Connecting the dots on Hillary Clinton

[superbeets]

[h=2]Hillary loses the fundraising battle despite taking Super Tuesday as campaign says she took in $30 million in February - $12.7 million less than Sanders[/h]

The Democratic front-runner's second-place finish in the money game was not unexpected. Her campaign had already admitted that Sanders and his team would outraise them.

 

[russ1945]

[h=1]Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server[/h]

Resize Text​

Print Article​

Comments 3659
​

Book mark article​

Read later list



​

Saved to Reading List​

[h=3]Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server. Here's what that means.[/h]

​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html#​

[FONT=FranklinITCProBold !important]Play Video[FONT=FranklinITCProLight !important]1:22[/FONT]




By Adam Goldman March 2 at 8:20 PM
The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.
The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.
[Clinton personally paid State Department staffer to maintain server]
The inquiry comes against a political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
[h=3]Confused about the investigations around Hillary Clinton? Here are the basics.[/h]

​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html#​

[FONT=FranklinITCProBold !important]Play Video[/FONT][FONT=FranklinITCProLight !important]1:13[/FONT]




So far, there is no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury in the email investigation to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney’s office.
Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano’s attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said: “As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Department of Justice’s security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed.”
He also said the campaign is “pleased” that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before a congressional panel in September, is now cooperating with prosecutors. The campaign had encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.
As part of the inquiry, law enforcement officials will look at the potential damage had the classified information in the emails been exposed. The Clinton campaign has described the probe as a security review. But current and former officials in the FBI and at the Justice Department have said investigators are trying to determine whether a crime was committed.

​

“There was wrongdoing,” said a former senior law enforcement official. “But was it criminal wrongdoing?”
[Hillary Clinton gains a new unlikely ally in email controversy: Colin Powell]

​

​

​

[h=3]Takeaways from Hillary Clinton’s e-mails[/h]

View Photos


Clinton has come under fire for using a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state. The emails are being screened and released in batches. Here are some things we’ve learned from them.






Clinton has since apologized for what happened: “Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.”
Any decision to charge someone would involve Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who told Congress when asked last month about the email inquiry: “That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they’ll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate.”
She added, “We will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as how to best handle it.”
Current and former officials said the conviction of retired four-star general and CIA director David H. Petraeus for mishandling classified information is casting a shadow over the email investigation.
The officials said they think that Petraeus’s actions were more egregious than those of Clinton and her aides because he lied to the FBI, and classified information he shared with his biographer contained top secret code words, identities of covert officers, war strategy and intelligence capabilities. Prosecutors initially threatened to charge him with three felonies, including conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act and lying to the FBI. But after negotiations, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.
[Why the Clinton email scandal and Petraeus leak are not really alike]
He was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years of probation. FBI officials were angered by the deal and predicted it would affect the outcome of other cases involving classified information.
Petraeus “was handled so lightly for his offense there isn’t a whole lot you can do,” said a former U.S. law enforcement official who oversaw counterintelligence investigations and described the email controversy as “a lesser set of circumstances.”

​

The State Department has been analyzing the contents of Clinton’s correspondence, as it has prepared 52,000 pages of Clinton’s emails for public release in batches, a process that began in May and concluded Monday. The State Department has said 2,093 of Clinton’s released emails were redacted in all or part because they contained classified material, the vast majority of them rated “confidential,” the lowest level of sensitivity in the classification system.
Clinton and the State Department have said that none of the material was marked classified at the time it was sent. However, it is the responsibility of individual government officials to properly handle sensitive material.
The email investigation is being conducted by FBI counterintelligence agents and supervised by the Justice Department’s National Security Division.
In a letter filed last month in federal court as part of ongoing civil litigation over Clinton’s emails, the FBI confirmed that it was “working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.” The agency declined to publicly detail the investigation’s “specific focus, scope or potential targets.”
On Tuesday, FBI Director James B. Comey said he was “very close” to the investigation.
Former federal prosecutor Glen Kopp said it is not surprising that agents want to interview Clinton and her aides.
“They are within the zone of interest of the investigation,” he said.
A request to interview her would have to be reviewed by top level officials at both the FBI and the Justice Department, a former official said.
As part of those interviews, the FBI would also seek to establish that Clinton and her aides understood the policies and protocols for handling classified information, former officials said.
Clinton’s attorney, David Kendall, declined to comment.
Kendall, who also has represented President Bill Clinton and Petraeus, has navigated similar issues in other cases. During the investigation of President Clinton by independent counsel Ken Starr, for instance, Kendall rebuffed several requests for interviews.

​

[Hillary Clinton’s incomplete timeline on her personal e-mail account]
The president was then subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury. In a deal brokered by Kendall, the subpoena was withdrawn and Clinton testified voluntarily in 1998.
Former prosecutors said investigators were probably feeling the pressure of time because of the election. Take action before the election, they said, and you risk being perceived as trying to influence the result. Take action after and face criticism for not letting voters know there was an issue with their preferred candidate.
“The timing is terrible whether you do it before or after,” Kopp said.
The issue of Clinton’s use of a private email server was referred to the FBI in July after the Office of the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community determined that some of the emails that traversed Clinton’s server contained classified material.
Emails that contain material now deemed classified were authored by Clinton but also by many of her top aides, including Jacob Sullivan, who was her director of policy planning and her deputy chief of staff. He is now advising Clinton’s campaign on foreign policy and is thought to be a likely candidate for national security adviser if she is elected president.
The State Department has said that, at the request of intelligence agencies, it has classified 22 Clinton emails as “top secret” and will not release those emails, even in redacted form. “Top secret” is the highest level of classification, reserved for material whose release could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.”
I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general of the intelligence community, has indicated that some of the material intelligence officials have reviewed contained information that was classified at the time it was sent; the State Department has indicated that it has not analyzed whether the material should have been marked classified when it was sent, only whether it requires classification before being released now.


[/FONT]

 

[roadreeler57]

 

[roadreeler57]

 

[The Guesser]

You pathetic losers have the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, thanks to 5Dimes:

Hillary Clinton - Federal Criminal Complaint Filed in 2016
graded when authorized representative files a charge or 1/1/2017
Mon 3/7		1351 Hillary Clinton faces federal charges		+250
9:00AM		1352 H.Clinton does not face federal charges		-350

 

[mountain]

You pathetic losers have the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, thanks to 5Dimes:

Hillary Clinton - Federal Criminal Complaint Filed in 2016
graded when authorized representative files a charge or 1/1/2017
Mon 3/7		1351 Hillary Clinton faces federal charges		+250
9:00AM		1352 H.Clinton does not face federal charges		-350

You think she's clean on this email server issue? The FBI has at least 150 agents on the case, not a sign of a "security review" 5 Dimes should change the wager to "will the Obama administration pursue the FBI recommendation". The Clintons are dirty, they will destroy anyone or anything that gets in the way of their never ending search for power and money. People are tired of these shameless charlatans. Her voice makes my skin crawl, especially when she raises it to make a point in a speech. Very hard to like her. Go away, just go the fuck away

 

[The Guesser]

You think she's clean on this email server issue? The FBI has at least 150 agents on the case, not a sign of a "security review" 5 Dimes should change the wager to "will the Obama administration pursue the FBI recommendation". The Clintons are dirty, they will destroy anyone or anything that gets in the way of their never ending search for power and money. People are tired of these shameless charlatans. Her voice makes my skin crawl, especially when she raises it to make a point in a speech. Very hard to like her. Go away, just go the fuck away

I think she was stupid, clumsy, arrogant, etc, with the email server situation, but I don't think there's anything criminal there. The FBI won't be Political. If there's something there, they'll indict. But I doubt there is. The anti Clinton minions that think EVERYTHING she does is criminal, like this hypocrites in this thread, will cry conspiracy, when there's no charges, but what else is new. The early betting agrees.

Politics Other Sports		Money Line
Hillary Clinton - Federal Criminal Complaint Filed in 2016
graded when authorized representative files a charge or 1/1/2017
Mon 3/7		1351 Hillary Clinton faces federal charges		+400
9:00AM		1352 H.Clinton does not face federal charges		-600

 

[mountain]

I think she was stupid, clumsy, arrogant, etc, with the email server situation, but I don't think there's anything criminal there. The FBI won't be Political. If there's something there, they'll indict. But I doubt there is. The anti Clinton minions that think EVERYTHING she does is criminal, like this hypocrites in this thread, will cry conspiracy, when there's no charges, but what else is new. The early betting agrees.

Politics Other Sports		Money Line
Hillary Clinton - Federal Criminal Complaint Filed in 2016
graded when authorized representative files a charge or 1/1/2017
Mon 3/7		1351 Hillary Clinton faces federal charges		+400
9:00AM		1352 H.Clinton does not face federal charges		-600

Unfortunately the FBI cannot indict. They turn the evidence over to Obama's Justice Department and it is up to them whether they convene a grand jury. Unlikely Lynch will allow it to go forward no matter how damning the evidence. That's why the odds are so high against charges and it has very little to do with the evidence that will be presented and everything to do with the politics and people involved.

 

[superbeets]

Hilary should not be allowed to run, on account of the emails. Period.


Nixon was not above the law, but Hilary is.

 

[superbeets]

Trump speaking and saying Hilary s statement to ' Make America Whole ' is a terrible statement. He thinks she means America is in a hole , we are in a deep hole and we are trying to dig our way out.

 

[The Guesser]

Unfortunately the FBI cannot indict. They turn the evidence over to Obama's Justice Department and it is up to them whether they convene a grand jury. Unlikely Lynch will allow it to go forward no matter how damning the evidence. That's why the odds are so high against charges and it has very little to do with the evidence that will be presented and everything to do with the politics and people involved.

That was my point and thank you for affirming it. If she's indicted, she's guilty. If she's not indicted, she's guilty because someone is covering up her guilt for Political purposes. So she can't win with people who think like you do.
I've read that Lynch was in on the decision of granting immunity to that staffer, so I'm of the mind that if there's something criminally found about Hillary, Lynch won't be covering it up. I'll let the evidence take me to the decision of whether Hillary did anything Criminally here. I'm not voting for her no matter what, and neither are you, or anyone who thinks like you.

 

[mountain]

That was my point and thank you for affirming it. If she's indicted, she's guilty. If she's not indicted, she's guilty because someone is covering up her guilt for Political purposes. So she can't win with people who think like you do.
I've read that Lynch was in on the decision of granting immunity to that staffer, so I'm of the mind that if there's something criminally found about Hillary, Lynch won't be covering it up. I'll let the evidence take me to the decision of whether Hillary did anything Criminally here. I'm not voting for her no matter what, and neither are you, or anyone who thinks like you.

I didn't affirm your point. You either mistakenly or out of ignorance said the FBI won't indict, a power that they have never held since their inception. True, they are non partisan and if they had the power to indict I would have agreed with you. I merely pointed out the way the justice system works.

If you don't think that the Obama Administration (who makes the call) isn't political than I guess there isn't anything else to talk about. The decision to indict doesn't even lie with Lynch, although Obama will listen to her recommendation. Because the FBI is non partisan, they are not on a witch hunt. 150 agents on a case and offering immunity by an organization (FBI) is a sign that something is going on.

 

[SheriffJoe]

I think she was stupid, clumsy, arrogant, etc, with the email server situation, but I don't think there's anything criminal there. The FBI won't be Political. If there's something there, they'll indict. But I doubt there is. The anti Clinton minions that think EVERYTHING she does is criminal, like this hypocrites in this thread, will cry conspiracy, when there's no charges, but what else is new. The early betting agrees.

 

[superbeets]

 

[roadreeler57]

Hillary Clinton - Federal Criminal Complaint Filed in 2016
graded when authorized representative files a charge or 1/1/2017
Mon 3/7		1351 Hillary Clinton faces federal charges. +400		+400
9:00AM		1352 H.Clinton does not face federal charges. -600		-600

 

[Dave007inVegas]

Unfortunately the FBI cannot indict. They turn the evidence over to Obama's Justice Department and it is up to them whether they convene a grand jury. Unlikely Lynch will allow it to go forward no matter how damning the evidence. That's why the odds are so high against charges and it has very little to do with the evidence that will be presented and everything to do with the politics and people involved.

Lynch will not indict, that’s a given. But it might not matter. If the FBI recommends to indict that’s all that’s needed.


If there was any doubt that the Obama administration is corrupt, that will immediately erase all doubts and if Comey has the integrity that people say he has he just might resign in protest. If that happens he’ll cause a shit storm unlike anything that has ever been seen before.


It will make Nixon’s resignation look like a Sunday picnic.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

That was my point and thank you for affirming it. If she's indicted, she's guilty. If she's not indicted, she's guilty because someone is covering up her guilt for Political purposes. So she can't win with people who think like you do.
I've read that Lynch was in on the decision of granting immunity to that staffer, so I'm of the mind that if there's something criminally found about Hillary, Lynch won't be covering it up. I'll let the evidence take me to the decision of whether Hillary did anything Criminally here. I'm not voting for her no matter what, and neither are you, or anyone who thinks like you.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]CNN: Clinton Is Not Out Of The Legal Woods Yet[/h]SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL






BY: Jack Heretik
March 6, 2016 10:42 am

In the wake of former State Department employee Bryan Pagliano receiving immunity from the Justice Department due to his role in setting up Hillary Clinton’s email server, CNN’s Inside Politics said that Hillary Clinton could still be in legal trouble while remaining on track to win the Democratic presidential nomination.
After host John King went through the numbers of how many emails are classified and in which levels of classification, he asked Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny what this means for Clinton’s campaign moving forward and for her own legal future.
“Jeff Zeleny, as we get to the debate tonight, certainly this will be an issue. The aide who set up the private server has now been granted immunity,” King said. “Can Hillary Clinton say much right now to put this away, or does she just have to hope that the investigation is done as soon as possible?”
“I think she’s said everything she has been able to say at this point, but it’s all on the investigation. That is going to be the one question mark hanging over this campaign for as long as it goes,” Zeleny said. “When or is the FBI and Justice Department going to sort of either move forward with this or say okay, everything is fine?
“But what we don’t know is, what is the aide who now has immunity, what is he saying? Is there a grand jury empaneled? And is there going to be a recommendation here from this Justice Department? All summer long this will be the soundtrack of this campaign, of conspiracy theories.”
“She’s not out of the woods yet on this,” Zeleny said.

 

[russ1945]

CBS Anchor Amused at Hillary Clinton’s Spin over Aide’s Immunity: ‘You See This As Good News?’

SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL






BY: David Rutz
March 6, 2016 11:14 am

CBS Face The Nation anchor John Dickerson was visibly amused at Hillary Clinton’s positive spin Sunday over the granting of immunity to the aide who set up her private email server, asking with a smile, “You see this as good news?”
Bryan Pagliano was granted immunity by the Department of Justice for his cooperation in the criminal investigation into Clinton’s private server while secretary of state, a scandal that has hung over the entirety of her 2016 presidential campaign. Nevertheless, Clinton and her surrogates have continually put a happy face on the proceedings.
“When this happens, I talk to Democrats, and they worry that somebody is going to get indicted,” Dickerson said.
Clinton referred to the investigation as a “security review” as she responded.
“Well, there is no basis for that,” Clinton said. “It’s a security review. I’m delighted that he has agreed to cooperate, as everyone else has, and I think we’ll be moving toward a resolution of this.”
“So you see this as good news? You see this as good news?” Dickerson asked incredulously.
“Yeah, I do. Absolutely,” Clinton said. “I think we’re getting closer and closer to wrapping this up. I also know that there were reports today about the hundreds of officials and the thousand emails that they were sending back and forth that have been looked at and classified retroactively. This really raises serious questions about this whole process, I think.”
Clinton said she’d been “more transparent than anybody I can think of” in public life with her call to release her emails. Friday on CNBC, she said she’d been the most transparent public official in modern times, in spite of her secrecy about highly paid speeches to Wall Street and the deletion of thousands of emails from her server.

from the above:
Clinton said she’d been “more transparent than anybody

She is right but in this case it is because everyone can see right through her.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]Report: Clinton Once Voted Against Amendment to Prevent Water Pollution[/h]Dem candidate has been vocal critic of Flint water contamination crisis
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL

Hillary Clinton in Flint, Michigan / AP​

BY: Morgan Chalfant
March 4, 2016 12:25 pm

Hillary Clinton, who has been an intense critic of the lead-contaminated water crisis in Flint, Michigan, voted against a bill to prevent groundwater pollution when she was representing New York in the U.S. Senate.
The International Business Times reported:

Facing reports that a controversial fuel additive was contaminating water supplies across America, Clinton as a senator in 2005 opposed a bipartisan measure to ban the chemical–even though Bill Clinton’s Environmental Protection Agency had first proposed such a prohibition. At roughly the same time, one major company producing the chemical also tried to use provisions in a trade deal backed by Hillary Clinton to force local governments in the United States to let it continue selling the toxic compound. At issue was the chemical known as methyl tertiary butyl ether–or MTBE. Though the compound makes fuel burn cleaner, by the end of the 1990s, scientists began detecting an increasing amount of the potential carcinogen in groundwater supplies.
​

A 2000 federal study forecasted that water in dozens of states risked being contaminated by MTBE, and years later an analysis from an environmental group found that millions of Americans’ water supplies had been contaminated by the chemical. The controversy precipitated lawsuits and led Congress to propose an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that would have banned the compound.
Clinton, along with 14 Republicans and 11 Democrats, voted against the legislation, which ultimately passed the Senate but was not included in the final energy bill.
The New York senator later expressed “concern” about MTBE after a report indicated that it had also been linked to cancer. She, along with others on the Environment and Public Works Committee, also wrote a letter to leaders on the Senate Energy Committee urging Congress to “act to discontinue the use of MTBE,” according to a release from her office.
Eventually, the compound was phased out of of the country’s gasoline supplies, though it still sparks contamination fears.
The report spotlighting Clinton’s vote against the measure banning the chemical comes days before the Democratic presidential primary debate takes place in Flint, Michigan, the center of a national controversy over contaminated water.

Clinton has repeatedly expressed outrage over the crisis in Flint, taking her presidential campaign there last month and addressing the situation during a speech on Super Tuesday.

“When I first heard about what was happening here, I was so angry. I was outraged. And you must feel exactly the same,” Clinton told a congregation in Flint in February. “This is not merely unacceptable or wrong, though it is both. What happened in Flint is immoral.”