"People should and do trust me" - Hillary Clinton

[kscarbel2]

Age 77 in December, and looking older, the honorable Mr. Reid should be retired enjoying his favorite fishing hole. Remaining in office until he falls does his country a disservice [term limits ?].

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Guardian  /  October 30, 2016

Senior Senate Democrats made an extraordinary attack on the head of the FBI on Sunday over a new investigation of emails linked to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, wrote a scathing letter to James Comey on Sunday, warning that the FBI director may have broken the law by making public the review of the new emails and accusing him of partisan interference in an election.

“Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be a clear intent to aid one political party over another,” Reid wrote.

“My office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act, which bars FBI officials from using their official authority to influence an election. Through your partisan action, you may have broken the law.”

The Hatch Act limits the political activity of federal employees, for instance barring them from seeking public office or using their authority “or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election”.

.

[kscarbel2]

The Washington Post  /  October 30, 2016

The FBI has obtained a warrant to search the emails found on a computer used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that may contain evidence relevant to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

The total number of emails recovered in the Weiner investigation is close to 650,000. Though many of the emails that are not relevant to the Clinton investigation, the emails include a significant amount of correspondence associated with Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s estranged wife.

The agents investigating Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state knew early this month that messages recovered in a separate probe might be germane to their case, but waited weeks before briefing the FBI director.

FBI Director James B. Comey has written that he was informed of the development Thursday, and he sent a letter to legislators the next day letting them know that he thought the team should take “appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails.”

[kscarbel2]

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe

The Wall Street Journal  /  October 30, 2016

The surprise disclosure that FBI agents are taking a new look at Hillary Clinton’s email use lays bare, just days before the election, tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the Democratic presidential nominee.

Investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop that they believe was used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, and underlying metadata suggests thousands of those messages could have been sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state.

It will take weeks to determine whether those messages are work-related from the time Ms. Abedin served with Mrs. Clinton at the State Department; how many are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI; and whether they include either classified information or important new evidence in the Clinton email probe.

Officials had to await a court order to begin reviewing the emails, which they received over the weekend, because they were uncovered in an unrelated probe of Mr. Weiner.

The new investigative effort, disclosed by FBI Director James Comey on Friday, shows a bureau at times in sharp internal disagreement over matters related to the Clintons, and how to handle those matters fairly and carefully in the middle of a national election campaign. Even as the probe of Mrs. Clinton’s email use wound down in July, internal disagreements within the bureau and the Justice Department surrounding the Clintons’ family philanthropy heated up.

The latest development began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the FBI’s second-in-command, that while investigating Mr. Weiner for sending sexually charged messages to a teenage minor, they had recovered a laptop. Many of the 650,000 emails on the computer were from the accounts of Ms. Abedin.

Those emails stretched back years and were on a laptop that hadn’t previously come up in the Clinton email probe. Ms. Abedin said in late August that the couple were separating.

The FBI had searched the computer while looking for child pornography, but the warrant they used didn’t give them authority to search for matters related to Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement at the State Department.

In their initial review of the laptop, the metadata showed thousands of messages that were either sent to or from the private email server at Mrs. Clinton’s home that had been the focus of so much investigative effort for the FBI.

Senior FBI officials decided to let the Weiner investigators proceed with a closer examination of the metadata on the computer, and report back to them.

At a meeting early last week of senior Justice Department and FBI officials, a member of the department’s senior national-security staff asked for an update on the Weiner laptop. At that point, officials realized that no one had acted to obtain a warrant [professionals making such a careless mistake?].

Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop’s contents could be relevant to the Clinton email probe. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially relevant.

Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case and notified Congress on Friday, with explosive results. Senior Justice Department officials had warned the FBI that telling Congress would violate policies against overt actions that could affect an election, and some within the FBI have been unhappy at Mr. Comey’s repeated public statements on the probe, going back to his press conference on the subject in July.

The back-and-forth reflects how the bureau is probing several matters related, directly or indirectly, to Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle.

Senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and told agents to limit their pursuit of the case. The probe of the foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.

Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.

It isn’t unusual for field agents to favor a more aggressive approach than supervisors and prosecutors think is merited. But the internal debates about the Clinton Foundation show the high stakes when such disagreements occur surrounding someone who is running for president.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political-action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.

Mr. McAuliffe had supported Dr. McCabe in the hopes she and a handful of other Democrats might help win a majority in the state Senate. Dr. McCabe lost her race last November, and Democrats failed to win their majority.

A spokesman for the governor has said that “any insinuation that his support was tied to anything other than his desire to elect candidates who would help pass his agenda is ridiculous.”

Dr. McCabe told the Journal, “Once I decided to run, my husband had no formal role in my campaign other than to be” supportive.

In February of this year, Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state.

FBI officials have said Mr. McCabe had no role in the Clinton email probe until he became deputy director, and by then his wife’s campaign was over.

But other Clinton-related investigations were under way within the FBI, and they have been the subject of internal debate for months.

Early this year, four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark.—were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling.

Los Angeles agents had picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public-corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation.

The Washington field office was probing financial relationships involving Mr. McAuliffe before he became a Clinton Foundation board member. Mr. McAuliffe has denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyer has said the probe is focused on whether he failed to register as an agent of a foreign entity.

Clinton Foundation officials have long denied any wrongdoing, saying it is a well-run charity that has done immense good.

The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock.

In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department. By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well.

Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career anticorruption prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case.

“That was one of the weirdest meetings I’ve ever been to,” said one participant.

Anticorruption prosecutors at the Justice Department told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn’t authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way.

About a week after Mr. Comey’s July announcement that he was recommending against any prosecution in the Clinton email case, the FBI sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe, with Mr. McCabe deciding the FBI’s New York office would take the lead, with assistance from Little Rock.

The Washington field office, FBI officials decided, would focus on a separate matter involving Mr. McAuliffe. Mr. McCabe had decided earlier in the spring that he would continue to recuse himself from that probe, given the governor’s contributions to his wife’s former political campaign.

Within the FBI, the decision was viewed with skepticism by some, who felt the probe would be stronger if the foundation and McAuliffe matters were combined. Others, particularly Justice Department anticorruption prosecutors, felt that both probes were weak, based largely on publicly available information, and had found little that would merit expanded investigative authority.

On August 12, a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. Mr. McCabe said agents still had the authority to pursue the issue as long as they didn’t use overt methods requiring Justice Department approvals.

The Justice Department official was “very pissed off,” according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dormant. Others said the Justice Department was simply trying to make sure FBI agents were following longstanding policy not to make overt investigative moves that could be seen as trying to influence an election. Those rules discourage investigators from making any such moves before a primary or general election, and, at a minimum, checking with anticorruption prosecutors before doing so.

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked. After a pause, the official replied, “Of course not.”

For Mr. McCabe’s defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn’t think much of the case. Following the call, Mr. McCabe reiterated past instructions to FBI agents that they were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had.

Others further down the FBI chain of command, however, said agents were given a much starker instruction on the case: “Stand down.” When agents questioned why they weren’t allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director—Mr. McCabe.

Others familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction.

For agents who already felt uneasy about FBI leadership’s handling of the Clinton Foundation case, the moment only deepened their concerns. For those who felt the probe hadn’t yet found significant evidence of criminal conduct, the leadership’s approach was the right response.

In September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan. Mr. McCabe told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.”

Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau’s leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Mr. Comey’s disclosure to Congress and setting off the furor that promises to consume the final days of a tumultuous campaign.

[kscarbel2]

.

 

[kscarbel2]

Obama appears to be distancing himself from Clinton without actually saying so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Josh Earnest, 10/31/2016

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room  /  1:07 P.M. EDT

I'll neither defend nor criticize what Director Comey has decided to communicate to the public about this investigation.  

What I will say is that the Department of Justice and our democracy has given the expansive authority to conduct investigations.  The Department of Justice has given subpoena power.  They're allowed to compel witnesses to testify.  They are able to collect evidence that's not readily available necessarily.  They're even allowed to impanel a grand jury.  Those are substantial authorities.

It's important, in the mind of the President, that those authorities are tempered by an adherence to longstanding tradition and practice and norms that limit public discussion of facts that are collected in the context of those investigations.  And there are a variety of good reasons for that.  And the President believes that it's important for those norms and traditions and guidelines to be followed.  

The President believes that Director Comey is a man of integrity, he's a man of principle, and he's a man of good character.  That, presumably, is the reason that President Bush chose him to serve in a senior position at the Bush administration's Department of Justice.  These same character traits are what led a strong majority of Democratic and Republican senators to confirm him to this job.  These are the traits that led the President to select him to be the Director of the FBI.  And these are tough questions.  And so it’s a good thing that he’s a man of integrity and character to take them on.

What I have observed in the past is that Director Comey is a man of integrity.  He’s a man of principle.  He’s a man who is well regarded by senior officials in both parties.  He’s somebody who’s served in a senior position in the Bush administration.  And he’s somebody who got strong bipartisan support when his nomination to be the Director of the FBI was considered by the United States Senate.

So all those things are true.  They speak to his good character.  And the President’s assessment of his integrity and his character has not changed.  For example, the President doesn’t believe that Director Comey is intentionally trying to influence the outcome of an election.  The President doesn’t believe that he’s secretly strategizing to benefit one candidate or one political party.  He’s in a tough spot, and he’s the one who will be in a position to defend his actions in the face of significant criticism from a variety of legal experts, including individuals who served in senior Department of Justice positions in administrations that were led by presidents in both parties.

But that kind of -- but I’m just not going to be in a position to, frankly, either defend or criticize the decisions that he’s made with what regard -- with regard to what to communicate in public.  That is separate from the kind of prosecutorial and investigative decisions that are made by the FBI and the Department of Justice.  That is their institutional responsibility -- to make those decisions about investigations and prosecutions independent of any sort of political interference, and I will defend their right to do that.  In fact, it’s their responsibility.

The President is somebody who, three years ago, nominated Director Comey because he’s a man of character, he’s a man of integrity, he’s a man of principle.  He is somebody who’s had a distinguished legal career that’s been rooted in making sure that his own political views don’t interfere with his responsibilities as an attorney or as a law enforcement officer.

The President thinks very highly of Director Comey.  And, yes, you can assert that he continues to have confidence in his ability to do his job.

The President is completely confident that Director Comey has not taken any steps to try to intentionally influence the outcome of the election or to advantage one candidate or one political party.

Question: Josh, has the President spoken with Attorney General Lynch about this issue and her apparent disagreement with the FBI Director?

Mr. Earnest:  He has not.

Question: And when exactly did the White House find out about the FBI letter?

Mr. Earnest:  Well, as my colleague, Eric, in answering this question last week told you all, the White House was not given advance knowledge of the decision by the FBI Director to submit this letter to Congress.  So we learned about this letter the same time all of you did.

Question: Through the media?

Mr. Earnest:  That's correct.

Question: So just to confirm and clarify, everything the White House has learned to date about the latest probe by the FBI on Hillary Clinton’s -- these newly discovered emails has been through media reports?  There hasn’t been a letter?  There hasn’t been any type of call?  This has all been through media reports?

Mr. Earnest:  So, Kenneth, let me just be as precise as I possibly can here.  The White House was not given advance notice of the fact that the Department of Justice was sending a letter to Capitol Hill.  The White House became aware of that letter through media reports when individuals in Congress presumably made the decision to make that letter public.  And since then, the Department of Justice has not provided any sort of briefing or consultation -- or sought any consultation with the White House about this matter moving forward.

.

 

[kscarbel2]

Outside the US, I'm constantly told by people that the email scandal is a secondary issue.

The global audience feels the actual issue that Americans should be focusing on is Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros, i.e. his massive contributions to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton. They feel that Soros is at the heart of it all, which is interesting, given that he's not on the radar in U.S. news (and there may be a reason for that, the "closed news" environment that Oliver Stone mentions*).

*  http://www.bigmacktrucks.com/topic/47524-oliver-stone-obama-pardoning-snowden-would-be-a-wonderful-act-of-grace/

 

[grayhair]

46 minutes ago, kscarbel2 said:

The global audience feels the actual issue that Americans should be focusing on is Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros, i.e. his massive contributions to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton. They feel that Soros is at the heart of it all, which is interesting, given that he's not on the radar in U.S. news (and there may be a reason for that).

George Soros real name, György Schwartz August 12, 1930 (age 86) Budapest, Hungary, is a communist who made $ billions by "breaking" the Bank of England.   He is a shrewd investor and word is that he will benefit tremendously if the U.S. Economy fails.  I think he is probably well known in Australia as the person who employed Rebecca Peters who pushed through the massive gun confiscation program...  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Peters

[kscarbel2]

CNN  /  October 31, 2016

Libertarian presidential nominee and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson says Hillary Clinton could face impeachment over the continued FBI investigation into her private email server if she is elected president.

"I think unquestionably if [Clinton] takes office she is going to be under criminal investigation, unquestionably this is going to be the nation's agenda for the entire time she is office and it may well end up in impeachment," Johnson said.

"This is Watergate kind of stuff. This is really, really deep, real stuff and all you have to say, all you have to recognize is the FBI would not have done this -- this is not political, this is anything but political, because of the fact they dropped this investigation in July, saying, to clear the decks for the election. That was also clearly, I don't even want to call it a political move, as much as a move that would clear up the election, that people would feel like this was not overhanging. Well, now it's overhanging, and it's overhanging for a reason. There's so much smoke in the room that it will never, ever get ventilated over the next four years. Never."

"Let me just point out the obvious: the FBI is not doing this lightly, they recognize just what a bombshell this is, especially having exonerated her in July," Johnson said. "To come back and say this with 11 days to go, knowing that there will be no resolution prior to election, but knowing if they don't release this, knowing how damnable all of this is, this is the horrible situation that the FBI has placed itself in it just points to the gravity of the situation."

 

[Underdog]

Outside the US, I'm constantly told by people that the email scandal is a secondary issue.

The global audience feels the actual issue that Americans should be focusing on is Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros, i.e. his massive contributions to the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton. They feel that Soros is at the heart of it all, which is interesting, given that he's not on the radar in U.S. news (and there may be a reason for that).

Soros is also the reason we have had to put up with Obama for the past 8 years.

[kscarbel2]

Hacked emails show Clinton campaign communicated with State Department

Associated Press  /  November 3, 2016

A State Department official coordinated with Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign hours before the former secretary of state's exclusive use of private emails was first detailed in a news account last year, newly released hacked emails show.

Emails from the files of Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta show that the department official provided Clinton aides with the agency's official response to a New York Times reporter in advance of the newspaper's March 2015 report that Clinton had used a private email account to conduct all of her work-related business as secretary.

The stolen emails were released Wednesday by WikiLeaks.

In a March 1, 2015 email, State Department press aide Lauren Hickey told Clinton's spokesman Nick Merrill and two other advisers that then-State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki had "just cleared" a reply to the Times. Hickey provided the agency's response to the Clinton aides and also appeared to agree to a change requested by the campaign, saying: "Yes on your point re records - done below." It remains a secret what specific change was requested by Clinton and made.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday the department [your employees] refused to comment on alleged leaked documents.

Kirby said the department's effort to "provide accurate information to the media" about Clinton's tenure at the agency has "at times required communicating with her representatives to ensure accuracy." [?????]

In a hacked email chain from March 17, 2015, Clinton's campaign advisers discussed how to respond to a request by a Times reporter for comment on an upcoming story about how top State Department aides used private email accounts to communicate with Clinton.

Clinton aide Philippe Reines wrote: "There's a lot to respond to here, but first and foremost the premise is wrong. There is nothing wrong with anyone having personal email addresses or her emailing someone's private account or vice versa. Maybe she was wishing (longtime aide) Jake (Sullivan) a happy birthday. Or I was sending her a note about her mom. ... We're allowed to have personal lives."

Campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri wrote: "Strikes me as a big problem that the NYT is having selected emails leaked to them and I think we should do a call to discuss the proper way to handle." The email exchange occurred about a month before Clinton officially launched her presidential bid in a video released in April 2015.

In an August 2015 email exchange, Clinton aide Huma Abedin points out that Clinton wasn't prepared for all of the questions surrounding the use of her private email and asks for a longer list of questions and answers "so at least it's out there and maybe she won't have to do it verbally again?"

Separately, assistant attorney general Peter Kadzik wrote to Podesta in May 2015 to offer a "heads up" that a Justice Department official would be testifying before the House Judiciary Committee and would likely "get questions on State Department emails." Podesta forwarded the message to top campaign staff, writing: "Additional chances for mischief."

[HeavyGunner]

How many more blatant scandals does she get away with while thumbing her nose at the rest of us?  Call me whatever you like but I wouldn't be surprised at all if she has figured out a way to rig the system to win like she did to Bernie. 

[kscarbel2]

Associated Press  /  November 2, 2016

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is facing a federal lawsuit to give details of a meeting she had with Bill Clinton days before she was to decide on his wife's fate.

The meeting in June was barely a week before the Justice Department which she heads dropped its probe into Hillary Clinton's private email server.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed the lawsuit against the Department of Justice in Washington on Wednesday demanding more information about the meeting, which led to Lynch stepping aside from the server investigation.

As head of the Department of Justice, Lynch was supposed to be deciding whether to proceed with charging Hillary Clinton over her unauthorized server arrangements while she was secretary of state.

But she met with the Democrat's husband on June 27 on the tarmac of the Phoenix Sky Harbor International airport, Arizona. Bill Clinton delayed his flight's departure in order to meet with Lynch.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ACLJ Press Release

Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel

ACLJ Files Lawsuit Over AG Lynch’s Secret Meeting with Bill Clinton – Will Hold Obama’s Justice Department Accountable

I told you about the Obama Justice Department’s incompetence and corruption when, over four months ago, I called for Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s resignation.

I told you about General Lynch’s decision to hold a secret meeting on her airplane with former President Bill Clinton – just days before the FBI interviewed his wife, the former Secretary of State, as part of a criminal investigation; and just days before General Lynch announced the former Secretary of State would not be indicted.  Here’s what I said in June:

Misconduct. Dishonesty. Impropriety. No matter what word you choose, Attorney General Lynch’s secret meeting with former President Bill Clinton was flat-out wrong.  She’s clearly disqualified from participating in the investigations into former Secretary of State Clinton’s private email server.

And she must resign.

I’m leading our senior litigation team preparing to file legal demands and ethics complaints.  If the DOJ doesn’t respond and she doesn’t resign, we’ll be back in federal court.

As promised, we took action. We sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to the Obama Justice Department and the FBI, demanding answers on how such a careless and perhaps intentionally underhanded meeting was allowed to happen.

The FBI acknowledged our FOIA requests, and even granted our request for expedited processing by determining that we had shown our requests concerned “[a] matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.” The Justice Department remained silent.

Then, last week’s earth-shattering news hit that the FBI – a component of the Justice Department – was reopening the underlying criminal investigation.

And early this week, the FBI advised the ACLJ Government Accountability Project that “[n]o records responsive to your request were located.”  Hard to believe. What may be even harder to believe, though, is the fact that the Department of Justice completely ignored our lawful requests for records. Or maybe that’s just par for the course.

So today, we’re forcing their hand. We’re taking the Obama Administration to federal court. Again. We’re filing a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, to ensure true justice. If the corruption and flippant disregard for the law won’t stop, neither will our Government Accountability Project, and neither will our lawsuits.

As we explained in our Complaint, we’re demanding records like this:

• Any and all records containing the names of any DOJ official, staff or employee who participated in any discussion regarding the meeting between General Lynch and Bill Clinton that occurred on Monday, June 27, 2016, at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona.

• Any and all records, communications or briefings prepared, sent, received or reviewed by General Lynch or any other DOJ official, staff or employee, at any time, containing any discussion of or in any way regarding the meeting between General Lynch and Bill Clinton that occurred on Monday, June 27, 2016, at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona.

• Any and all records of any communication or briefing received by General Lynch, any DOJ official, staff or employee from Bill Clinton or his staff regarding the meeting between General Lynch and Bill Clinton that occurred on Monday, June 27, 2016, at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, regardless of whether the communication or briefing was received before, during, or after the meeting.  

• Any and all records of any communication or briefing prepared, sent, received or reviewed by General Lynch, her staff, or any other DOJ official or employee or any other person from June 13, 2016 to Sunday, June 26, 2016, containing any discussion of or in any way naming, regarding, involving or referencing Bill Clinton.

• Any and all records of any communication or briefing prepared, sent, received or reviewed by General Lynch, her staff, or any other DOJ official or employee after the meeting on Monday, June 27, 2016, between General Lynch and Bill Clinton at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, containing any discussion of ethics rules or DOJ Standards of Conduct governing attorneys in connection with the meeting or Lynch’s relationship with Bill Clinton.

• Any and all records of any communication or briefing prepared, sent, received or reviewed by General Lynch, her staff, or any other DOJ official or employee after the meeting on Monday, June 27, 2016, between General Lynch and Bill Clinton at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona, containing any discussion of the press, responding to the press, or the content of any press release or public statements in connection with the meeting.

We told the Court: “The Defendant [DOJ] has wholly failed to respond to Plaintiff’s FOIA request.” In fact, the Obama Administration’s failure to respond violated the statute in two ways. So we brought two Counts.  First, in Count I, we explained:

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A), Defendant was required to determine whether to comply to Plaintiff’s request within twenty (20) days, excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays. Pursuant to this same provision, Defendant also was required to notify Plaintiff immediately of the determination, the reasons therefore, and the right to appeal any adverse determination to the head of the agency.

Then in Count II, we described the additional violation:

Defendant is in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(ii), in that Defendant has failed to make “a determination of whether to provide expedited processing,” which “shall be made, and notice of the determination shall be provided to the person making the request, within 10 days after the date of the request.” 

The bottom line of our lawsuit is this: the “Defendant is unlawfully withholding records requested by Plaintiff pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552.” The Justice Department’s answer to our suit will be due in about 30 days. We’ll let you know how they respond and keep you informed as our newest lawsuit progresses.

General Lynch has disqualified herself from this critical investigation. She has no business having any involvement in an FBI investigation of this magnitude. We will do, and are doing, everything we can to hold her accountable.

Today’s filing is our fourth major federal lawsuit filed against the Obama Administration over its corruption and failure to comply with FOIA – the law.  We’ve filed eight FOIA requests demanding information from: 1) the Obama State Department about the Iran lie, 2) the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components about its “jihad” word purge, 3) the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the FBI over Attorney General Lynch’s secret meeting on a plane with former President Bill Clinton, 4) the FBI and the DOJ regarding its decision to censor the Orlando jihadist’s 911 transcript, 5) the State Department over its funding of an organization that was involved in an attempt to unseat Israel’s Prime Minister, 6) the Obama State Department over its inaction on the ISIS genocide against Christians, 7) DHS and its components over the wrongful granting of citizenship to potential terrorists, and 8) the State Department over apparent pay-to-play collusion with the Clinton Foundation.

We are currently in ongoing litigation against the Obama Administration over the Iran lie, inaction on genocide, collusion with the Clinton Foundation, and now the secret meeting between Attorney General Lynch and former President Bill Clinton. We are also winning in multiple federal lawsuits against the Obama Administration’s IRS over its unlawful targeting of conservatives groups.

The stakes are high. The American people deserve a Justice Department with integrity. We must demand accountability for corruption. If we don’t, a constitutional crisis is imminent. The corruption must have consequences.

[kscarbel2]

Leaked emails reveal cast of Clinton’s courtiers

The Financial Times  /  November 2, 2016

Correspondence offers clues to who might be in — and out — of a Democratic White House

A stream of leaked campaign emails and a new FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s private server have brought the 2016 presidential campaign to a virtual tie in some polls just one week before the election.

Those emails, released by WikiLeaks, expose a cast of acolytes scrambling to head off damaging political fallout for the Democratic candidate while vying for influence inside the sprawling Clinton world.

So who are these Clinton courtiers and what role would they play in any Democratic White House?

Huma Abedin: the protector

For years, political observers have wondered what role Huma Abedin, Mrs Clinton’s longtime aide, actually plays in her world, and whether she could be a candidate for chief-of-staff should Mrs Clinton be elected.

Now, thanks to the hacked emails, as well as emails released from Mrs Clinton’s private email server, they have their answer.

A near constant fixture by Mrs Clinton’s side, Ms Abedin plays the role of the Democratic nominee’s back-office, managing requests and acting as her first protector while staying out of the way of policy decisions. The renewed scrutiny of Ms Abedin and her estranged husband that has come on the back of the new FBI probe does not help her chances of becoming chief of staff though.

While some aides are at times willing to criticise Mrs Clinton, Ms Abedin appears not to be one of them. When others advised that Bill Clinton should cancel a paid speech scheduled around the time that Mrs Clinton was to announce her presidential bid, Ms Abedin said she would tell Mrs Clinton that it was her husband’s decision to pull out, shielding her from the fact her former aides were going behind her back.

“HRC very strongly did not want him to cancel that particular speech,” Ms Abedin, wrote, using Mrs Clinton’s initials. “I will have to tell her that [former president Clinton] chose to cancel it, not that we asked.”

John Podesta: the realist

The unwitting star of his own hacked emails, Mrs Clinton’s campaign chairman comes off much the way he does in the political arena: a dry-witted and no-drama political veteran with little motive to climb any higher in the Clinton world — or grab any more of the spotlight.

In a universe dominated equally by sycophants and back-stabbers, Mr Podesta appears frank and realistic about Mrs Clinton’s flaws as a candidate, while remaining loyal to her.

When there was talk of Mrs Clinton not taking any questions from the press duriing the summer of 2015 — the time when news of her private email server broke — Mr Podesta pushed back. “If she thinks we can get to Labor Day without taking press questions, I think that’s suicidal. We have to find some mechanism to let the steam out of the pressure cooker,” he wrote.

Donald Trump has said he would dismiss Mr Podesta for the content of the emails if he were his own chief of staff. “I would say: John, you’re fired!’” Mr Trump told a rally on Tuesday night.

Mrs Clinton, meanwhile, is reportedly looking to keep Mr Podesta on as White House chief of staff if elected, a job Mr Podesta also performed for her husband.

Neera Tanden: the truth teller

One of Mrs Clinton’s longtime policy advisers, Neera Tanden has long been a public surrogate and defender of Mrs Clinton on panels and television programmes.

In the hacked emails, however, a starkly different profile of Ms Tanden emerges, as one of the few people in the Clinton world calling the candidate and her campaign the way she sees it, in the most blunt and biting terms.

In one email, Ms Tanden suggested that the person who had come up with the idea for Mrs Clinton’s private email server should be “drawn and quartered”. In another, she declared that Mrs Clinton’s inability to apologise was “her Achilles heel”. When Mr Podesta suggested that it might have been Cheryl Mills, Mrs Clinton’s former chief of staff, who had greenlighted the private server idea, Ms Tanden responded: “I’m reading [Hilary Mantel’s] Wolf Hall. There is something to be said for the power of torture,” she deadpanned.

While her emails make for fun reading, they may hurt Ms Tanden’s chances at securing a senior position in a Clinton White House.

Robby Mook: the rising star

Mrs Clinton’s campaign manager, Mr Mook, 36, is one of the youngest players in the Clinton world — but is also largely seen as one of its best additions and a reason that Mrs Clinton has fared better in the 2016 race than she did in the 2008 primary.

Like Mr Podesta, Mr Mook is seen as low-drama and a voice of reason, something that comes out in Mr Podesta’s hacked emails.

It was Mr Mook who pushed for Mr Clinton to cancel a paid Wall Street speech right before the campaign’s roll out and who initially argued that Mrs Clinton should not take any donations from people who worked as lobbyists for foreign governments. (He eventually relented when others on the campaign pushed back.)

Like Ms Tanden, Mr Mook also had issues with Ms Mills, particularly when Ms Mills launched a cryptic internal investigation of the Clinton campaign. “What she is doing isn’t improving anything. It is secretly going around a transparent system we all agreed upon,” he complained to Mr Podesta. “…The secret shit has to stop.” 

Philippe Reines: the backroom guy

A former senior adviser to Mrs Clinton while she was at the state department, Philippe Reines has not taken on an official position during her 2016 campaign. However, he continues to play an important role behind the scenes.

In Mrs Clinton’s debate preparations, Mr Reines has played the role of Mr Trump and in recent days he has travelled with Mrs Clinton while Ms Abedin has stayed behind in the wake of the new FBI investigation.

It was Mr Reines’ idea that Mrs Clinton’s team launch something called “Transparency Day”, one email shows. Yet in another email, Ms Tanden warned that Mr Reines was “going off the rails”, pointing to a drawn-out exchange he had entered into with Gawker, the now defunct media outlet.

Donna Brazile: the casualty

The former campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000, Donna Brazile has been one of the hardest hit by the release of the hacked Podesta emails. In October, Ms Brazile resigned from CNN, where she had served as one of the network’s political commentators, after it emerged that she had shared information with the Clinton campaign ahead of a CNN Democratic primary debate.

“One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash,” Ms Brazile wrote to Clinton aides in March. “Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the [people] of Flint.”

CNN has severed ties with Ms Brazile, but she remains the interim head of the Democratic National Committee after former chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz resigned because she too was perceived as being too close to the Clinton campaign, something that emerged in a different set of hacked emails.

.

[kscarbel2]

Secret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud in Clinton Probe

The Wall Street Journal  /  November 2, 2016

Agents thought they had enough material to merit aggressively pursuing investigation into Clinton Foundation

Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements as worthless hearsay.

Agents, using informants and recordings from unrelated corruption investigations, thought they had found enough material to merit aggressively pursuing the investigation into the foundation that started in summer 2015 based on claims made in a book by a conservative author called “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.”

The account of the case and resulting dispute comes from interviews with officials at multiple agencies.

Starting in February and continuing today, investigators from the FBI and public-corruption prosecutors became increasingly frustrated with each other.

At the center of the tension stood the U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, Robert Capers, who some at the FBI came to view as exacerbating the problems by telling each side what it wanted to hear.

The roots of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the strength of the case, which broadly centered on whether Clinton Foundation contributors received favorable treatment from the State Department under Hillary Clinton.

Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn’t think much of the evidence, while investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn’t let them pursue.

These details on the probe are emerging amid the continuing furor surrounding FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure to Congress that new emails had emerged that could be relevant to a separate, previously closed FBI investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement while she was secretary of state.

Amid the internal finger-pointing on the Clinton Foundation matter, some have blamed the FBI’s No. 2 official, deputy director Andrew McCabe, claiming he sought to stop agents from pursuing the case this summer. His defenders deny that, and say it was the Justice Department that kept pushing back on the investigation.

At times, people on both sides of the dispute thought Mr. Capers agreed with them. Defenders of Mr. Capers said he was straightforward and always told people he thought the case wasn’t strong.

Much of the skepticism toward the case came from how it started—with the publication of a book suggesting possible financial misconduct and self-dealing surrounding the Clinton charity. The author of that book, Peter Schweizer—a former speechwriting consultant for President George W. Bush—was interviewed multiple times by FBI agents.

Mr. Schweizer said in an interview that the book was never meant to be a legal document, but set out to describe “patterns of financial transactions that circled around decisions Hillary Clinton was making as secretary of state.”

As 2015 came to a close, the FBI and Justice Department had a general understanding that neither side would take major action on Clinton Foundation matters without meeting and discussing it first.

In February, a meeting was held in Washington among FBI officials, public-integrity prosecutors and Leslie Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York—Mr. Capers’ office—didn’t attend.

The public-integrity prosecutors weren’t impressed with the FBI presentation. “The message was, ‘We’re done here.’ ”

Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the FBI agents seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions.

Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message to all the FBI offices involved to “stand down.’

Within the FBI, some felt they had moved well beyond the allegations made in the anti-Clinton book. At least two confidential informants from other public-corruption investigations had provided details about the Clinton Foundation to the FBI.

The FBI had secretly recorded conversations of a suspect in a public-corruption case talking about alleged deals the Clintons made. The agents listening to the recordings couldn’t tell from the conversations if what the suspect was describing was accurate, but it was, they thought, worth checking out.

Prosecutors thought the talk was hearsay and a weak basis to warrant aggressive tactics, like presenting evidence to a grand jury, because the person who was secretly recorded wasn’t inside the Clinton Foundation.

FBI investigators grew increasingly frustrated with resistance from the corruption prosecutors, and some executives at the bureau itself, to keep pursuing the case.

As prosecutors rebuffed their requests to proceed more overtly, those Justice Department officials became more annoyed that the investigators didn’t seem to understand or care about the instructions issued by their own bosses and prosecutors to act discreetly.

In subsequent conversations with the Justice Department, Mr. Capers told officials in Washington that the FBI agents on the case “won’t let it go.”

As a result of those complaints, a senior Justice Department official [Attorney General Loretta Lynch?] called the FBI deputy director, Mr. McCabe, on Aug. 12 to say the agents in New York seemed to be disregarding or disobeying their instructions. The conversation was a tense one, and at one point Mr. McCabe asked, “Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?’’ The senior Justice Department official replied: ”Of course not.”

[HeavyGunner]

That woman the most dirty underhanded person. How disgusting that she has enough people in her pocket that she can tell the FBI to stand down, the doj they can't prosecute her and get the media to spin everything so she looks like the victim. Hope to hell she doesn't win. The US can't afford (literally)another president like obummer.

[41chevy]

3 hours ago, HeavyGunner said:

That woman the most dirty underhanded person. How disgusting that she has enough people in her pocket that she can tell the FBI to stand down, the doj they can't prosecute her and get the media to spin everything so she looks like the victim. Hope to hell she doesn't win. The US can't afford (literally)another president like obummer.

BBC, Polsat and a few U.S. news outlets are saying the second American Revolution could start on November 9. Since the New Black Panthers are going to "monitor" the polling places against Trumps voter fraud, it could start earlier.

[kscarbel2]

Sounds like our FBI agents have the right prospective, and many certainly from a position of knowledge. Based on what we’re told thru the controlled news, how can any intelligent person not dislike Hillary Clinton?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaks, sources say

The Guardian  /  November 3, 2016

Highly unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton intensified after James Comey’s decision not to recommend an indictment over her use of a private email server

Deep antipathy (dislike) to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election.

Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey’s July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton’s maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited.

“The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.

This atmosphere raises major questions about how Comey and the bureau he is slated to run for the next seven years can work with Clinton should she win the White House.

The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”

The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia”, with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected.

At the same time, other sources dispute the depth of support for Trump within the bureau, though they uniformly stated that Clinton is viewed highly unfavorably.

“There are lots of people who don’t think Trump is qualified, but also believe Clinton is corrupt. What you hear a lot is that it’s a bad choice, between an incompetent and a corrupt politician,” said a former FBI official.

Sources who disputed the depth of Trump’s internal support agreed that the FBI is now in parlous political territory. Justice department officials – another current target of FBI dissatisfaction – have said the bureau disregarded longstanding rules against perceived or actual electoral interference when Comey wrote to Congress to say it was reviewing newly discovered emails relating to Clinton’s personal server.

Comey’s vague letter to Congress, promptly leaked by Republican congressman Jason Chaffetz, said the bureau would evaluate communications – subsequently identified as coming from a device used by disgraced ex-congressman Anthony Weiner, whose estranged wife Huma Abedin is a Clinton aide – for connections to the Clinton server. Comey’s allies say he was placed in an impossible position after previously testifying to Congress it would take an extraordinary development for him to revisit the Clinton issue. Throughout the summer and fall, Trump has attacked the FBI as corrupt for not effectively ending Clinton’s political career.

A political firestorm erupted, with Comey and the bureau coming under withering criticism, including a rebuke on Wednesday from Barack Obama. Even some congressional Republicans, no friends to Clinton, have expressed discomfort with Comey’s last-minute insertion of the bureau into the election.

The relevance of the communications to the Clinton inquiry has yet to be established, as Comey issued his letter before obtaining a warrant to evaluate them. Clinton surrogates contend that Comey has issued innuendo rather than evidence, preventing them from mounting a public defense.

Some feel Comey needs to address the criticism and provide reassurance that the bureau, with its wide-ranging investigative and surveillance powers, will comport itself in an apolitical manner. Yet since Friday, Comey has maintained his silence, even as both Clinton and Trump have called for the bureau to disclose more of what it knows.

Leaks, however, have continued. Fox News reported on Wednesday that the FBI is intensifying an investigation into the Clinton Foundation over allegations – which both the foundation and the Clinton camp deny – it traded donations for access to Hillary Clinton when she was secretary of state. The Wall Street Journal reported that justice department officials considered the allegations flimsy.

The leaks have not exclusively cast aspersions on Clinton. Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, is the subject of what is said to be a preliminary FBI inquiry into his business dealings in Russia. Manafort has denied any wrongdoing.

The Daily Beast reported on Thursday on ties between Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor, and the FBI’s New York field office, which reportedly pressed the FBI to revisit the Clinton server investigation after beginning an inquiry into Weiner’s alleged sexual texting with a minor. The website reported that a former New York field office chief, highly critical of the non-indictment, runs a military charity that has received significant financial donations from Trump.

Comey’s decision to tell the public in July that he was effectively dropping the Clinton server issue angered some within the bureau, particularly given the background of tensions with the justice department over the Clinton issue.

A significant complication is the appearance of a conflict of interest regarding Loretta Lynch, the attorney general, who met with Bill Clinton this summer ahead of Comey’s announcement, which she acknowledged had “cast a shadow” over the inquiry.

“Many FBI agents were upset at the director, not because he didn’t [recommend to] indict, but they believe he threw the FBI under the bus by taking the heat away from DoJ [Department of Justice],” the former bureau official said.

All this has compounded pressure on Comey, with little end in sight.

Jim Wedick, who retired from the bureau in 2004 after 35 years, said that if Clinton is elected, she and Comey would probably find a way to work together out of a sense of pragmatism. He recalled both his own occasional clashes with federal prosecutors and Bill Clinton’s uneasy relationship with his choice for FBI director, Louis Freeh.

“Each one will find a way to pick at the other. It’s not going to be good and it’s not going to be pretty. But they’ll both have to work with each other,” he said.

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat on the intelligence committee, said: “The continued leadership failures at the FBI are another reminder we can’t let intelligence agencies say ‘trust us’ and then give them a blank check to probe into Americans’ lives.

“While I’ve argued for years that Congress must create ironclad protections for Americans’ security and privacy, we also need vigilant oversight of agencies that have the power to deprive citizens of their liberty or change the course of an election.”

The FBI would not comment for this story.

[kscarbel2]

FBI examining fake documents targeting Clinton campaign

Reuters  /  November 3, 2016

The FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies are examining faked documents aimed at discrediting the Hillary Clinton campaign as part of a broader investigation into what U.S. officials believe has been an attempt by Russia to disrupt the presidential election.

U.S. Senator Tom Carper, a Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, has referred one of the documents to the FBI for investigation on the grounds that his name and stationery were forged to appear authentic.

In the letter identified as fake, Carper is quoted as writing to Clinton, “We will not let you lose this election.”

The fake Carper letter is one of several documents presented to the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice for review in recent weeks.

As part of an investigation into suspected Russian hacking, FBI investigators have also asked Democratic Party officials to provide copies of other suspected faked documents that have been circulating along with emails and other legitimate documents taken in the hack.

An FBI spokesman said the agency was “in receipt of a complaint about an alleged fake letter” related to the election. The FBI is also examining other fake documents that recently surfaced.

U.S. intelligence officials have warned privately that a campaign they believe is backed by the Russian government to undermine the credibility of the U.S. presidential election could move beyond the hacking of Democratic Party email systems. That could include posting fictional evidence of voter fraud or other disinformation in the run-up to voting on Nov. 8, U.S. officials have said.

Russian officials deny any such effort. 

In addition to the Carper letter, the FBI has also reviewed a seven-page electronic document that carries the logos of Democratic pollster Joel Benenson’s firm, the Benenson Strategy Group, and the Clinton Foundation.

The document, identified as a fake by the Clinton campaign, claims poll ratings had plunged for Clinton and called for “severe strategy changes for November” that could include “staged civil unrest” and “radiological attack” with dirty bombs to disrupt the vote.

Like the Carper letter, it was unclear where the fraudulent document had originated or how it had begun to circulate.   

[41chevy]

http://nypost.com/2016/11/02/hillary-loses-her-cool-after-heckler-calls-bill-a-rapist/

[kscarbel2]

FBI again won’t recommend charges over Clinton email

The Washington Post  /  November 6, 2016

FBI Director James Comey notified key members of Congress Sunday afternoon that after reviewing newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails the agency stands by its original findings against recommending charges.

Comey wrote that investigators had worked “around the clock” to review all the emails found on a device used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that had been sent to or from Clinton and that “we have not changed our conclusions expressed in July.”

A spokesman for the FBI refused to comment beyond Comey’s letter.

A Department of Justice spokesman said only that the department and FBI had “dedicated all necessary resources to conduct this review expeditiously.”

The three-paragraph letter was sent to the chairman of the Homeland Security, Judiciary, Appropriations and Oversight and Government Reform and was copied to the ranking members of those committees. Comey said the FBI had performed an “extraordinary amount of high quality work” to conduct the review.

.

[mowerman]

You know that's always my bottom line in this situation here in the United States ......you don't work......you don't eat ..... simple as that. You don't agree get out and you have no voice end of story. I am not. Carrying you and blow your nose and get over it. Bob

[41chevy]

Comey did the save your ass choice! Trump wins, Comey can say he tried to find something, Hillary wins she'll reward him for doing the normal Clinton thing. Just proves how much of a show the entire thing is for the masses. "poor woman being hounded by the "good ole boy network". Made her stronger! 

We are leaving early this morning to get home to Virginia before the crap hits the fan on Tuesday when Hillary must win at all costs..

[gearhead204]

Ok guys humor me this, If there is nothing to see here, why did so many people suddenly plead the 5th.? some thing in tuna town still stinks!  

[41chevy]

10 minutes ago, gearhead204 said:

Ok guys humor me this, If there is nothing to see here, why did so many people suddenly plead the 5th.? some thing in tuna town still stinks!  

Al Capone / Gotti defence. . .

[kscarbel2]