Reddit post apparently related to Clintons email coverup

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: Indigo5

That Oversight committee has every right to ask for all the 302's pertaining to this case, regardless of what the FBI's precedence is.

They have the right to ask, but I am unsure what legal right they have to investigative notes? Is there some law that excludes them from an FOIA request in normal channels?

That committee is doing work for The People through OUR House. It is their job to do exactly what they are doing and they should not have to go through a FOIA process to get it done.

That committee has thoroughly and repeatedly eroded their credibility. They are doing the work of the GOP, which represents a faction of "the people". They have repeatedly and selectively leaked out of context material for political campaigning purposes...which is illegal on multiple fronts..both using tax-payer dollars for political campaigns and the leaking. X-Committee members have admitted it is a politically motivated investigation. They have no credibility to me.

Sorry, but whatever the circumstances. We strongly disagree there. The committee has thoroughly spent their credibility as a neutral investigator in the matter. I am more interested in the FBI's analysis and conclusions.

originally posted by: Indigo5

Another note: It is no secret in DC that Comey does not like Clinton...

AND, the secret is that Comey is probably totally in bed with the Clintons. har har...

Former United States Deputy Attorney General, under GWB, former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York...


****

For Jaded, TAT, & Queen --

Comey was former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York...

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is the chief federal law enforcement officer in eight New York counties: New York (Manhattan), Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan. Preet Bharara, who was appointed by Barack Obama in 2009[1] is the U.S. Attorney for the District.

Probably worth noting in TAT's thread, too, eh?

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry...can you sum that up..Not getting the connect the dots you are referring to.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

Thank-you for the detailed response, JackKatMtn. Judging from the extensive posts in this thread, as well as a couple of the larger News networks picking up on it, let's hope that Congress understands the gravity of this "smoking gun" and will use all means necessary to get to the bottom of things ASAP. Otherwise, we'll have something else, of lesser potential magnitude, come along to steal the spotlight.

I'm hoping too that the next Wiki-leak of documents will serve to support Hillary's role in this cover-up. The sooner the better.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I read Fortune's piece earlier.

So, far, no one is really putting together the conspiracy implications of "they" and the fact that Combetta even posting the question on Reddit is "an act in furtherance of a conspiracy."

A conspiracy doesn't have to fully play out to be a crime, even an act in furtherance of a conspiracy is a crime.

Say someone conspires with an employee to steal from a business. The employee leaves a safe open, but the plan to actually steal the contents is scrapped at the last minute. Leaving the safe open in furtherance of a planned conspiracy is a crime although leaving a safe open is , otherwise, not a crime.

The implications of this Reddit post are so much bigger than the major media is letting on.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Sorry...can you sum that up..Not getting the connect the dots you are referring to.

I would be taking this thread OT to connect those dots here. Suffice it to say, republicans and democrats...politicians, feign not "liking" each other, all the time.

Whatever is 'not secret' in Washington cannot be accepted as truth.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The implications of this Reddit post are so much bigger than the major media is letting on.

Don't expect major media to cover this until and unless it becomes so much in the public's eye through other social media venues, they almost have to mention it.

Why is that? Maybe to stay off the radar of the FCC. Maybe to stay off the radar of the FBI. Maybe because half the news media are part of the government controlled propaganda machine which is now legal, btw. They are controlling "the story line".

Yes indeed, I found the same thing. Lookie here at the invoice:

Wow - The Evidence Builds...

Edit.

ETA!

Crap. I somehow deleted this entire comment trying to edit it!

It was about the media waiting for the Clinton and PRN response before seriously reporting on the story. And how long it was taking them...AND how I think it speaks volumes as to how they are scrambling.

They don't know what's been saved by many, many people online...not to mention the administrators at Reddit and elsewhere that he used the moniker 'Stonetear.'

Gah...or something like that. Boo hiss on me.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I don't expect the major media to report on this with any serious until the Clinton camp & PRN have their response and story coordinated.

And it is taking a long time.

Plus...It takes time to arrange a 'hit'.

a reply to: Indigo5


"I am more interested in the FBI's analysis and conclusions."

Absolutely me too...

Like for instance, you do know the State Department built not 1, but 2 separate SCIF's in two of her residences for her use as Secretary of State. It's right there in the FBI report.

You know those things called SCIF's, where Classified information may be stored and handled....

She chose not to use either of the secure methods of communication available to her at the time and instead decided to go with her private unclassified server..

Why did she decide to bypass the secure methods provided to her by the government and decide to store classified information on her unclassified server.?

a reply to: RickinVa

Why did she decide to bypass the secure methods provided to her by the government and decide to store classified information on her unclassified server.?

Good question. I would say it was in order to make sensitive information available to certain people that didn't have top security clearances. What did she get in return for that information is my question.

My usual reminder: An official Inspector General for the State Department would have caught all of this. Too bad Barack Obama did not appoint one during Hillary's entire tenure!

originally posted by: queenofswords
My usual reminder: An official Inspector General for the State Department would have caught all of this. Too bad Barack Obama did not appoint one during her entire tenure!

"HER tenure."

*chuckle*


ETA: Duh, you meant Hillary. I thought you meant Obama.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Changed it to be clearer. Thank you!

originally posted by: Indigo5


Quick note on this. I heard an interview with several legal analysts and former FBI guys when the FBI handed over the Clinton interview notes..

They were saying that the FBI turning over investigation notes (interview notes) for a case that is not moving forward is unusual and sets a dangerous precedent.

The idea that an investigation does not lead to an indictment, but the investigation and various interview notes are made public means that witnesses would be less willing to cooperate and speak freely in the future.

It was a very unusual exception for the FBI to make investigation notes public in a case that is not being prosecuted or going to trial.

You can think it is political, but I think it is policy. Them handing over the interview notes on Clinton was highly unusual and likely due to the unusual circumstances, but many inside the DOJ disagreed with Comey on the move.

The "they" bit might warrant them handing over further notes, but the committee has to be specific in the request...not give us everything you have.

Another note: It is no secret in DC that Comey does not like Clinton, nor does a lot of the higher-ups in FBI. If he could hang anything around her neck, he would do it, but he is very much a by-the-book, law, order and rules guy. Give him a solid case and he would prosecute her. That is why I find the whole conspiracy around Comey or the FBI covering for Clinton silly.

But you are the one who said they should ask for the notes, and you wondered why they hadn't!

The Congressional Committee is not the FBI...them asking him to testify is separate...they should be asking the FBI for his interview notes...why aren't they?

So why would you say this, only to shortly later claim that this is beyond the norm, and you can understand why the FBI wouldn't want to give the notes over. Forgive me, but this seems contradictory.

And if Comey hates Hillary so much, why wouldn't he just hand over the notes? Its not against the law, so why wouldn't he just give them over?

Does anyone handily know why Combetta was allowed to plead the 5th while he had immunity? I assume I missed how this was possible for him and I find it confusing. Pleading the 5th is exercising the right to not self-incriminate. Immunity is given so that people can testify without fear of self-incrimination.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Does anyone handily know why Combetta was allowed to plead the 5th while he had immunity? I assume I missed how this was possible for him and I find it confusing. Pleading the 5th is exercising the right to not self-incriminate. Immunity is given so that people can testify without fear of self-incrimination.

I saw a video where Chafettz (I hope I spelled that right) asked that same thing. He claimed that if Combetta and the others spoke to the FBI for immunity, the Congress should also be allowed to speak to them. I tend to agree, and I can't see why that would be the case.

Think of how this would work in say a terror investigation. The FBI interviews a terror informant, and gives them immunity to try to catch bigger fish. Congress then asks to speak to the informant, and he pleads the fifth. The FBI then refuses to give unredacted documents to congress about the information learned. It is insanity!!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Does anyone handily know why Combetta was allowed to plead the 5th while he had immunity? I assume I missed how this was possible for him and I find it confusing. Pleading the 5th is exercising the right to not self-incriminate. Immunity is given so that people can testify without fear of self-incrimination.

I saw a video where Chafettz (I hope I spelled that right) asked that same thing. He claimed that if Combetta and the others spoke to the FBI for immunity, the Congress should also be allowed to speak to them. I tend to agree, and I can't see why that would be the case.

Think of how this would work in say a terror investigation. The FBI interviews a terror informant, and gives them immunity to try to catch bigger fish. Congress then asks to speak to the informant, and he pleads the fifth. The FBI then refuses to give unredacted documents to congress about the information learned. It is insanity!!

He has immunity from self-incrimination! The 5th doesn't apply.

Wow.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

Comey was former United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York...

"The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York is the chief federal law enforcement officer in eight New York counties: New York (Manhattan), Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Orange, Dutchess, and Sullivan. Preet Bharara, who was appointed by Barack Obama in 2009[1] is the U.S. Attorney for the District."

BTW...the guy that NOW has Comey's former job as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York -- Preet Bharara (bolded above) -- is in charge of the New York investigation into the Clinton Foundation:

The investigation centers on New York City where the Clinton Foundation has its main offices, according to the former official who has direct knowledge of the activities.

Prosecutorial support will come from various U.S. Attorneys Offices — a major departure from other centralized FBI investigations.

The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara’s prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders.

Link

Expect nothing to come of that investigation.

a reply to: Grambler

If he wasn't in danger of incriminating himself because he had immunity, it can only be concluded that he pled the 5th to avoid incriminating others.

And the 5th doesn't protect that!

ETA: I am not holding out hope that Congress will be thorough in their oversight.