FBI: Indictments for Clinton Foundation likely coming

[Matt_Crimson]

Quote:Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Foundation Case Moving Towards "Likely an Indictment"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html

Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of information in these two short clips:

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.

2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.

3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.

4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.

5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.

Transcript:

BRET BAIER: Breaking news tonight -- two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation tell Fox the following:

The investigation looking into possible pay-for-play interaction between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Foundation has been going on for more than a year. Led by the white collar crime division, public corruption branch of the criminal investigative division of the FBI.

The Clinton Foundation investigation is a, quote, "very high priority." Agents have interviewed and reinterviewed multiple people about the Foundation case, and even before the WikiLeaks dumps, agents say they have collected a great deal of evidence. Pressed on that, one sources said, quote, "a lot of it," and "there is an avalanche of new information coming every day."

Some of it from WikiLeaks, some of it from new emails. The agents are actively and aggressively pursuing this case. They will be going back to interview the same people again, some for the third time.

As a result of the limited immunity deals to top aides, including Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, the Justice Department had tentatively agreed that the FBI would destroy those laptops after a narrow review. We are told definitively that has not happened. Those devices are currently in the FBI field office here in Washington, D.C. and are being exploited.

The source points out that any immunity deal is null and void if any subject lied at any point in the investigation.

Meantime, the classified e-mail investigation is being run by the National Security division of the FBI. They are currently combing through former Democratic Congressman Anthony Wiener's laptop and have found e-mails that they believe came from Hillary Clinton's server that appear to be new, as in not duplicates.

Whether they contain classified material or not is not yet known. It will likely be known soon. All of this just as we move inside one week until election day.



Baier gives more details to Fox News Channel's Brit Hume.

Transcript:

BRET BAIER: Here's the deal: We talked to two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations. One: The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far... Several offices separately have been doing their own investigations.

Two: The immunity deal that Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, two top aides to Hillary Clinton, got from the Justice Department in which it was beleived that the laptops they had, after a narrow review for classified materials, were going to be destroyed. We have been told that those have not been destroyed -- they are at the FBI field office here on Washington and are being exploited. .

Three: The Clinton Foundation investigation is so expansive, they have interviewed and re-interviewed many people. They described the evidence they have as 'a lot of it' and said there is an 'avalanche coming in every day.' WikiLeaks and the new emails.

They are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case." Remember the Foundation case is about accusations of pay-for-play... They are taking the new information and some of them are going back to interview people for the third time. As opposed to what has been written about the Clinton Foundation investigation, it is expansive.

The classified e-mail investigation is being run by the National Security division of the FBI. They are currently combing through Anthony Weiner's laptop. They are having some success -- finding what they believe to be new emaisls, not duplicates, that have been transported through Hillary Clinton's server.

Finally, we learned there is a confidence from these sources that her server had been hacked. And that it was a 99% accuracy that it had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that things had been taken from that...

There has been some angst about Attorney General Loretta Lynch -- what she has done or not done. She obviously did not impanel, or go to a grand jury at the beginning. They also have a problem, these sources do, with what President Obama said today and back in October of 2015...

I pressed again and again on this very issue... The investigations will continue, there is a lot of evidence. And barring some obstruction in some way, they believe they will continue to likely an indictment.

[Vas Deferens]

Sometimes seems like this kind of reporting is aimed at individuals who read at a 6th grade level.

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 12:24 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Sometimes seems like this kind of reporting is aimed at individuals who read at a 6th grade level.

What do you mean?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-03-2016, 12:24 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: Sometimes seems like this kind of reporting is aimed at individuals who read at a 6th grade level.

Most news is generally written/delivered at a low reading level to be inclusive to the most amount of people.

It's not news if people don't understand it, and there's a depressing number of people out there who don't read/write at anything close to an adult's level.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-03-2016, 01:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Most news is generally written/delivered at a low reading level to be inclusive to the most amount of people.

It's not news if people don't understand it, and there's a depressing number of people out there who don't read/write at anything close to an adult's level.

I'd put that number somewhere around 47%.

[Matt_Crimson]

(11-03-2016, 01:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Most news is generally written/delivered at a low reading level to be inclusive to the most amount of people.

It's not news if people don't understand it, and there's a depressing number of people out there who don't read/write at anything close to an adult's level.

Well and sometimes even the people writing the articles aren't exactly English majors either.

[fredtoast]

C'mon guys, forget about how it is written and lets look at the content.


Whenever I see stories like this from "unnamed inside sources" I look for details. In this story I see zero details.

And language like "could potentially be classified in nature." pretty much prove that this story is a joke.

[NATI BENGALS]

Sources say a source with information about the sources used in this story are 99% sure emails were used by a member of the government. And omfg emails and foundations and Benghazi according to a source.

[Belsnickel]

Bret Baier is just engaging is poor journalism, here. This is almost certainly bull shit.

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-04-2016, 09:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Bret Baier is just engaging is poor journalism, here. This is almost certainly bull shit.

Of course it is; just look at the calendar. The misinformation and spin factories are working overtime. And they are more blatant than ever. I don't know if we will ever see an unbiased news source in this country again. And if we do, I imagine it will take some amount of time for it to establish credibility....if that would even be possible. The ability for the media to cram nothing but crap onto the public has reached a point of no return, and the willingness of so many to bat it around is absurd. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-04-2016, 11:28 AM)wildcats forever Wrote: Of course it is; just look at the calendar. The misinformation and spin factories are working overtime. And they are more blatant than ever. I don't know if we will ever see an unbiased news source in this country again. And if we do, I imagine it will take some amount of time for it to establish credibility....if that would even be possible. The ability for the media to cram nothing but crap onto the public has reached a point of no return, and the willingness of so many to bat it around is absurd. 

The thing about it is also that it isn't as slanted one way or the other as people like to think. Yes, there is bias, but even those more neutral ones take part in the sensationalized reporting. Every single new source out there, left right and center, was saying that the investigation into Clinton was being reopened after that letter from Comey, yet that just wasn't the truth. I would say it is corporate media, but even NPR fell into that trap.

[*michaelsean*]

Poor Nixon. President at the wrong time. Back then, FBI agents who leaked details were heroes.

[Belsnickel]

(11-04-2016, 03:15 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Poor Nixon. President at the wrong time. Back then, FBI agents who leaked details were heroes.

Back then journalists would wait until information could be verified and would carefully word their language so their statements were accurate before publishing it. I mean, a lot still do, but definitely not all.

[GMDino]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-apologizes-for-falsely-reporting-that-clinton-faces-indictment/2016/11/04/8fd56f20-a2b7-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html

Quote:Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment

Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election.

In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement.

Baier, the anchor of Fox’s evening newscast “Special Report,” went on the air Wednesday to report that the FBI had determined that Clinton’s private server, which she used while serving as secretary of state, had been hacked by “five foreign intelligence agencies.”

He further said on Thursday, during an interview with Fox’s Brit Hume, that a separate FBI investigation — of the charitable Clinton Foundation — was “likely” to lead to an indictment of Clinton after Tuesday’s election.

Both statements, if true, would be explosive developments in the late stages of the presidential campaign between Clinton and Republican rival Donald Trump. Trump has repeatedly invoked the alleged atmosphere of corruption around the Clinton Foundation and the security risks involved in Clinton’s use of a private server while secretary of state as reasons not to vote for Clinton.



But neither of his reports about Clinton were accurate, Baier acknowledged Friday morning in a “Fox News alert” conversation with Fox News anchor Jon Scott.

Baier said he relied on a single anonymous source within the FBI for his report about an alleged hack of the server: “I was quoting from one source about his certainty that the server had been hacked by five foreign intelligence agencies. . . . As of today there still are no digital fingerprints of a breach, no matter what the working assumption is within the bureau.”

He added, “All the time, but especially in a heated election, on a topic this explosive, every word matters no matter how well sourced.”

He went on to describe his comment to Hume about an indictment — which he has previously called “inartful” — as more than that.

“I explained the phrasing of one my answers to Brit Hume on Wednesday night, saying it was inartful the way I answered the last question about whether the investigations would continue after the election. And I answered that yes, our sources said it would, they would continue to, likely, an indictment.

“Well, that wasn’t just inartful. It was a mistake. And for that I’m sorry. I should have said they will continue to build their case.

“‘Indictment,’ obviously, is a very loaded word, Jon, especially in this atmosphere, and no one knows if there would or would not be an indictment no matter how strong investigators feel their evidence is. It’s obviously a prosecutor who has to agree to take the case and make that case to a grand jury.”

As an addendum, he added, “We stand by the sourcing on the ongoing, active Clinton Foundation investigation and are working to get sources with knowledge of the details on the record and on camera, hopefully today.”

[Belsnickel]

(11-04-2016, 08:00 PM)GMDino Wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/fox-news-apologizes-for-falsely-reporting-that-clinton-faces-indictment/2016/11/04/8fd56f20-a2b7-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html

Who could have guessed this?

[GMDino]

(11-04-2016, 08:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Who could have guessed this?

Nobody who is voting for Trump?

[*wildcats forever*]

Too little for my take on this. It's past time idiots like these pay the price for such "mistakes", considering the potential damage caused. Suspensions and fines should be levied, plus repeated and multiple media releases of the admission and apology. And if it happens again - off with his head! Professional head, that is. Permanently barred from working in the media.

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-04-2016, 03:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Back then journalists would wait until information could be verified and would carefully word their language so their statements were accurate before publishing it. I mean, a lot still do, but definitely not all.

And it wasn't just one source they used to run with a story - it was two at a minimum. The integrity of a newsman's word was not to be in doubt "back then". It all comes down to values, something that seems to be sorely missing these days.

[GMDino]

(11-04-2016, 10:47 PM)wildcats forever Wrote: And it wasn't just one source they used to run with a story - it was two at a minimum. The integrity of a newsman's word was not to be in doubt "back then". It all comes down to values, something that seems to be sorely missing these days.

It is also part of the "We have it exclusively!" mindset.

We're first on the scene!
You'll only here it here!

Which leads to more "mistakes".

Again, another reason I got out of mass media.

[NATI BENGALS]

Matt Crimson and the Trumpets are too busy with the fact that Hillary and her crew are all satanists and it wasn't really Obama that was the Antichrist so they probably never saw the redaction. It was in the News it was true. Can't change the facts now. Move along to the next horrible thing Hillary does.

Sources are saying she decapitates puppies and kittens every night before feeding them to her hybrid demon-pig-snake monster that is living under the White House... This is just crazy folks. Idk how anyone could vote for her.