Say hello to President Kaine.
*Sheesh*
Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment"
//Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:
1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.
2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.
3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.
4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.
5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.//
It is simply amazing that the media could let Hillary's campaign make an issue of Russian hacking when she had put classified information on a server that must have been hacked.
Showing posts with label Clinton Crime Family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton Crime Family. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
Monday, October 31, 2016
The Clintons Corrupt Everything.
They do the indefensible and then the establishment disgraces itself by defending them.
//Those decisions were not his to make, nor were the reasons he offered for making them at all tenable: that prosecutions for anything but mishandling large amounts of classified information, accompanied by false statements to investigators, were unprecedented; and that criminal prosecutions for gross negligence were constitutionally suspect.
Members of the military have been imprisoned and dishonorably discharged for mishandling far less information, and prosecutions for criminal negligence are commonplace and entirely permissible. Yet the attorney general, whose decisions they were, and who had available to her enough legal voltage to vaporize Mr. Comey’s flimsy reasons for inaction, told Congress she would simply defer to the director.
That July announcement of Mr. Comey, and that testimony by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, also had a history.
When the FBI learned that two of the secretary’s staff members had classified information on their computers, rather than being handed grand-jury subpoenas demanding the surrender of those computers, the staff members received immunity in return for giving them up. In addition, they successfully insisted that the computers not be searched for any data following the date when Congress subpoenaed information relating to its own investigation, and that the computers be physically destroyed after relevant data within the stipulated period was extracted.
The technician who destroyed 30,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails after Congress directed that they be preserved lied to investigators even after receiving immunity. He then testified that Clinton aides requested before service of the subpoena that he destroy them, and that he destroyed them afterward on his own initiative.
Why would an FBI director, who at one time was an able and aggressive prosecutor, agree to such terms or accept such a fantastic story?
The search for clues brings us to an email to then-Secretary Clinton from President Obama, writing under a pseudonym, that the FBI showed to Ms. Abedin. That email, along with 21 others that passed between the president and Secretary Clinton, has been withheld by the administration from release on confidentiality grounds not specified but that could only be executive privilege.
After disclosure of those emails, the president said during an interview that he thought Mrs. Clinton should not be criminally charged because there was no evidence that she had intended to harm the nation’s security—a showing required under none of the relevant statutes. As indefensible as his legal reasoning may have been, his practical reasoning is apparent: If Mrs. Clinton was at criminal risk for communicating on her nonsecure system, so was he.
That presented the FBI director with a dilemma that was difficult, but not complex. It offered two choices. He could have tried to proceed along the course marked by the relevant laws. The FBI is powerless to present evidence to a grand jury, or to issue grand-jury subpoenas. That authority lies with the Justice Department, headed by an attorney general who serves, as her certificate of appointment recites, “during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being.”
However, the director could have urged the attorney general to allow the use of a grand jury. Grand juries sit continuously in all the districts where an investigation would have been conducted, and no grand jury need have been convened to deal with this case in particular. If she refused, he could have gone public with his request, and threatened to resign if it was not followed. If she had agreed, he would have been in the happy position last week of having discovered yet further evidence that could be offered in support of pending charges. If she had refused, he could have resigned.//
They do the indefensible and then the establishment disgraces itself by defending them.
//Those decisions were not his to make, nor were the reasons he offered for making them at all tenable: that prosecutions for anything but mishandling large amounts of classified information, accompanied by false statements to investigators, were unprecedented; and that criminal prosecutions for gross negligence were constitutionally suspect.
Members of the military have been imprisoned and dishonorably discharged for mishandling far less information, and prosecutions for criminal negligence are commonplace and entirely permissible. Yet the attorney general, whose decisions they were, and who had available to her enough legal voltage to vaporize Mr. Comey’s flimsy reasons for inaction, told Congress she would simply defer to the director.
That July announcement of Mr. Comey, and that testimony by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, also had a history.
When the FBI learned that two of the secretary’s staff members had classified information on their computers, rather than being handed grand-jury subpoenas demanding the surrender of those computers, the staff members received immunity in return for giving them up. In addition, they successfully insisted that the computers not be searched for any data following the date when Congress subpoenaed information relating to its own investigation, and that the computers be physically destroyed after relevant data within the stipulated period was extracted.
The technician who destroyed 30,000 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails after Congress directed that they be preserved lied to investigators even after receiving immunity. He then testified that Clinton aides requested before service of the subpoena that he destroy them, and that he destroyed them afterward on his own initiative.
Why would an FBI director, who at one time was an able and aggressive prosecutor, agree to such terms or accept such a fantastic story?
The search for clues brings us to an email to then-Secretary Clinton from President Obama, writing under a pseudonym, that the FBI showed to Ms. Abedin. That email, along with 21 others that passed between the president and Secretary Clinton, has been withheld by the administration from release on confidentiality grounds not specified but that could only be executive privilege.
After disclosure of those emails, the president said during an interview that he thought Mrs. Clinton should not be criminally charged because there was no evidence that she had intended to harm the nation’s security—a showing required under none of the relevant statutes. As indefensible as his legal reasoning may have been, his practical reasoning is apparent: If Mrs. Clinton was at criminal risk for communicating on her nonsecure system, so was he.
That presented the FBI director with a dilemma that was difficult, but not complex. It offered two choices. He could have tried to proceed along the course marked by the relevant laws. The FBI is powerless to present evidence to a grand jury, or to issue grand-jury subpoenas. That authority lies with the Justice Department, headed by an attorney general who serves, as her certificate of appointment recites, “during the pleasure of the President of the United States for the time being.”
However, the director could have urged the attorney general to allow the use of a grand jury. Grand juries sit continuously in all the districts where an investigation would have been conducted, and no grand jury need have been convened to deal with this case in particular. If she refused, he could have gone public with his request, and threatened to resign if it was not followed. If she had agreed, he would have been in the happy position last week of having discovered yet further evidence that could be offered in support of pending charges. If she had refused, he could have resigned.//
Sunday, October 30, 2016
The Clintons corrupt everything.
I've been saying it, but it must be true since Professor Jacobsen says so.
//This is how the Clintons corrupt. They force others to cover for them to maintain Democrats in power, and thereby make those defenders complicit.
Comey was wrong not to recommend charges, but correct at least to update Congress that his prior representation that the investigation was completed no longer was true. To do otherwise would have made Comey complicit.
Had the FBI said nothing, the presumption would be that the case still was closed — a talking point for Hillary. So doing nothing to correct the record would have been just as political.
Democrats put the FBI in the untenable position of possibly deciding the election. That’s all on them.//
I've been saying it, but it must be true since Professor Jacobsen says so.
//This is how the Clintons corrupt. They force others to cover for them to maintain Democrats in power, and thereby make those defenders complicit.
Comey was wrong not to recommend charges, but correct at least to update Congress that his prior representation that the investigation was completed no longer was true. To do otherwise would have made Comey complicit.
Had the FBI said nothing, the presumption would be that the case still was closed — a talking point for Hillary. So doing nothing to correct the record would have been just as political.
Democrats put the FBI in the untenable position of possibly deciding the election. That’s all on them.//
"Maybe the general should have run for the Democratic nomination."
From the Wall Street Journal:
//All of this asks voters to believe that Mr. McCabe as the No. 3 official at the FBI had nothing to do with the biggest, most sensitive case at that agency. This strains credulity. Before he became No. 3 at the FBI Mr. McCabe ran the bureau’s Washington, D.C. field office that provided resources to the Clinton probe. Campaign-finance records show that 98% of the McAuliffe donations to Mrs. McCabe came after the FBI launched its Clinton probe.
Director Comey, the self-styled Boy Scout, somehow didn’t think any of this would look suspicious? Add this to the list of special treatment for Mrs. Clinton: no grand jury, grants of immunity to her aides, no interview until the last minute, a special exonerating public declaration, and a pre-Labor Day dump of damaging FBI notes.
The contrast couldn’t be greater with the FBI and Justice Department determination to convict retired Gen. James Cartwright—former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—of a felony for lying to the FBI. The general told a federal court last week he regretted he didn’t tell the bureau the truth about conversations he’d had with reporters about a secret cyberattack disrupting Iran’s nuclear program. He could serve up five years in prison.
“People who gain access to classified information after promising not to disclose it must be held accountable when they willfully violate that promise,” said U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein in a press release.
“We conducted a thorough and independent investigation included [sic] collecting tens of thousands of documents through subpoenas, search warrants and document requests, and interviewing scores of current and former government employees. The evidence showed that General Cartwright disclosed classified information without authorization to two reporters and lied to federal investigators. As a result, he stands convicted of a federal felony offense and faces a potential prison sentence.”
This is comical coming from the same folks who gave away immunity deals like candy in their probe of Mrs. Clinton. Gen. Cartwright wasn’t even the original source of the Iran leaks. The general says he confirmed details the reporters already had in an effort to prevent them from publishing information that could harm America’s national security.
Though Mrs. Clinton didn’t leak to reporters, her personal server exposed national secrets to potential hackers, and she gave a number of people (including some of her attorneys) without proper clearances access to that information. When Gen. Cartwright became the subject of an investigation, he was stripped of his security clearance—which never happened to Mrs. Clinton.
Maybe the general should have run for the Democratic nomination. //
From the Wall Street Journal:
//All of this asks voters to believe that Mr. McCabe as the No. 3 official at the FBI had nothing to do with the biggest, most sensitive case at that agency. This strains credulity. Before he became No. 3 at the FBI Mr. McCabe ran the bureau’s Washington, D.C. field office that provided resources to the Clinton probe. Campaign-finance records show that 98% of the McAuliffe donations to Mrs. McCabe came after the FBI launched its Clinton probe.
Director Comey, the self-styled Boy Scout, somehow didn’t think any of this would look suspicious? Add this to the list of special treatment for Mrs. Clinton: no grand jury, grants of immunity to her aides, no interview until the last minute, a special exonerating public declaration, and a pre-Labor Day dump of damaging FBI notes.
The contrast couldn’t be greater with the FBI and Justice Department determination to convict retired Gen. James Cartwright—former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—of a felony for lying to the FBI. The general told a federal court last week he regretted he didn’t tell the bureau the truth about conversations he’d had with reporters about a secret cyberattack disrupting Iran’s nuclear program. He could serve up five years in prison.
“People who gain access to classified information after promising not to disclose it must be held accountable when they willfully violate that promise,” said U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein in a press release.
“We conducted a thorough and independent investigation included [sic] collecting tens of thousands of documents through subpoenas, search warrants and document requests, and interviewing scores of current and former government employees. The evidence showed that General Cartwright disclosed classified information without authorization to two reporters and lied to federal investigators. As a result, he stands convicted of a federal felony offense and faces a potential prison sentence.”
This is comical coming from the same folks who gave away immunity deals like candy in their probe of Mrs. Clinton. Gen. Cartwright wasn’t even the original source of the Iran leaks. The general says he confirmed details the reporters already had in an effort to prevent them from publishing information that could harm America’s national security.
Though Mrs. Clinton didn’t leak to reporters, her personal server exposed national secrets to potential hackers, and she gave a number of people (including some of her attorneys) without proper clearances access to that information. When Gen. Cartwright became the subject of an investigation, he was stripped of his security clearance—which never happened to Mrs. Clinton.
Maybe the general should have run for the Democratic nomination. //
Ruh-roh.
Fredo is working with the Feds.
More here:
//Fox News chief political anchor Brett Baier reported Sunday that former Congressman Anthony Weiner voluntarily turned over to the FBI a personal computer that may have thousands of emails related to an investigation of Democratic president nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was secretary of state.
Baier sent an email during Fox News Sunday saying two sources had confirmed to him that Weiner was cooperating with the FBI.
Weiner is being investigated by the FBI on allegations that he sent nude photos of himself to a 15-year-old female in North Carolina. He is the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, long one of Clinton’s top aide.
Baier reported that two sources have told him that Weiner is cooperating with the FBI in the Clinton email investigation. Because he is cooperating, Baier reported, no warrant was needed to access his computer, which was shared at times by Abedin.
FBI Director James Comey rocked the political world Friday when he announced in a letter to congressional leaders that he was reopening the probe into Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was secretary of state.
A Washington Post-ABC tracking poll – with polling taken after Comey’s announcement – showed Republican Donald J. Trump pulling to within one point of Clinton. She had earlier led by double digits in the same poll.//
It is the Clinton Crime Family, after all:
//A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a “crime family” and argued top officials hindered the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of State.
During a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom heaped praise on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump before taking aim at the Clintons.
“The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”
Kallstrom, best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, said that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, was a “pathological liar.”//
Fredo is working with the Feds.
More here:
//Fox News chief political anchor Brett Baier reported Sunday that former Congressman Anthony Weiner voluntarily turned over to the FBI a personal computer that may have thousands of emails related to an investigation of Democratic president nominee Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was secretary of state.
Baier sent an email during Fox News Sunday saying two sources had confirmed to him that Weiner was cooperating with the FBI.
Weiner is being investigated by the FBI on allegations that he sent nude photos of himself to a 15-year-old female in North Carolina. He is the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, long one of Clinton’s top aide.
Baier reported that two sources have told him that Weiner is cooperating with the FBI in the Clinton email investigation. Because he is cooperating, Baier reported, no warrant was needed to access his computer, which was shared at times by Abedin.
FBI Director James Comey rocked the political world Friday when he announced in a letter to congressional leaders that he was reopening the probe into Clinton’s use of a personal email server while she was secretary of state.
A Washington Post-ABC tracking poll – with polling taken after Comey’s announcement – showed Republican Donald J. Trump pulling to within one point of Clinton. She had earlier led by double digits in the same poll.//
It is the Clinton Crime Family, after all:
//A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a “crime family” and argued top officials hindered the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of State.
During a radio interview with John Catsimatidis, former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom heaped praise on Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump before taking aim at the Clintons.
“The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”
Kallstrom, best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late '90s, said that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, was a “pathological liar.”//
Friday, October 28, 2016
The next four years of the Clinton presidency are going to be breath-taking for their corruption.
The Wall Street Journal reports the obvious:
//In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.
This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.
It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.
The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief.
The cross-pollination is flagrant, and Mr. Band gives example after example of how it works. He and his partner Declan Kelly (a Hillary Clinton fundraiser whom Mrs. Clinton rewarded by making him the State Department’s special envoy to Northern Ireland) buttered up their clients with special visits to Bill’s home and tête-à-tête golf rounds with the former president. They then “cultivated” these marks ( Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, UBS) for foundation dollars, and then again for high-dollar Bill Clinton speeches and other business payouts.//
The Wall Street Journal reports the obvious:
//In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.
This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.
It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.
The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief.
The cross-pollination is flagrant, and Mr. Band gives example after example of how it works. He and his partner Declan Kelly (a Hillary Clinton fundraiser whom Mrs. Clinton rewarded by making him the State Department’s special envoy to Northern Ireland) buttered up their clients with special visits to Bill’s home and tête-à-tête golf rounds with the former president. They then “cultivated” these marks ( Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, UBS) for foundation dollars, and then again for high-dollar Bill Clinton speeches and other business payouts.//
Saturday, October 15, 2016
The Clinton Crime Family ...
...coming to the White House.
//"Long-secret emails just caught Team Hillary in another blatant lie — namely, the claim that Clinton Foundation donors got no special treatment from Clinton’s State Department. In fact, ABC’s “case study” of the 2010 Haiti-relief feeding frenzy may be the most damning foundation scoop yet.
And the foundation isn’t even denying it.
ABC News got the emails via a Freedom of Information lawsuit. They show that, after the devastating 2010 Haiti earthquake, a top Hillary aide repeatedly gave special attention to “Friends of Bill” looking to cash in.
Indeed, the aide, Caitlin Klevorick, kept asking foundation official Amitabh Desai “to flag when people are friends of WJC” — William Jefferson Clinton. Anyone without a special tag (FOB, WJC-VIP) got rebuffed by State and referred to a federal website.
State was besieged with requests to get in on $10 billion in aid contracts, described in one government cable as “a gold rush.”
One FOB, a major foundation donor who’d served as Bill’s Texas chair, used his pull on behalf of a firm he admitted “wanted to get some of the business” and had him use the Clinton Foundation as “a facilitator.”
Klevorick told ABC the special attention was about learning who had a history in Haiti so as “to get the necessary resources to the right places as soon as possible to save lives.”
One problem: She never asked if anyone had experience in Haiti or even with aid relief. Her only question: “Is this a FOB?” And her only instruction to the foundation was that all FOBs be “flagged.”
Which is why the Haiti analyst for the nonpartisan Center for Economic and Policy says, “The line was pretty faint between” the foundation and the State Department."//
...coming to the White House.
//"Long-secret emails just caught Team Hillary in another blatant lie — namely, the claim that Clinton Foundation donors got no special treatment from Clinton’s State Department. In fact, ABC’s “case study” of the 2010 Haiti-relief feeding frenzy may be the most damning foundation scoop yet.
And the foundation isn’t even denying it.
ABC News got the emails via a Freedom of Information lawsuit. They show that, after the devastating 2010 Haiti earthquake, a top Hillary aide repeatedly gave special attention to “Friends of Bill” looking to cash in.
Indeed, the aide, Caitlin Klevorick, kept asking foundation official Amitabh Desai “to flag when people are friends of WJC” — William Jefferson Clinton. Anyone without a special tag (FOB, WJC-VIP) got rebuffed by State and referred to a federal website.
State was besieged with requests to get in on $10 billion in aid contracts, described in one government cable as “a gold rush.”
One FOB, a major foundation donor who’d served as Bill’s Texas chair, used his pull on behalf of a firm he admitted “wanted to get some of the business” and had him use the Clinton Foundation as “a facilitator.”
Klevorick told ABC the special attention was about learning who had a history in Haiti so as “to get the necessary resources to the right places as soon as possible to save lives.”
One problem: She never asked if anyone had experience in Haiti or even with aid relief. Her only question: “Is this a FOB?” And her only instruction to the foundation was that all FOBs be “flagged.”
Which is why the Haiti analyst for the nonpartisan Center for Economic and Policy says, “The line was pretty faint between” the foundation and the State Department."//
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
