quote:

Former New York City mayor and federal prosecutor Rudy Giuliani is in disbelief about FBI Director James Comey's decision not to recommend charges for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after admitting evidence shows she mishandled with "extreme carelessness" hundreds of pieces of classified information on multiple private email servers.

"It would be unreasonable for a prosecutor not to go forward with it and almost an abrogation of duty," Guiliani said Tuesday during an interview with Fox News' Kimberly Guilfoyle, also a former a former prosecutor. "The minute you say someone is extremely careless, you're saying they are grossly negligent."

"The circumstantial evidence here was overwhelming, he laid it all out. I thought [listening to the announcement] that he was going to come to the conclusion she was going to be indicted. And here's the biggest piece of circumstantial evidence, destruction of the 34,000 emails," he continued. "I don't know how he ever, ever, is going to be able to charge anybody in the CIA or the FBI that is 'extremely careless' with top secret information if he isn't charging Hillary Clinton. This is the special exception for the Clintons...I don't have any doubt I could win this case in front of a jury."

Giuliani also pointed out that with Clinton's history of carelessly handling top secret, classified information, she would never pass a background check at the State Department and implied her current security clearance should be revoked if it hasn't been already.

"Would she [Hillary Clinton] pass an FBI background check for top security clearance? The answer is no. She couldn't possibly. I've read a 1000 FBI background checks, maybe 2000, this would get thrown right in the ash can. She wouldn't be the number 35 person at the State Department. We wouldn't hire her as an assistant U.S. Attorney with this record," Giuliani said.

quote:

Up first, a flashback: Last November, Fox News' Catherine Herridge reported that federal investigators had expanded their probe into Hillary Clinton's email scheme by looking into evidence of a cover-up (and while we're on the subject of willful intent, read this). Herridge tapped her intelligence and law enforcement community sources again in January, who told her that the investigation had taken on an additional, intriguing dimension. Remember this?

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News. This track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server. "The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said. The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

One of the many reasons that the now-infamous tarmac powwow between Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton was so inappropriate was that, as far as we were aware, the Clinton family foundation may have been an element of the Bureau's active email scandal investigation -- which was widely reported to be in its final stages. Did agents sniff around the foundation stuff and come up empty? House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz raised that issue with FBI director James Comey toward the tail end of yesterday's marathon hearings. His response was...interesting:

CHAFFETZ: Did you look at the Clinton Foundation?

COMEY: I'm not going to comment on the existence or non-existence of any other investigations.

CHAFFETZ: Was the Clinton Foundation tied into this investigation?

COMEY: I'm not going to answer that.

Well then. Clintonistas will latch onto the "or non-existence" qualifier to assure everyone that this is probably just another crazy conspiracy from those right-wing nutters whose crackpot allegations about Hillary's emails have been...almost entirely vindicated by the FBI and an Obama-appointed Inspector General. Hillary haters will say that Comey's "no comment" must mean that something's still up. While it's impossible to know for sure, circumstantial evidence suggests that the Clintons' FBI woes may not be over. First, take the Catherine Herridge report excerpted above into account. Three separate sources told her that the feds were digging into the Clinton Foundation early in the year. The Utah Congressman asks Comey if the FBI looked at ("did you" -- past tense) that organization. He's asking about a closed investigation, mind you. Comey considers how to answer the question for a beat, then declines to say anything about "other investigations." Prodded on whether the foundation factored into the now-resolved email case, Comey flat-out refuses to comment. Follow along: If Herridge's sources were correct that the FBI was examining the Clinton Foundation in relation to the email situation, why would Comey refuse to comment unless a concurrent or separate probe is underway? He was more than willing to answer other specifics about the email case -- stating, for example, that the decision not to prosecute extended to Clinton's top aides. But mum's the word here. Hmm.

Let's pretend for a moment that in the process of digging into Hillary's emails, investigators started to piece together a case that the Clinton Foundation "slush fund" was actually an illegal orgy of quid pro quo pocket-lining and improper influence peddling. Let's pretend that even as they've ended the email matter, the FBI is now focused on the foundation as the target of a separate probe. (1) Is there any chance whatsoever that those findings would become public before the November election? If so, that could be a truly huge land mine buried along Hillary's (fairly smooth-looking, at the moment) path to victory. If not -- and given that political pressures very well may have played a major role in Comey's non-indictment recommendation, I'd bet on not...

quote:

A Tennessee congresswoman is asking the FBI and other federal agencies to open a “public corruption” investigation into the activities of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn is circulating a letter among House members saying media reports raise significant questions about the foundation’s practices and their intersection with American foreign policy.

“These reports, along with recently discovered information about the foundation’s initial tax exempt filings, portray a lawless ‘Pay to Play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years and should be investigated,” the letter says.

The letter will be sent Friday to FBI Director James Comey, IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and Edith Ramirez, chairwoman of the Federal Trade Commission. Blackburn asks all three agencies to investigate the foundation’s practices.

In the letter, Blackburn suggests the foundation’s international activities are illegal. In its initial filings with the IRS, the foundation said its activities would involve constructing a presidential library, maintaining a historical site with records and engaging in study and research.

“No mention is made of conducting activities outside of the United States, which is one of the codes included in the IRS ‘Application for Recognition of Exemption’ in effect at that time,” the letter says.

The letter also raises questions about the foundation’s dealings with two companies, Laureate International Universities and Uranium One.

The International Youth Fund, whose board members include Laureate’s founder, Douglas Becker, received more than $55 million in grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development while Hillary Clinton was secretary of State, the letter says. Laureate has given between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and paid Bill Clinton $16.5 million to serve as honorary chairman.

As for Uranium One, Hillary Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, was one of several Obama administration officials who approved the sale of uranium to the Russian-operated company, whose chairman also has donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to the letter.

“The appearance of ‘Pay to Play’ transactions involving Laureate and Uranium One also raise serious allegations of criminal conduct requiring further examination,” the letter says.

Blackburn sent letters to the IRS and the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year asking them to investigate the foundation’s activities. Her office said Wednesday that at least 40 House members have signed the new letter...

quote:

In case you weren’t aware, lawmakers were not happy with Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s sanitized script at Tuesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing. One congressman even told her he misses Eric Holder.

“She could have answered every one of those questions,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said on Fox News Wednesday morning, noting there’s “no grand jury prohibition” to prevent her from offering real responses. Yet, she failed to provide “yes” or “no” answers, instead falling back on clearly scripted responses that offered no insight into the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The congressman has a pretty good reason why Lynch was so uncooperative.

“We asked her to apply the facts to the law…The facts are embarrassing for her presidential candidate.”

Should Lynch have agreed that Clinton jeopardized national security and lied about sending classified information on a private email server, she would have then been confronted with inquiries into why she didn’t indict her.

The “only reasonable interpretation” of her refusal to answer their questions was that she was protecting Clinton, Gowdy concluded.

Gowdy and his colleagues may not have liked FBI Director James Comey’s conclusions last week not to indict the former secretary of state, but at least he answered their questions.

As for that half hour meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch a few weeks ago in Phoenix, which was obviously a conflict of interest, Gowdy provided another easy explanation.

“If you’re powerful and you have the right last name then you can do things the rest of the world can’t do,” he said. “That’s why no one trusts the justice system.”...

quote:

...Meanwhile, FBI agents expressed their “disappointment” over FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend charges against Clinton, sources close to the matter told The Post.

“FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,” said one source.

Another source from the Justice Department was “furious” with Comey, saying he’s “managed to piss off right and left.”

quote:

A majority of Americans disapprove of FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend criminally charging Hillary Clinton for conducting classified business on her private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, a poll said Monday.

In the ABC-Washington Post survey, 56 percent disapproved of Comey’s decision, while just 35 percent approved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"Gowdy: Lynch Hearing Was a Waste of Time"

oh no comrades, town hall! (I just don't see the daily kos covering it ya know? maybe mother jones? or move-on?)

quote:

In case you weren’t aware, lawmakers were not happy with Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s sanitized script at Tuesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing. One congressman even told her he misses Eric Holder.

“She could have answered every one of those questions,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) said on Fox News Wednesday morning, noting there’s “no grand jury prohibition” to prevent her from offering real responses. Yet, she failed to provide “yes” or “no” answers, instead falling back on clearly scripted responses that offered no insight into the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.

The congressman has a pretty good reason why Lynch was so uncooperative.

“We asked her to apply the facts to the law…The facts are embarrassing for her presidential candidate.”

Should Lynch have agreed that Clinton jeopardized national security and lied about sending classified information on a private email server, she would have then been confronted with inquiries into why she didn’t indict her.

The “only reasonable interpretation” of her refusal to answer their questions was that she was protecting Clinton, Gowdy concluded.

Gowdy and his colleagues may not have liked FBI Director James Comey’s conclusions last week not to indict the former secretary of state, but at least he answered their questions.

As for that half hour meeting between Bill Clinton and Lynch a few weeks ago in Phoenix, which was obviously a conflict of interest, Gowdy provided another easy explanation.

“If you’re powerful and you have the right last name then you can do things the rest of the world can’t do,” he said. “That’s why no one trusts the justice system.”...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/07/13/gowdy-lynch-hearing-was-a-waste-of-time-n2192230

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

"Most Americans think Comey was wrong not to charge Clinton"

quote:

A majority of Americans disapprove of FBI Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend criminally charging Hillary Clinton for conducting classified business on her private e-mail server while she was secretary of state, a poll said Monday.

In the ABC-Washington Post survey, 56 percent disapproved of Comey’s decision, while just 35 percent approved.

http://nypost.com/2016/07/11/most-americans-think-comey-was-wrong-not-to-charge-clinton/

quote:

ORIGINAL: epiphiny43

Speaking of methodology, someone posting a link to any of the current articles on the growing disconnect between most polls and actual elections would have brought some light to the usual mud slinging by 'selective bias' partisans. One article stated as few as 1% of contactees on telephone polls responded to the series of questions. Growing numbers of Americans have cell phones which are often 'unavailable' for different reasons to pollers,and most land line owners simply won't cooperate anymore. I don't, calls are always at meal times or manage to be in the middle of caring for pets, etc. Bad surveys make for bad results. If the contacts don't accurately represent the larger body supposedly sampled, it's whatever the flawed methodology throws up. All sorts of mischief is resulting, including mass misleading of much of the electorate about both facts and trends nationally.