HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Inside the FBI Investigat...

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:15 PM

Inside the FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton’s E-Mail

"Late last summer, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James Comey, met with John Giacalone, the bureau official responsible for everything from counterterrorism to counterintelligence across the U.S. Giacalone, a fireplug of a man who started out as a New York City field agent battling organized crime in the 1990s, wanted to brief Comey on a high-profile issue that had been referred to the bureau by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. Emails found on the private, unclassified server used by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State contained classified information; Giacalone’s National Security Branch wanted to investigate how the secrets got there and whether anyone had committed a crime in the process. Comey was clear about one thing. “He wanted to make sure it was treated the same way as all other cases,” says Giacalone, who left the bureau in February."

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

34 replies, 2951 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Inside the FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton’s E-Mail (Original post)
NWCorona Mar 2016 OP
B2G Mar 2016 #1
NWCorona Mar 2016 #2
B2G Mar 2016 #3
intrepidity Mar 2016 #6
virtualobserver Mar 2016 #21
Jennylynn Mar 2016 #4
B2G Mar 2016 #5
awake Mar 2016 #8
Jennylynn Mar 2016 #9
NWCorona Mar 2016 #7
Jennylynn Mar 2016 #10
B2G Mar 2016 #12
virtualobserver Mar 2016 #23
B2G Mar 2016 #24
poprocks71 Mar 2016 #13
NWCorona Mar 2016 #14
poprocks71 Mar 2016 #16
mmonk Mar 2016 #11
GeorgeGist Mar 2016 #17
mmonk Mar 2016 #18
appal_jack Mar 2016 #15
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #19
NWCorona Mar 2016 #20
highprincipleswork Mar 2016 #27
passy Mar 2016 #22
IdaBriggs Mar 2016 #25
passy Mar 2016 #26
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #28
MFM008 Mar 2016 #29
BillZBubb Mar 2016 #30
MFM008 Mar 2016 #31
BillZBubb Mar 2016 #34
Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #32
bobthedrummer Mar 2016 #33

Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:17 PM

1. I just read that.

 

Looks like another article is coming on April 11, but I'm not a member and can't access it.

I didn't realize Comey also investigated Whitewater.

"Comey’s first brush with them came when Bill Clinton was president. Looking to get back into government after a stint in private practice, Comey signed on as deputy special counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee. In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:20 PM

2. Yes I caught that early on.

It is interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #2)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:21 PM

3. Well at least he knew who he was dealing with

 

from the get go.

That has to make her sweat a tad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:28 PM

6. Going to highlight this portion, so nobody misses it.

In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement.

Sounds like Comey has been here before. I'd say he's perfectly suited for this task, so whatever his decision, I will accept it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intrepidity (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:06 PM

21. It is what Hillary calls "transparency"

 

I didn't know that Comey was involved back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:26 PM

4. They've been investigating since last Summer?

How freakin' long does it take for goodness sake?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jennylynn (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:28 PM

5. Less than a year is pretty quick. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:32 PM

8. unless they found something and want to build a strong case

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #8)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:38 PM

9. Ah yeah. Didn't think of it that way guys.

Good points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jennylynn (Reply #4)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:30 PM

7. It has to be something.

And probably big. It is a long time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:40 PM

10. Can you imagine if she wins the Nomination

And THEN gets indicted? I will be more than angry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jennylynn (Reply #10)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:50 PM

12. A recommendation to indict will be devastating to her campain

 

It won't matter what the DOJ chooses to do at that point.

She'll be toast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B2G (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:09 PM

23. It is a tricky situation....what a position to put the Attorney General in, should Comey recommend..

 

an indictment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #23)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:10 PM

24. She needs to objectively do her job

 

That's what she's paid for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #7)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:52 PM

13. Former director of the FBI says probe is nearing the end

Also heard that someone was granted immunity for spilling the beans. Guess they always save the best for last in the interview process. I wonder if HRC will cooperate and if she doesn't, what will it mean for her campaign. Now correct me if I'm wrong but didn't she say that she was not being investigated? Plus isn't this probe the same thing as an investigation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to poprocks71 (Reply #13)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:56 PM

14. Yes, Hillary did say she wasn't investigation. Only a security review

I don't think Hillary can say that anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #14)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:28 PM

16. Yes she can still say that

And she probably will up to the very end. If you tell alie long enough then does it become the truth? My biggest questions are how long will the leaders of the dem establishment let this go on? Plus will they ask her to bow out of the race because of it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 01:47 PM

11. I've watched Comey for many years. He is meticulous

but fair. If you attempt to evade or give a falsehood, he will give you an obstruction charge. Otherwise, if the evidence is there he will indict, if not enough evidence to prove an offense, he won't suggest a charge. He seems to me to be someone that is aware of politics but will not let it interfere nor play a part of any decision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #11)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:31 PM

17. The FBI doesn't indict.

Although the FBI is responsible for investigating possible violations of federal law, the FBI does not give an opinion or decide if an individual will be prosecuted. The federal prosecutors employed by the Department of Justice or the U.S. Attorneys offices are responsible for making this decision and for conducting the prosecution of the case.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GeorgeGist (Reply #17)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:35 PM

18. Yes, I know. Suggest charges.

The DOJ indicts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:18 PM

15. k&r, nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:59 PM

19. Hmm. Two articles this week from different sources "explaining"

 

why the "silly email" matters so "normal people" can understand it, and now a Time Magazine article explaining the credibility of the man investigating is rock solid/he is a "law man/not a politician".

It's coming down very soon....I almost feel sorry for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:04 PM

20. And it might explain all the shade thrown at Obama by the Clinton's lately

We might know before NY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #19)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:29 PM

27. Don't feel sorry for her in the least. I feel sorry for us! Especially if this doesn't get sorted

 

out soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:06 PM

22. Are they referring to Blumenthal's highly classified information about Sudan in this quote ?

"Emails found on the private, unclassified server used by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State contained classified information; Giacalone’s National Security Branch wanted to investigate how the secrets got there and whether anyone had committed a crime in the process."

http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passy (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:12 PM

25. There are other emails we can't see -- 22, I think? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #25)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:29 PM

26. Well the one from Blumenthal was released by mistake I think

And this was outside information that did not originate at the State Department but was sent to her privately by Blumenthal. The information he sent her was most certainly meant to be kept secret as it was about a really delicate political matter. What Comey is certainly interested in, is how Blumenthal got that information and why she accepted it through her private e-mail. It seems to me that she should never have allowed him to send her that information by e-mail as her aides might not have had the clearance to even have access to that information through the proper channels at the State Department.
There could be several more e-mails from Blumenthal with highly classified information, if that it the case then it shows that she had no qualms about receiving this kind of document through improper channels, that she did not see it as a problem that a civilian was getting access to this information and decimating it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to passy (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:41 PM

28. That's probably some of it.

 

The thing is, as SoS Clinton would be creating sensitive/secret documents on a regular basis. She would know that they would be determined to be classified when reviewed, even though not at the time she wrote them. Mishandling those documents before being determined classified is just as bad as mishandling them afterwards. Plus, there's the whole conspiracy to ignore FOIA by use of the private server, plus violations of the Records Act in not preserving them. Those alone are serious charges, plus there's always the possibility of obstruction and perjury charges if they're found to have occurred.
Clinton knew the laws and rules...she chose to ignore them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:44 PM

29. Do you really think

That she was passing information to the Koreans, or the Russians? Perhaps she IS a spy.
The reality is she will be found not culpable of doing anything wrong just like USUAL after repubes get themselves in their usual twist about anything Clinton, OR we will see in depth investigations into Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #29)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:53 PM

30. Unfortunately, there is little similarity between the Powell and Rice situation to Hillary's.

They used personal email accounts for PERSONAL communications only and followed all applicable security laws.

Hillary, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #30)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 03:58 PM

31. Well i guess shes a spy

there it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #31)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:46 PM

34. No one is making that charge.

The issue is she may have broken laws that are in place to make it difficult for those without clearance to get hold of classified information. It's not that she's a spy, it's that she possibly didn't handle sensitive material properly according to the law and was careless. The penalties for those crimes are pretty steep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:03 PM

32. The Repubs are going to use this, big, whether she's cleared or charged.

And when they do, she will implode. It is suicidal to have her as our nominee. Already, 2/3 of voters see her as untrustworthy, and on top of that add this.

In the video at this link, Shane D'Aprile (publisher Campaign and Elections magazine, former campaign reporter for The Hill) says (4:10, 6:10):

"... Whoever the Republican nominee is, whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's somebody else eventually, Hillary Clinton is going to face a withering amount of attacks from the Republican nominee on this issue regardless of what happens with this investigation, right? Even in the best case scenario for Hillary Clinton, which is that she's cleared of any wrongdoing after this investigation finally concludes, there's still a very serious question of judgment here, and whoever the Republican nominee is, is going to jump on that come the Fall.
...
If the Clinton campaign thinks that, even like I said in that best case scenario -- that she's cleared of any wrongdoing in this -- if the Clinton campaign thinks that's the end of the issue, as a general election issue, they're nuts. There's no way it is. It's going to be a major issue. It goes directly, it impacts her numbers on trustworthiness, honesty, I mean this is a big thing for Republicans to exploit in the Fall. So it's a problem for her, either way."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/one-shot-at-queen-fbi-ag-intensify-focus-on-clinton-email-probe.html

And no, she's NOT VETTED AT ALL ON THIS because Bernie will not bring it up. She is the one not vetted. She is the gigantic liability. There is no way to deny it. Her supporters can say they don't care, but they can't deny it.

And btw, her excuses that she repeats as her defenses on this are lies, blatant, flat lies. She was not "allowed" to have this server, others didn't do anything remotely similar, and some very classified stuff was transmitted; add to that, pay-to-play between the State Dept. and the Clinton Foundation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 04:28 PM

33. Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. and the Aristocracy of Prison Profits: Part II (Catherine Austin Fitts)

 

Inside is what Fitts was/still is all about

http://narconews.com/Issue40/article1650.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread