FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged

[*PhilHos*]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.amp.html?client=ms-android-boost-us

Quote:FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

By Malia Zimmerman, Adam Housley Published October 12, 2016FoxNews.com
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.

The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.

“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.

A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”

“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”

Andrew Napolitano, former judge and senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel, said many law enforcement agents involved with the Clinton email investigation have similar beliefs.

“It is well known that the FBI agents on the ground, the human beings who did the investigative work, had built an extremely strong case against Hillary Clinton and were furious when the case did not move forward,” said Napolitano. “They believe the decision not to prosecute came from The White House.”

The claim also is backed up by a report in the New York Post this week, which quotes a number of veteran FBI agents saying FBI Director James Comey “has permanently damaged the bureau’s reputation for uncompromising investigations with his cowardly whitewash of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information using an unauthorized private email server.”

“The FBI has politicized itself, and its reputation will suffer for a long time. I hold Director Comey responsible,” Dennis V. Hughes, the first chief of the FBI’s computer investigations unit, told the Post. Retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello added to the report, saying, “Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization.”

Especially angering the team, which painstakingly pieced together deleted emails and interviewed witnesses to prove that sensitive information was left unprotected, was the fact that Comey based his decision on a conclusion that a recommendation to charge would not be followed by DOJ prosecutors, even though the bureau’s role was merely to advise, Fox News was told.

“Basically, James Comey hijacked the DOJ’s role by saying ‘no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case,’” the Fox News source said. “The FBI does not decide who to prosecute and when, that is the sole province of a prosecutor -- that never happens.

“I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”

Napolitano agreed, saying the FBI investigation was hampered from the beginning, because there was no grand jury, and no search warrants or subpoenas issued.

“The FBI could not seize anything related to the investigation, only request things. As an example, in order to get the laptop, they had to agree to grant immunity,” Napolitano said.

In early 2015, it was revealed that Clinton had used a private email server in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home to conduct government business while serving from 2009-2013. The emails on the private server included thousands of messages that would later be marked classified by the State Department retroactively. Federal law makes it a crime for a government employee to possess classified information in an unsecure manner, and the relevant statute does not require a finding of intent.

Although Comey found that Clinton was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” he said “no charges are appropriate in this case.”

Well before Comey’s announcement, which came days after Bill Clinton met in secret with Comey’s boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, there were signs the investigation would go nowhere, the source told FoxNews.com. One was the fact that the FBI forced its agents and analysts involved in the case to sign non-disclosure agreements.

“This is unheard of, because of the stifling nature it has on the investigative process,” the source said.

Another oddity was the five so-called immunity agreements granted to Clinton’s State Department aides and IT experts.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff, along with two other State Department staffers, John Bentel and Heather Samuelson, were afforded immunity agreements, as was Bryan Pagliano, Clinton's former IT aide, and Paul Combetta, an employee at Platte River networks, the firm hired to manage her server after she left the State Department.

As Fox News has reported, Combetta utilized the computer program “Bleachbit” to destroy Clinton’s records, despite an order from Congress to preserve them, and Samuelson also destroyed Clinton’s emails. Pagliano established the system that illegally transferred classified and top secret information to Clinton’s private server. Mills disclosed classified information to the Clinton’s family foundation in the process, breaking federal laws.

None should have been granted immunity if no charges were being brought, the source said.

“[Immunity] is issued because you know someone possesses evidence you need to charge the target, and you almost always know what it is they possess,” the source said. “That's why you give immunity.”

Mills and Samuelson also received immunity for what was found on their computers, which were then destroyed as a part of negotiations with the FBI.

“Mills and Samuelson receiving immunity with the agreement their laptops would be destroyed by the FBI afterwards is, in itself, illegal,” the source said. “We know those laptops contained classified information. That's also illegal, and they got a pass.”

Mills’ dual role as Clinton’s attorney and a witness in her own right should never have been tolerated either.

“Mills was allowed to sit in on the interview of Clinton as her lawyer. That's absurd. Someone who is supposedly cooperating against the target of an investigation [being] permitted to sit by the target as counsel violates any semblance of ethical responsibility,” the source said.

“Every agent and attorney I have spoken to is embarrassed and has lost total respect for James Comey and Loretta Lynch,” the source said. “The bar for DOJ is whether the evidence supports a case for charges -- it did here. It should have been taken to the grand jury.”

Also infuriating agents, the New York Post reported, was the fact that Clinton’s interview spanned just 3½ hours with no follow-up questioning, despite her “40 bouts of amnesia,” and then, three days later, Comey cleared her of criminal wrongdoing.

Many FBI and DOJ staffers believe Comey and Lynch were motivated by ambition, and not justice, the source said.

“Loretta Lynch simply wants to stay on as Attorney General under Clinton, so there is no way she would indict,” the source said. “James Comey thought his position [excoriating Clinton even as he let her off the hook] gave himself cover to remain on as director regardless of who wins.”

The decision by Comey and Lynch not to prosecute has renewed FBI agents’ belief that the agency should be autonomous.

“This is why so many agents believe the FBI needs to be an entity by itself to truly be effective,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We all feel very strongly about it -- and the need to be objective. But that truly cannot be done when the AG is appointed by a president and attends daily briefings.”

Adding to the controversy, WikiLeaks released internal Clinton communication records this week that show the Department of Justice kept Clinton’s campaign and her staff informed about the progress of its investigation.

Leaked emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s gmail account show the Clinton campaign was contacted by the DOJ on May 19, 2015.

“DOJ folks inform me there is a status hearing in this case this morning, so we could have a window into the judge’s thinking about this proposed production schedule as quickly as today,” Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon wrote in relation to the email documentation the State Department would be required to turn over to the Justice Department.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, who previously served in the U.S. Treasury Department in the Office of Chief Counsel for the IRS, where he was responsible for litigation in the U.S. Tax Court, said it was clear from the start that the FBI never intended to prosecute.

“This was a fake, false investigation from the outset,” Sekulow said.

So the FBI director and DOJ colluded to keep Clinton from being charged FOR BREAKING THE LAW which one of the punishments for is that she would be forbidden from holding public office but Trump said some horrible things so Clinton should be elected.

This country sometimes ...

Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk

[*bfine32*]

One of the more sickening things is if you just read the transcript of the 2nd debate.

Of course the talk immediately turns to the Trump video and Anderson quickly turned from moderator to prosecutor, with about 3 different "sexual assault" retorts. Then when AC and Hills both got done trashing him over it Raddatz "moves on" to the next emailer question.

The question was how have you changed and Raddatz ties that one to the video.

Finally, once Trump brings up the emails Raddatz comes with the hard-hitting FBI said it was careless". One question asked and no follow ups from Raddatz or AC only interrupting the exchanges with "we've got to move on" (most likely why Trump asked AC is he going to ask about the emails.

So basically we had a moderator(s) doing all he could do to tie one of the candidates to admitting to a crime; yet nothing to Hills just being careless.

This doesn't even take into account the first debate when Holt came out with the hard-hitting "Do you want to talk about the emails"

Then shit is in the bag and has been since Hills lost to Obama in 2008. This is why i laugh at those that rail against Trump. They have become what they claim to hate.

[Rotobeast]

(10-12-2016, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: One of the more sickening things is if you just read the transcript of the 2nd debate.

Of course the talk immediately turns to the Trump video and Anderson quickly turned from moderator to prosecutor, with about 3 different "sexual assault" retorts. Then when AC and Hills both got done trashing him over it  Raddatz "moves on" to the next emailer question.

The question was how have you changed and Raddatz ties that one to the video.

Finally, once Trump brings up the emails Raddatz comes with the hard-hitting FBI said it was careless". One question asked and no follow ups from Raddatz or AC only interrupting the exchanges with "we've got to move on" (most likely why Trump asked AC is he going to ask about the emails.

So basically we had a moderator(s) doing all he could do to tie one of the candidates to admitting to a crime; yet nothing to Hills just being careless.

This doesn't even take into account the first debate when Holt came out with the hard-hitting "Do you want to talk about the emails"

Then shit is in the bag and has been since Hills lost to Obama in 2008. This is why i laugh at those that rail against Trump. They have become what they  claim to hate.

You know AC interned in the CIA, right ?
Project Mockingbird

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I need to stay off P'n'R in the mornings. It's too early to start drinking and that OP is a depressing read. Lol

Even if she wasn't prosecuted, her security clearance should have most certainly been pulled. I know back when I had my clearance, if I had done even 1/3rd of what they found on Clinton, I would have almost certainly been in Leavenworth.

Apparently everyone should master the art of "I don't recall" and tarmac meetings to talk about grandkids and our prison overpopulation problems will be solved instantly.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2016, 11:05 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I need to stay off P'n'R in the mornings. It's too early to start drinking and that OP is a depressing read. Lol

Even if she wasn't prosecuted, her security clearance should have most certainly been pulled. I know back when I had my clearance, if I had done even 1/3rd of what they found on Clinton, I would have almost certainly been in Leavenworth.

Apparently everyone should master the art of "I don't recall" and tarmac meetings to talk about grandkids and our prison overpopulation problems will be solved instantly.

I think one of the misunderstood things is that Elected Officials don't get security clearances like us lowly folk. They simply make a pledge, so there is nothing to revolk except say she lied about treating classified documents with the care they deserve. I could be wrong on this, as it has been a while since I researched.

It is extremely frustrating especially when you have over half of the voting population treating it as nothing.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2016, 11:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think one of the misunderstood things is that Elected Officials don't get security clearances like us lowly folk. They simply make a pledge, so there is nothing to revolk except say she lied about treating classified documents with the care they deserve. I could be wrong on this, as it has been a while since I researched.

It is extremely frustrating especially when you have over half of the voting population treating it as nothing.

It may just be my perceptions, but I swear there is more outrage over Trump's lewd comments than over Hillarys email scandal. That, IMO, says A LOT about how low this country has fallen.

[*bfine32*]

(10-13-2016, 12:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It may just be my perceptions, but I swear there is more outrage over Trump's lewd comments than over Hillarys email scandal. That, IMO, says A LOT about how low this country has fallen.

To be fair, I don't think there has been more talk. Just the other day a member of this board told me he had heard more about Trump-Bill Clinton in regards to objectification of women that he had Clinton-Powell in regards to handling classified emails (I about fell out of my chair).

I think Clinton's emails have been the biggest news of this election cycle; it's just the Libs are now trying to play catch up and everything Trump does will be put on full-blast.

I aslo think there is hypocrisy on both sides: Folks that "overlook" A will condemn "B". I agree with you on how this country has become disjointed. Never have I experienced an election cycle such as we have. "Look how good my candidate is" has given way to 'Look how ban your candidate is."

As to the emails: Everybody knows what Hills did could/should have at least been brought to trial.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2016, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be fair, I don't think there has been more talk. Just the other day a member of this board told me he had heard more about Trump-Bill Clinton in regards to objectification of women that he had Clinton-Powell in regards to handling classified emails (I about fell out of my chair).

I think Clinton's emails have been the biggest news of this election cycle; it's just the Libs are now trying to play catch up and everything Trump does will be put on full-blast.

I aslo think there is hypocrisy on both sides: Folks that "overlook" A will condemn "B". I agree with you on how this country has become disjointed. Never have I experienced an election cycle such as we have. "Look how good my candidate is" has given way to 'Look how ban your candidate is."

As to the emails: Everybody knows what Hills did could/should have at least been brought to trial.

Another reason to vote for Gary Johnson. I actually know what he wants/plans to do politically. That's grown awfully hard to find for the two main candidates through all the mud slinging.

It's like you are allowed to ignore how my generation is getting screwed over by Obamacare and Social Security, or the fact that the country is $20T in debt and vastly increasing the countries we're fighting in (we're firing missles on Yemen now, too. Huzzah).... so long as you call the other candidate a racist or crook.

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2016, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be fair, I don't think there has been more talk. Just the other day a member of this board told me he had heard more about Trump-Bill Clinton in regards to objectification of women that he had Clinton-Powell in regards to handling classified emails (I about fell out of my chair).

I think Clinton's emails have been the biggest news of this election cycle; it's just the Libs are now trying to play catch up and everything Trump does will be put on full-blast.

I aslo think there is hypocrisy on both sides: Folks that "overlook" A will condemn "B". I agree with you on how this country has become disjointed. Never have I experienced an election cycle such as we have. "Look how good my candidate is" has given way to 'Look how ban your candidate is."

As to the emails: Everybody knows what Hills did could/should have at least been brought to trial.

To be fair, I have heard about the emails overall much more, I just haven't heard about the Clinton/Powell things as much as I have the Trump/Bill thing.

You're right, though, this is very much an election cycle where people are more about voting against someone than for someone, and that is very disheartening. There are a lot of theories as to why, I was just looking at some graphs about the increased polarization of our country yesterday that some people point to. It's really hard to pin down what it really happening, but one thing for certain is that is sucks.

(10-13-2016, 01:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Another reason to vote for Gary Johnson. I actually know what he wants/plans to do politically. That's grown awfully hard to find for the two main candidates through all the mud slinging.

It's like you are allowed to ignore how my generation is getting screwed over by Obamacare and Social Security, or the fact that the country is $20T in debt and vastly increasing the countries we're fighting in (we're firing missles on Yemen now, too. Huzzah).... so long as you call the other candidate a racist or crook.

I want to much to see a third party/independent candidate make a big enough wave, but the problem is that with first past the post elections we will never see any movement away from the two party system.

[masterpanthera_t]

(10-13-2016, 01:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I want to much to see a third party/independent candidate make a big enough wave, but the problem is that with first past the post elections we will never see any movement away from the two party system.

Serious question: what is required for any change to the electoral system?  A constitutional amendment?  

[fredtoast]

FBI is no different than any other company/business. There are some employees who think Hillary was guilty and some who think she was not.

If EVERYONE[b][/b] in the FBI thought her was guilty then their sources would not have to keep their names secret.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(10-13-2016, 07:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: FBI is no different than any other company/business.  There are some employees who think Hillary was guilty and some who think she was not.

If EVERYONE in the FBI thought her was guilty then their sources would not have to keep their names secret.

As long as 1 felt either way, then your statement holds true. Such a generic statement. You have no idea how many fell which way so you make a generic statement trying to play it down. Typical.

They did sign non-disclosure agreements. Or is there something Legal that would allow them to talk and keep their jobs at the same time?

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2016, 08:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote:  You have no idea how many fell which way so you make a generic statement trying to play it down. Typical.

No one knows how many fell which way yet the headline reads "FBI not happy Clinton was not charged."

Typical.

[Belsnickel]

(10-13-2016, 06:34 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Serious question: what is required for any change to the electoral system?  A constitutional amendment?  

That is a tricky question. The way elections happen is actually decided at the state level. The Constitution lays out some rules for federal offices, like the electoral college and what not, but the rest (beyond date, but that's a different story) is left up to the states. Making the switch to alternative/instant runoff is a state level decision, Maine currently has it on their ballot.

The problem is that the parties are typically the gatekeepers for things like that getting on the ballot, and since it means them losing power, it ain't happening. Maine is doing it because they have been shafted by first past the post twice and want to make sure it doesn't happen again. Want to look at the spoiler effect of independents? Look at Maine's governor.

All of that being said, it could be remedied with an amendment. The question is, which would be more difficult to make happen?

[Rotobeast]

(10-13-2016, 01:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Another reason to vote for Gary Johnson. I actually know what he wants/plans to do politically. That's grown awfully hard to find for the two main candidates through all the mud slinging.

It's like you are allowed to ignore how my generation is getting screwed over by Obamacare and Social Security, or the fact that the country is $20T in debt and vastly increasing the countries we're fighting in (we're firing missles on Yemen now, too. Huzzah).... so long as you call the other candidate a racist or crook.

PREACH !!!!

[JustWinBaby]

I wonder why the FBI even needed to make a recommendation to prosecute? He could have just presented the facts, and then said it was now in the DOJ hands. Unless a backroom deal was cut that in order to lay out the facts, he also had to "recommend" no prosecution.

But put yourself in Comey's shoes....if you recommend prosecution, that might end-up with Trump being POTUS!

Otherwise, the security issues won't be an issue with Hillary as POTUS, because she won't be running a home server and her handlers will make sure it isn't an issue. And because so much of POTUS records are sealed from, basically everyone, she doesn't need to take steps to hide and bleach her underhanded dealings.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Quote:Well before Comey’s announcement, which came days after Bill Clinton met in secret with Comey’s boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, there were signs the investigation would go nowhere, the source told FoxNews.com. One was the fact that the FBI forced its agents and analysts involved in the case to sign non-disclosure agreements.

“This is unheard of, because of the stifling nature it has on the investigative process,” the source said.

Huh?

So agents involved in the investigation signed nondisclosure agreements which should prevent them from talking to the media like the anonymous source is doing with Fox News which is something FBI agents shouldn't do anyway kinda rendering a nondisclosure agreement a moot point.  Since the anonymous claims to be involved in the investigation and also claims agents were required to sign nondisclosure agreements then the anonymous source is in violation of his own nondisclosure agreement.  But, anyway, how does signing a nondisclosure agreement stifle the investigative process?

[Belsnickel]

(10-16-2016, 01:51 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Huh?

So agents involved in the investigation signed nondisclosure agreements which should prevent them from talking to the media like the anonymous source is doing with Fox News which is something FBI agents shouldn't do anyway kinda rendering a nondisclosure agreement a moot point.  Since the anonymous claims to be involved in the investigation and also claims agents were required to sign nondisclosure agreements then the anonymous source is in violation of his own nondisclosure agreement.  But, anyway, how does signing a nondisclosure agreement stifle the investigative process?

Isn't it actually part of their contract not to discuss investigations unless authorized to do so?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-16-2016, 08:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Isn't it actually part of their contract not to discuss investigations unless authorized to do so?

I don't know, but it seems like a given agents aren't allowed to disclose information related to an investigation. If they want a conviction, leaking information could potentially help the defense. 

[tigerseye]

If the Clintons can break/circumvent the laws, then every one else can. Right?

Thats the mind set many will have. When there is no rule of law at the top and everybody knows it the whole system will follow right down the toilet with them.

It's good to know that many in the FBI are outraged by the actions of Comey (and Loretta Lynch for that matter).

Gives us some hope.