About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

24 Replies to “Its official. Loretta Lynch says no charges to be laid. But was she?”

  1. Senate GOP leader: Release Clinton’s FBI interview

    […]”It’s pretty clear … that the American people would like to see what Hillary Clinton said to the FBI,” McConnell told reporters during his weekly press conference.

    […]”Only when we get the complete investigation out, including that three-and-a-half hour interview with the FBI, will the American people have the information they need in order to make a final judgement,”

    […]”The question here is Hillary Clinton and her public explanation compared to her private representation to the FBI. We’re entitled to know all of that,” he said in response to the question on Trump.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/286695-gop-leader-release-clintons-fbi-interview

  2. “…Normally, when a woman joins the “mile high club” the plane has to leave the ground.”

    I know both the Clintons are multiculturally inclusive, but are you saying what I am thinking you are saying??? YUK !

    • => Rita => It’s that time of year! <=
      If you want diet and exercise motivation, go back to the Links. Martin's posted the Flabby Flagellants! Shitties galore, in living color!
      Caution: Only watch if you're feeling at least 95% up to par. Otherwise check with your personal physician.

    • FBI Director Comey says not all of Hillary Clinton’s lawyers had requisite clearances to view or destroy classified information; reasonable to say some of destroyed emails were likely classified

      FBI Director Comey says he’s unsure Hillary Clinton understood that a ‘C’ in parentheses present on a document meant the document was classified; marking was present on some emails on her server

      House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan formally asks director of national intelligence to deny Hillary Clinton classified briefings during her presidential campaign as punishment for her private email servers – Reuters

      FBI Director James Comey, in House committee hearing, says Hillary Clinton’s email servers were less secure that Google’s gmail servers

    • Comey: Hillary’s FBI Testimony Wasn’t Under Oath Or Recorded, But It Would Still Be a Crime To Lie

      During testimony before Congress on Thursday, FBI Director James Comey stated that the FBI’s interview with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not under oath or recorded, but it still would be a crime to lie to the FBI.

      Comey stated that he did not personally interview Clinton, and did not talk to all of the “five or six” who did interview Clinton.

      He was then asked, “did she testify or talk to them under oath?” Comey answered, “No.” But added that “it’s still a crime to lie to us.”

      When asked if there was a transcript of the interview, Comey stated that there wasn’t one because the interview wasn’t recorded, but there was an analysis of Clinton’s interview.

      http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/07/07/comey-hillarys-fbi-testimony-wasnt-under-oath-or-recorded-but-it-would-still-be-a-crime-to-lie/

  3. The Department of Political Justice
    Andrew P. Napolitano

    Is it worth impairing the reputation of the FBI and the Department of Justice to save Hillary Clinton from a deserved criminal prosecution by playing word games?

    What has become of the rule of law – no one is beneath its protections or above its requirements – when the American public can witness a game of political musical chairs orchestrated by Bill Clinton at an airport in a bizarre ruse to remove the criminal investigation of his wife from those legally responsible for making decisions about it?

    How hairsplitting can the FBI be in acknowledging “extreme carelessness” while denying “gross negligence” about the same events, at the same time, and in the same respect?

    These are questions that now beg for answers in light of what can only be the politically motivated FBI report delivered earlier this week on the likely criminal behavior of Hillary Clinton.

    The espionage statute that criminalizes the knowing or grossly negligent failure to keep state secrets in a secure venue is the rare federal statute that can be violated and upon which a conviction may be based without the need of the government to prove intent.

    Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan – but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

    And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home – someone who had a secret security clearance herself – because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.

    Yet earlier this week, FBI Director James Comey – knowing that his bosses in the DOJ would accept his legal conclusions about Clinton’s failure to keep state secrets secure, because they had removed themselves from independently judging the FBI’s work – told the public that whereas the inadvertence of the above defendants was sufficient to justify their prosecutions, somehow Clinton’s repeated recklessness was not.

    It is obvious that a different standard is being applied to Clinton than was applied to Petraeus and the others. It is also now painfully obvious that the game of musical chairs we all witnessed last week when Bill Clinton entered the private jet of Comey’s boss – Attorney General Loretta Lynch – unannounced and spent 30 private minutes there with her at a time when both he and his wife were targets of FBI criminal probes was a trick to compromise Lynch and remove her and her aides from the DOJ chain of command regarding the decision as to whether to present evidence of crimes against either of the Clintons to a federal grand jury.

    Why do we stand for this?

    The criminal case against Mrs. Clinton would have been overwhelming. The FBI acknowledged that she sent or received more than 100 emails that contained state secrets via one of her four home servers. None of those servers was secure. Each secret email was secret when received, was secret when sent and is secret today. All were removed from their secure venues by Clinton, who knew what she was doing, instructed subordinates to white out “secret” markings, burned her own calendars, destroyed thousands of her emails and refuses to this day to recognize that she had a duty to preserve such secrets as satellite images of North Korean nuclear facilities, locations of drone strikes in Pakistan and names of American intelligence agents operating in the Middle East under cover.

    Why do we stand for this?

    Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme carelessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime’s worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme carelessness is gross negligence.

    Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.

    Why do we stand for this?

    http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-p-napolitano/2016/07/06/department-political-justice/

  4. State Department reopens internal probe of Clinton emails

    he State Department is re-opening an internal investigation into whether Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her top aides mishandled classified information, Fox News confirmed late Thursday.

    The investigation, which was first reported by the Associated Press, focuses on how classified emails to and from Clinton’s private server were categorized at the time they were sent.

    The State Department started its review in January after declaring 22 emails from Clinton’s private server to be “top secret.” The investigation was halted after the FBI began investigating Clinton’s so-called “homebrew” email setup last April. On Wednesday, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said there would be no indictments resulting from the FBI probe.

    “Given the Department of Justice has now made its announcement, the State Department intends to conduct its internal review,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement. “Our goal will be to be as transparent as possible about our results, while complying with our various legal obligations.”

    Kirby set no deadline for the investigation’s completion.

    Clinton was secretary of state until early 2013. Most of her top advisers left shortly thereafter.

    Kirby said earlier this week that former officials can still face “administrative sanctions.” The most serious of those penalties is loss of security clearances, which could complicate Clinton’s naming of a national security team if she becomes president.

    Beyond the Democratic front-runner, the probe is most likely examining confidants Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin, who wrote many of the emails to their boss that the various investigations have focused on. Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, has been viewed as a possibility for the same job in the White House. There is speculation that Sullivan, Clinton’s former policy chief, could be national security adviser.

    The State Department says it won’t identify former officials that still hold security clearances. But in an email Fox News made public in February, the department described Mills as still holding a valid clearance.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/07/state-department-reopens-clinton-emails-probe.html
    ===============================================================
    Fox News – What did Comey’s testimony reveal about Clinton probe?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.