This is what actual corruption looks like...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-blind-clinton-trust-1473289804

The FBI’s Blind Clinton Trust
Comey’s agents were forgiving about some incriminating evidence.

The notes also show the G-men never did grill Mrs. Clinton on her “intent” in setting up her server. Instead they bought her explanation that it was for personal convenience. This helped Mr. Comey avoid concluding that her purpose was to evade statutes like the Federal Records Act. Mr. Comey also told Congress that indicting her without criminal intent would pose a constitutional problem. But Congress has written many laws that don’t require criminal intent, and negligent homicide (for example) has never been unconstitutional.

The FBI notes also blow past evidence that Clinton advisers may have engaged in a cover-up. Consider page 10 of the FBI report: “Clinton’s immediate aides, to include [Huma] Abedin, [Cheryl] Mills, Jacob Sullivan, and [redacted] told the FBI they were unaware of the existence of the private server until after Clinton’s tenure at State or when it became public knowledge.”

That’s amazing given that Ms. Abedin had her own email account on the private server. It is also contradicted by page 3: “At the recommendation of Huma Abedin, Clinton’s long-time aide and later Deputy Chief of Staff at State, in or around fall 2008, [ Bill Clinton aide Justin] Cooper contacted Bryan Pagliano . . . to build the new server system and to assist Cooper with the administration of the new server system.”

The FBI must also have ignored two emails referred to by the State Inspector General showing Ms. Mills and Ms. Abedin discussing the server while they worked at State: “hrc email coming back—is server okay?” Ms. Mills asked Ms. Abedin and Mr. Cooper in a Feb. 27, 2010 email.

“I had to shut down the server,” wrote Mr. Cooper to Ms. Abedin on Jan. 9, 2011, noting that “someone was trying to hack us.” In an Aug. 30, 2011 email released through a lawsuit, State Department Executive Secretary Stephen Mull informs Ms. Mills, Ms. Abedin and others that he believed Mrs. Clinton’s current Blackberry was malfunctioning “possibly because of [sic] her personal email server is down.”

Ms. Mills has a particular reason for denying early knowledge of the server: She became Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer after they both left State. If Ms. Mills knew about the server while at State, she’d be subject to questions about the server. But if she didn’t know about the server until leaving State, she can argue that conversations with Mrs. Clinton are protected by attorney-client privilege. The FBI ignored all this, and it even allowed Ms. Mills to accompany Mrs. Clinton to her FBI interview as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer.

 

That Tricky Dick

 

How do you know that's from Reddit if you weren't trolling Reddit yourself.

 

Given the choice, Id take Grandma Nixon.

Btw, what's with the "e"? Looks like it says Orangg and Hitlgr

 

Hiliar had to be helped into a limo today so she could leave the 9/11 ceremonies early. She headed over to Chelsea Clinton's apartment in Manhattan to rest up.

But her doctor says she's fit and the coughing fits don't mean anything.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ical-episode-at-911-ceremony-source-says.html

Hillary Clinton had a “medical episode” that required her to leave a 9/11 commemoration ceremony early on Sunday, a law enforcement source who witnessed the event told Fox News.

The Democratic presidential nominee appeared to faint on her way into her van and had to be helped by her security, the source said. She was “clearly having some type of medical episode.”

After more than an hour of radio silence, Clinton's campaign issued a statement saying the former Secretary of State "felt overheated."

(It is 81 degrees in NYC as I write this, hours later)

 

Almost worthy of its own thread. Not a right wing source at all.

Riley Roberts was a speechwriter for former Attorney General Eric Holder.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/james-comey-fbi-accountability-214234

The Case Against James Comey
Not since Hoover has an FBI director shown such a lack of accountability.

By Riley Roberts

September 11, 2016


Since taking office, Comey has repeatedly injected his views into executive branch deliberations on issues such as sentencing reform and the roots of violence against police officers. He has undermined key presidential priorities such as crafting a coherent federal policy on cybersecurity and encryption. Most recently, he shattered longstanding precedent by publicly offering his own conclusions about the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email. (The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.)

It would be difficult to argue—in terms of temperament, manner, or motivation—that he is, or ever will be, the next J. Edgar Hoover. But increasing numbers of critics believe he has displayed a worrying disregard for the rules and norms that have constrained all but one of his predecessors, straying with blithe confidence—and with increasing regularity—across the fine line that separates independence from unaccountability.

These concerns were only whispered about until July, when the FBI director’s public disposition of the Hillary Clinton email investigation stoked national controversy. Since then, even some of Comey’s supporters have been forced to concede that his exercise of power has been without precedent in the post-Hoover era. Among dozens of current and former Justice Department officials, this realization has given way to a rising sense of alarm: that our next president will find Comey just as untouchable as Hoover once was—and perhaps nearly as troublesome.

“[Comey] is totally acting inappropriately,” says criminal defense attorney Nick Akerman, a former U.S. attorney and special assistant Watergate prosecutor. “There’s no question about it.”

...

In July, the FBI concluded its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email practices—and Comey decided, with political and public curiosity at a fever pitch, to cast aside Justice Department policies that reserve for prosecutors the sole discretion to file or decline criminal charges.

Instead of consulting with his colleagues, he called a news conference that caught even the attorney general by surprise. Before banks of television cameras, he delivered a show-stopping performance that at once legally exonerated and publicly excoriated the Democratic nominee for president.

What Comey should have done, by many accounts, was handle the Clinton probe like any other routine inquiry: provide confidential recommendations to prosecutors, release a strictly factual statement noting that the investigation would be closed, and resist external pressures to inappropriately air the FBI’s findings outside a court of law. According to Akerman: “This is probably one of those [rare] cases where you would want there to be an announcement that no charges would be brought, based on the investigation. But to say anything beyond that is completely improper. And… what he's done has raised all kinds of innuendo.”

Rules and norms exist precisely because of extraordinary cases like Clinton’s, after all—not despite them. Respecting these constraints would therefore have been the right—and, by virtue of the political outcry it would have provoked, even the courageous—thing to do.

Instead, the FBI director did what would be perceived as courageous. In thus attempting to account for political realities, he bowed to them—an unfortunate lapse for a law enforcement leader and itself a nakedly political act. Comey then compounded this mistake by providing investigative documents to Congress and to the general public—extraordinary disclosures he defended last week in an equally extraordinary memo to FBI employees, first reported by CNN, in which he fired back at critics and again asserted the primacy of his judgment:

“I’m OK if folks have a different view of the investigation (although I struggle to see how they actually could, especially when they didn’t do the investigation), or about the wisdom of announcing it as we did (although even with hindsight I think that was the best course),” Comey said. “But I have no patience for suggestions that we conducted ourselves as anything but what we are—honest, competent and independent. Those suggesting that we are ‘political’ or part of some ‘fix’ either don't know us, or they are full of baloney [and maybe some of both].”

The memo is classic Comey: unapologetic and obdurately self-assured. But each subsequent disclosure has inflamed, rather than calmed, partisan furor. And together, these revelations have set a dangerous precedent: inviting political actors to second-guess the decisions and otherwise meddle in the inner workings, of the ostensibly apolitical FBI


Since the announcement, Comey’s unorthodox handling of the Clinton case has made countless prosecutors profoundly uneasy. Many have been conspicuously unwilling to stand in his defense. Indeed, during a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill, Lynch—Comey’s nominal supervisor—repeatedly distanced herself from the FBI director’s news conference, tersely referring congressional inquisitors to his prepared statement and declining comment whenever specific questions were put to her.

Behind the scenes, others in the executive branch have been considerably less circumspect. “It’s really tough for all the attorneys [to speak out], because they all have to practice before DOJ,” says Matt Miller, who led the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs from 2009 to 2011. “But I’ve heard from dozens of officials, both current and former, and not one of them agreed with [Comey’s] decision to hold the press conference.”

By and large, Justice Department lawyers have declined to criticize Comey in public, for fear of angering the FBI director. But in personal conversations and expletive-laden email threads, many were apoplectic at his handling of the Clinton case. One aide described senior officials who should have been involved in the announcement scrambling to watch it on television. Some were particularly incensed by the editorial commentary sprinkled throughout Comey’s statement. As Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote on the blog Lawfare: “There is something horrible about watching a senior government official, who has used the coercive investigative capacities of the federal government, make public judgments about a subject's conduct which the Justice Department is not prepared to indict.”

In fact, according to Miller, this public recounting of evidence—which the FBI was unwilling to submit to adversarial testing in a courtroom—may have run afoul of Justice Department rules. Over the past several decades, strict guidelines have been adopted to prevent investigative findings (which are not introduced in court) from becoming fodder for extrajudicial smear campaigns—like the ones Hoover carried out against public figures such asDr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“To get up there and start moralizing about your opinion on what you think happened—and what should have been done and shouldn’t have been done—is not the job of the FBI director,” says Akerman. “It is not [even] the job of a prosecutor with the Department of Justice, and it's totally out of school. He has no business doing that.” Indeed, this transgression alone, committed by a government lawyer—or by any of Comey’s agents—would have invited official reprimand. But there is virtually no one who can reprimand an FBI director.

In the final analysis, what is most troubling about Comey’s handling of the Clinton email case is not the fact that it represents an escalation of an established pattern—or even that there is no mechanism for preventing a repeat performance. What is most troubling is that, at its core, the whole affair had relatively little to do with Hillary Clinton. It was, in Comey’s own words, a “way to maximize” his agency’s reputation: a bid to advance not the interests of justice, but the interests of James Comey.

 

Apparently you don't know it, living in your Hillary hate bubble, but those on the left aren't fans of Comey.

barfo