quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

You know what else he said?

quote:

On Sunday, however, he gave her campaign a small gift. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," he called the select committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi “partisan” for its focus on Clinton and downplayed one of the main new findings the committee has made in relation to Clinton’s private communications.

“Watergate was about a series of crimes, well-established, and so it was the Republicans who eventually turned on Nixon and it was a bipartisan inquiry. Here it is not. It clearly is partisan,” Woodward said.

He was offering a statement of fact -- a simple assessment that half of the committee's panel (the Democratic half) was clearly unconvinced that Clinton had done something criminally wrong. But then Woodward appeared to echo that side's skepticism.

“There are legitimate questions here,” Woodward added. “You have inconsistencies. This is a tragedy and it should be investigated. You are right ... She did and attempted to answer all those questions. But there is no crime here on her part and to try and criminalize it and suggest as some people have said, ‘Oh, she will be in jail.’ I mean there is no evidence of a crime. There is evidence of inconsistency. I mean, my God, this is our business, our lives. People saying one thing privately and saying something different publicly.”

Woodward’s last point was in reference to emails and communiqués uncovered by the committee prior to Thursday’s hearing. In them, Clinton told her daughter, Chelsea, that the group responsible for the Benghazi attack was al Qaeda related. Additionally, in notes on a conversation she had with the Egyptian prime minister, she stated that the attack wasn’t in response to an anti-Muslim tape that had sparked global protests.

Republicans have said this is evidence that Clinton lied to the public in hopes of maintaining the Obama campaign narrative that terrorists were in retreat. Clinton has said that these were simply reflections of the difficulty in getting solid intelligence in the aftermath of the attack -- the fog of war.

Woodward’s position appears to be something else entirely: Yes, the emails and communiqués are concerning ("It better bother us," he said), but let’s not pretend that politicians don’t mislead the public all the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

no but your ahem...source misssed out certain parts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

I love this. There were legitimate questions about almost everything for 8 years under W...not a peep. Woodward has become the profiteering token 'media' lefty to go to righty media merely to question the left...not adding anything substantive.

Same reason Juan Williams took $2 million/yr. to go to Fox.

quote:

President Barack Obama found himself drawn into Hillary Clinton's email controversy Friday as the White House acknowledged the State Department is withholding a set of messages Obama and Clinton exchanged during her four years as secretary of state.

As the State Department made public a new batch of more than 7,200 pages of Clinton's emails, officials stressed that the White House was not asserting executive privilege over the Obama-Clinton exchanges but insisting that they be treated as presidential records, which are normally not available to the public until between five and 12 years after a president leaves office...

A White House official declined to say whether any of the Obama-Clinton emails related to Libya. If so, the White House's position could cause an executive privilege clash with Congress, since the House Benghazi Committee subpoenaed all Clinton emails related to Benghazi in March of this year...

quote:

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of her private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State has revealed facts concerning top-secret emails that contradict the story Clinton has been peddling...
“As of now, at least 671 emails that Mrs. Clinton sent or received through her private server contained classified material,” Crowley said. “Of those, at least four documents are extremely problematic here in this investigation. Of those, two reached the highest classified designation, which is top secret.”

“One of those documents, which has been publicly disclosed, contains satellite data about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program,” Crowley said. “I am told that that particular document is an open and shut violation.”

Crowley, who said FBI Director James Comey is now personally directing the Clinton email scandal investigation, said evidence is piling up that could lead to charges, if there is a political will to file them.

“As of now they do have enough to build a case against her if they so choose on two issues,” Crowley said. “One — gross negligence of the mishandling of classified data; and two — obstruction, multiple counts.”

O’Reilly asked Crowley about Clinton’s often-used excuse that information she sent or received that was later termed classified was not so when she accessed it.

“Bill, you are talking about classified material that may or may not have been stamped classified at the time but that material was in intelligence circles known as ‘born classified’ meaning that the information contained therein was so sensitive that it was assumed to be classified. And as Secretary of State she must have known that,” Crowley responded.

quote:

WILLIAMS: What the issue is, this issue of gross negligence. Monica is again right. It's going to be up to James Comey to make a recommendation around whether this moves forward but ultimately this is up to Loretta Lynch as to whether she moves forward with an actual prosecution.

O'REILLY: She doesn't have to take Comey's recommendation.

WILLIAMS: She does not have to.

O'REILLY: But if she doesn't the public will know...

WILLIAMS:... And here is the thing. As a prosecutor she is ethically-obligated to only move forward with a trial that she feels she can prosecute successfully. That's based on what evidence?

So going back to the gross negligence issue for one second, you are right, Monica, the e-mails to me look like a violation. She has to reach the standard of what we call gross negligence -- ok? That's different than ordinary negligence.

O'REILLY: But isn't that for a jury to decide?

WILLIAMS: But ultimately that is an issue of facts, Bill and you are right. But if Loretta Lynch looks at these facts, she has got to feel as a prosecutor she has got at least enough evidence to get past --

O'REILLY: She's going to have to. If she doesn't bring --

WILLIAMS: If she doesn't she has to explain it. She can't take it to trial for headlines and she can't take it to trial for sport, Bill. She has got to do it based off of evidence in front of her. I think that she should. I think Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted. I do not think legally there is enough there to get that standard and I think she won't. [im finding this a little confusing]

O'REILLY: All right. So you think she should be prosecuted.

WILLIAMS: I think the violations are clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


(Pass the eye bleach, please... )

I mentioned this on another thread but upon consideration decided that the news merits its own thread

quote:

New York Times alters Clinton email story

7/24/15 4:58 AM EDT

The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.

The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

The Times also changed the headline of the story, from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account," reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton's possible role. The article's URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.

As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, notification, clarification or correction regarding the changes made to the article.

One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said...

http://www.politico.com//blogs/media/2015/07/new-york-times-alters-clinton-email-story-211176.html

quote:



DOJ asked to probe handling of Clinton's emails: NYT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department is weighing a request by two government inspectors general to open a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information in Hillary Clinton's private emails from when she was secretary of state, according to a report in the New York Times.

A Justice Department official confirmed the department received a criminal referral but gave no other details. The Times said the department had not decided whether to pursue a criminal inquiry, citing unnamed government officials.

The Times originally reported that Clinton herself was a target of the criminal referral. It altered its report on its website overnight without explanation to suggest she was not the focus of the referral after all.

In a memo early on Friday, inspectors general at the State Department raised concerns about the handling of classified information in the emails and the adequacy of the classified network used to store and distribute the emails from Clinton, sent while she was the nation's most senior diplomat.

The memo does not directly accuse Clinton of mishandling sensitive information. Clinton is the leading Democratic contender for the 2016 presidential election.

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill said in a statement she "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials."

May not go anywhere though, as this DOJ routinely stonewalls if its perceived that a given criminal leans left

quote:

The FBI has reportedly expanded its probe into Hillary Clinton's private email server to examine whether "materially false statements" were ever provided to agents throughout the course of the case...

At the center of the new inquiry, according to Fox News, is US Code 18, Section 1001, which pertains to the willful falsification of material facts, statements, and documents during a federal investigation. The code is meant to penalize individuals who knowingly make false or misleading statements that waste federal agents' time and resources.

"This is a broad, brush statute that punishes individuals who are not direct and fulsome in their answers," former FBI agent Timothy Gill told Fox. "It is a cover-all. The problem for a defendant is when their statements cause the bureau to expend more time, energy, resources to deconflict their statements with the evidence..."

Bloomberg reported in late September that agents had been able to recover at least some of the 30,000 "private" emails Clinton deleted. Intriguingly, agents handed some of them over to investigators — indicating that they are relevant in at least some way to the FBI's ongoing probe...

So far, reports that hackers in China, South Korea, Germany, and Russia tried to break into her server — which was monitored by a relatively unknown tech firm with no security clearance — have not helped the 2016 presidential candidate wave away concerns.

"The fact that Clinton chose to use her personal email instead of a .gov account shows that she obviously doesn't understand security," Joe Loomis, CEO of CyberSponse, a software company, told Business Insider last month. "What she did is like inviting spies over to dinner — every device connected to the internet is an opportunity for them to collect intelligence."

quote:

...investigators are annoyed that the president and others passed judgment about whether Clinton's email setup endangered national security when officials have yet to determine whether her server was compromised by foreign adversaries.

Alex McGeorge, a cybersecurity expert at Immunity, believes that continued concern over Clinton's email setup is warranted.

"Clearly there's a problem with folks in Washington not taking cyber security seriously and it has serious consequences," McGeorge told Business Insider in an email.

He added: "So I think there is a benefit to riding this out until the bitter end with the hope that every other politician who witnesses the pain Clinton now has to go to will reflect on that prior to making security decisions."

quote:

The Clinton e-mail story broke in March when The New York Times provided the first public notice that the former Secretary of State had exclusively used a personal server for her electronic communications rather than an official and secured government e-mail system – a fact that only came to light through a congressional investigation into the sacking of our consulate in Benghazi...

Once The Times exposed Clinton’s unauthorized e-mail system, the rest of the national media pursued the story with surprising vigor, a level more associated with alleged Republican misconduct. In a press conference five days later, Clinton faced the most skeptical media scrutiny she had received in years...

Gawker’s Sam Biddle reported on the lack of effort applied to security even before the presser, with their analysts aghast at the recklessness of Clinton’s approach.

For a while, at least, they weren’t alone in that assessment. The national media stayed on the scandal as the Clinton campaign kept arguing that it had become old news. The media scrutiny intensified when two Inspectors General from the intelligence community determined that two e-mails on the system contained Top Secret and Compartmented information, among the highest classifications that exist. They kept track as the State Department released the Clinton server e-mails under court order while redacting them to block classified information from exposure. When the FBI began and then intensified its probe into the Clinton server, the media kept their attention on it as well…for a while.

This week, though, the media appeared curiously incurious about the latest tranche of e-mails from the Clinton server. In the largest release yet, State unveiled 7,800 pages of e-mails, of which 328 e-mails were redacted for containing classified information. ABC News dutifully reported on that addition to the refutation of Clinton’s claims, and noted that the number of e-mails that contained classified information has reached 999 in total...

Oddly, though, the media outlet that broke the story didn’t seem interested in pursuing that aspect of it...

The rest of the media didn’t take much more of an interest in the implications of this development, either.

This lack of interest seems to be of a piece with the narrative that emerged in late October, after the Democrats’ first presidential debate and Clinton’s testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. They rushed to declare that time frame “the best ten days of the Clinton campaign,” even though as Marco Rubio pointed out in a subsequent debate , the testimony actually demonstrated that Clinton lied about Benghazi...

Still, ever since then the narrative has had Clinton recovering her bearings and moving past the e-mail scandal even as the FBI probe continues and more classified information is redacted. The collective yawn from the media after this week’s release gives us an indication of the level of media interest we can expect, as Hillary Clinton gets closer to the nomination. They want to keep that narrative going rather than look at the thousand ways Clinton lied about her e-mail system and risked national security in order to thwart legitimate oversight into the State Department’s performance.

Just imagine the media’s curiosity if Clinton actually won the election. Perhaps the best reason to vote Republican in 2016 is to allow the media to resume its stated mission of holding government accountable and holding the powerful responsible for their actions.

quote:

from judge Andrew Napolitano:

While the country has been fixated on Donald Trump's tormenting his Republican primary opponents and deeply concerned about the government’s efforts to identify any confederates in the San Bernardino, California, killings, a team of federal prosecutors and FBI agents continues to examine Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state in order to determine whether she committed any crimes and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

What began as an innocent Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a D.C.-based public advocacy group promoting transparency in the executive branch, has now become a full criminal investigation, with Clinton as the likely target.

The basic facts are well-known, but the revealed nuances are important, as well. When the State Department responded to the Judicial Watch FOIA request by telling Judicial Watch that it had no emails from Clinton, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit. When the State Department made the same representation to the court -- as incredible as it seemed at the time -- the judge accepted that representation, and the case was dismissed.

Then The New York Times revealed that Clinton used a private email server instead of the government’s server for all of her work-related and personal emails during her four years as secretary of state. After that, the Judicial Watch FOIA case was reinstated, and then the judge in the case demanded of State that it produce Clinton’s emails.

When Judicial Watch expressed frustration to the judge about the pace at which it was getting emails, the judge ordered Clinton, “under penalty of perjury,” to certify that she had surrendered all her governmental emails to the State Department.

Eventually, Clinton did certify to the court that she did surrender all of her governmental emails to the State Department. She did so by sending paper copies of selected emails, because she had wiped clean her server. She acknowledged that she decided which emails were personal and which were selected as governmental and returned the governmental ones to the State Department. She has denied steadfastly and consistently that she ever sent or received any materials marked "classified” while secretary of state using her private server.

All of her behavior has triggered the FBI investigation because she may have committed serious federal crimes. For example, it is a crime to steal federal property. What did she steal? By diverting to her own venue the digital metadata that accompany all emails -- metadata that, when attached to the work-related emails of a government employee, belong to the government -- she stole that data. The metadata do not appear on her paper copies -- hence the argument that she stole and destroyed the government-owned metadata.

This is particularly troublesome for her present political ambitions because of a federal statute that disqualifies from public office all who have stolen federal property. (She is probably already barred from public office -- though this was not prominently raised when she entered the U.S. Senate or the Department of State -- because of the china, silverware and furniture that she and her husband took from the White House in January 2001.)

Clinton may also have committed espionage by failing to secure the government secrets entrusted to her. She did that by diverting those secrets to an unprotected, nongovernmental venue -- her own server -- and again by emailing those secrets to other unprotected and nongovernmental venues. The reason she can deny sending or receiving anything marked "classified” is that protected government secrets are not marked “classified.”

So her statement, though technically true, is highly misleading. The governmental designations of protected secrets are “confidential,” “secret” and “top secret” -- not “classified.” State Department investigators have found 999 emails sent or received by Clinton in at least one of those three categories of protected secrets.

Back when Clinton became secretary of state, on her first day in office, she had an hour long FBI briefing on the proper and lawfully required care of government secrets. She signed a statement, under penalty of perjury, acknowledging that she knew the law and that it is the content of emails, not any stamped markings, that makes them secret.

Earlier this week, my Fox News colleagues confirmed the certain presence of top-secret materials among the 999 emails. Intelligence from foreign sources or about foreign governments is always top-secret, whether designated as such or not. And she knows that.

As well, she may have committed perjury in the FOIA case. When the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in its investigation of her role in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, gathered emails, it found emails she did not surrender to the State Department.

Last week, the State Department released emails that give the FBI more areas to investigate. These emails may show a pattern of official behavior by Clinton designed to benefit the financial interests of her family's foundation, her husband and her son-in-law. Moreover, the FBI knows of a treasure-trove of documents that may demonstrate that the Clinton Foundation skirted the law and illegally raised and spent contributions.

Two months ago, a group of FBI agents sat around a conference table and reviewed the evidence gathered thus far. Each agent was given the opportunity to make or detract from the case for moving forward. At the end of the meeting, it was the consensus of the group to pursue a criminal investigation.

And Clinton is the likely target.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

as I continue to wonder why it's taking the fbi so long...

"Hillary Clinton: The criminal investigation keeps moving forward"

quote:

from judge Andrew Napolitano:

While the country has been fixated on Donald Trump's tormenting his Republican primary opponents and deeply concerned about the government’s efforts to identify any confederates in the San Bernardino, California, killings, a team of federal prosecutors and FBI agents continues to examine Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state in order to determine whether she committed any crimes and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

What began as an innocent Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a D.C.-based public advocacy group promoting transparency in the executive branch, has now become a full criminal investigation, with Clinton as the likely target.

The basic facts are well-known, but the revealed nuances are important, as well. When the State Department responded to the Judicial Watch FOIA request by telling Judicial Watch that it had no emails from Clinton, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit. When the State Department made the same representation to the court -- as incredible as it seemed at the time -- the judge accepted that representation, and the case was dismissed.

Then The New York Times revealed that Clinton used a private email server instead of the government’s server for all of her work-related and personal emails during her four years as secretary of state. After that, the Judicial Watch FOIA case was reinstated, and then the judge in the case demanded of State that it produce Clinton’s emails.

When Judicial Watch expressed frustration to the judge about the pace at which it was getting emails, the judge ordered Clinton, “under penalty of perjury,” to certify that she had surrendered all her governmental emails to the State Department.

Eventually, Clinton did certify to the court that she did surrender all of her governmental emails to the State Department. She did so by sending paper copies of selected emails, because she had wiped clean her server. She acknowledged that she decided which emails were personal and which were selected as governmental and returned the governmental ones to the State Department. She has denied steadfastly and consistently that she ever sent or received any materials marked "classified” while secretary of state using her private server.

All of her behavior has triggered the FBI investigation because she may have committed serious federal crimes. For example, it is a crime to steal federal property. What did she steal? By diverting to her own venue the digital metadata that accompany all emails -- metadata that, when attached to the work-related emails of a government employee, belong to the government -- she stole that data. The metadata do not appear on her paper copies -- hence the argument that she stole and destroyed the government-owned metadata.

This is particularly troublesome for her present political ambitions because of a federal statute that disqualifies from public office all who have stolen federal property. (She is probably already barred from public office -- though this was not prominently raised when she entered the U.S. Senate or the Department of State -- because of the china, silverware and furniture that she and her husband took from the White House in January 2001.)

Clinton may also have committed espionage by failing to secure the government secrets entrusted to her. She did that by diverting those secrets to an unprotected, nongovernmental venue -- her own server -- and again by emailing those secrets to other unprotected and nongovernmental venues. The reason she can deny sending or receiving anything marked "classified” is that protected government secrets are not marked “classified.”

So her statement, though technically true, is highly misleading. The governmental designations of protected secrets are “confidential,” “secret” and “top secret” -- not “classified.” State Department investigators have found 999 emails sent or received by Clinton in at least one of those three categories of protected secrets.

Back when Clinton became secretary of state, on her first day in office, she had an hour long FBI briefing on the proper and lawfully required care of government secrets. She signed a statement, under penalty of perjury, acknowledging that she knew the law and that it is the content of emails, not any stamped markings, that makes them secret.

Earlier this week, my Fox News colleagues confirmed the certain presence of top-secret materials among the 999 emails. Intelligence from foreign sources or about foreign governments is always top-secret, whether designated as such or not. And she knows that.

As well, she may have committed perjury in the FOIA case. When the House Select Committee on Benghazi, in its investigation of her role in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, gathered emails, it found emails she did not surrender to the State Department.

Last week, the State Department released emails that give the FBI more areas to investigate. These emails may show a pattern of official behavior by Clinton designed to benefit the financial interests of her family's foundation, her husband and her son-in-law. Moreover, the FBI knows of a treasure-trove of documents that may demonstrate that the Clinton Foundation skirted the law and illegally raised and spent contributions.

Two months ago, a group of FBI agents sat around a conference table and reviewed the evidence gathered thus far. Each agent was given the opportunity to make or detract from the case for moving forward. At the end of the meeting, it was the consensus of the group to pursue a criminal investigation.

And Clinton is the likely target.

http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2015/12/17/more-hillary-chronicles-n2094318

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Anything origination from foreign governments is "born" classified. We don't let the public hear our allies discussions with the US.
Clear and frank discussion is often needed.

Perhaps if you took a break from looking for your hydrogen highway you might give us a cite for this before we all fall down laughing at your ignorance.