in the Clinton camp are beginning to panic.

On Monday, the Washington Post published the results of their poll, conducted July 6-7 2016, which asked respondents several questions regarding the Clinton email scandal. When asked:
“Do you approve or disapprove of [FBI Director James] Comey’s recommendation that Clinton should NOT be charged with a crime?”

A majority of 56 percent answered that they disapprove of his decision; this included a majority of independents. A mere 35 percent approved of FBI’s recommendation.



Another question asked those polled;



“Does this issue make you worry about how Clinton might handle her responsibilities if she’s elected president, or do you think it’s NOT related to how she might handle her responsibilities if elected? IF WORRIED: Are you very worried about this, or somewhat worried.”


57 percent of individuals polled answered that they are either “very worried” or “somewhat worried.”

MORE
http://patriotrising.com/2016/07/19/polls-show-americans-distrust-clinton-supporters-begin-panic/

[monty]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/27/monica-crowley-the-linchpin-of-the-fbis-hillary-cl/

MONICA CROWLEY: The linchpin of the FBI's Hillary Clinton investigation - Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Several weeks ago, I wrote a column titled “Is Bill Clinton in the FBI crosshairs?” That question appears to be increasingly relevant because of the emergence of another, more central one:

Was Hillary Clinton’s unsecure, private email server set up by her husband’s top political operative in order to turbocharge their own political and financial interests?

Justin Cooper may hold the answer.

Mr. Cooper is a central player in the shadowy worlds of Bill and Hillary Clinton — serving as Mr. Clinton’s top aide since 2015, when his predecessor, former right-hand man and “surrogate son” Doug Band, resigned from the Clinton Foundation — yet he has largely escaped notice.

The obscure Mr. Cooper may, in fact, be the linchpin of the case swirling around the Clintons. Perhaps more than anyone apart from the principals themselves, he is at the nexus of the Clinton Foundation, Hillary’s work at the State Department, and her possession of highly sensitive government documents. After all, Mr. Cooper was the one who, before she became secretary, negotiated with the Obama White House over the parameters of acceptable conduct by Bill Clinton and the foundation to minimize the possibility of “conflicts of interest.”

I have previously reported that the server in question actually belonged to, was paid for and was housed by Mr. Clinton, raising questions about his possible legal exposure. Now it appears that it wasn’t just his server, but his team and their co-motive: to leverage Mrs. Clinton’s position as secretary to expand their contacts and raise ever more exorbitant amounts of money for their foundation.

Recall that the FBI probe is proceeding along multiple tracks. The one involving her possible mishandling of classified material is the “what” part of the equation.

Far more important, however, is the “why.” Why did she have these documents on their unsecure, private server in the first place? What was the motive for receiving and sending so many of them, deleting more than 30,000 more and changing her story several times about their nature?

Motive is the key. That brings us to another part of the investigation: possible violations of public corruption laws in the co-mingling of Clinton Foundation work with her duties at the State Department.

Enter Mr. Cooper.

The server for her private domain name, ClintonEmail.com, and the foundation-run PresidentClinton.com shared an email network and a physical location in New York while she was secretary, both under Mr. Clinton’s auspices. It was Mr. Cooper who, according to archived Internet records, registered both ClintonEmail.com and PresidentClinton.com, which was used by top Clinton Foundation personnel.

Mr. Cooper served as a coordinator between the overlapping worlds of Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Clinton and the foundation. He is a top fundraiser for the Clinton Foundation. He is also a senior adviser to Teneo, founded by Mr. Band and whose clients — such as Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical and Bank of America — certainly gained access to the former president, the secretary of state and their vast international network. At one point, Mr. Clinton was given a contract with Teneo for his rainmaking efforts worth $3.5 million.

Teneo’s dealings have been shrouded in secrecy, perhaps because it appears to have served as a feeder fund for the Clinton Foundation. Among the Clinton loyalists employed by Teneo: Mrs. Clinton closest aide, Huma Abedin, who served as a Teneo “senior adviser” while she was also employed by Mrs. Clinton’s State Department, the Clinton Foundation and Mrs. Clinton personally; six former State Department officials, including her former economic envoy to Northern Ireland, Declan Kelly; and Mr. Cooper, whose bio, before it was scrubbed from Teneo’s website, noted, “In addition to his role with Teneo, Mr. Cooper serves as Senior Advisor to President William J. Clinton ” and “assists in operating the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Family Foundation.”

As investigator Charles Ortel has put it, “Lightly regulated and opaque businesses such as the Foundation and Teneo are perfect vehicles through which government influence can be monetized. Overlay secretive ‘members only’ conclaves such as Clinton Global Initiative gatherings and you can hide corruption in the guise of charity.”

In an interview last year on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Mrs. Clinton denied communicating with the foundation while at State. “Other people in the State Department did,” she said, “in accordance with the rules that had been adopted [per Mr. Cooper’s arrangement with the Obama administration].” But according to an Oct. 28, 2009 email, Mrs. Clinton wrote longtime adviser Sidney Blumenthal and copied Mssrs. Band and Cooper at the foundation. I suspect the email’s content is of interest to the FBI.

If she mixed State Department and foundation work, perhaps Mr. Clinton was also trying to work around the deal struck by Mr. Cooper to raise requests with State to do sleazy but lucrative speaking engagements in unsavory places such as North Korea and Congo (requests which State ultimately denied).

A source familiar with Mr. Cooper’s arrangement with the Clintons tells me that they have paid his legal fees associated with the FBI investigation, amounting to “hundreds of thousands of dollars.” They aren’t paying those costs out of a sense of decency. They’re paying them because he knows the “why” of the server, which may very well have been to make it easier for the foundation to hustle big donations.

One wonders what, if anything, Mr. Cooper is telling the FBI — and whether the whole sordid Clinton house of cards will be left standing.

• Monica Crowley is editor of online opinion at The Washington Times.

blog comments powered by Disqus



<h1>MONICA CROWLEY: The linchpin of the FBI's Hillary Clinton investigation</h1>
<div class="repubhubembed"></div><p class="rhexcerpt">Several weeks ago, I wrote a column titled "Is Bill Clinton in the FBI crosshairs?" That question appears to be increasingly relevant because of the emergence of another, more central one: Was Hillary Clinton's unsecure, private email server set up by her husband's top political operative in order to turbocharge their own political and financial interests?…<!--more--></p><style>.rhexcerpt{display:none;}</style><iframe class="rhembed" src="//d2uzdrx7k4koxz.cloudfront.net/user/view.act?p=NzI4MA==&c=MzcxOTc5MjA=&fuid=MjI5NzI5MDA=&showDate=true" height="1500" width="100%" style="border:0;overflow-x:hidden;background:transparent;" allowtransparency="yes" scrolling="no" data-size="5724"></iframe><script async type="text/javascript" src="//d2uzdrx7k4koxz.cloudfront.net/user/js/rh.js"></script>

[monty]

Judicial Watch uncovers more emails

Judicial Watch Uncovers New Batch of Hillary Clinton Emails


Huma Abedin Emails Show Clinton Foundation Donor

Demands on State Department


(Washington DC) – Judicial Watch today released 296 pages (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684/) of State Department records, of which 44 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-huma-production-9-unpublished-00684-2/) email exchanges were not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 171 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department). These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department


The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-212/) pushed for a job for an associate. In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy (http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/teneo-the-clinton-machine/) with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.


Included in the new document production is a 2009 email in which Band, directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-255/) in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.

Chagoury (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2010/01/nigeria-chasing-the-ghosts-of-a-corrupt-regime.html) is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation’s donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/st_clintondonor_20081218.html). He also pledged (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/no-fly-terror-list-includes-big-donor-clinton-initiative/story?id=9791786) $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative (http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/the-clinton-shell-game/). According to a 2010 investigation (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/2010/01/nigeria-chasing-the-ghosts-of-a-corrupt-regime.html) by PBS Frontline, Chagoury was convicted (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/senator-highlights-clinton-ties-to-nigerian-donor/) in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.


Clinton’s top aides’ favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State. For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, in a letter (http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Hillary-R-Clinton-Termination-EA.pdf) to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin:
“For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party….”


As preparation for Hillary’s upcoming visit to Asia, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, on Feb. 11, 2009, sends Hillary (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-70/) a copy of his upcoming testimony (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-5-29/) before Congress in which he would condemn any U.S. efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers. Several days later, Hillary asked Abedin about Roach possibly “connecting (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-80/)” with her while she was in Beijing: “I forwarded you my email to him about connecting in Beijing. Can he come to the embassy or other event?” Morgan Stanley (https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019&cycle=Career) is a long-time financial supporter (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2015/05/hillary-clinton-morgan-stanley-and-tpp-a-free-trade-triumvirate/) of the Clintons.


The emails also reveal that Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton’s daily schedule (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-121/), a presumably sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room. An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary’s “day book binders.” Abedin replies: “Yes. It’s on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-121/). I’m in the lobby. Thx.”

Moreover, the emails show the annoyance (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-117/) of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.


The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-162/) advised Clinton on NATO and piracy. Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone for a position at State. Clinton directed Abedin to follow up (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-265/) and “help” the applicant and told Abedin to “let me know” about the job issue.


The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named “Justin (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-abedin-production-9-00684-pg-3/)” (presumably Justin Cooper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Cooper_(aide)), a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton’s hdr22@clintonmail.com address.


This is the ninth set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin.

The documents were produced under a court order (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-jan-11-order-00684/) in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-seven-new-foia-lawsuits-against-state-department-to-force-release-of-clinton-emails-other-secret-email-records/) against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-00684-abedin-non-state-emails/) (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) requiring the agency to produce “all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013, using a ‘non-state’.gov email address.”


“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

(As noted in the OP posted by CEBU_4_2 there will be no investigation or prosecution by this administration.) http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?91878-BREAKING-Obama-DOJ-Denied-FBI-Request-For-Full-Investigation-Into-Clinton-Foundation&p=848398&viewfull=1#post848398


In June, Judicial Watch uncovered two batches (here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-produced-state-department-clinton-email-shows-concerned-records/) and here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-releases-state-department-inspector-general-investigation-records-related-hillary-clinton-emails/)) of new Clinton email records through court-ordered discovery.


Twice in May, Judicial Watch uncovered new Clinton emails, including emails that show Clinton knew about the security risk of her BlackBerry (see here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-reveal-clinton-knew-about-security-risk-of-private-blackberry-avoided-use-of-secure-phone/) and here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-more-hillary-clinton-emails-withheld-from-state-department/)).


Recently (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-more-hillary-clinton-emails-withheld-from-state-department/), Judicial Watch released other State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-5th-production-huma-emails-00684-3/), the second of 138 pages (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-6th-production-huma-emails-00684/)), with newly discovered Clinton emails also going back as far as January 2009.
In March, Judicial Watch released (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-lawsuit-uncovers-new-hillary-clinton-email-withheld-from-state-department/) Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails. Those emails contained more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Administration, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure BlackBerrys.


Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-hillary-clinton-submits-email-information-to-court-under-penalty-of-perjury/) that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/) suggesting all “work or potentially work-related emails” were provided to the State Department.
###


Sign Up for Updates!

WWW.JUDICIALWATCH.ORG (http://www.judicialwatch.org/)

© 2016 Judicial Watch, Inc. | Privacy Policy (http://www.judicialwatch.org/about/privacy-policy/) | Terms and Conditions (http://www.judicialwatch.org/about/web-site-terms-conditions/) | User Agreement (http://www.judicialwatch.org/about/user-agreement/) | Contact Information (http://www.judicialwatch.org/about/contact-information/)Judicial Watch is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Contributions are received from individuals, foundations, and corporations and are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.
425 Third Street SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024



http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-uncovers-new-batch-hillary-clinton-emails/

[Joshua01]

“They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”
It's already been proven she's broken the law numerous times and she still walks among us. "Potential violation of the law"? Give me a break!