FBI Director will be holding a Press Conference at 11AM EST today

FBI Director Comey Hints At Clinton Foundation Investigation

Comey was asked by Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a U.S. Representative for Utah’s 3rd congressional district:

Was the Clinton Foundation tied into this investigation?

– to which FBI Director James Comey replied:

I cannot confirm or deny the existence of any other investigations.

This doesn’t outright confirm that the Clinton Foundation is undergoing Federal investigation but makes a very good case for the fact that the Clinton Foundation could be under Federal investigation. It is common practice that officials related to other investigation not comment or disclose any information to the public about any ongoing investigations.

source

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: AMPTAH

No one is exempt from the rules and regulations set forth by ...

You guys continue to refuse to see what is right in front of you. Laws are guidelines. There are no "machines" implementing these laws. It's not like there's this computer program that evaluates the facts and lays charges. A human being is always involved in making the determination whether or not to bring charges. Human discretion is what decides when and if any particular law is applied. This holds for all laws. Clinton just got a pass, in a situation that someone else could very well be prosecuted. Not her. Discretion was used to determine "no charges".

No matter what charges are attempted against Hillary, the result will be the same.

There are enough laws on the books to convict every citizen of something.

But, it is only discretion that determines who gets charged and who goes free.

The reason for all these "higher levels" of classification, is that there are corresponding "higher levels" of power behind the scenes, using their "discretion" to determine who gets what.

The highest power in the land has already determined that Hillary will face no charges on anything she has done.

If you listen to the FBI director testimony before congress carefully, you'll note that he says his "integrity" is one of the most important things to him. And yet, this man of the highest integrity available, has said in that same session, both that "Everyone on his team agreed there should be no charges" and that "He spoke to none of them" at the same time. If that blatant contradiction is not clear enough, you just weren't paying attention. Go back and listen to the statements again. The person of the highest integrity in the land, has no integrity at all. Did you miss the joke?
The other lawmakers were laughing. We even had one lawmaker complain that the other lawmakers were laughing, and re-affirm that the Director was known for his integrity.

I think the public just doesn't know how to listen. The truth is right there in those statements.

The State Department announced it has re-opened the security review into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.


The sad thing is, they will most likely keep her clearance active while they do a review.

Based on the evidence presented, and the testimony of the Director of the FBI, if it was a normal government worker, their clearance would be immediately suspended, and they would be escorted from the facility, most likely ending their federal career.

If the State Department does not immediately suspend her clearance and the clearance of all those involved indefinitely, then you know the fix is in for sure.

a reply to: RickinVa

If the State Department doesn't yank it John Clapper should.

no charges for Hillary, i knew that

So when is the next investigation set to start.

If at first you don't succeed try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try again.


There have been so many that a lot of people are not even sure what it is for anymore.

a reply to: Grimpachi

The FBI investigation into the Clinton foundation is ongoing. The State Departments IG is also involved.

Congress today drafted a referral to the FBI formally requesting the FBI investigate Clinton for perjury. Apparently the perjury is coming from 2 different congressional committees she appeared before where she made statements under oath that Director Comey has since testified that they were lies.

The prosecution for the espionage might still be hanging on by a thread given Trey Gowdys questioning of Comey at the hearing. Trey Gowdy rattled off questions that dealt with what Hillary said which were false according to Comey. The purpose of the questions were to demonstrate intent was present but it was ignored.

The other bombshell from the hearing revolved around Comey stating the FBI never investigated what Clinton said / lied. By ignoring that avenue it removed the intent factor allowing them to recommend no charges.

Now that the cat is out of the bag there needs to be some type of action to correct the miscarriage of justice.


**There is a video in the link as well with the exchange between them.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.

You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'

It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.

The above is the confirmation that Clinton lied. Here is the result -
Chaffetz: Oversight Committee sending referral to FBI to probe Clinton testimony

By consistently lying / changing her story with the assumption an innocent person will not lie if they did nothing wrong demonstrates guilt of conscious. That then goes to intent which is what Comey said was required (which its not gross negligence is) to recommend charges.

I really do think something else is going on with all of this (From the FBI / Administration side).

Forgot one -

The state department has reopened their investigation into Clinton now that the FBI investigation is done.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

The FBI investigation into the Clinton foundation is ongoing. The State Departments IG is also involved.

Congress today drafted a referral to the FBI formally requesting the FBI investigate Clinton for perjury.

Yawn. The Clintons have been under investigation for over 25 years.

Why does everybody love to investigate them so?

Don't they realize the more you investigate someone, and find nothing significant, the less effective investigations become?

a reply to: AMPTAH

Thats what law enforcement does.. Investigate criminal activity. Those investigations have been thorough and have created cases for criminal prosecutions. Since law enforcement is not a part of the judicial branch and cant force a PA to charge anyone, the fault of no prosecution lies with the PA's.

It makes one wonder just how long the Clintons have been involved in illegal action since you pointed out 25 years. I would think intelligent people would research the charges / crimes Clintons have committed and go from there. I will never understand blind loyalty to the extent Clinton supporters show.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

It makes one wonder just how long the Clintons have been involved in illegal action since you pointed out 25 years. I would think intelligent people would research the charges / crimes Clintons have committed and go from there. .

They have been "accused" and "investigated", but no crimes have been found. Still, people keep dreaming up new "accusations" and new "investigations" all the time.

Either they have not committed any crimes, or they cannot be prosecuted for any crimes they commit. Either way, the result is the same.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Your points are mostly useless.

It's the proven lies that matter.

Voters will understand this when they look at names on ballots in November.

a reply to: xuenchen

Your points are mostly useless.

Oh the irony.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Based on the evidence they are somehow untouchable. Of course thats because people with the incriminating information usually end up dead.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AMPTAH

Based on the evidence they are somehow untouchable. Of course thats because people with the incriminating information usually end up dead.

But, if that is true, then it means there is a whole powerful organization behind the Clintons. And any crimes are not limited just to them, but to the hidden order defending them. So, there must be a whole bunch of criminals behind these things, and why isn't law enforcement investigating the members of that hidden order?

Or, are you suggesting that Bill and Hillary run around knocking off these people themselves?

a reply to: AMPTAH

Watch -








Decide for yourself...

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AMPTAH

Decide for yourself...

Accusations, speculations, "thoughts of other people", lots of imagination on display.

No proof.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: AMPTAH

Decide for yourself...

Accusations, speculations, "thoughts of other people", lots of imagination on display.

No proof.

the proof is in the videos but if thats the excuse you are going to use so it doesnt distort the false impression you have of the Clintons then I guess thats on you.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
the proof is in the videos but if thats the excuse you are going to use so it doesnt distort the false impression you have of the Clintons then I guess thats on you.

I have no impression of the Clintons.

I've seen and heard a lot of what other people have said about them.

But, personally, I have no information one way or the other about their Character or Activities.

Simple logic, however, tells me that all these things people claim these two people are supposed to have done and be doing is just impossible. Are they Gods?

How do they get everybody around them to "comply" with their orders to facilitate all these corruptions?

Now it is possible that they are part of some large corrupt organization that is doing these things, and they are just two of the "front men." But, everybody is attributing all these things to two people, and that ain't possible.

a reply to: AMPTAH

You might want to do some more research. Look at the facts.

It is not just 2 people. But the Clintons are on the upper level of very suspicious, dangerous, corrupt, almost certainly illegal activities. I don't think that anyone is saying that everything going on is being done only by them. There is obviously a network of corruption that expands far beyond them, and that is why they are protected.

The problem here is that one of the people on the upper level of ongoing corruption is running for president of our country. And some of us don't think that giving someone like that more power is a good idea for many obvious reasons.