All Discussions Tagged 'Comey' - 12160 Social Network2024-03-28T18:05:35Zhttps://12160.info/forum/topic/listForTag?groupUrl=clnton-for-prison-2016&tag=Comey&feed=yes&xn_auth=noMORE EVIDENCE SURFACES SHOWING FBI COLLUDED TO GET HILLARY CLINTON OFF THE HOOK FOR EMAIL SERVER (VIDEO)tag:12160.info,2017-12-15:2649739:Topic:17383212017-12-15T19:18:18.935ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<div id="newsheader"><h2>SOURCE:<span> </span><a href="http://theduran.com/more-evidence-surfaces-showing-fbi-colluded-to-get-hillary-clinton-off-the-hook-for-email-server-video/">DURAN</a></h2>
<div class="div_clear">Newly released documents reveal that former FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email investigation was edited in a way that watered down the the FBI’s findings.</div>
</div>
<div id="newsdetail"><p>James Comey’s statement was changed in Hillary…</p>
</div>
<div id="newsheader"><h2>SOURCE:<span> </span><a href="http://theduran.com/more-evidence-surfaces-showing-fbi-colluded-to-get-hillary-clinton-off-the-hook-for-email-server-video/">DURAN</a></h2>
<div class="div_clear">Newly released documents reveal that former FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email investigation was edited in a way that watered down the the FBI’s findings.</div>
</div>
<div id="newsdetail"><p>James Comey’s statement was changed in Hillary Clinton’s favor, as new documents released on Thursday by Senator Ron Johnson (chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee reveal) show that the FBI made edits to Hillary’s draft statement that essentially resulted in no formal indictment.</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PhnXbqpPTuY?wmode=opaque" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/12/new-comey-edits-revealed-hillary-clintons-private-emails-containing-classified-info-likely-hacked-hostile-actors/">The Gateway Pundit</a> one very shocking revelation is that “hostile actors” likely gained access to Hillary Clinton’s private email which of course contained classified information.</p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Via Fox News...</span></p>
<p>"Newly released documents reveal that then-FBI Director James Comey’s draft statement on the Hillary Clinton email probe was edited numerous times before his public announcement, in ways that seemed to considerably water down the bureau’s findings."</p>
<p><strong>The edits also showed that references to specific potential violations of statutes on “gross negligence” of classified information and “misdemeanor handling” were removed.</strong></p>
<p>The original also said it was “reasonably likely” that “hostile actors” gained access to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private <span id="IL_AD2">email account</span>. That was later changed to say that scenario was merely “possible.”</p>
<p>The final statement also removed a reference to the “sheer volume” of classified information discussed on email.</p>
<p>“While the precise dates of the edits and identities of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits appear to change the tone and substance of Director Comey’s statement in at least three respects,” Johnson wrote Thursday.</p>
<h4><a href="http://theduran.com/more-evidence-surfaces-showing-fbi-colluded-to-get-hillary-clinton-off-the-hook-for-email-server-video/">READ MORE...</a></h4>
</div> House Committee Chairmen Lay Out Case For Perjury Against Hillary Rodham Clinton To U.S. Attorneytag:12160.info,2016-08-16:2649739:Topic:16330072016-08-16T04:37:46.129ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<p></p>
<br />
<br />
<div class="featured-container"><img alt="Hillary Perjured Testimony AP" class="attachment-isc-bbn-full size-isc-bbn-full wp-post-image" height="480" src="http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/08/Hillary-Perjured-Testimony-AP-640x480.jpg" width="640"></img><div class="attribution"></div>
</div>
<br />
<p class="byline"><span class="by-author"><span class="by">by</span> <a class="byauthor" href="http://www.breitbart.com/author/matthew-boyle/">MATTHEW BOYLE</a></span></p>
<p class="byline"><span class="bydate">15 Aug 2016</span><span class="bycity">Washington, D.C.</span></p>
<br />
<p></p>
<div class="entry-content"><div class="desktop" id="EmailOptin"><div class="head"><h2><span>SIGN UP</span> FOR OUR…</h2>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p></p>
<br />
<br />
<div class="featured-container"><img width="640" height="480" src="http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/08/Hillary-Perjured-Testimony-AP-640x480.jpg" class="attachment-isc-bbn-full size-isc-bbn-full wp-post-image" alt="Hillary Perjured Testimony AP"/><div class="attribution"></div>
</div>
<br />
<p class="byline"><span class="by-author"><span class="by">by</span> <a class="byauthor" href="http://www.breitbart.com/author/matthew-boyle/">MATTHEW BOYLE</a></span></p>
<p class="byline"><span class="bydate">15 Aug 2016</span><span class="bycity">Washington, D.C.</span></p>
<br />
<p></p>
<div class="entry-content"><div class="desktop" id="EmailOptin"><div class="head"><h2><span>SIGN UP</span> FOR OUR NEWSLETTER</h2>
</div>
<div class="gf_browser_safari gform_wrapper"><a name="gf_1" class="gform_anchor" id="gf_1"></a></div>
</div>
<h2 class="p1"><span class="s1">Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic nominee for president of the United States, may have committed perjury in testimony before Congress, two separate U.S. House committee chairmen detailed late Monday.</span></h2>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">In <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/press-release/goodlatte-chaffetz-outline-case-perjury-clinton/" target="_blank">a letter</a> from House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Channing Phillips, the two top House Republicans made their case that Clinton committed perjury.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to Phillips:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="p1"><span class="s1">On August 2, 2016, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik confirmed that you received the Committees’ request for an investigation regarding certain statements made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her testimony before Congress and will ‘take appropriate action as necessary. To assist the investigation, this letter identifies several pieces of Secretary Clinton’s testimony that appear to implicate 18 U.S.C. §§1621 and 1001 the criminal statutes that prohibit perjury and false statements, respectively. The evidence collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during its investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State appears to directly contradict several aspects of her sworn testimony, which are described in greater detail below.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Before detailing at least four specific instances in which Clinton allegedly committed perjury, the House Republicans explained the matter a bit further:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="p1"><span class="s1">During a House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing on October 22, 2015, Secretary Clinton testified with respect to (1) whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time; (2) whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system; (3) whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State; and (4) whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State. Although there may be other aspects of Secretary Clinton’s sworn testimony that are at odds with the FBI’s findings, her testimony in those four areas bears specific scrutiny in light of the facts and evidence FBI Director James Comey described in his public statement on July 5, 2016 and in testimony before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The first of four main areas where Hillary Clinton allegedly perjured herself before the U.S. Congress was with her claim in sworn testimony that she never sent or received emails on her illicit home-brew email server—which was in violation of State Department guidelines, and according to FBI director James Comey “extremely careless.”</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“With respect to whether she sent or received emails that were marked classified at the time, Secretary Clinton testified under oath to the Select Committee that she did not,” Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote to the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. “Specifically, during questioning by Rep. Jim Jordan, Secretary Clinton stated ‘there was nothing marked classified on my emails, either sent or received.’”</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Chaffetz and Goodlatte further quoted from Clinton’s testimony by including this quote:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="p1"><span class="s1">[M]any Americans have no idea how the classification process works. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department . . . where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials . . . and that’s why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The two House Committee chairmen detail in the letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. that Clinton, according to the FBI Director, was not telling the truth in that testimony before Congress:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="p1"><span class="s1">The FBI, however, found several of Secretary Clinton’s emails did in fact contain markings that identified classified information therein. In Director Comey’s public statement on July 5, 2016, he said, ‘a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore the markings indicating the presence of classified information.’ When Director Comey testified on July 7, 2016, he specifically addressed this issue. Rep. Trey Gowdy asked, ‘Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified either sent or received. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Was it true?’ He said it was not. Director Comey also stated, ‘There was classified material emailed.’ Specifically, he stated that three documents on Secretary Clinton’s private server contained classified information clearly marked ‘Confidential.’ He further testified, ‘In the one involving ‘top secret’ information, Secretary Clinton not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same subject.’</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The second claim on which Hillary Clinton appears to have been caught perjuring herself according to the two top House Republicans was with regard to her statements that her lawyers read all of her emails.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“With respect to whether her attorneys reviewed each of the emails on her personal email system, Secretary Clinton testified that her attorneys used search terms and reviewed every single email to identify any that were work-related and should therefore be returned to the Department of State,” Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting directly from Clinton’s transcript from when she testified under oath:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="p1"><span class="s1">Rep. Jordan: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>But I’m asking how — I’m asking how it was done. Was</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">— did someone physically look at the 62,000 e-mails, or did you use search terms, date parameters? I want to know the specifics.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Mrs. Clinton: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>They did all of that, and I did not look over their shoulders, because I thought it would be appropriate for them to conduct that search, and they did.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Rep. Jordan: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Will you provide this committee — or can you answer today, what were the search terms?</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Mrs. Clinton: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>The search terms were everything you could imagine that might be related to anything, but they also went through every single e-mail.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1">“The FBI found, however, that Secretary Clinton’s lawyers did not in fact read all of her emails—they relied exclusively on a set of search terms to identify work-related messages,” Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before quoting from Comey’s July 5 testimony:</p>
<blockquote><p class="p1"><span class="s1">The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The third area where Hillary Clinton seems to have perjured herself according to the two House Committee chairmen is when she testified that she only used one server or device.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“With respect to whether there was one, or more servers that stored work-related emails during her time as Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton testified there was only one server,” Goodlatte and Chaffetz wrote to the D.C. U.S. Attorney, before pulling another transcript of congressional testimony:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="p1"><span class="s1">Rep. Jordan: </span><span class="s1">In March, you also said this: your server was physically located on your property, which is protected by the Secret Service. I’m having a hard time figuring this out, because this story’s been all over the place. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>But — there was one server on your property in New York, and a second server hosted by a Colorado company in — housed in New Jersey. Is that right? There were two servers?</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Mrs. Clinton: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>No.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Rep. Jordan: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>OK.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Mrs. Clinton: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>There was a — there was a server…</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Rep. Jordan: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Just one?</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Mrs. Clinton: . . . that was already being used by my husband’s team. An existing system in our home that I used, and then later, again, my husband’s office decided that they wanted to change their arrangements, and that’s when they contracted with the company in Colorado.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Rep. Jordan: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>And so there’s only one server? Is that what you’re telling me? And it’s the one server that the FBI has?</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Mrs. Clinton: The FBI has the server that was used during the tenure of my State Department service.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Goodlatte and Chaffetz also wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="p1">The FBI, however, found Secretary Clinton stored work-related emails on several servers. In Director Comey’s public statement, he said, ‘Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.’ In Director Comey’s testimony on July 7, 2016, he stated that Secretary Clinton used several devices to send and receive work-related emails during her tenure as Secretary of State. He testified, ‘She used multiple devices during her four years as secretary of state.’</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">The fourth and final area where Clinton seems to have, according to Chaffetz and Goodlatte, perjured herself while under oath was during her claim that she provided all of her work-related emails to the Department of State.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“Finally, with respect to whether she provided all her work-related emails to the Department of State, Secretary Clinton testified to the Select Committee that she had,” Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote, before again pulling a transcript of Clinton’s testimony before Congress.</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="p1"><span class="s1">Mrs. Clinton: Well, Congressman, I have said repeatedly that I take responsibility for my use of personal e-mail. I’ve said it was a mistake. I’ve said that it was allowed, but it was not a good choice. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>When I got to the department, we were faced with a global financial crisis, major troop decisions on Afghanistan, the imperative to rebuild our alliances in Europe and Asia, an ongoing war in Iraq, and so much else. <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>E-mail was not my primary means of communication, as I have said earlier. I did not have a computer on my desk. I’ve described how I did work: in meetings, secure and unsecured phone calls, reviewing many, many pages of materials every day, attending . . .</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Rep. Jordan: <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>I — I — I appreciate (inaudible).</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Mrs. Clinton: . . . a great deal of meetings, and I provided the department, which has been providing you, with all of my work-related e-mails, all that I had. Approximately 55,000 pages. And they are being publicly released.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote><p class="p1"><span class="s1">The FBI found, however, ‘several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.’ In the course of its investigation, the FBI recovered ‘still others . . . from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.’ When Director Comey appeared before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 7, 2016, he confirmed that Secretary Clinton did not turn over all work-related emails to the FBI. He stated, ‘We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.’</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrapped their letter to the U.S. Attorney for D.C. by noting that the FBI’s findings prove Hillary Clinton was not telling the truth when she testified under oath before Congress.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1">“The four pieces of sworn testimony by Secretary Clinton described herein are incompatible with the FBI’s findings,” Chaffetz and Goodlatte wrote.</span></p>
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><span class="by">by</span> <a class="byauthor" href="http://www.breitbart.com/author/matthew-boyle/">MATTHEW BOYLE</a></span></p>
</div> FBI just revealed how deeply OBAMA is involved in Hillary email probe…tag:12160.info,2016-01-29:2649739:Topic:16092602016-01-29T04:51:38.721ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<div class="article-byline">Written by <a href="http://www.allenbwest.com/author/michellejesse/">Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor</a> on December 9, 2015</div>
<div class="article-image-block"><div class="article-image"><img alt="Obama_Hillary" class="article-image wp-post-image" height="180" src="http://www.allenbwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Obama_Hillary-300x180.jpg" width="300"></img></div>
<div class="article-image-caption"></div>
</div>
<div class="entry-content"><p>Even as evidence released continues to mount suggesting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of sensitive emails, so too does the worry continue to nag that the…</p>
</div>
<div class="article-byline">Written by <a href="http://www.allenbwest.com/author/michellejesse/">Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor</a> on December 9, 2015</div>
<div class="article-image-block"><div class="article-image"><img width="300" height="180" src="http://www.allenbwest.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Obama_Hillary-300x180.jpg" class="article-image wp-post-image" alt="Obama_Hillary"/></div>
<div class="article-image-caption"></div>
</div>
<div class="entry-content"><p>Even as evidence released continues to mount suggesting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of sensitive emails, so too does the worry continue to nag that the Queen will get off scot-free for political reasons.</p>
<div class="code-block code-block-3"></div>
<p>Today, FBI Director James Comey attempted to alleviate concerns about President Obama’s influence in the ongoing investigation, revealing the extent of the president’s involvement in the probe.</p>
<p>Via <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/262639-obama-not-briefed-on-clinton-investigation" target="_blank">The Hill</a>:</p>
<p><em>President Obama does not receive briefings about the FBI’s investigation into the personal email setup Hillary Clinton used as secretary of State, bureau Director James Comey said on Wednesday.</em></p>
<div class="code-block code-block-2"></div>
<p><em>As a result, Obama should have no way of knowing how the inquiry is proceeding, Comey told the Senate Judiciary Committee, despite the president’s apparent dismissal of concerns about impropriety. </em></p>
<p><em>The FBI’s examination of Clinton’s server, which held her private email account and has drawn intense criticism from Republicans and transparency advocates, has <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/261582-fbi-chief-is-wild-card-for-clinton">put the FBI in a tight spot</a>. </em></p>
<div class="code-block code-block-4"><div id="rcjsload_f58fc4"></div>
</div>
<p><em>In response, Comey has repeatedly attempted to shoot down concerns about political motivation in his bureau’s probe and fears that investigators will undermine evidence against Clinton or another Obama administration official.</em></p>
<p><em>“I hope the American people know the FBI well enough and the nature and character of this organization,” Comey told the Senate panel on Wednesday.</em></p>
<p><em>“As I’ve said many times, we don’t give a rip about politics,” he added. “We care about finding out what is true and doing that in a competent, honest and independent way. I promise you that’s the way we conduct ourselves.”</em></p>
<p><em>Conservatives expressed worry in October when Obama said that Clinton had <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/256645-obama-clintons-email-wasnt-security-threat">made “a mistake”</a> by using the private email address throughout her time at the State Department but that the behavior did not compromise official secrets. </em></p>
<p><em>“I can tell you that this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered,” Obama told CBS’s “60 Minutes.”</em></p>
<p>So, based on what Director Comey said today, apparently President Obama doesn’t know any more about this than we do — presumably having learned about it from watching TV, as he usually does such matters of importance.</p>
<p><em>According to reports, Obama’s comments upset some FBI officials, who worried that it amounted to meddling in their investigation.</em></p>
<p><em>Comey has remained tight-lipped about the bureau’s progress as it explores whether classified information was mishandled.</em></p>
<p>While it is indeed reassuring to hear the FBI’s commitment to stay out of the political fray, this may be cold comfort, as it doesn’t mean the Obama administration won’t ultimately have a heavy hand in the outcome of the Clinton email investigation.</p>
<p><em>Even if the search uncovers evidence of wrongdoing, critics warn that the Obama administration would be reluctant to press charges against Clinton or other former State Department officials.</em></p>
<p><em>“No matter what the FBI finds, a political appointee of the Justice Department will ultimately make the decision of whether or not to prosecute,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Wednesday. “If the FBI refers the matter to the Justice Department, but the Justice Department refuses to prosecute, the public will not learn the facts that the FBI independently established.”</em></p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Obama Justice Department has given us no reason to suspect their balanced hand in meting out justice.</p>
<p>[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]</p>
</div>