Hillary's emails

[Nbadan]

Very interesting update today in regards to the FBI Clinton Server Investigation.
By OmahaDemocrat
Wednesday Apr 20, 2016 · 7:19 PM EDT


Lawyers for a reporter demanding access to email messages and files the FBI has reportedly retrieved from Hillary Clinton's private server are objecting to a secret filing the Justice Department submitted to a federal court last month as part of a bid to keep those messages under wraps.

-snip-

That is unique - it means the reasoning for denying the request is detrimental, not just the content.

The FOIA request was in regards to the ‘personal’ emails that Clinton deleted but were eventually recovered by the FBI. Clinton described those emails as wedding plans, yoga routines, and emails to Bill Clinton.

The DOJ now has until April 26th to explain why they couldn’t reveal the reasoning behind denying the FOIA request and why they did this in secret. If her ‘personal’ emails that she deleted contained classified content that would put her in a very precarious position. The Clinton’s have had to maintain that no classified material was located in her personal emails as legally they were all supposed to be the property of the State Department — and it is a crime to destroy classified material.

more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/20/1518134/-Very-interesting-update-today-in-regards-to-the-FBI-Clinton-Server-Investigation

[Nbadan]

DOJ Claims Revealing FBI Declaration Will Jeopardize Clinton Email Investigation

by Rachel Stockman | 7:35 pm, April 27th, 2016


Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice say they cannot make public a classified FBI declaration because it would “adversely affect the ongoing investigation” into Hillary Clinton‘s private email server. The recent filing by DOJ attorneys, obtained by LawNewz.com, is significant because it not only acknowledges the ongoing federal probe, but also asserts that if the declaration is made public, it could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

The DOJ’s memorandum is part of a FOIA lawsuit that was originally filed in federal court by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold. Leopold is seeking Clinton’s emails that the DOJ obtained from her private server. He is also seeking correspondence between the FBI and Clinton referencing the Clinton email server.

In March, the government filed a motion for summary judgement in the case, and incorporated this classified declaration as one of the supporting documents. Leopold’s attorneys argued that the declaration should be made public, or the DOJ should show cause for why it must be kept secret. On Tuesday, DOJ attorneys filed an memorandum in opposition to plaintiff’s motion to show cause.

The DOJ says in its filing:

Records responsive to Plaintiff’s request that are subject to FOIA relate to a pending investigation. The FBI has stated publicly that it received and “is working on a referral Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a private email server. The FBI therefore submitted a classified in camera, ex parte declaration to provide the Court] with additional details to demonstrate that responsive information was properly withheld, and explained on the public record that this was the purpose of the in camera declaration.


Read more:
http://lawnewz.com/important/doj-claims-unsealing-fbi-declaration-could-jeopardize-clinton-email-investigation/

[DMX7]

Crocked Hillary

[Winehole23]

DOJ Claims Revealing FBI Declaration Will Jeopardize Clinton Email Investigation

by Rachel Stockman | 7:35 pm, April 27th, 2016




Read more:
http://lawnewz.com/important/doj-claims-unsealing-fbi-declaration-could-jeopardize-clinton-email-investigation/what does working on a referral mean?

[Gummi Clutch]

what does working on a referral mean?
yo go comment on my thread.

[Gummi Clutch]

RUH ROH :lol
how the fuck do you expect me to read that block of text dumbass. Condense that shit or comic sans it so its more readable.

[Reck]

how the fuck do you expect me to read that block of text dumbass. Condense that shit or comic sans it so its more readable.

Comic dog giving the game of thrones wall a run for its money. :lol

[Gummi Clutch]

Comic dog giving the game of thrones wall a run for its money. :lol
:lol

[boutons_deux]

Pentagon pushes back against Benghazi panel’s demands

The House Republicans’ Benghazi Committee not only still exists – today is its 722nd day – it also continues to make demands of the Pentagon. As of yesterday, I’m starting to get the sense that the Defense Department is getting a little tired of the GOP’s panel’s requests.

Committee Democrats issued a document (http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/news/in-the-news/democratic-members-respond-to-pentagon-letter-exposing-latest-republican-abuses) this morning that’s worth paying attention to.

Today, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, the Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Rep. Adam Smith, the Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Rep. Adam Schiff, the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense to Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy exposing the latest abuses by Select Committee Republicans.


The three-page letter, which is available in its entirety online (http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2016_04_28_DOD_Letter_to_Gowdy.pdf) (pdf), is from Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen C. Hedger, and was sent to Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) yesterday. In it, Hedger goes into quite a bit of detail noting the extent to which the Pentagon has already cooperated with the panel’s request for materials and information, but the letter also suggests Gowdy and his Republican colleagues are … what’s the phrase I’m looking for … pushing their luck.


“The Committee has made requests of individuals who seem unnecessary even for a comprehensive investigation,” Hedger wrote, “or has insisted we prioritize certain requests only to later abandon the request.”

In one case, Benghazi Committee Republicans told the Pentagon to track down four pilots who weren’t deployed to Benghazi in September 2012. The Committee had already heard from their commander, but Republicans told Defense officials to track down these pilots anyway. The Pentagon obliged, eventually locating the pilots, before the committee changed it’s mind and canceled the request.

In another case, Benghazi Committee Republicans said some guy claimed on his Facebook page to be a mechanic at an air base, so the panel requested the Pentagon track him down, too. The department determined he had no relevant information.

In yet another case, Benghazi Committee Republicans said some guy called into a conservative radio show, claiming to be a pilot camera operator who saw some secret Benghazi video. The panel urged the Pentagon to find him, and after a search, no such person turned up.

All of these searches, Hedger explained, take a great deal of time, energy, and resources – for no apparent reason. His letter added:

“Finally, the DoD interviewees have been asked repeatedly to speculate or engage in discussing on the record hypotheticals posed by Committee Members and staff, regardless of their interviewee’s actual knowledge or expertise to provide appropriate analysis or insight. This type of questioning poses the risk that your final report may be based on speculation rather than a fact-based analysis or what a military officer did do or could have done given his or her knowledge at the time of the attacks. I would respectfully request that you ensure pending interviews remain focused on obtaining facts rather than encouraging speculation.”


Ouch.

Republicans have already admitted (http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/another-republican-admits-benghazi-panel-political) the panel is a partisan exercise, making it that much more difficult to justify its prolonged existence – at a cost of nearly $7 million (http://askedandanswered-democrats.benghazi.house.gov/cost/). Now there’s evidence the committee is annoying the Department of Defense for reasons no one seems to understand.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/pentagon-pushes-back-against-benghazi-panels-demands?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[Winehole23]

Got the DOD chasing fairy tales and chimeras. For the public good, of course.

[TheSanityAnnex]

A federal judge said Wednesday he may order Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton to testify under oath about whether she used a private email server as secretary of state to evade public records disclosures.U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan signed an order granting a request from the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch to question six current and former State Department staffers about the creation and purpose of the private email system.

Those on the list were some of Clinton's closest aides during her tenure as the nation's top diplomat, including former chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills, deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin and undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy.

Also set to testify is Bryan Pagliano, the agency employee who was tasked with setting up the clintonemail.com server located in the basement of the New York home Clinton shares with her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Pagliano has previously refused to testify before Congress, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Based on what might be gleaned in those interviews, which are to be conducted over the next eight weeks, Sullivan says in his order a sworn deposition from Hillary Clinton "may be necessary."

That raises the possibility that Clinton could be ordered to testify in the midst of the presidential race. A campaign spokesman did not respond Wednesday to messages about whether Clinton would oppose any order to testify.
At issue is whether the State Department conducted an adequate search of public records in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Judicial Watch in 2013 seeking records related to Abedin's outside work as a paid consultant for the Clintons' charitable foundation and a financial advisory firm with ties to the former first couple.

The department's initial search did not include the thousands of emails Clinton exchanged with her aides, including Abedin, using private email addresses. The department said it didn't have access to those emails at the time.

Questions asked during the depositions are to be limited to the circumstances surrounding the 2009 creation of Clinton's private email system, including why she chose not to use a government account.
Sullivan said ordering depositions is appropriate in legal cases where a federal agency "may have purposefully attempted to skirt disclosure under FOIA."

"In sum, the circumstances surrounding approval of Mrs. Clinton's use of clintonemail.com for official government business, as well as the manner in which it was operated, are issues that need to be explored" to evaluate the adequacy of the department's records search.


There have been at least three dozen civil lawsuits filed, including one by The Associated Press, over public records requests related to Clinton's time as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The FBI also is investigating whether sensitive information that flowed through Clinton's email server was mishandled. The inspectors general at the State Department and for U.S. intelligence agencies are separately investigating whether rules or laws were broken.

Critics of Clinton's decision to rely on the private server have suggested that it potentially made her communications more vulnerable to being stolen by hackers, including those working for foreign intelligence agencies.

Clinton has acknowledged in the campaign that her home-based email setup was a mistake, but insists she never sent or received any documents that were marked classified at the time.

In response to public records requests, the State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of her work-related emails, a small percentage of which have been withheld because they contain information considered sensitive to national security. Thousands of additional emails have been withheld by Clinton, whose lawyers say they contain personal messages unrelated to her government service.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-judge-clinton-may-ordered-testify-records-case-182351893--election.html

[TheSanityAnnex]

Despite being dogged by Bernie Sanders late into the primary season, Hillary Clinton is by all accounts virtually guaranteed her party’s nomination. But even as she gets closer to that goal, she still can’t shake the email scandal that has dogged her since March 2015.If anything, her legal situation is more perilous than ever.
Item 1: Earlier this week, the Department of Justice apparently admitted that the investigation into the email scandal was a law enforcement proceeding, not — as Clinton has maintained — a review of classification procedures.
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano wrote this week (https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/05/hillary-clinton-foia-request-emails-fbi) that Justice moved to dismiss a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Vice News reporter Jason Leopold that sought, among other things, communications between the DOJ and Clinton. DOJ said that, in Napolitano’s words, complying with the request would “jeopardize the investigation by exposing parts of it prematurely.” In the same brief, he said, the DOJ referred to the investigation of Mrs. Clinton as a “law enforcement proceeding.”
Item 2: On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan granted a request by Judicial Watch (which has been aggressively pursuing this scandal (http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-email-scandal-more-evidence-state-department-was-in-on-a-cover-up/)) to depose Clinton’s former top State Department aides — including Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin — about Clinton’s email set up and how the department handled freedom of information requests.
Sullivan also left the door open for Clinton to be deposed, “based on information learned during discovery.’’
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton called it “a very great victory for transparency and, despite the best efforts of the Obama administration and the Clinton camp, it looks like we might finally get some answers under oath about the Clintons’ illicit email system.”
Item 3: Imprisoned Romanian hacker who went by the handle “Guccifer” now claims that he had access to Clinton’s private email server (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/romanian-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html), and that, while looking around, noticed that others had gained unauthorized access as well. “As far as I remember, yes, there were … up to 10, like, IPs from other parts of the world,” he told Fox News.
The Clinton campaign dismissed the “claims made by this criminal” as completely unsubstantiated.
Clinton has repeatedly dismissed the entire scandal, saying at one point that: “I am not concerned about it. I am not worried about it, and no Democrat or American should be either.”
Then again, Clinton has been saying that for more than a year now.

http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/clinton-e-mail-scandal-hillarys-legal-troubles-mount-as-her-nomination-nears/

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi! :lol

Email! :lol

Witch hunt! :lol

[spurraider21]

Email! :lol

Witch hunt! :lol
making fun of yourself? you've been all over the email thing during the primary :lol

[Nbadan]

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

CNN decides to go with "no evidence." Wonder why?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

[Nbadan]

Hillary To Face FBI Interviews Within Weeks:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-06/hillary-clinton-face-fbi-interview-within-weeks-cbs-reports


....an order by Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court decided to lay out ground rules for interviewing multiple State Department officials, and ordered at least six current and former State Department employees to answer questions, all in an effort to finish the depositions in the weeks before the party nominating conventions....

As CBS reports, a source has confirmed that Hillary Clinton will be interviewed by the FBI within the coming weeks, in connection with the investigation into her private email server....

The FBI and Justice Department have been investigating whether sensitive information that flowed through Clinton's email server was mishandled. ...

There's no timetable for completing the investigation, and there have been no statements about how much longer the investigation will take.

As we reported on Wednesday, a federal judge in Washington said he may order Clinton to testify under oath about whether she used a private email server to evade public records disclosures. ...

[Nbadan]

Note the modifier "scant", and then read the sentence again.


Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules



When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules.

Now, how can that be? Doesn't every criminal statute require proof that the defendant intended to break the law? No, some laws, like those related to negligence do not require proof of intentional lawbreaking or that actual harm be done. A common example is operating under the influence of alcohol. The mere fact that a policeman finds one behind the wheel with a blood alcohol level over a certain percentage is enough to convict. Parts of the Espionage Act are like that. Even though they involve negligence rather than intent to commit a crime, they are still felonies. She is not off the hook.

Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret.


The Felony statute at at Sec. 793 enumerates six separate crimes. The first three, (a)-(c), require the prosecution to show intent to violate the law and to cause harm to the national security. However, two, subsection (e) and (f) apply merely on the basis of mishandling classified materials without actual intent to or the effect of exposing secrets or to violate the law. The standard articulated in (e) is even lower, requiring merely that the defendant acted knowing that unauthorized release "could" cause harm to the national security. That is a much lower standard of proof than proving someone intended to such harm.

hmmmm....remember this?


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

[TheSanityAnnex]

Note the modifier "scant", and then read the sentence again.





When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules.

Now, how can that be? Doesn't every criminal statute require proof that the defendant intended to break the law? No, some laws, like those related to negligence do not require proof of intentional lawbreaking or that actual harm be done. A common example is operating under the influence of alcohol. The mere fact that a policeman finds one behind the wheel with a blood alcohol level over a certain percentage is enough to convict. Parts of the Espionage Act are like that. Even though they involve negligence rather than intent to commit a crime, they are still felonies. She is not off the hook.

Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret.



hmmmm....remember this?


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


Yup.


(18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) is very clear.
The law applies to “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,” which obviously includes Clinton. Classified information appeared throughout her emails recovered by investigators.
The law is broken if that person “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.”
The law could also be broken if the person “having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—”

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lol

Emails From Hillary Clinton’s IT Director at State Department Appear to Be Missing

The State Department said today it can’t find any of Bryan Pagliano’s emails from the time he served as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/whitehouse/hillary-clinton.htm)’s senior information technology staffer during her tenure there. Pagliano would have been required to turn over any official communications from his work account before he left the government. State Department officials say he had an official email account, but that they can't find any of those records and continue to search for them.


“The Department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s email pst file and has not located one that covers the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” State Department spokesman Elizabeth Trudeau said today, referencing a file format that holds email.
“To be clear, the Department does have records related to Mr. Pagliano and we are working with Congress and [Freedom of Information Act] requesters to provide relevant material. The Department has located a pst from Mr. Pagliano’s recent work at the Department as a contractor, but the files are from after Secretary Clinton left the Department," Trudeau added

This statement about Pagliano’s email comes in response to a FOIA request-turned-lawsuit by the Republican National Committee (http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/us/republican-national-committee.htm), which wants the State Department to turn over all his emails as well as Clinton’s text and Blackberry Messenger communications. In a court filing today, the RNC said the State Department has told them there are no documents responsive to either of those requests.
Pagliano was responsible for setting up the now-infamous private server in the basement of the Clinton's home in Chappaqua, New York. He has since become a key witness in the FBI inquiry into the handling of sensitive material on that server and has been granted immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his cooperation.


“It’s hard to believe that an IT staffer who set up Hillary Clinton’s reckless email server never sent or received a single work-related email in the four years he worked at the State Department," the RNC's Deputy Communications Director, Raj Shah, said in a statement to ABC News. "Such records might shed light on his role in setting up Clinton’s server, and why he was granted immunity by the FBI. But it seems that his emails were either destroyed or never turned over, adding yet another layer to the secrecy surrounding his role.”



The State Department also pointed out that the Politico newspaper has previously reported (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/hillary-clinton-bryan-pagliano-emails-state-department-216679) that Pagliano’s emails were unavailable.
It's unclear why the State Department does not have his email records for the time her served as her IT director or whether or not he purposefully withheld them.
When Clinton's emails were published on the State Department's public reading room, only one email of his surfaced. It was a happy birthday (https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_NovWeb/306/DOC_0C05796719/C05796719.pdf) message from his private email account to hers. She forwarded it to another staffer instructing him to "pls respond."


https://www.yahoo.com/gma/emails-hillary-clinton-director-state-department-appear-missing-205506182.html

[boutons_deux]

:lol

Emails From Hillary Clinton’s IT Director at State Department Appear to Be Missing


Were you :lol when Repugs deleted Ms of dubya/dickhead WH's emails?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Before you lol Russian propaganda the timelines match up and were reported by US media

The Kremlin is debating (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2036.htm) whether to release the 20,000 emails they have hacked off of Hillary Clinton’s server.


According to a report from four days ago, beginning in 2011, the Russians began monitoring Romanian computer hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel (aka Guccifer) after he attempted, unsuccessfully, to break into the computer system of the Russian funded RT television network.
After monitoring Guccifer, the Russians were reportedly able to record (both physically and electronically) his actions which allowed the Russian intelligence analysts, in 2013, to not only detect his breaking into the private computer of Secretary Clinton, but also break in and copy all of its contents as well.
The report notes that shortly after Russia obtained Clinton’s emails, they released a limited amount to RT TV which were published in an article in March 2013, titled Hillary Clinton’s ‘hacked’ Benghazi emails: FULL RELEASE (https://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/).
http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-hacked-emails--575x442.jpg
Apparently no Western journalists promoted this story in 2013.
A couple of years later, in 2016, the US then brought in Guccifer for questioning related to this incident. According to the report, NBC news knew why Guccifer was being questioned but withheld this information from the American public.
The Associated Press reported (http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-nearly-hacked-by-russia/) in October 2015 that “Hillary Clinton’s private email server maintained in her home while serving as secretary of State was possibly hacked by Russia-tied authorities, and others, on five separate occasions.”
The AP report noted that investigators discovered among Clinton’s cache of released emails malicious software aimed at transmitting data to three overseas computers, including at least one in Russia. This malicious software was reportedly activated by clicking on it; but in October it was not clear if Clinton actually opened these messages or not, per the AP.
Recently separate reports (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/04/romanian-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-it-was-easy.html) have come out noting that Guccifer had indeed hacked Clinton’s emails. Now according to this latest report, Clinton’s server was not only compromised by Guccifer but also by Russia. Guccifer told FOX News last week that he hacked Hillary’s homebrew server and so did at least 10 others (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/international-hacker-guccifer-breached-clinton-server-least-10-others/).

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/hillarys-emails-hacked-russia-kremlin-deciding-whether-release-20000-emails-hacked/

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/

Hacked emails sent to RT by Guccifer 2013

FBIextradites Guccifer to US in 2016

It's amazing some of you still have your heads in the sand.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Shit is about to hit the fan for the Clinton Foundation. Your girl is going down Reck

http://charlesortel.com/

Follow-up Letter to Donors, Charity Regulators, Investigative Journalists and
Citizens Worldwide


2 May 2016


Dear Friends,


First, a thank you to Kathleen Willey, Clarice Feldman, and Thomas Lifson1 for bringing

attention to yesterday’s letter.


Interest is finally building in piercing smokescreens that Clinton family members and allies still attempt to spread, claiming that a 20 year pattern of escalating, cross border abuses involving the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and multiple affiliated “charities” is a

“nothingburger”2.


For example, few who are even modestly familiar with applicable charity laws believe Bill
Clinton’s latest false assertion3 that investigation into the private email server is merely “a game”--as he will soon discover, the “email scandal” is part of much larger “records scandal”

over which he has little control4.


Major donors to charities are required under various laws to retain records that demonstrate the rationale for making donations. These records ordinarily prove that trustees and government officials took reasonable steps to ensure the charities receiving contributions and government grants were duly organized and lawfully operated.


Many important records not controlled by the Clintons--tens of thousands of pages, or more--are available in the public domain. I have been studying this body of information since February
2015.


What I shall start doing with this follow-up letter is pointing you to key subjects and documents, including items the Clintons and their allies have intentionally attempted to hide, and help you reach your own informed conclusions about the true Clinton Foundation record.

What Close Review of the Clinton Foundation Public Record Reveals


As you will soon establish for yourselves, not one of the many Clinton Foundation “charities”
has ever been lawfully constituted anywhere for more than an instant.


If our Internal Revenue Service were not captured by political partisans, charters to operate many
Clinton Foundation “tax-exempt” organizations would have been revoked years ago.


Donors who took deductions on federal tax returns for their contributions to Clinton Foundation entities would then be dunned for the tax benefits they received as well as for interest and

penalties.


The Internal Revenue Service would investigate U.S. charities identified as contributors to see how much money they gave to Clinton Foundation entities when these entities were not lawfully operated, and use discretion to assess appropriate penalties.


In addition, the Internal Revenue Service might conclude that Clinton Foundation entities were operating as taxable corporations rather than as tax-exempt charities.


In this event, the Internal Revenue Service would assess corporate income taxes, interest, and penalties back to whatever year they deemed each entity to have fallen afoul of applicable laws

and regulations.


The False Hope for Presidential Pardons


Though legal and financial downsides appear large, based on informed ongoing review of available records, the Clintons and their allies may believe they are protected in that either President Obama or Hillary Clinton (should she become the nominee and win the general

election) will issue blanket pardons.


Beyond the flaming political firestorms that surely would then ensue, there is a major problem with this kind of thinking--a U.S. president may only pardon federal crimes as I noted5 on 24

February 2016: “Key Finding #10: President Obama does not have Legal Authority to Issue Pardons for Most
Apparent Illegal Acts Involving Trustees, Executives, Agents, and Clinton Foundation Entities.The U.S. President’s pardon powers extend to federal crimes, and not to state crimes as the U.S. Department of Justice6 makes plain on its website:

“Does the President have authority to grant clemency for a state conviction?


No. The President’s clemency power is conferred by Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the
United States, which provides: “The President . . . shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Thus, the President’s authority to
grant clemency is limited to federal offenses and offenses prosecuted by the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States in the D.C. Superior Court. An offense that violates a state law is not an offense against the United States. A person who wishes to seek a pardon or a commutation of sentence for a state offense should contact the authorities of the state in which the conviction occurred. Such state authorities are typically the Governor or a state board of pardons and/or paroles, if the state

government has created such a board.”


Moreover, decisions to prosecute and/or to pardon crimes against foreign laws are the exclusive province of foreign governments, over which, in this case, the U.S.federal government may have only marginal

influence.”


Those who believe the Clintons and their co-conspirators have escape hatches in the form of

presidential pardons7 are mistaken.


Additional Pressure Points: State and Foreign Criminal Offenses


When I first studied public records pertaining to the Clinton Foundation, I concentrated upon their filings with the Internal Revenue Service8--though these filings remain materially false and misleading even after recent amendments9, it took me a while to realize important things.


U.S. states and foreign countries also have strict laws concerning operating and soliciting for charities that wish to offer their donors the benefit of making tax-deductible contributions. In most states and foreign countries, charities including the Clinton Foundation must make truthful

filings, many of which are readily accessible.


In the United States, states (and the District of Columbia) require charities to register before they solicit contributions, and to submit periodic reports--some of these filing requirements are easy
to satisfy while others are demanding.


In all cases, charities are required to provide complete and truthful disclosures, particularly
concerning trustees, executives and, in many cases, regarding “those who are in position to exercise significant influence”, whether or not they are named as trustees or executives.


In coming days, I will show in detail how Clinton Foundation entities submitted numerous false and materially misleading filings, or failed to submit disclosures to authorities within New York State and the State of Georgia, respectively. Infractions in both of these states (to name just two)

started in 2001 and continue to the present.


Please note that disclosure failures in a single state can queer registrations and reports in other states (and foreign countries), particularly when these failures are willful and persistent.


Outside the United States, there are wide variations in registration and annual filing

requirements.


Starting in 2001, Bill Clinton and, later, Ira Magaziner as well as others, held themselves out as acting in the name of the Clinton Foundation when these individuals were not trustees or

officers.


Only in-depth examination of board minutes and other nonpublic information will confirm what arrangements these individuals negotiated, and whether trustees acted responsibly to protect the

interests of the Clinton Foundation.


Numerous and substantial donations were solicited many places, inside and outside the United States, in theory, to pursue charitable good works in the name of the Clinton Foundation

internationally.


Yet, few of these international operations were registered, none of these international operations were effectively controlled from a U.S. base (as is strictly required under U.S. laws10), and no registration or annual report in any location concerning these operations accurately described the many disqualifying defects inherent in these arrangements and activities.


Like U.S. laws governing charities, foreign laws in many countries whose legal system is modeled on U.K.11 statutes and legal precedents are also strict--general principles include that organizations wishing to be deemed “tax-exempt” must pursue only purposes that actually are
“charitable” and that these organizations cannot be operated to create collective private gain.
Moreover, trustees, executives and related parties are forbidden to derive any private gains12.

Whether a charity is operating in compliance with law can be determined from the outside by looking at two main sources of information: (1) public filings and (2) independent certified financial audits that ordinarily serve as an outside check on submissions by charity trustees and

their executives.


As I shall continue to demonstrate in detail, federal, state, and foreign filings for the Clinton Foundation remain replete with errors and therefore are false and materially misleading.


Moreover, no Clinton Foundation entity ever procured a compliant financial audit, A Brief Comment on Clinton Foundation Use of “Expert” Opinions


When public concerns mount about the status of Clinton Foundation operations, the Clintons and their allies use a tactic perfected over decades--they obtain supposedly independent reports from experts, and characterize the results of these reports as exonerating most vexing issues.


In 2013, Bill Clinton13 and others described work by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett: and in 2015, Donna Shalala and others described work by DLA Piper14 and accounting firm CohnReznick as supporting the contention that Clinton Foundation entities were operated appropriately.


Each of these firms is staffed with professionals of the highest caliber, many of whom are experts on the subject of operating charities in compliance with state, federal, and foreign laws. However, the general public was never offered a view of the complete analysis performed by any

firm, So, because the Clinton Foundation has not seen fit to disclose, in particular, work performed by
CohnReznick, we are left to speculate how circumscribed their “independent” reviews may have
been.


To date, “independent” review of Clinton Foundation public disclosures has led to numerous
restatements and amendments of filings covering calendar years 2010 through 2013, inclusive.


That said, federal filings for the period 1997 through 2009, inclusive, have not, as yet been amended, nor has the Clinton Foundation seen fit to share state and foreign filings for any period

through their main website.


Set forth below are 40 topics dealing with the reporting period 1997 through 2010 that I believe experts likely did not consider in appropriate depth in the course of performing their work on behalf of Clinton Foundation entities and their trustees. Selected Topics to be Covered in Detail in Forthcoming Exhibits


Exhibit Topic 1 Fundraising Activities in the Name of the Clinton Foundation--October 1997 through January 2001
2 Fundraising Activities in the Name of the Clinton Foundation for the William J. Clinton Peace Centre

in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, Starting After 1998
3 Undisclosed Administrative Proceedings Against Persons Who Exercised Significant Influence Over

Clinton Foundation Activities
4 Fundraising Activities in the Name of the Clinton Foundation for the William J. Clinton Scholars Program at American University in Dubai, Starting After 2000
5 Undisclosed Activities in the Name of American india Foundation Allegedly Providing Earthquake

Relief in Gujarat, India Starting in January 2001 6 Undisclosed Activities Working With MindSpirit LLC, Rajat Gupta, and InfoUSA After January 2001
7 Undisclosed Activities Organizing, Helping to Operate, and Fundraising for International AIDS Trust

Starting Around January 2001
8 Undisclosed Activities in the Name of the Clinton Foundation Allegedly Fighting HIV/AIDS

Internationally Starting in July 2002 9 Undisclosed Activities Working With Ron Burkle and Yucaipa Companies Starting in 2002
10 False and Materially Misleading Organization and Operation of Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS

Initiative, Inc. (“Old CHAI”), Starting in March 2004

11 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2003 and Prior Years

12 False and Materially Misleading Accounting for Construction of the Presidential Library and for a Donation to the National Archives and Records Administration on 18 November 2004
13 False and Materially Misleading Accounting for Loans Secured During 2004 to Fund Construction of
the Little Rock, Arkansas Complex

14 Illegal Operation and False, Materially Misleading Disclosures Concerning Old CHAI During 2005
15 Fundraising Operations in the Name of the Clinton Foundation Allegedly Providing Tsunami Relief,

Starting in January 2005



Selected Topics to be Covered in Detail in Forthcoming Exhibits (Continued)


Exhibit Topic 16 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Alliance for a Healthier Generation Starting in May 2005 17 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Bush Clinton Katrina Fund Starting in August 2005 18 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Global Initiative Starting by September 2005
19 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2004 and Prior Years

20 Arrangement of “Sham” Merger of Old CHAI into the Clinton Foundation Effective 31 December

2005

21 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Hunter Development Initiative, Starting in 2006 22 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Climate Initiative Starting in August 2006 23 Deceptive Procurement of Strategic Partnership with UNITAID by September 2006
24 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2005 and Prior Years

25 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton-Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, Starting in June

2007

26 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of William J. Clinton Foundation UK, Starting in July 2007
27 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2006 and Prior Years

28 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Gulf Coast Recovery Fund Starting September 2008
29 Deceptive Procurement of a Memorandum of Understanding with President Obama’s Transition Team

Starting in November 2008

30 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2007 and Prior Years

31 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of William J. Clinton Foundation Corporation (Florida) starting in
June 2009

32 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Global Initiative, Inc. Starting in September 2009
33 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc. Starting in September

2009

34 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2008 and Prior Years

35 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Bush Haiti Fund Starting in January 2010
36 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Alliance for a Healthier Generation, Inc. Starting in February

2010

37 Undisclosed Activities Working With Laureate Education Inc, Starting in 2010
38 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2009 and Prior Years

39 Unauthorized and Illegal Operation of Clinton Health Access Initiative-UK Starting in November

2011

40 Submission of False and Materially Misleading Disclosures to Government Authorities Concerning

2010 and Prior Years


Each of the topics mentioned above affects financial and operating results reported for calendar years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 that now are on file and in the public domain--after I complete the process of sharing and explaining Exhibits 1 through 40 above, I will move on to consideration

of subsequent years.


As you will soon discover, information in the Exhibits draws chiefly on publicly available

information and is extensive.


Rather than publish hundreds of pages at once, I decided to release the analysis in smaller, “bite-size” chunks, so that you will have a chance to absorb the material, check it for yourselves, and

then reach your own conclusions. In addition to the above-mentioned materials, I also will publish a series of supporting Appendices containing links to helpful background material intermittently through the process of
releasing the Exhibits.


Thank you for your interest and support.


Sincerely,


Charles

[CosmicCowboy]

I want that 10 minutes back.

lot of accusation and no fact.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You just sit back and relax. I'll keep the updates coming as his website is updated with links to supporting appendices.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Clinton aide Cheryl Mills leaves FBI interview briefly after being asked about emails

Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off-limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.
Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said.


Investigators consider Mills — who served as chief of staff while Clinton was secretary of state — to be a cooperative witness. But the episode demonstrates some of the tension surrounding the criminal probe into possible mishandling of classified information involving the leading Democratic presidential candidate. In the coming weeks, prosecutors and FBI agents hope to be able to interview Clinton herself as they work to bring the case to a close.

The incident was described to The Washington Post by several people, including U.S. law enforcement officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing and those involved could face professional consequences for discussing it publicly.


It is not completely unknown for FBI agents and prosecutors to diverge on interview tactics and approach, and the people familiar with the matter said Mills answered investigators’ questions. Mills and her lawyer, Beth Wilkinson, also asked for breaks more than once to confer, the people said.


The questions that were considered off-limits had to do with the procedure used to produce emails to the State Department so they could possibly be released publicly, the people said. Mills, an attorney herself, was not supposed to be asked questions about that — and ultimately never was in the recent interview — because it was considered confidential as an example of attorney-client privilege, the people said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-aide-leaves-interview-once-the-fbi-broaches-an-off-limits-topic/2016/05/10/cce5e0e8-161c-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html?postshare=4851462906536261&tid=ss_tw

[rmt]

So what state is this in? And is the governor a republican or democrat?

[CosmicCowboy]

One thing to keep in mind is that they never ask a question that they don't already have the answer to.

[Mitch]

The GOP started out in the shit hole, now the DNC let themselves slide into one.

[Reck]

The GOP started out in the shit hole, now the DNC let themselves slide into one.

By doing what? Are you talking about the emails? You know this is a dead end, right? Has been for a long time.

[CosmicCowboy]

You are like the retarded version of that fucking retard boutons. No offense to cocksucker cowboy who has equally qualified number of missing chromosomes. Also an atta girl to rmt for still being the stupidest person in the world.

It is truly amazing you can dress yourselves. Thank God for granimals, as long as you mutants remember the zebras go with zebras.

The people that these morons that think for you told you to put in charge just spent the past 6 years wastefully spending millions of your tax dollars trying to nail corrupt Hillary.

We will first acknowledge what hypocritical pieces of shit you are for throwing temper tantrums about the government spending money feeding and helping people in need, which makes you all truly awful shitty people. Which of course you are.

But all of that dog and pony stuff, which of course was done in lieu of the actual jobs they were supposedly elected for, came up with nothing. So rather than admit defeat, even though a few have let it slip that they used your stupidity to perform this fucking wasteful stunt, the shit that tells you all what to think and parrot doubles down with more claims they won't ever finish proving.

You fucking mogoloids are the epitome of the "shiny object" form of journalism that has helped to destroy this country. I'd say you pieces of shit should be ashamed, but you have to be a thinking being for that.

Fuck off loser. You are the shit throwing monkey of the forum.

[tlongII]

Strong. Did you get that from hannity or rush? You obviously have no original thoughts or opinions of your own because you are so fucking stupid, and need to be spoon fed your "ideas" by the folks that depend on you being a fucking mongoloid so they can use you to steal oxygen from thinking people.

The best thing you could do for the planet right now is to stop breathing. It would be your first positive contribution to society ever. It is way past the time for you stop ruining the planet with your existence.

:monkey

[Reck]

:lmao bonerrific owning shitheads.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao bonerrific owning shitheads.

Two monkeys in love.

[Reck]

Two monkeys in love.

I dont even know the guy. I just thought his long ranting post was funny as fuck.

[mrsmaalox]

:lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

By doing what? Are you talking about the emails? You know this is a dead end, right? Has been for a long time.

Such a dead end that the FBI is doing two separate investigations :lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

You are like the retarded version of that fucking retard boutons. No offense to cocksucker cowboy who has equally qualified number of missing chromosomes. Also an atta girl to rmt for still being the stupidest person in the world.

It is truly amazing you can dress yourselves. Thank God for granimals, as long as you mutants remember the zebras go with zebras.

The people that these morons that think for you told you to put in charge just spent the past 6 years wastefully spending millions of your tax dollars trying to nail corrupt Hillary.

We will first acknowledge what hypocritical pieces of shit you are for throwing temper tantrums about the government spending money feeding and helping people in need, which makes you all truly awful shitty people. Which of course you are.

But all of that dog and pony stuff, which of course was done in lieu of the actual jobs they were supposedly elected for, came up with nothing. So rather than admit defeat, even though a few have let it slip that they used your stupidity to perform this fucking wasteful stunt, the shit that tells you all what to think and parrot doubles down with more claims they won't ever finish proving.

You fucking mogoloids are the epitome of the "shiny object" form of journalism that has helped to destroy this country. I'd say you pieces of shit should be ashamed, but you have to be a thinking being for that.Solid rant bro, not sure why you brought up Republicans though as this investigation is being done by Obama's DOJ and FBI.

[Reck]

Such a dead end that the FBI is doing two separate investigations :lol

Did you get that off Breitbart? :lmao

Get me a link where there is a second investigation on her. And how come this hasn't been mentioned by anyone?

This sounds more like a witch hunt and fantasy from you nut cases out there that want to see her badly in chains.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Did you get that off Breitbart? :lmao

Get me a link where there is a second investigation on her. And how come this hasn't been mentioned by anyone?

This sounds more like a witch hunt and fantasy from you nut cases out there that want to see her badly in chains.
Are you fucking serious? Utterly stupid questions like this are why sometimes I think you are trolling. The classified emails and her receiving illegal donations through her foundation are separate investigations, both being done by the FBI.

[Reck]

Are you fucking serious? Utterly stupid questions like this are why sometimes I think you are trolling. The classified emails and her receiving illegal donations through her foundation are separate investigations, both being done by the FBI.

So no links then.

Also answer the question.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So no links then.

Also answer the question.

Tired of holding your hand TBH. You've already been given the link, and I actually gave you one showing three ongoing investigations, but now down to two since the FBI told the State Department to halt theirs.
Do you think the classified emails sent/received over a non-secure server and the illegal contributions to her foundation are an investigation one in the same?

[Reck]

Tired of holding your hand TBH. You've already been given the link, and I actually gave you one showing three ongoing investigations, but now down to two since the FBI told the State Department to halt theirs.
Do you think the classified emails sent/received over a non-secure server and the illegal contributions to her foundation are an investigation one in the same?

Oh my. Now we're up to 3 separate investigation. Poor lady cant catch a break.

[Reck]

Tired of holding your hand TBH. You've already been given the link, and I actually gave you one showing three ongoing investigations, but now down to two since the FBI told the State Department to halt theirs.
Do you think the classified emails sent/received over a non-secure server and the illegal contributions to her foundation are an investigation one in the same?

OK, I googled..

"It is also not clear who is the “target” of the grand jury. In a Monday interview with Fox News (http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/07/clinton-says-fbi-has-not-informed-her-she-is-target-of-investigation-video/), Clinton insisted she was not a target of the Justice Department or of a grand jury. Clinton, however, could be the “subject” of an investigation, but not a target.

A “target” is when a prosecutor or a grand jury has substantial evidence to link a person to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a defendant. While a “subject” of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of a grand jury’s investigation but may not have committed a crime."

"Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer, also said that empaneling a grand jury does not mean guilt.
“Even if a grand jury is impaneled, it doesn’t mean culpability,” Zaid told TheDCNF."

"The Justice Department cautions that convening a grand jury in itself is not the equivalent of an indictment."

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/09/claim-hillary-grand-jury-looking-into-political-corruption/

Sooo they dont even know who the target is? Umm ok, you're just choosing to believe she's the target. Big difference there.

[TheSanityAnnex]

OK, I googled..

"It is also not clear who is the “target” of the grand jury. In a Monday interview with Fox News (http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/07/clinton-says-fbi-has-not-informed-her-she-is-target-of-investigation-video/), Clinton insisted she was not a target of the Justice Department or of a grand jury. Clinton, however, could be the “subject” of an investigation, but not a target.

A “target” is when a prosecutor or a grand jury has substantial evidence to link a person to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a defendant. While a “subject” of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of a grand jury’s investigation but may not have committed a crime."

"Mark Zaid, a national security lawyer, also said that empaneling a grand jury does not mean guilt.
“Even if a grand jury is impaneled, it doesn’t mean culpability,” Zaid told TheDCNF."

"The Justice Department cautions that convening a grand jury in itself is not the equivalent of an indictment."

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/09/claim-hillary-grand-jury-looking-into-political-corruption/

Sooo they dont even know who the target is? Umm ok, you're just choosing to believe she's the target. Big difference there.

Thank you for an article from March :lol

Do you think the classified emails sent/received over a non-secure server and the illegal contributions to her foundation are an investigation one in the same?

[Reck]

Thank you for an article from March :lol

Do you think the classified emails sent/received over a non-secure server and the illegal contributions to her foundation are an investigation one in the same?

I think that you are looking too much into nothing.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I think that you are looking too much into nothing.Looking too much into nothing does not produce a 9+ month investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If there was nothing it would have been dead on arrival for the FBI. This isn't like the Benghazi bullshit that can be dragged out for years by congress for political reasons. Pull your head out of your ass.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I think that you are looking too much into nothing.

:lol Reck

Hillary’s Latest Scandal: She And Bill Siphoned $100 Mil From Mideast Leaders


candal: A new investigation reveals that Bill and Hillary Clinton took in at least $100 million from Middle East leaders. Can such a financially and ethically compromised candidate truly function as our nation’s leader?The investigation by the Daily Caller News Foundation has uncovered a disturbing pattern of the Clintons’ raising money (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/) for the Clinton Foundation from regimes that have checkered records on human rights and that aren’t always operating in the best interests of the U.S. By the way, the $100 million we mentioned above doesn’t appear to include another $30 million given to the Clintons by two Mideast-based foundations and four billionaire Saudis.
All told, it’s a lot of money.
“These regimes are buying access,” Patrick Poole, a national security analyst who regularly writes for PJ Media, told the DCNF. “You’ve got the Saudis. You’ve got the Kuwaitis, Oman, Qatar and the UAE (United Arab Emirates). There are massive conflicts of interest. It’s beyond comprehension.”
Well, maybe not, given that Clinton, during her four-year tenure as secretary of state, used a clearly illegal private email server which is now under investigation by the FBI. Her open e-mail system likely was hacked by Chinese, Russian and perhaps other spy agencies, say cyberespionage experts. Such negligence would seem to disqualify her from ever holding a sensitive foreign policy post in the government again.
Meanwhile, former U.S. Attorney Joseph E. diGenova told (http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/09/claim-hillary-grand-jury-looking-into-political-corruption/#ixzz48TVRi2B4) the Caller that he believes the FBI has launched a second, possibly more serious investigation into possible political corruption involving the Clinton Foundation. This is potentially explosive, given that the Clintons seem to have run their charity in a way that lines their own pockets.
The question is an open one: Did the oil-rich Mideast nations give lavishly to the Clinton Foundation in an effort to influence future U.S. policy? And what about Bill Clinton’s business partnership with Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Dubai’s authoritarian ruler, from 2003 to 2008? Clinton took away some $15 million in “guaranteed payments” from the deal, his tax records show.
A picture of extraordinary greed is emerging from both Clintons in the years after they hold the highest posts in the U.S. government.
In just the past three years, after her stint as the nation’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton spoke to dozens of deep-pocket firms on Wall Street, typically charging $250,000 a pop to hear her wit and wisdom — despite her bitter condemnations of Wall Street during her campaign.
All told, she took in an estimated $22 million from these speeches — an extraordinary amount, given the growing consensus among foreign-policy thinkers that Clinton was one of the worst secretaries of state ever.
So why would Arab potentates and Wall Street magnates alike pony up so much money for the Clintons? Is it because they believe so strongly in the philanthropic mission of the Clinton Family Foundation? Or is it that they hoped to have influence on a future Hillary Clinton presidency, which would of course feature First Gentleman Bill Clinton?
Remember, a Hillary Clinton presidency once looked like a sure thing. Now, given the growing possibility that she could be charged for criminal negligence for putting secret material on a private server, or perhaps even be charged with corruption, Clinton has far more serious problems than just getting elected. Her biggest problem may be staying out of prison.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/ (http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/hillarys-latest-scandal-she-and-bill-siphoned-100-mil-from-persian-gulf-leaders/)


http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/11/exclusive-persian-gulf-sheikhs-gave-bill-hillary-100-million/

[Warlord23]

Hillary is as corrupt as you're gullible, TSA. This article offers zero new evidence, and posits several "open questions". Did the Clintons use their influence to get money? Of course they did ... Just like 90% of current or former politicians. Did the Saudis back Bush's businesses because they though he was a misunderstood Warren Buffet? Did Israeli PACs bankroll Chuck Schumer and Tom Cotton because they felt they were doing a great job of representing their states in the Senate?

Welcome to American politics, where bribery is legal and unchecked. Do you really think it takes a billion dollars per candidate to run an election campaign?

Also, an "investigation" by the "Daily Caller News Foundation"? What's next, the Breitbart fact checking institute? The Hannity centre for fairness in reporting?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Hillary is as corrupt as you're gullible, TSA. This article offers zero new evidence, and posits several "open questions". Did the Clintons use their influence to get money? Of course they did ... Just like 90% of current or former politicians. Did the Saudis back Bush's businesses because they though he was a misunderstood Warren Buffet? Did Israeli PACs bankroll Chuck Schumer and Tom Cotton because they felt they were doing a great job of representing their states in the Senate?

Welcome to American politics, where bribery is legal and unchecked. Do you really think it takes a billion dollars per candidate to run an election campaign?

Also, an "investigation" by the "Daily Caller News Foundation"? What's next, the Breitbart fact checking institute? The Hannity centre for fairness in reporting?
You ruined my Reck setup thanks a lot pal

[Reck]

Looking too much into nothing does not produce a 9+ month investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If there was nothing it would have been dead on arrival for the FBI. This isn't like the Benghazi bullshit that can be dragged out for years by congress for political reasons. Pull your head out of your ass.

And in that span of time they haven't found anything that she did wrong. By their own admission.


The interviews, we’re told, are focused on whether classified information was mishandled, and the security of the server. So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation, but, again, the investigation is not over.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reports-fbi-has-found-no-criminal-wrongdoing-in-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/

But hey, like the quote says. The investigation is not over.....LOL

Maybe wait another 9 months.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And in that span of time they haven't found anything that she did wrong. By their own admission.



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reports-fbi-has-found-no-criminal-wrongdoing-in-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/

But hey, like the quote says. The investigation is not over.....LOL

Maybe wait another 9 months.Do you even bother to read a thing posted by others in this thread. More hand holding, here you go.


Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.


CNN decides to go with "no evidence." Wonder why?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2df_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html)







When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules.

Now, how can that be? Doesn't every criminal statute require proof that the defendant intended to break the law? No, some laws, like those related to negligence do not require proof of intentional lawbreaking or that actual harm be done. A common example is operating under the influence of alcohol. The mere fact that a policeman finds one behind the wheel with a blood alcohol level over a certain percentage is enough to convict. Parts of the Espionage Act are like that. Even though they involve negligence rather than intent to commit a crime, they are still felonies. She is not off the hook.

Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret.


The Felony statute at at Sec. 793 enumerates six separate crimes. The first three, (a)-(c), require the prosecution to show intent to violate the law and to cause harm to the national security. However, two, subsection (e) and (f) apply merely on the basis of mishandling classified materials without actual intent to or the effect of exposing secrets or to violate the law. The standard articulated in (e) is even lower, requiring merely that the defendant acted knowing that unauthorized release "could" cause harm to the national security. That is a much lower standard of proof than proving someone intended to such harm.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And in that span of time they haven't found anything that she did wrong. By their own admission.



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reports-fbi-has-found-no-criminal-wrongdoing-in-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/



"So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation"

From your own fucking article :lmao


"A news editor would be hard-pressed to allow a reporter to describe Republican lawmakers and aids as “US officials.” What that means is that this is likely an agency leak, likely from the State Department"

[Reck]

"So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation"

From your own fucking article :lmao


"A news editor would be hard-pressed to allow a reporter to describe Republican lawmakers and aids as “US officials.” What that means is that this is likely an agency leak, likely from the State Department"

And? Does it make the quote less true? This hobby of yours is not a healthy one.

[TheSanityAnnex]

And? Does it make the quote less true? This hobby of yours is not a healthy one.

Coming from the same State Department that has been dragging its feet the entire time and mysteriously finding thousands more emails while also losing 4 years of emails from a witness granted immunity? Yes, I'd confidently say it's bullshit.


And then we have this quote you continue to ignore.

"Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2df_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html)

Trying to walk you through this is a waste of time though. I want you to read this and understand it. From the State Department's own admissions about top secret emails Clinton has already broken the

18 Us Code Section 793

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

[Reck]

Coming from the same State Department that has been dragging its feet the entire time and mysteriously finding thousands more emails while also losing 4 years of emails from a witness granted immunity? Yes, I'd confidently say it's bullshit.


And then we have this quote you continue to ignore.

"Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...2df_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html)

Trying to walk you through this is a waste of time though. I want you to read this and understand it. From the State Department's own admissions about top secret emails Clinton has already broken the

18 Us Code Section 793

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

Why do you keep reposting the scant evidence bit? Do you not know what that means? It means we haven't found shit, or else we would have Hillary in cuffs by now.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why do you keep reposting the scant evidence bit? Do you not know what that means? It means we haven't found shit, or else we would have Hillary in cuffs by now.

I have to keep repeating it because you are too fucking stupid to understand scant does not mean hasn't found shit. Finding scant would in fact be finding shit.
"When you read the headlines through the lens of the actual law, finding "scant evidence" and "evidence" are exactly the same. The FBI has found evidence of intent to break classification rules"

The reason she isn't in cuffs is because the investigation is ongoing and the FBI knows after they recommend an indictment they'll be going up against Obama's attorney general. They need an airtight case to force Lynch to indict. This isn't rocket science.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why do you keep reposting the scant evidence bit? Do you not know what that means? It means we haven't found shit, or else we would have Hillary in cuffs by now.
Here is found shit

"Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret."

[Reck]

Here is found shit

"Add that to the fact the State Department and the Intelligence Community IGs have already found more than 2,000 items of classified information found on her server, 104 of which she sent herself, and 22 found to be information that was Top Secret."

Retroactively classified which means they were labeled top secret after the fact. They weren't classified when she sent them. We have been through this.

And no, scant means that what they have "found" is akin to finding porn on my harddrive. Its something..but is it illegal? No.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Retroactively classified which means they were labeled top secret after the fact. They weren't classified when she sent them. We have been through this.

And no, scant means that what they have "found" is akin to finding porn on my harddrive. Its something..but is it illegal? No.

Yes we have been through, yes you are wrong, and yes you still need your hand held.

But the details in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.
The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.
In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.
This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.
"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
"If a foreign minister just told the secretary of state something in confidence, by U.S. rules that is classified at the moment it's in U.S. channels and U.S. possession," he said in a telephone interview, adding that for the State Department to say otherwise was "blowing smoke."

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821


Do you need a copy of the NDA she signed again? :lol Reck

[Spurtacular]

I'm not implying that dragging her emails out is wrong. Just saying it's being done.

No, you're just using words like "dragging" to pout.

[Spurtacular]

yeah, I can't imagine criminal charges here just for using this account. I'm just more interested in what Hillary was doing by using personal email for government business.

Surely it was mostly convenience because she wouldn't be that careless if she were trying to cover up something....right?

Yea, surely. Cos why rely on strong firewalls to transmit highly classified information. That's obviously conveninient.

:lmao 2016's cuck

[Spurtacular]

There's a possibility there could be something damaging in the emails to the staff, but probably not the kind of thing Republicans have been pimping all this time.

Apparently Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use gubmit servers exclusively, so the use of private email doesn't seem like that much of a revelation.

:lmao Chump was really hoping.

[Spurtacular]

Unfortunately, I don't see enough outrage out there about this other than the usual suspects, which is disappointing. I was hoping this would kill her candidacy.

It would have if the Dems had any fucking sense.

[Spurtacular]

could have said this from the start instead of dancing around and answering questions with questions, unless the attention pleases you


Your getting pissy about it pleases me.

Mentor and mentee in a tizzy :lmao

[Spurtacular]

:lmao bonerrific owning shitheads.

:lmao Tranny reck getting behind bonnerrific.
:lmao 2016's tranny

[Blake]

After you get some sleep, get some sunshine and fresh air.

[Pavlov]

:lmao Chump was really hoping.


Mentor and mentee in a tizzy :lmao:lol you really spend a lot of time researching our posts.

[Spurtacular]

:lol you really spend a lot of time researching our posts.

Not nearly as much as you spend lashing out because you can't own your shit.

:lmao

[Blake]

Not nearly as much as you spend lashing out because you can't own your shit.

:lmao

You need to take a break from this board. It's pretty sad.

[Spurtacular]

You need to take a break from this board. It's pretty sad.

I don't take counsel from cucks. This has been repeatedly told to you before. What are you failing to understand?

[Pavlov]

Not nearly as much as you spend lashing out because you can't own your shit.

:lmaoNot even close.

[Spurtacular]

Not even close.

Glad you agree.

[Pavlov]

Glad you agree.Sorry, I didn't make it clear enough for you.

You spend way more time researching men here than anyone else spends doing anything here.

[Blake]

I don't take counsel from cucks. This has been repeatedly told to you before. What are you failing to understand?

It's just plain common sense.

Anyone that spent that much time in the wee hours of the morning doing grudge research against other people on a sports message board needs to take a step back and assess life.

Common sense.

[Spurtacular]

It's just plain common sense.

Anyone that spent that much time in the wee hours of the morning doing grudge research against other people on a sports message board needs to take a step back and assess life.

Common sense.

What part of I don't take counsel from a cuck don't you understand? Seriously?

[Blake]

What part of I don't take counsel from a cuck don't you understand? Seriously?

It's common sense. You should spend time researching that instead of grudge digging here.

[Pavlov]

What part of I don't take counsel from a cuck don't you understand? Seriously?But you do spent that much time in the wee hours of the morning doing grudge research against other people on a sports message board.

[Spurtacular]

But you do spent that much time in the wee hours of the morning doing grudge research against other people on a sports message board.

:lmao Still clinging to non-existent time designations

[Blake]

:lmao Still clinging to non-existent time designations

The forum time stamps your post. You live in California. It's really not difficult to figure out.

Go out and get some sun.

[boutons_deux]

Benghazi and emails, FOREVER! :lol

[Spurtacular]

The forum time stamps your post. You live in California. It's really not difficult to figure out.

Go out and get some sun.

This one would actually fall into the subtleties of language though. Time designations referred to some time when he thinks it's valid or invalid to post on something, not a literal time stamp.

:lmao Today's cuck

[dabom]

Benghazi and emails, FOREVER! :lol

:lol

[Blake]

This one would actually fall into the subtleties of language though. Time designations referred to some time when he thinks it's valid or invalid to post on something, not a literal time stamp.

:lmao Today's cuck

Get sun.

[boutons_deux]

Trash said at a rally tonight he might still Lock Her Up :lol

[vy65]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C34-OkNVcAE5FFA.jpg

[Spurtacular]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C34-OkNVcAE5FFA.jpg


https://pics.me.me/after-trumps-victory-krugman-said-if-the-question-is-when-13062256.png

[vy65]

What does Krugman have to do with her emails?

[Spurtacular]

What does Krugman have to do with her emails?

I thought you were making a commentary on prosperity via Trump vs. Hillary. But okay:

:lmao Hillary wearing an orange jumpsuit for this embarrassing display:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MaoNDzZ8Mw

[vy65]

I thought you were making a commentary on prosperity via Trump vs. Hillary. But okay:

:lmao Hillary wearing an orange jumpsuit for this embarrassing display:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MaoNDzZ8Mw

You tell me. You’re bumping threads from 2016 about her emails and then running scared to a stupid point about capital markets.

[Spurtacular]

You tell me. You’re bumping threads from 2016 about her emails and then running scared to a stupid point about capital markets.

Don't lash out, no-name guy.

[vy65]

Don't lash out, no-name guy.

You’d be wise to take your own advice

[Blake]

I thought you were making a commentary on prosperity via Trump vs. Hillary. But okay:

:lmao Hillary wearing an orange jumpsuit for this embarrassing display:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MaoNDzZ8Mw

It's like you know English words but don't quite know how to use them correctly.

[Spurtacular]

You’d be wise to take your own advice

Well, consider I'm not lashing out, I'd tell you I am taking my own advice.

[Spurtacular]

It's like you know English words but don't quite know how to use them correctly.

Chucho's playbook is shit, cuck. But you do you or him as it were.

[vy65]

Well, consider I'm not lashing out, I'd tell you I am taking my own advice.

No, you’re lashing out pretty hard actually.

[Spurtacular]

No, you’re lashing out pretty hard actually.

Nah. You're the one having outbursts about not getting responses to your liking.

[vy65]

Nah. You're the one having outbursts about not getting responses to your liking.

Incorrect. I’m actually enjoying your deflections to Hillary’s sartorial flair. Just like a useful idiot would.

[Spurtacular]

Incorrect. I’m actually enjoying your deflections to Hillary’s sartorial flair. Just like a useful idiot would.

It's not a deflection if it's on topic, jack ass. And a prison jumpsuit doesn't qualify as sartorial flair. Way to try to sound smart and fail, no-name guy.

[vy65]

It's not a deflection if it's on topic, jack ass. And a prison jumpsuit doesn't qualify as sartorial flair. Way to try to sound smart and fail, no-name guy.

Definitely not lashing out

[Spurtacular]

Definitely not lashing out

Bitch slappin' ain't lashing out, son. I wouldn't expect you to get the nuance.

[vy65]

Bitch slappin' ain't lashing out, son. I wouldn't expect you to get the nuance.

There’s no bitch slappin, just your lashing out over a meme over her emails. It must be tough living such a fragile existence, son.

[Spurtacular]

Incorrect. I’m actually enjoying your deflections to Hillary’s sartorial flair. Just like a useful idiot would.

Counter memes is lashing out. Give me a break. Come back to me when you can rise above cuck Blake level posting.

[Pavlov]

Derp really desperate to change the subject.

lol