Cheryl Mills walks out of FBI interview

Plenty of sources to confirm that Mills walked out when a question that was deemed to be "off limits" was asked by the FBI. The question pertained to the process on how the emails were produced for release... Sounds like the Clinton team is working hard to cover up their "filtering" process on her emails. Plus they asked for multiple breaks to confer on how to answer some of the questions. You know, answering with the truth isn't nearly as difficult.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/0...-cheryl-mills-walks-out-during-fbi-interview/

 

As Secretary of State, Hillary is supposed to know what is confidential and/or top secret. If she never received or sent "classified" information, how in the world did she do her job? Do you really believe that the Secreatary of State didn't know what was sensiitive information and what wasn't? She had a private server for one reason: she didn't want the public to ever know what she was or wasn't doing and the public has that right to know.

Let's try to make this simple without being insulting. An illiterate high school dropout chewing gum and paralyzed with confusion while struggling to answer the phone at the abortion clinic in Ferguson, Missouri where she's almost got enough reward points to get her sixth visit free is expected to recognize, prevent, and bear responsibility for HIPAA violations even when there is never any info marked HIPAA on them:

"The fine for a first time infringement by someone who did not know they violated HIPAA could be as low as $100 or as high as $50,000."​

See: http://www.hipaa.com/the-reality-of-hipaa-violations-and.../

But our expectations for a Presidential Cabinet member and her aides are less? While the above discussed is not even a purposeful FOIA violation. Mills' is such a loyal slave on the Progressive Socialist plantation she's willing to obstruct justice for her 'Massa'. One has to wonder, if Cheryl Mills has nothing to hide, why are some topics deemed off limits? Is the DOJ limiting the scope of the FBI's investigation? Does anyone really believe that FBI doesn't have a right to know how information is produced by the State Department for FOIA requests? It would seem that the FBI and State Department lawyers should be on the side of the government. Not on the side of government employees.

 

I think its time to indict Hillary and her aides on espionage and treason. On the good side, she'll have some of the best facilities possible in California.(Literally, I hate those federal prisons. But if she does get indicted, the sentence will be along with Madoff and co.)

 

Articles I read wouldn't state why the question was off limits because of reprisals for leaking info, but in a courtroom, such a question about how it was determined what emails to produce would seem to be a very relevant question, especially when it has been found that there are emails still missing. A screenshot of Syd Blumenthal's email box was posted by Guccifer online showing a couple of top secret emails sent to Hillary but they never turned up in the State Department's email dumps. A reminder, Guccifer was extradited to testify in this case and has been interviewed by the FBI.

I am reasonably sure that when Hillary is finally interviewed, that will signal the end of the investigation is near. The FBI has no intention of saying who they are investigating as a suspect, but when Hillary is near the last interviewed, then that is a clear indication of the direction they are heading. And Cheryl Mills will be forced to testify in court when the time comes. At least two judges are already ticked off by the stonewalling going on.

Steve

 

Agreed!!, Yet our Socialist president and the Progressive cabal within our government will fight tooth and nail to keep true believers from prosecution. They'll even assassinate to maintained their power.

 

It was not "deemed" off limits. It was agreed to by the DoJ and the lawyer to be off limits, and was asked by an FBI agent int he room.

The Post reported that Mills and the Department of Justice had set pre-determined boundaries on the interview process. Investigators were reportedly supposed to avoid asking questions about the email production procedure at the State Department.

According to the report, Mills was caught off guard when an FBI agent pressed her on the issue, and asked to leave the room to confer with her attorney:

Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.

Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said


She did not "walk out", she asked to leave with her lawyer and then returned.

The Opinion piece you cite does not seem to accurately reflect the news article it claims to be based on.

 

Remember when Obama claimed he was gonna be a transparent president?

 

Hummm, I wonder if I could have questions that were considered "Off Limits" if I was being investigated by the FBI?

And the deflection from the Left has already began...

 

What would you expect from a nutblog like Pajamas media?

 

Oh yea, he is so transparent that he is crystal clear. Must have been talking about quartz crystals...

 

Do what I did, look up Cheryl Mills on Google News. You'll find an acceptable news source, albeit, likely a biased news source, but you'll find it. I strongly suspect the reason I have to say this is because you don't want to know the truth.

Steve

 

Then how about:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e5e0e8-161c-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html

OR:

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Hil...BI-Private-Email-Server/2016/05/10/id/728144/

OR:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...-reported-to-have-walked-out-of-fbi-interview

There are plenty more if you Google it.

 

Haha you could cite a million sources and the liberals will still say "not enough evidence".

Hillary could take a dump, throw it in a bag, go on jeopardy, and throw it at Alex's face on TV and the liberals will say "more fake scandals".

 

Naive to think the Obama justice department would do anything to obstruct Hillary from the Democrat nomination.

 

Lock both of these money whores up already. The American people deserve justice. And proof that the ladder of law has not top or bottom.

 

we don't have a socialist president

 

Come on.... You're joking of course.

 

Remember when Hillary said that they should release all these "classified" documents to the public because the public should know. But now all of a sudden you guys want to protect government secrets and have them less transparent. Lol, you guys gotta make up your mind.

- - - Updated - - -

He's been President for 8 years and you still think he's a socialist? Lmao, a real socialist would be embarrassed by that comment.

 

Obama admits he's a socialist
http://nypost.com/2013/05/19/obama-admits-hes-a-socialist/
May 19, 2013 · You may be forgiven if you missed it during last week’s tsunami of scandals, but President Obama finally let slip that he is a socialist. Buried in the ...

~~~~~~​

 

no, just correcting your false statement.

- - - Updated - - -

nowhere in that article is Obama quoted admitting he's a socialist.

you would think you guys would learn having been caught lying so many times, lol

 

My position is simple: If the documents don't constitute US National Security, then sure, release them. I've never thought a secretive government was a good government(and neither did the Founders). But if it does put our security at risk, then they need to remain classified at the levels they're classified.

But this is also the same woman that won't release her Goldman Sachs transcripts. Even if we get Hillary, we're getting a corporate fraud who will launch wars for Wall Street. At least now we see that 1/3rd of Americans don't want to fight Wall Street's wars any longer. We just need a better candidate than Trump.

 

I guess you misunderstood my post (intentionally)

The WAPO didn't interject opinion and idiotic hyperbole. THEY mentioned that she exited the meeting briefly to confer with her lawyers and then went back. And they explained why.

 

Obama himself, the Times explained, has been “longingly” telling his inner circle that what he’d really like to do is what Sen. Jay Bulworth, played by Warren Beatty in his 1998 movie “Bulworth,” did: to go public as an unabashed, angry and admitted socialist.
Obama confirmed that what he thinks and what he says out loud are two different things. He let slip the mask of a center-left moderate — a “pragmatist” who only cares about “what works.” The press and even right-of-center columnists like Ross Douthat and David Brooks have always insisted that this completely unconvincing masquerade is genuine.

BTW nice try at trying to deflect the issue about Hillary and Cheryl Mills.

 

They don't care.

It means nothing for them to get caught in a lie.

They simply lie about something else and then come back and lie about the original issue as if they never got caught n the first place.

 

yea, nothing there admitting to being a socialist.

you lied and got caught. I was just pointing it out.