Senate announces probe of Loretta Lynch behavior in 2016 election

Comey was a prosecutor prior to being named Director of the FBI. He led the prosecution of Martha Stewart. He knows the law. He knew the law to be used against Hillary and that he lacked evidence to prove what was necessary. No evidence = no case.

She's guilty of being careless. That is not illegal. People are careless with classified information all the time. That's why intent has to be present to be prosecuted.

Let me clue you in on something. In a highly charged political environment, without a slam dunk case against Hillary Clinton, she wasn't going to be charged with any crime. Even if she had been charged with gross negligence part of the Espionage Act, for which Comey did find evidence, the most she would have gotten was a fine and probation. That's all David Petraeus got and they had slam-dunk evidence of intent on him. However, because of the political environment and the fact that no one has ever been tried using gross negligence, doing so with Hillary Clinton would have been precedent setting and would smack of partisan politics. That was not going to happen in an election. That's "thumb on the scale" kind of stuff, prohibited by FBI protocols.

Comey's choices are highly controversial, especially among law enforcement and FBI. I do think he felt a tremendous burden due to Loretta Lynch deferring to his recommendations. However, he made the only recommendation he could make- no charges. Without evidence, there's no other choice.

I'm not parsing words. I am stating my opinion and telling you the basis for that opinion. It's based in law.

 

There is no side of the ball. There is the law, and then stuff that isn't the law.

I don't see the law clearly? Read the actual law and the Supreme Court decision on Gorin that defines the law further.

It's fairly obvious that as Secretary of State, sending emails were not intended to hurt the US, nor was it known that sending those emails could hurt the US. Emails were not even supposed to have classified information in them. They had cables for that purpose.

This article does a pretty good job of explaining it. I urge you to take the time to read it.
http://lawnewz.com/politics/nothing...secute-hillary-clinton-based-on-what-we-know/

Look, you can hate Hillary all you want, and want her imprisoned, but that's not going t happen. It's not because I say so. It's because we are a country of laws, and the law says intent is required. Comey said he had no evidence of intent, therefore there is no case.

When you find a case tried using the Espionage Act that didn't use intent, let me know.

There is no evidence to implicate Hillary Clinton. Comey testified to that fact. No evidence = no case = no trial = no verdict = no jail time. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

I completely understand that it was a CIA operation that went bad. Again, I'm not getting into weeds of what did or didn't happen. That's not what's important in the context of this discussion.

Obama had 2 choices on how to respond. (1) Call it what it was, a planned terrorist attack without getting into unnecessary details, or (2) Make up a story. He picked (2) because it fit his political narrative, and more important, provided needed cover for his re-election. In other words, he made a conscious decision to lie to America. The irony is that if he had picked (1), much of the controversy would have blown over after a short period. Like most situations, the cover-up takes on more life than the crime.

When our elected leaders cross the tipping point and decide they can overtly lie to satisfy their personal objectives, that's scary. The emerging Lynch scandal suggests they followed the same path. Again, really scary stuff.

 

Careless? What do you call someone who deliberately (counter to all government doctrine and policy) set up her own personal email system through an unapproved server with which she did all her business as Secretary of State, who ignored instruction designed to inform
State Department employees as to the proper handling of classified documents and such, transferred classified documents to uncleared persons, destroyed evidence subpoenaed by Congress in investigating this matter, lied to investigators, had surrogates lie to investigators and destroy evidence, and who exhibited consciousness of guilt in all her actions?

Careless? I guess that makes the Rosenbergs extremely careless.

 

Obama's choices were limited to what the CIA could and would allow to go public. There was an operation and multiple assets to protect, and how this operation would impact other operations/assets. If you think any other of our leaders would have done differently, then you're just speculating. I'd also suggest it's a bit naive to think Obama was satisfying a personal objective when protecting a CIA operation.

America is my country and I love it. I'm also well aware that we have done some really bad things. Sometimes we have to choose between bad and worse, and there are no good choices. Sometimes we're just cruel. However, there is no other nation in the world that protects, feeds, and helps other countries more than we do. The good doesn't erase the bad, but the bad doesn't cancel the good either. We're not perfect angels, but we are also not the devil, even though we do bad things at times.

 

You can keep repeating that until the cows come home. The fact remains, even citing "no intent" that her security clearance should have been permanently stripped. That would have ended the matter and preclude Queen Cankles from ever running for President or be on any senate committee ever again involving classified information.

 

I don't see how Obama's communication to the public put assets at risk. Weather it's blaming the attack on a video or acknowledging the attack was coordinated reveals no details. I don't see where there were any possible compromises in telling the truth.

The irony is that these cover-ups are almost always guaranteed to go bad anyway. It didn't work for Nixon, didn't work Bill Clinton, and right on cue, didn't work for Obama. In today's world of instant information, it's almost impossible hide the truth. And when the truth comes out, it's always worse than it would have been if honesty had been the rule in the first place.

So why take the risk unless the stakes were too great to take chances? I believe with the election less than 2 months away, his team concluded that the lie would at least buy him time, and it did. Just as Lynch tried to buy time for Hillary. But as we saw, it didn't turn out for Hillary as planned.

 

You still go get those guys screaming for help. Not getting them out then but some counter-insurgency effect. Plus, just buzzing the place with jets might have had an effect. Not being in the sit room is another disgusting move by Obama, HRC, and Sec Def. They just sat it out. Here we disagree.

I cited the actual law and told you about the McCarran Act but you didn't even comment on them. You can't because THERE IS NO NEED FOR INTENT. Citing Comey is laughable as is accepting Lynch's input. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE DIR OF THE FBI TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PROSECUTE. NOR IS IT HIS JOB TO OFFER LEGAL OPINIONS ON THE MATTER.

So do us all a favor and stop telling us what Comey said or meant. It's irrelevant and in fact detracts from any argument you make. He's tainted himself as has the entire DOJ of the last administration.

While I do detest HRC that doesn't influence what I say. If I thought she were truly innocent then I'd say so. I'm an independent and an equal opportunity hater of much of Wash DC.

As far as intent goes there are people in jail now who had no intent to injure the US. A sailor had a picture of his boat and left it out and he went to jail for it. I can't go thru every espionage case and tell you why this or that one was prosecuted or not. A certain Gen didn't intend to hurt anyone and he lost his career and paid a hefty fine for telling things he shouldn't. Just to one person.

Do you think for your eyes only classified material should have been transmitted on an unsecure server esp one HRC set up on purpose with clear intent to avoid regular scrutiny and merely for her damned convenience that should be overlooked? People may have been compromised. Any other person would already be in jail for that nonsense. Who in the heck has ever done that nonsense as Sec of State? And don't go to Powell or Rice either. Neither had a personal server setup like HRC although they had personal email accounts. They weren't used ubiquitously like HRC and without regard for national security. The answer is no fracking body.

It's your insistence to apologize for that woman that gives rise to your posts rather than my insistence for justice.

But I won't hold my breath waiting for her to get an orange jumpsuit. Just don't feed me BS.

Let's just agree to disagree as we've both said our piece. But you can have the last word.

 

You're misreading my posts, if you think I am apologizing for anyone. I'm certainly not feeding you BS. I tried to explain reality to you, but you insist there are other laws that apply. But.They.Don't.

Yes, you cited the law. Here's what you're not seeing. While you may believe that law applies, all the lawyers in the FBI and at the DOJ don't think that law applies. The law that does apply requires intent. I understand your frustration in seeing what you think should cause Clinton to be prosecuted, but it just doesn't apply. The job of the FBI Director is to investigate, gather evidence, and then recommend prosecution or not. The only thing that Lynch did differently in this situation is say that she wasn't going to look at the FBI Director's recommendation and make her own conclusions, instead, she would simply take his recommendation as it was given.

You don't have to like it or accept it, but that is the way things are.

 

There were undercover, imbedded CIA agents with Syria and Libya, actively involved, at the time of the attack. We're not going to put our own agents in jeopardy if it can be avoided, during, after, or any other time. The truth is we were moving weapons from Libya to Syria, and the ambassador was in the wrong place at the wrong time. No one planned to get him killed, or covered up the fact that he was killed. They were protecting the imbedded agents from being discovered and killed, and avoiding escalating the situation in Libya that was already growing more and more violent.

If you are determined to believe there was some massive coverup, and nefarious decision making by Obama and Lynch, you're free to believe it. The truth you're looking for isn't ever going to be made public more than what is already out there.

 

She no longer worked for the Department of State. There is no security clearance to strip.
I hope you're not one that defends Trump for leaking classified Israeli shared intelligence to Russians and are still angry at Hillary over emails.

 

Wrong. Again. She still has her security clearance until someone removes it. Most people keep their clearance for long periods of time even after discharge and are expected to keep their mouths shut and not talk or write about secret things.

They need to strip her and all her subordinates clearances now and never allow anyone to have any kind of clearance no matter what. They are in that process from what I understand but I won't assume anything until its done.

 

I said you could have the last word.

 

Just what classified information do you think Hillary Clinton is still getting? Having a clearance and having access to secure documents are two very different things.

 

That's not how the Russians have historically operated.

 

Oh? Please elaborate. How have the Russian historically operated, so you know that Putin didn't want to rub Hillary's nose in the election meddling?

Were you aware of this…?

 

Thru her extensive network if she wishes but I have no idea. The point was you said it was gone and they are in the process of reviewing that (DepState). She never needs to have clearance again.

 

If she's not getting access, your point is moot.

I actually don't have a problem with her clearance being revoked. I have much more problem with folks like Michael Flynn being allowed access to classified information, and that Trump and Pence let that happen.

 

Trump or Pence had nothing to do with his clearances. He certainly had some levels in the Army then via the Obama admin. They just let those ride which most would. He was lucky he didn't get caught sooner. Going to jail is an option for him.

 

It is the job of the transition to get clearances. When you change jobs, you need a new clearance. The one Flynn took as National Security Advisor required the kind of clearance that involves banking information. That wasn't checked. Had it been checked, the money paid by Russia and Turkey would have been known and he would't have ever gotten appointed. They don't just let those ride. That was the story, but it is incorrect. Pence is a liar. He also claimed he knew nothing about Flynn's issues, on camera, saying it was the first time he heard it. Then documents were released showing Elijah Cummings sent Pence a letter saying Flynn was a foreign agent for Turkey on November 18. Pence knew. He disregarded and lied.

Trump knew too. Obama told him right after the election. The NSA, FBI, and CIA chiefs told Trump the same thing. Even after he fired Flynn, Trump has said he wanted to hire him back.

There is a complete disregard for many matters of national security by the Trump administration. In comparison, the "buttery males," are insignificant.

 

No they don't just start over. No one is going to investigate back to HS again. IF he needed more sensitive clearance they MIGHT do something. Chances are no one would although I agree with you more THOROUGH vetting would have likely caught him.

That's egg on Trump for Flynn being a chump.

Do you feel the same way about Obama letting HRC have that server. He got email from it. I don't have an ax to grind against either as I hold Flynn and HRC guilty and responsible for their behaviour much more than the two Presidents.

Just don't be hypocritical esp when one is a much greater crime.

 

The Flynn think looks like another nothing burger.

McCabe's Revenge: Circa Suggests Flynn Investigation Was Launched As Pure Retaliation

In a stunning new report, Circa reveals why the Michael Flynn investigation may be nothing more than an act of retaliation orchestrated by Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe after Flynn personally supported an FBI agent that filed a sexual discrimination lawsuit against McCabe back in 2012.

Andrew McCabe has long been a controversial figure at the FBI. His position as Deputy Director of the FBI came under intense scrutiny during the Clinton email investigation after it came to light that his wife, Jill McCabe, took nearly $500,000 from Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe to fund her Senate campaign. Of course, Terry McAuliffe is a long-time confidant of the Clinton family and was rumored as a potential running mate for Hillary. "Dirty" McCabe was put in charge of supervising that particular investigation.

But now, McCabe may have other conflicts, including a personal vendetta against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, that have not yet been disclosed. According to Circa, Flynn apparently enraged McCabe a few years back after he intervened on behalf of an FBI Special Agent, Robyn Gritz, who had accused McCabe and other top FBI officials of sexual discrimination.

The FBI launched a criminal probe against former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn two years after the retired Army general roiled the bureau’s leadership by intervening on behalf of a decorated counterterrorism agent who accused now-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe and other top officials of sexual discrimination, according to documents and interviews.

Flynn’s intervention on behalf of Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was highly unusual, and included a letter in 2014 on his official Pentagon stationary, a public interview in 2015 supporting Gritz’s case and an offer to testify on her behalf. His offer put him as a hostile witness in a case against McCabe, who was soaring through the bureau’s leadership ranks.

The FBI sought to block Flynn’s support for the agent, asking a federal administrative law judge in May 2014 to keep Flynn and others from becoming a witness in her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case, memos obtained by Circa show. Two years later, the FBI opened its inquiry of Flynn.

The EEOC case, which is still pending, was serious enough to require McCabe to submit to a sworn statement to investigators, the documents show.

According to anonymous sources within the FBI (and you know how we feel about those...so take these comments with a heaping mound of salt), Circa notes that several field agents had witnessed McCabe make disparaging remarks about Flynn and one agent even became uncomfortable enough to consult an attorney after the Flynn investigation ramped up.

Three FBI employees told Circa they personally witnessed McCabe make disparaging remarks about Flynn before and during the time the retired Army general emerged as a figure in the Russia case.

The bureau employees, who spoke only on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said they did not know the reason for McCabe’s displeasure with Flynn, but that it made them uncomfortable as the Russia probe began to unfold and pressure built to investigate Flynn. One employee even consulted a private lawyer.

“As far as the troops in the field, the vast-majority were disgusted with the Russia decision, but that was McCabe driving the result that eventually led [former FBI Director James] Comey to make the decision,” said a senior federal law enforcement official, with direct knowledge of the investigation.

“The Flynn leaks were nothing short of political,” one FBI employee said, noting the specific contents of the conversation were known by only a handful of government officials when they leaked. “The leaks appeared to be targeted to take Flynn out.”

But would McCabe really launch an investigation out of retaliation? Well, it seems that his own testimony in the sexual discrimination lawsuit would suggest he did just that against Gritz.

But McCabe’s sworn statement offered evidence that actually supported Gritz’s claim of retaliation and discrimination, recounting a conversation on June 19, 2012 in which he authorized the OPR investigation of Gritz after one of his deputies told him Gritz was about to file an EEO complaint, his sworn statement shows.

“I first learned of the issues that led to Ms. Gritz’s current OPR investigation during a telephone call with Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) Jennifer Ley on June 19, 2012,” McCabe testified.

“I recalled that during the course of our conversation DAD Ley mentioned to me that Ms. Gritz had filed or intended to file an EEO complaint against her immediate supervisor.”

The very next day, the FBI initiated the OPR investigation of Gritz, according to evidence in the FBI’s official personnel files. FBI records support McCabe’s version of events, showing Gritz had contacted FBI EEO officials in mid-June before the OPR probe was initiated, then filed her formal complaint a few weeks later. The FBI ‘s official report of investigation on Gritz’s EEO complaint, which absolved the FBI of any discrimination, omitted any mention that McCabe had been aware of the EEO complaint before the bureau filed its OPR action against Gritz.

Clearly McCabe's reputation was on the line, so it's not terribly surprising that he would take offense to Flynn providing the following supportive comments in favor of Gritz:

“SSA Gritz was well-known, liked and respected in the military counter-terrorism community for her energy, commitment and professional capacity, and over the years worked in several interagency groups on counter-terrorism targeting initiatives,” Flynn wrote May 9, 2014.

At the time, Flynn was an Army lieutenant general and the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he put his letter on official agency stationary to be submitted in Gritz’s case.

As soon as Gritz revealed to the FBI that Flynn and other top federal figures had written letters to support her case and likely would be called as witnesses, the bureau dispatched a lawyer to try to block the evidence from being included in the EEO case, documents show.

In a brief interview this weekend, Gritz said she was mortified to think that her request to Flynn to help with her EEOC case in any way affected his relationship with the FBI or his current status as someone under investigation in the Russia case.

“Flynn was the first leader to defend me,” said Gritz. “He forwarded a letter to the FBI and I personally think that Comey did not receive it. McCabe knew Flynn and I were friends. I felt that from the beginning it was an issue.”

Maybe another recusal in order on the "Russian collusion" investigation?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...n-investigation-was-launched-pure-retaliation

 

It's about time Lynch gets in trouble. Because she a black, woman it's going to be hard to convict her on anything.

Obama and the Russians did nothing but try to get Hillary elected.
The Russians knew Trump would be tough to deal with, but Hillary can be bought and was by the Russians. No wonder Obama let them meddle.

 

I'm only pursuing this with you because I'm not sure we're talking and focusing about the same thing. I'll take responsibility and try again.

I'm not talking about the actual operation, or making any judgements about what could or couldn't be done from a rescue perspective. Let's put that aside. I'm talking about the aftermath. We had an attack resulting in a dead ambassador and 3 dead others. Something had to be reported to the American public. The question was what to communicate. We know from Hillary's discussion with the Egyptian PM that it was unequivocally a planned and orchestrated terrorist attack. This is fact and not in dispute. But instead the administration told to the American public repeatedly over several weeks that the attack was spontaneous and triggered by an Internet video. I don't know what to call that other than a cover-up -- major, minor or otherwise. Maybe you can attach a description that's more appropriate.

My overriding question is why, other than to protect Obama's political survival? You've indicated that the coverup/diversion was to protect undercover assets, but I honestly don't understand the logic. Obama announcing it was a planned terrorist attack that's being investigated vs. Obama announcing it was a spontaneous attack triggered by a video that's being investigated does not expose secret operations or undercover people in any way. None. However, if you believe so, please explain. I believe that If the operational landscape was truly as charged and sensitive as you suggest, the third (and most viable) option would have been to say the events around the attack are fluid and being investigated, with no comment until a future date. Making up a head scratching video story that was easily and quickly debunked made absolutely no sense.

Remember, prior to the attack, Obama's narrative to the public was that terrorism was mostly under control. At one point, he said “Today, al Qaeda is on the run and Osama bin Laden is dead.” It became one of his campaign themes to project strength and confidence. The last thing he needed two months before the election was for this narrative to implode and stain his foreign policy credentials. I don't believe it's a reach to conclude this played a big part in the Obama circle going with blaming an Internet video to help protect his reelection.

So if you don't mind, please elaborate on your comments. Lying to protect undercover assets is the piece that confuses me the most.

 

I think we need to do an investigation of all people here suspected of corruption: Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch, and Donald Trump. Lets investigate and learn the facts and decide who is guilty and who is innocent.