All Discussions Tagged 'FBI' - 12160 Social Network2024-03-29T08:07:17Zhttps://12160.info/forum/topic/listForTag?groupUrl=clnton-for-prison-2016&tag=FBI&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> FBI informant has video of briefcases full of bribe money in Clinton uranium scandaltag:12160.info,2017-11-19:2649739:Topic:17317312017-11-19T20:17:05.004ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800343109?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800343109?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"></img></a></p>
<p>An undercover FBI informant in the Russian nuclear industry who was made to sign an “illegal NDA” by former AG Loretta Lynch, claims to have video evidence showing Russian agents with briefcases full of bribe money related to the controversial Uranium One deal – according to <em>The Hill</em> investigative journalist John Solomon and <em>Circa</em>‘s Sara…</p>
<p><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800343109?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800343109?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p>An undercover FBI informant in the Russian nuclear industry who was made to sign an “illegal NDA” by former AG Loretta Lynch, claims to have video evidence showing Russian agents with briefcases full of bribe money related to the controversial Uranium One deal – according to <em>The Hill</em> investigative journalist John Solomon and <em>Circa</em>‘s Sara Carter.</p>
<p>The informant, whose identity was revealed by Reuters as energy industry consultant William D. Campbell – and is very ill battling cancer – is testifying before Congress next week after the NDA which carried the threat of prison time <a href="http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2017/10/24/fbi-informant-silenced-by-obama-ag-signed-illegal-nda-on-russia-uranium-scandal-atty-says/#sthash.GhxxA2QN.dpbs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">was lifted</a>.</p>
<p><strong>As previously reported</strong>, Campbell was deeply embedded in the Russian nuclear industry where he gathered extensive evidence of a racketeering scheme involving bribes and kickbacks.</p>
<p>“<strong>The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns</strong>. And <strong>none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions</strong>,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials. –<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><em>The Hill</em></a></p>
<p>Campbell’s attorney, <strong>former Regan Justice Department official</strong> Victoria Toensing, previously <a href="https://youtu.be/yqxxAKX30FE" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">told <em>Fox Business</em> host Lou Dobbs</a> “<strong>He can tell what all the Russians were talking about during the time that all these bribery payments were made.</strong>”</p>
<p>Sara Carter and John Solomon sat down with <em>Fox News</em> host Sean Hannity to discuss:</p>
<p>Sarah Carter: He’s very sick and he’s been battling cancer and going chemo. He is in a battle for not only his life but in a battle against what he perceives as people within the US government that don’t want this story to come out.</p>
<p>But there’s so much information that he is willing to share with the public to set the record straight and believe me we’re gonna get it out there. He is going to have his say. His voice will be heard.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.intellihub.com/fbi-informant-has-video-of-briefcases-full-of-bribe-money-in-clinton-uranium-scandal/" target="_blank">SOURCE</a></p> FBI Informant “Threatened” After Offering Details Linking Clinton Foundation To Russian Bribery Casetag:12160.info,2017-10-19:2649739:Topic:17244182017-10-19T15:01:00.235ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<p><img alt="" class="aligncenter wp-image-107731" height="508" src="http://govtslaves.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/hillary-pizza.jpg" width="976"></img></p>
<p>While the mainstream media has largely ignored it, the scandal surrounding Russian efforts to acquire 20% of America’s uranium reserves, a deal which was ultimately approved by the Obama administration, and more specifically the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which included Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, is becoming more problematic for Democrats by the hour.</p>
<p>As …</p>
<p><img class="aligncenter wp-image-107731" src="http://govtslaves.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/hillary-pizza.jpg" alt="" width="976" height="508"/></p>
<p>While the mainstream media has largely ignored it, the scandal surrounding Russian efforts to acquire 20% of America’s uranium reserves, a deal which was ultimately approved by the Obama administration, and more specifically the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) which included Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, is becoming more problematic for Democrats by the hour.</p>
<p>As <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355937-fbi-informant-blocked-from-telling-congress-about-russia-nuclear">The Hill</a> pointed out earlier this morning, the latest development in this sordid tale revolves around a man that the FBI used as an informant back in 2009 and beyond to build a case against a Russian perpetrator who ultimately admitted to bribery, extortion and money laundering. The informant, who is so far only known as “Confidential Source 1,” says that when he attempted to come forward last year with information that linked the Clinton Foundation directly to the scandal he was promptly silenced by the FBI and the Obama administration.</p>
<p>Working as a confidential witness, the businessman made kickback payments to the Russians with the approval of his FBI handlers and gathered other evidence, the records show.</p>
<p>Sources told The Hill the informant’s work was crucial to the government’s ability to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil that involved bribery, kickbacks, money laundering and extortion. In the end, the main Russian executive sent to the U.S. to expand Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear business, an executive of an American trucking firm and a Russian financier from New Jersey pled guilty to various crimes in a case that started in 2009 and ended in late 2015.</p>
<p>Toensing added her client has had contact from multiple congressional committees seeking information about what he witnessed inside the Russian nuclear industry and has been unable to provide that information because of the NDA.</p>
<p><strong>“He can’t disclose anything that he came upon in the course of his work,”</strong> she said.</p>
<p><strong>The information the client possesses includes specific allegations that Russian executives made to him about how they facilitated the Obama administration’s 2010 approval of the Uranium One deal</strong> and <strong>sent millions of dollars in Russian nuclear funds to the U.S. to an entity assisting Bill Clinton’s foundation.</strong> At the time, <strong>Hillary Clinton was ....</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://govtslaves.info/2017/10/fbi-informant-threatened-after-offering-details-linking-clinton-foundation-to-russian-bribery-case/" target="_blank">READ ON INQUISITIVE ONE!</a></p> SOURCES: Hillary Clinton to be prosecuted under RICO Act, may face prison time for selling influencetag:12160.info,2017-06-15:2649739:Topic:16931392017-06-15T17:06:00.013ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<div class="entry-thumbnail"><a href="https://i2.wp.com/www.whitehousewhispers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/hillary-1796201_1280.jpg?resize=777%2C437" target="_blank"><img class="align-full" src="https://i2.wp.com/www.whitehousewhispers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/hillary-1796201_1280.jpg?resize=777%2C437"></img></a></div>
<p class="entry-meta"><span class="entry-meta-author vcard author">POSTED BY: <a class="fn" href="http://www.whitehousewhispers.com/author/admin/">WHITE HOUSE WHISPERS</a></span> <span class="entry-meta-date updated">JUNE 15, 2017…</span></p>
<div class="entry-content clearfix"><div class="mashsb-box"></div>
</div>
<div class="entry-thumbnail"><a href="https://i2.wp.com/www.whitehousewhispers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/hillary-1796201_1280.jpg?resize=777%2C437" target="_blank"><img src="https://i2.wp.com/www.whitehousewhispers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/hillary-1796201_1280.jpg?resize=777%2C437" class="align-full"/></a></div>
<p class="entry-meta"><span class="entry-meta-author vcard author">POSTED BY: <a class="fn" href="http://www.whitehousewhispers.com/author/admin/">WHITE HOUSE WHISPERS</a></span> <span class="entry-meta-date updated">JUNE 15, 2017</span></p>
<div class="entry-content clearfix"><div class="mashsb-box"><div class="mashsb-count mash-large"><div class="counts mashsbcount"></div>
</div>
</div>
<br/>
<p><a href="http://newstarget.com/2017-06-14-sources-hillary-clinton-to-be-prosecuted-under-rico-act-may-face-prison-time-for-selling-influence.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">JD HEYES</a>–For decades Bill and Hillary Clinton have gotten away with just about anything they’ve wanted to — and it’s been a lot. They have weathered political scandal after scandal, from Bill’s earliest days as an Arkansas politician and governor, to his time in the White House as president — and Hillary’s years as a lawyer, first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state.</p>
<div class="code-block code-block-1 ai-viewport-1 ai-viewport-2"></div>
<p>And while they have suffered some hefty defeats along the way — Bill Clinton became one of just two presidents, along with Andrew Johnson, to be impeached by the House of Representatives, and he lost his law license for a time after having lied to Congress over his affair with Monica Lewinsky; while Hillary has twice failed to follow her husband into the Oval Office — they have never been held <i>legally liable</i> for a number of shady business and political dealings.</p>
<p>The closest either of them came, short of Bill’s impeachment, was last year during the 2016 election cycle, when Hillary was under a criminal investigation for improper use of a private email server and criminal mishandling of highly classified intelligence information. She was never formally charged with any of those crimes; then-FBI Director James Comey laid out several reasons why she <i>should</i> be charged, but <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/054562_Hillary_Clinton_James_Comey_selective_prosecution.html">then refused to recommend that she actually be charged</a> in what is now being revisited in the current political drama surrounding the Trump White House.</p>
<p>All that said, the Clintons charmed days may about to seriously be coming to an end. (RELATED: <a href="https://thenationalsentinel.com/2017/05/11/bangladeshi-prime-minister-hillary-clinton-pressured-me-as-secretary-of-state-to-aid-donor-to-bills-charity/">Bangladeshi prime minister: ‘Hillary Clinton pressured me’ as secretary of state to aid donor to Bill’s charity</a>)</p>
<p>As <a href="http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2017/06/06/breaking-a-hillary-conviction-is-being-offered-up-in-deal-between-deep-state-and-trump/">noted by talk show host Dave Hodges</a> of “The Common Sense Show,” sources within the Deep State are telling him that the FBI is currently investigating Hillary Clinton’s “pay for play” while she was Obama’s secretary of state, in which she used her position to wrangle money from a number of foreign “donors” that benefitted her family foundation. As Hodges notes:</p>
<p><i>Hillary is being investigated by.....<a class="fn" href="http://www.whitehousewhispers.com/author/admin/">WHITE HOUSE WHISPERS</a></i></p>
<p><i><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800339790?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800339790?profile=original" width="401" class="align-center"/></a></i></p>
</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> Levin: ‘Sect. 793 of Penal Code ... Is What Hillary Clinton Has to Worry About’tag:12160.info,2016-01-31:2649739:Topic:16097802016-01-31T16:30:11.238ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<h1 class="page-header">Levin: ‘Sect. 793 of Penal Code ... Is What Hillary Clinton Has to Worry About’</h1>
<div class="region region-content"><div class="node node-opinion node-promoted clearfix" id="node-383850"><div class="authors">By <a class="username" href="http://www.cnsnews.com/author/margaret-knapp" title="View user profile.">Margaret Knapp</a> | August 13, 2015 | 3:27 PM EDT…</div>
<div class="content"></div>
</div>
</div>
<h1 class="page-header">Levin: ‘Sect. 793 of Penal Code ... Is What Hillary Clinton Has to Worry About’</h1>
<div class="region region-content">
<div id="node-383850" class="node node-opinion node-promoted clearfix"><div class="authors">By <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/author/margaret-knapp" title="View user profile." class="username">Margaret Knapp</a> | August 13, 2015 | 3:27 PM EDT</div>
<div class="content"><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>“Section 793 of the Penal Code, Subsection (f)...is what Hillary Clinton has to worry about,” <a href="http://www.marklevinshow.com/" target="_blank">nationally syndicated radio show host Staff Mark Levin</a> said on his Wednesday broadcast during a legal analysis of Clinton’s use of a private server while she was secretary of state.</p>
<p>“My point is when you set up an unsecured server in your barn adjacent to your home in Chappaqua, New York, you have intentionally – forget about negligence – you have intentionally bypassed the security process for that server,” said Levin, a former chief of staff at the Justice Department.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mrctv.org/videos/levin-sect-793-penal-codeis-what-hillary-clinton-has-worry-about" target="_blank">VIDEO LINK</a></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Here is the transcript of what Levin had to say:</p>
<blockquote><p>“I want to read to you Section 793 of the Penal Code, Subsection (f), because this is what Hillary Clinton – among other things, but this in particular – is what Hillary Clinton has to worry about.</p>
<p>“Here’s the law: <em>‘Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note or information relating to the national defense</em> …”</p>
<p>"By the way, this is part of what’s called the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917" target="_blank">Espionage Act</a>.</p>
<p>“Subset one: ‘... t<em>hrough gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed</em> ...’</p>
<p>“Got that? I’ll get to the next section later. I’m hearing on TV: ‘<em>It depends on her intent, it depends on her intent.</em>’ No it doesn’t, not with respect to this, Subsection (f).</p>
<p>Or two, “…<em> having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust or lost or stolen or abstracted</em>…” and so forth.</p>
<p>“So here’s her problem. Subsection one: “… <em>through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody </em>…’</p>
<p>“The entire server was not supposed to be – it turns out it’s in her barn. She has a barn on her property. So any classified information, including top-secret information, which is the highest of the classified information, Code Black top-secret information.</p>
<p>“I was read into these programs. I was trained. I can’t remember everything, I don’t have them now and by the way, it’s a lifetime requirement that you keep this information secret. It’s not like you leave the administration and you go blabbing about it. No. You can’t. You can never talk about it unless it’s been declassified.</p>
<p>“But let me underscore this again. It really is in plain English. Section 793, you can Google it yourself, of the Penal Code, Subsection (f): '<em>Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book</em>…' and so forth and so on.</p>
<p>“…<em> through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed.</em>”</p>
<p>“And I want to stop there because my point is when you set up an unsecured server in your barn adjacent to your home in Chappaqua, New York, you have intentionally – forget about negligence – you have intentionally bypassed the security process for that server.</p>
<p>“Now, that’s a higher standard. Let’s move it to the lower standard, which is still a crime.</p>
<p>"Let’s say you didn’t think or didn’t know that you were intentionally bypassing the process that is used to secure that server and that information, which seems absurd to me, but let’s play along.</p>
<p>“Okay, if you do it through gross negligence, you permit the same to be removed from its proper place. So I would argue to you, when that server was removed and information was flowing through it, including classified and especially top-secret information, boom. You did it.</p>
<p>“And every time that happened, ladies and gentlemen, that’s considered a count. You don’t aggregate at all. Every time that happened, that’s considered a violation of the statute.</p>
<div class="hidden-xs"><div id="3557842" align="center"></div>
</div>
<p></p>
<p>“Now what’s the penalty if you’re found guilty? ‘<em>Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years or both.’ </em>I didn’t check the fine, but I’m sure it’s substantial. Ten or 20 grand a violation.</p>
<p>“Now this is why typically the Justice Department, through the Public Integrity Section or the U.S. attorney’s office, would direct the FBI to get involved because of the potential criminality of what took place regardless of who the person is.”</p>
<p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="authors"><div class="author"><div class="author-info span7"><div class="author-img"><img src="http://cdn.cnsnews.com/styles/author/s3/pictures/picture-2798-1433248749.jpg?itok=U1jCPuMl" width="100" height="100" alt="Margaret Knapp" title="Margaret Knapp"/></div>
<div class="author-text"><div class="author-follow"><a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/author/margaret-knapp" title="View user profile." class="username">Margaret Knapp</a> </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br />
</div> FBI Threatens Attorney General Lynch ‘INDICT Hillary Clinton Or Else…’tag:12160.info,2016-01-30:2649739:Topic:16093022016-01-30T08:34:51.101ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<h1>FBI Threatens Attorney General Lynch ‘INDICT Hillary Clinton Or Else…’</h1>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800336677?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800336677?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"></img></a> <span class="font-size-1" style="font-family: 'andale mono', times;">"You have the right to remain a low-life,Sub-Human Scumbag Bitch"</span></p>
<h3>Hillary Clinton has more serious problems than dropping in the polls to Bernie Sanders. The evidence that has mounted…</h3>
<h1>FBI Threatens Attorney General Lynch ‘INDICT Hillary Clinton Or Else…’</h1>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800336677?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="750" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1800336677?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750" class="align-center"/></a><span style="font-family: 'andale mono', times;" class="font-size-1">"You have the right to remain a low-life,Sub-Human Scumbag Bitch"</span></p>
<h3>Hillary Clinton has more serious problems than dropping in the polls to Bernie Sanders. The evidence that has mounted against her for using a private server to conduct confidential government business while she was secretary of state has left the FBI no choice but to insist she be indicted.</h3>
<p><a href="http://truthuncensored.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/lorettalynch-630x354.jpg" rel="gallery-post" class="thickbox"><img class="lazy aligncenter size-full wp-image-17616" src="http://truthuncensored.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/lorettalynch-630x354.jpg" alt="lorettalynch-630x354" width="630" height="354"/></a></p>
<p><span>The question is not if Clinton will be indicted, but when. </span></p>
<p><span>The FBI is ready to indict Clinton now, and if its recommendation isn’t followed by the U.S. attorney general, the agency’s investigators plan to blow the whistle and go public with their findings, former U.S. House Majority leader Tom DeLay tells <span><a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/tom-delay-hillary-clinton-indict-fbi/2016/01/25/id/710813/">Newsmax TV</a></span>.</span></p>
<p><span>“I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they’re ready to indict,” DeLay said Monday on “The Steve Malzberg Show.”</span></p>
<p><span>“They’re ready to recommend an indictment and they also say that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public.”</span></p>
<p><span>Clinton is under FBI investigation for her use of a private server to conduct confidential government business while she was secretary of state. But some Republicans fear any FBI recommendation that hurts Clinton will be squashed by the Obama administration.</span></p>
<p><span>DeLay, a Texas Republican and Washington Times radio host, said:</span></p>
<p><strong><span>“One way or another either she’s going to be indicted and that process begins, or we try her in the public eye with her campaign. One way or another she’s going to have to face these charges.”</span></strong></p>
<p><span>Last week, Clinton’s press secretary Brian Fallon accused intelligence Inspector General Charles McCullough of colluding with Republicans to damage Clinton’s campaign for president.</span></p>
<p><span>The charge came after a report that McCullough sent a letter to two GOP lawmakers that some of Clinton’s emails sent from her private server when she was secretary of state should have been marked with classifications even higher than “top secret.”</span></p>
<div><a href="http://truthuncensored.net/fbi-threatens-attorney-general-lynch-indict-hillary-clinton-or-else/" target="_blank">Truth Uncensored</a> </div>
<p>Photo: Google</p> Hillary Will Be Indicted, Says Former US Attorneytag:12160.info,2016-01-29:2649739:Topic:16093512016-01-29T05:31:51.118ZCentral Scrutinizerhttps://12160.info/profile/H0llyw00d
<div class="pic-container dc-featured-image"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1799146815?profile=original" target="_self"><img class="align-center" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1799146815?profile=original" width="400"></img></a></div>
<div id="dc-word-up"><p>A former U.S. Attorney predicts a Watergate-style showdown in the Department of Justice if Attorney General Loretta Lynch overrules a<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/01/fbi-is-investigating-the-security-of-hillarys-email-server/" target="_blank">potential FBI recommendation to indict Democratic…</a></p>
</div>
<div class="pic-container dc-featured-image"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1799146815?profile=original" target="_self"><img src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1799146815?profile=original" width="400" class="align-center"/></a></div>
<div id="dc-word-up"><p>A former U.S. Attorney predicts a Watergate-style showdown in the Department of Justice if Attorney General Loretta Lynch overrules a<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/01/fbi-is-investigating-the-security-of-hillarys-email-server/" target="_blank">potential FBI recommendation to indict Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton</a>.</p>
<p>“The [FBI] has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this,” Joseph diGenova, formerly the District of Columbia’s U.S. Attorney, told <a href="https://thebadger14.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/like-watergate/" target="_blank">Laura Ingraham</a> in a Tuesday radio interview. “They are going to make a recommendation that people be charged and then Loretta Lynch is going to have the decision of a lifetime.</p>
<p>“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”</p>
<p>DiGenova is referring to the Watergate scandal’s “Saturday Night Massacre” Oct. 20, 1973, when President Richard Nixon sacked Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned in protest.</p>
<div class="OUTBRAIN" id="outbrain_widget_0"><div class="ob-widget ob-strip-layout AR_2"><div class="ob_what"><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/hillary-clinton-will-be-indicted-says-former-us-attorney/#"><br/></a></div>
</div>
</div>
<p>DiGenova is well-sourced throughout the law enforcement community and his assessment has to be taken seriously. But interviews with other knowledgeable Washington insiders present a somewhat less concrete scenario developing around the former secretary of state.</p>
<p>At the center of Clinton’s difficulties is her use of a <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/11/top-secret-emails-stored-in-hillary-clintons-private-server/" target="_blank">private email account</a> and a<a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/17/hillary-cant-name-what-security-measures-were-taken-to-protect-email-server-video/" target="_blank">home-brew server</a> located in her New York home to <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/14/exclusive-hillarys-it-contractor-did-not-have-proper-security-clearance/" target="_blank">conduct official business</a>while serving as America’s chief diplomat between 2009 and 2013. Several of her closest aides also <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/13/hillary-clintons-server-was-in-new-jersey-this-whole-time-its-blank-now/" target="_blank">used the private server</a>.</p>
<p>Clinton clearly <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/01/by-the-way-hillary-clinton-lied-about-the-reason-for-the-illegal-e-mail-server-she-just-wiped-clean/" target="_blank">didn’t abide by federal regulations</a> requiring officials like her to use government computers and email accounts to conduct official business and take all of the necessary steps to preserve all such correspondence concerning official business.</p>
<p>As first reported by <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/10/clinton-email-exposes-liberal-non-profits-partisan-campaign-work/" target="_blank">The Daily Caller News Foundation</a>, Clinton emailed Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden Sept. 7, 2010, asking for advice on what she, President Barack Obama and Democratic campaign officials should do to prevent a Republican victory in the upcoming congressional elections.</p>
<p>“Do you and CAP have any ideas as to how to change the dynamic before it’s too late? Losing the House would be a disaster in every way,” Clinton told Tanden. The CAP chief responded at length with clearly partisan recommendations, noted her supposedly non-partisan think tank’s polling efforts to identify winning themes for Democrats and described her conversations relaying her advice to Obama and other senior White House officials.</p>
<p>On its face, the Sept. 7 Clinton email appears to be a violation of the Hatch Act, which bars partisan political activities by officials using government property while on official duty. But Clinton found a clever way to get around the law, according to a senior non-profit official with extensive experience investigating such activities. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.</p>
<p>First, that official said, by not preserving her email records until after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton avoided an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which handles Hatch Act violations. The reason is simple — OSC has no authority over former federal employees in Hatch Act matters.</p>
<p>Second, by refusing to comply “with Federal Records Act requirements to use an approved system for preserving records, [Clinton] arguably did not engage in political activities while on official duty or while using federal resources because she communicated with a personal computer,” the official said.</p>
<p>In other words, “had Secretary Clinton used a State Department e-mail address and a government computer and had Secretary Clinton complied with federal record-keeping and open government laws, [her] violations would have been discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act and could have been remedied while Secretary Clinton was still in office.”</p>
<p>Thus, don’t expect a Clinton indictment for a Hatch Act violation.</p>
<p>But Clinton is far from out of the woods, according to a congressional source who is deeply involved in the multiple investigations of Clinton. This source, who also spoke only on condition of anonymity, pointed to the hundreds of Clinton emails that contained classified information.</p>
<p>“Her problem is the sheer volume of emails that were deemed classified,” said this source. “Her first defense was that she didn’t send any classified information in her emails. But that claim has been clearly rendered false because so many of the emails were later marked classified.”</p>
<p>As the Department of State has released the Clinton emails she provided after leaving office, more than a thousand were marked classified after being reviewed prior to their public release. So what about Clinton’s subsequent distinction that she sent no information in her emails that was “marked classified” when it was sent?</p>
<p>“The volume matters because a reasonable person knows somebody like the Secretary of State, who is allowed herself to classify materials, who has handled it for 25 years or more, at some point the law says you are responsible for recognizing classified material when you see it. That gets to the negligence issue,” the issue said.</p>
<p>Negligence is critical because Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in 2009 regarding classified information that stated, among much else, that “Sensitive Compartmented Information involves or derives from intelligence sources or methods that is classified or is involved in a classification determination …”</p>
<p>Clinton and several of her closest aides must have read information “derived from intelligence sources or methods” on a daily or near-daily basis.</p>
<p>There is an ominous sentence buried in that agreement Clinton signed: “Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violations.”</p>
<p>What if Clinton is indicted for negligence in handling classified information? DiGenova predicts a showdown within a couple of months that will put Lynch in the same hot seat that prompted Nixon to fire Cox for getting too close to the truth about Watergate.</p>
<p></p>
<p>With or without resignations of FBI officials to protest such a decision, there would be a blizzard of news releases from congressional GOPers condemning Lynch, followed by hearings in which both the attorney general and FBI Director James Comey would be put under oath and asked about their actions.</p>
<p><a href="http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/hillary-clinton-will-be-indicted-says-former-us-attorney/">http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/hillary-clinton-will-be-indicted-says-former-us-attorney/</a></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>