Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta
WASHINGTON — Tony Podesta and the Podesta Group are now the subjects of a federal investigation being led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News.
The probe of Podesta and his Democratic-leaning lobbying firm grew out of Mueller's inquiry into the finances of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, according to the sources. As special counsel, Mueller has been tasked with investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Manafort had organized a public relations campaign for a non-profit called the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine (ECMU). Podesta's company was one of many firms that worked on the campaign, which promoted Ukraine's image in the West.
The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort's role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.
Under FARA, people who lobby on behalf of foreign governments, leaders or political parties must file detailed disclosures about their spending and activities with the Justice Department. Willful failure to file the forms is a felony and can result in up to five years in prison, though such prosecutions are rare.
The Podesta Group filed a FARA registration for its work with ECMU only after the payments were reported by the media. Manafort's firm also filed a FARA registration after media reports in June disclosed its work in Ukraine from 2012 through 2014.
The ECMU was reportedly backed by the Party of Regions, the pro-Russian and oligarch-funded Ukrainian political party for which Manafort worked as a consultant, and which paid his firm millions. Viktor Yanukovych of the Party of Regions, a Manafort client, was president of Ukraine during the ECMU campaign, which ran from 2012 to 2014. He fled the country in 2014.
Tony Podesta is the chairman of the Podesta Group and the brother of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign chairman. John Podesta is not currently affiliated with the Podesta Group and is not part of Mueller's investigation.
In a statement, a spokesman for the Podesta Group said the firm "is cooperating fully with the Special Counsel's office and has taken every possible step to provide documentation that confirms timely compliance. In all of our client engagements, the Podesta Group conducts due diligence and consults with appropriate legal experts to ensure compliance with disclosure regulations at all times — and we did so in this case."
A spokesperson for Mueller's office declined to comment.
In late August, NBC News reported that Special Counsel Mueller's team sent subpoenas to six firms who were involved in public relations lobbying for ECMU.
The subpoenas sought testimony from public relations executives who worked on the campaign organized by Manafort, people directly familiar with the matter told NBC News.
One source with knowledge of the investigation said that federal investigators have now met with several former staffers of the various firms involved in the ECMU campaign.
Mueller's team is closely examining the lobbying campaign, which ran between 2012 and 2014. Six firms participated in the public relations effort that Manafort coordinated, paid for by the Brussels-based ECMU. The stated goal was to build support for Ukraine's entry into the European Union, the same source said.
Two of the firms, Podesta Group and Mercury LLC, worked in Washington with Manafort partner Rick Gates, according to lobbying disclosure records. Three other firms worked in Europe, the executive said. NBC News could not confirm the identity of those three.
Manafort, whose Alexandria, Virginia, apartment was raided by FBI agents in July, has emerged as a key figure in the Mueller probe. The inquiry into the lobbying campaign appears to be part of a larger investigation into his work for the Party of Regions, his offshore banking transactions, his tax compliance and his real estate dealings, people familiar with the probe have told NBC News.
The Associated Press first revealed the pro-Ukraine lobbying campaign in August 2016, while Manafort was still running the Trump campaign. Manafort left the campaign within days.
The report said the ECMU campaign was designed to sway public opinion and included attempts to solicit favorable press coverage in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
Falls into the category of 'Be careful what you wish for'.........Wonder where it will end up?
Democrat leaning, hmmmm, Where is the outrage? We don't need no stinkin investigation after all there is nothing to find, seems I remember those ramblings. There was plenty of angst for all the failed investigations the right ran during Obama's term. It would be interesting if Muellers leads are solid and actually sweep the dirt out the door, right or left.
I don't think you are gonna see any progressives show up on this one
Umm........maybe because he is Democrat leaning and not the chairman of a Presidential campaign that's why!....context does matter!
I want the investigation to uncover any wrongdoing and collusion wherever it may lead, I don't care if some Democrats with dirt on their hands get caught up in it, I only care about the bad actors being uncovered and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That's what real Americans want, they don't care about which party gets caught up in it. I wish more Republicans felt this way but they are too busy trying to impugn Mueller's motives so they can deny any findings that prove Trump or his campaign team are actually criminals working for a foreign government. On the face of the evidence so far one can infer that both Flynn and Manafort are in some deep doo-doo after it being revealed that both were working as foreign lobbyists, a fact they apparently withheld intentionally. Manafort seems to have financially benefitted to the tune of $60 million from a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch and Flynn was actually still under contract working for the Turkish government when he went to the white house as national security advisor. Could you imagine how conservative Republicans would have reacted if that was true of a Democrat appointee? They lost their minds over Hillary's private email server even though nothing nefarious has been found, if they'd actually had proof she was working for a foreign government they would have stormed congress demanding her arrest. But now that the shoe is on the other foot they're quiet as Church mice. Talk about a hypocritical double standard.
Let the investigation go where it needs to, as so many Republicans have said before when it comes to privacy, who cares if your calls and emails are intercepted if you've got nothing to hide, right?
I rather doubt that most conservatives know that John Podesta and Tony Podesta are different people, they hear "Podesta" and just assume it must be the same persona tied to Hillary's campaign. Of course when it's Eric Trump meeting with Russian operatives trying to barter for dirt on Hillary it's all on the up and up, and even if it isn't Donald Trump isn't implicated at all, it's all someone else's fault with no fault coming to rest at the Presidents feet. They are still waiting like dogs at the edge of the table for their table scraps the President promised them so they heel and beg like the lap dogs they've become with nary a bad word to say about their master. It's much like the relationship Trump has with his master Putin, waiting for the table scraps from the mobster oligarch cabal Putin runs which is why Trump has never publically said a negative thing about Putin.
Works for me.
They gave Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech to the Moscow investors and in return they got UraniumOne, while Hillary was playing Secretary of State... Russian Reset Button and all that nonsense.
Funny that the only evidence on the table indicates complicity in bribery and intent to obstruct Congress in their attempt to get information about the Russian, our uranium and our election - is tied directly to Obama, the Klintons, Comey, Lynch and Holder.....but after a year investigating Trump with nothing to show for it Mueller is still playing partisan politics.
Almost as funny is the complete disconnect between the liberal minions and the real world facts........but the Gruber plainly said that he and Barry were depending on the stupidity of the liberal voters.
Guess they were counting on that win! Not sure why the digressive left is so upset HilLIARy LOST!!
Rusnano USA Inc., a Kremlin-owned venture capital firm, oversaw the Russian government’s investment in the now-doomed company. Rusnano has also been called “Putin’s child” by quite a few.
Dmitry Akhanov, the president and CEO of Rusnano USA Inc., sat on Joule Unlimited’s board (along with two other Russians who have ties to the Kremlin) and agreed that Clinton’s loss is what has doomed the company.
The two other board members with ties to Moscow were Ruben Vardanyan, who Putin appointed to a Russian economic modernization council, and Anatoly Chubais, a close personal friend of former President Bill Clinton and economic advisor to former Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Chubais allegedly made millions in the sell-off and “privatization” of Russia’s state-owned industries.
Hillary’s loss of the 2016 presidential election meant Podesta would not serve in the White House and thus was not in a position to advance the company’s prospects.
The Obama administration became a big “hedge fund” trying to finance and promote renewable energy technologies at any cost. “The whole entire eight years under Obama, the Department of Energy was basically a hedge fund — and a bad one — for renewable energy for wind, solar and biofuels,”
https://steadfastandloyal.com/fail/russia-linked-podesta-company-doomed-after-failed-hillary-campaign/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email
Not only did Rusnano close its doors, but so did the Clinton Foundation...and how many other companies??? There is no pay to play in the Trump white house!!
Funny thing about independent counsel investigations - you never know where they are going to go. It could start with a "whitewater" investigation and end up with a blue dress. We knew we were going in a new direction as soon as the leaks ended.
"three sources with knowledge of the matter told NBC News."
Nothing gets leaked that Mueller doesn't want leaked.
This is a " Lookie here everybody.... I'm being fair & balanced "
Meanwhile, every lawyer / investigator he hired has ties to Clinton & 0bamba
I have no idea where Mueller is going with this. Seems a collusion investigation has turned into "fry them at any cost, no matter how far you have to dig and what branch charges for participants you have to file". A year and a half of digging and still not enough? Or do they HAVE enough and smell blood and want to do a full execution?
Don't we have enough fish to fry without dragging this out till the 2020 election? (And no I didn't mean 2018. Seems this "gang of 18" likes the security afforded them in their jobs since they know it won't stop until SOMETHING, ANYTHING is charged to calm the anti Trumpers.)
I don't think there is a self serving ulterior motive, I expect that if the dirty money trail implicates others they will follow its lead. We simply have no way of knowing what if anything or the magnitude of malfeasance has been uncovered.
People who think that Trump hasn't committed financial crimes are comical.
Please inform Robert Mueller, Washington D.C.
Care to comment on the article itself, John?
LOCK HER UP!!
Obama wiretapped Trump Tower!
.....you were saying?
It will come out.
H. did / does not have a Halo - agreed LOCK HER UP was over the top .. yet she was not innocent of sending classified info through her private email 'server' [not to be confused with private email 'account'] the FBI could not 'prove' her intent in sending said email ... she was not found innocent.
Former President Obama did not personally wiretap Trump Tower ... yet his administration was/did.
Actually what he said was that what she did not account to any criminal activity.... that still didn't stop you all from screaming LOCK HER UP!
No it wasn't! Where are you getting this crap from! The Justice Department let out a report last month that there is absolutely no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped! So once again.....you were saying?
Were are you all getting this from?!
You do realize when they use the name of the President they are talking about his administration right?
Thanks for the link ...
Think we already know that Trump was not personally being listened to (or so we are told, I am not in the alphabet agencies so have to take their word for it) .......... wiretap is a term that has now been defined and redefined ... yet digital surveillance never seems to be mentioned regarding this...
NO way to argue whether or not's ... it is known that information was being gathered on Manafort and his connections to the Ukraine and Russia while he had a residence in Trump Towers. a bit naive to think that nothing was happening - in my opinion
Wiretap out - digital surveillance in .... who knows!
Actually that's exactly what he said!
Yeah there is a BIG difference he clearly stated that she did violate some policies but did not intentionally break any laws
Really care to name a few high profile ones?
And not breaking a law is no grounds to scream LOCK HER UP either
She violated the negligence clause of the Espionage Act of 1917, which does not require any intent to be prosecuted for. That was clearly laid out by Comey. So, yes, she committed an actual crime, but was given a nudge, nudge, wink, wink by the Obama Administration through Comey.
If those tax returns see the light of day, we would be seeing a perp walk of the millennium.
Why would you think that someone that didn't even try to hide the fact that he had a business model that supported ripping off small business and contractors at every opportunity suddenly deals above board? Do you also think leopards change their spots?
That list could become long!
I missed this lil jab the first time through - I realize quite a bit ... and ....................................
NO actually I do not think that is the case regarding this subject .. I have chatted with enough individuals online and in person that feel the current President was actually saying that it was former President Obama that wiretapped Trump Tower - that Obama order'd it... that is why I made the statement that I did...
[I presume] that you realize quite a few things as well, so I will not insult your intelligence by questioning what it is that you realize .. A'ight?
Really? Maybe you should read the Espionage Act of 1917, there is one particular word that shoots out in every paragraph explaining it.....I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with INTENT!
Suuurrreee she did!
But negligence of that act isn't considered a violation or criminal offense, that act clearly says INTENT has to be there in order for it to be violated.
Think that is where the Attorney General came in play perhaps? Whatever the conversation with Bill on the tarmac was - things got kicked into action quickly .. and 'intent' became the magic word! That is why I shake my head at this Russian collusion investigation that has branched out in multiple witch hunts [Mueller is very thorough] - gonna be interesting reading the investigative report when it is published 'prob' after the 2020 election : ) ... HA!
Newsflash he said no criminal intent...now in order for a crime to be committed you have to have a law that was violated.....what law did she violate?
Really? How about the Espionage Act of 1917? Or you never heard of the term mens rea? As a matter of fact intent is required for MOST statutes! Only laws that are vaguely written or specifically doesn't mention mens rea are exempt!
No, I asked a question requesting information, I made no such admission
"That's the point. She DID break the law."
And....what law would that be again?
He also STILL did not admit to her breaking a law.....or did you miss the part about him stating no reasonable prosecutor would take this to court!
But you said
So basically you're trying to defend a baseless accusation that Trump made by playing semantics or playing 'let's explain what Trump meant!'
Either way it goes back to my first comment replying to the post of
Now where's your evidence?
Dude! That doesn't apply! Read it again it clearly states
Clinton was fully authorized to use a private email and server per the Federal Records Act, the law was amended AFTER Clinton left office, not to mention NARA gave her authorization to delete any email that she deemed personal
That is 100% false.
I can't believe this is even necessary, but start with what her own Department's IG reported:
I went back and read the thread and my first comment was in response to lock her up and wiretapping in your post .. not sure how you got to 'explaining what Trump meant' out of the comments I made - guess I am not expressing myself clearly enough.
I really have nothing for you, it was my bad for engaging you - it will not happen again.
He won't read it but maybe he'll see the tagline:
"The State Department's independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton's email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the "security risks in doing so."
Read the following, particularly the first sentence, from Title 18 found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798:
The term “classified information” means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms “code,” “cipher,” and “cryptographic system” include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings of communications;
The term “foreign government” includes in its meaning any person or persons acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of any faction, party, department, agency, bureau, or military force of or within a foreign country, or for or on behalf of any government or any person or persons purporting to act as a government within a foreign country, whether or not such government is recognized by the United States;
The term “communication intelligence” means all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipients;
The term “unauthorized person” means any person who, or agency which, is not authorized to receive information of the categories set forth in subsection (a) of this section, by the President, or by the head of a department or agency of the United States Government which is expressly designated by the President to engage in communication intelligence activities for the United States.
It's called "Mens rea" and yes, it means state of mind or intent....Can't convict without it...
Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as "mens rea," which is simply Latin for a "guilty mind." In other words, what a defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was committed . Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime.
You were saying?
In case you didn't see it posted in a comment below:
"(f)
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
You were saying ???
Negligence.... Intent is not required
Well lookie here:
"(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
WTF does that even mean ???.... Is that a legal term or does it mean
Reasonably Corrupt maybe ????
More Comey mumbo-jumbo
""Mens rea" and yes, it means state of mind or intent....Can't convict without it...
More like,
Quod licet Jovi, non licet bovi: "What is permitted to the Clintons is not permitted to us peons."
Or more accurately put "Guilty Mind" Someone has to know they are committing a crime before they can be found guilty of it....
But it is not written in cement either, there are a whole plethora of crimes that do not require a "Guilty Mind" to commit. Of which the espionage act is but one....
It's permitted to everyone, just because you don't like the Clintons doesn't mean they get away with more.
And most of them are crimes against minors...Espionage is included with Mens Rea...you have to purposely commit espionage to be convicted of it...hence "Mens Rea"
Unless of course you can show me where it doesn't. I will gladly yield to your findings.
And I'm still saying....Gross negligence hasn't been shown as the documents were classified AFTER they were recovered from her computer, and the second chapter is with intent.
You have nothing.
How many times do you need to read it ????
"(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
"The State Department's independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton's email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the "security risks in doing so."
“Seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters and receiving emails about those same matters,” Comey said.
Comey: Classified Clinton emails forwarded to Anthony Weiner
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey added.
“In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as secret by the U.S. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email. That is excluding any later upclassified emails,” Comey said, referring to emails that were later deemed classified after they were sent or received.
“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning, because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail,” he said.
You asked for it....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As secretary of state, she was a person "Entrusted" with secret information....
Which means that it is section (f)(1)that applies to her and (f)(2) and (g) to her subordinates.
(f)(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
The fact that the information was removed from it's secure place and was lost stolen abstracted and destroyed on a server that she used every day. many of which were emails that she herself directly sent...
The fact that the crime was committed is a given....
The question is did she have any intent, we we look at the statute to see if intent is required, first we see that if clear intent is established we need go no further, in cases where clear intent is not established, all it takes is a reason to believe that the crime was being committed.
Secretary of State? discussing state secrets? In email? Reason to believe is plain. The law clearly says that all government communications should be through Government hardware and systems no outside systems are permitted. I know this cause I worked in the White House communications office Hillary would have had this explained to her in DETAIL before she took office. (and has been repeated ad nauseum from all sides of this debate so I won't go into the specifics, the Email server was an illegal server and no one debates that although the Clinton side attempts to excuse it)
So we are left with Gross Negligence because that is the level of crime delineated in the law so what constitutes Gross Negligence.... And does Gross Negligence require an intent?
Negligence; failure to take proper care in doing something.
Gross Negligence: the "lack of slight diligence or care" or "a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party.
Setting up the server in contravention to law was an act of gross negligence in and of itself it was also a conscious, voluntary act, despite her being aware of the laws and rules against such...
Negligence only requires a lack of care, the GROSS application is where the lack of care is so serious a breach of standards or law to to the point where it should have been obvious the dangerous risks involved.
It does not require intent.
It requires a "Should have known" And, as the Secretary of State, she (and her whole staff) was instructed in the proper policies, laws and requirements of government communications and ignored them...
That is the definition of Gross Negligence as envisioned in the statute itself....
And the statute itself does not require intent, just a reason to believe, and anyone participating, even if they didn't know they were participating is just as guilty... Remember they were all trained and had this explained to them in the beginning before they even took office.... (remember those sections (f)(2) & (g)?
(f) Whoever , being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
Anyone involved in that email server from using it to setting it up should be in prison....
Intent is not required...
Another thing to note, this was added to the Espionage statute in 1948 during the Truman Administration, it was modified during the Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton Administrations (three times during the Clinton admin.)
That what all this gobbledy gook at the end of the statute means...
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736; Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 18, 64 Stat. 1003; Pub. L. 99–399, title XIII, § 1306(a), Aug. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 898; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 103–359, title VIII, § 804(b)(1), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3440; Pub. L. 104–294, title VI, § 607(b), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3511.)
He's as blind as he can be, just sees what he wants to see......
And it's not what you or I posted.
"It's permitted to everyone, just because you don't like the Clintons doesn't mean they get away with more."
Tell that to a sailor that is doing time for taking a selfie on a submarine. It was determined the control panel partially seen in the background was classified ( at the lowest level of classification )
He tried pleading the Clinton Intent Defense and the judge would have none of that.
And yet the actual word "Intent" is peppered all over the statute....but funny how it was not included in the highlights? Did you think that because you didn't bold them they don't exist?
Sorry you had to C&P all that to be told ....Intent=Mens Rea
Gotta show intent to convict.
You want to continue to make this personal??
Mike is right, your willingly blind.
The only other option is you do not have a clue about what your talking about.....
I would suggest you look up the legal definition of "OR" and how it is used in a statute or legal decision. After that, you might have a clue...
No, you don't. It is harder to convict a person without showing intent, but it can be done. Just do a quick internet search for "Convictions of involuntary manslaughter". Heck, first thing I get are DUI and shaken baby syndrome cases that resulted in convictions for involuntary manslaughter. In none of those cases did the people convicted ever have the intent of killing the victims. In most shaken baby cases, the person was just trying to get the baby to quiet down. In DUIs, a person is not intending to run people over or crash into another vehicle, they do so because they do not have the reflexes needed to avoid such things.
Here I'll do it for you...
The Legal definition of "OR"
Which means as illustrated in the example above, both parties can individually transfer title to the car if the word "OR" is used in creating the title.
In a statute the word "OR" has the same effect. in the questioned statute, Specific intent is covered directly, then they use the word "OR" to convey another circumstance where violation can occur and be legally perfected without any intent at all.....
What your doing by claiming that they require specific intent, is throwing out half the written law. (and actually the operative part of the law in this case)
Since the law covers specific intent AND other types of causal impropriety, which each type of impropriety stands on their own by use of the word "OR" directly in the statute to illustrate the comprehensiveness of what they are trying to regulate.
Any reading of the statute in question clearly shows that specific intent is not needed or necessary to a successful prosecution in the extant case.
Essentially they are making it very easy to bring charges of espionage cause that is something they really do not like. Not maintaining security of national secrets is something particularly despised....
You need to take some courses in the law before you go into interpreting statutes.
WE wouldn't want you to appear foolish now.
Another excellent example...!
They should be easy for you to point out....
I see two and they both say "with intent or reason to believe"
And Comey said :
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey added.
“In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as secret by the U.S. intelligence community at the time it was discussed on email. That is excluding any later upclassified emails,” Comey said, referring to emails that were later deemed classified after they were sent or received.
“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning, because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail,” he said.
Was Hillary's server in a SCIF ??? ..NO
Was Hillary's Best Buy Blackberry a SCIF ??.... NO
Was Carlos Danger and Huma-Bug's Family laptop a SCIF ??... NO
Did Platte River have a SCIF, approved by the State Department ??.... NO
At this stage Mike, I would say,
CASE CLOSED !
That's why it's called "Involuntary" apples to oranges.
The original statement which I responded to was:
"When you've finished that, come back and show me ANY statute that REQUIRES INTENT for prosecution other than first degree murder."
Mike, I do not understand what this is about. Can you clarify.
First, Mueller wasn't appointed until May 2017 so the investigation has only been going for 5 months. Second, Republicans spent more than 2 years investigating Hillary and they still came up with nada, yet all the conservatives want to spout is "Lock her up!". Talk about a hypocritical double standard.
The FBI recovered thousands of the supposedly "deleted" emails and didn't find any to have been intentionally deleted to hide anything. The staffers who deleted the emails had received the directive a month before congress subpoenaed the emails and the emails requested were specifically work related emails of which only a handful were discovered among the thousands of personal emails her team had every right to delete. So yes, she was careless to allow those handful of emails to get processed through her private server, but the FBI found no intentional cover up and found nothing in the thousands of recovered emails that would be "damning evidence" of any nefarious acts as has been assumed by conservative Republicans. They also found no evidence that her private server had been hacked which can't be said of the actual State Department servers that were actively hacked by the Russians.
The congressional subpoena was for "work emails" only. It did not cover personal emails which is why Hillarys attorneys filtered out the personal emails and were deleting them as anyone might do of their personal email archive. Yes, a handful of work emails were found among the personal emails and the FBI concluded that the Secretary was "careless" in allowing that to happen, but after reviewing the emails found no attempts by either Hillary or her staff to intentionally hide or delete anything.
So the long and short is, her staff had every right at the direction of the attorneys to delete the 32,946 emails but were "careless" in their inclusion of the handful of work emails which should have been turned over based on the subpoena. After review, none of those emails were found to have either been hacked, contained nefarious or "damning" evidence of any wrongdoing, and weren't intentionally withheld. The attempt to paint this as something more is purely an exercise in partisan politics as Republicans searched for ANYTHING they could find to destroy Hillary's campaign for President because they already hated her and had long before they ever learned about a private email server. They had convicted her of wrongdoing in their minds long before they had any evidence of her apparent "carelessness". This attempt to convict her on the subpoena issue is grasping at straws.
Ummmmmm no. He has only been on that long. The preliminary work (covertly or not) had been going on since the previous July.
Apples and spare tires my friend. No one died as a result of ANY collusion that may be found (Don't hold your breath. I don't know you but I would hate to hear of your demise) within or around the Trump campaign.
Your own quote simply points out the FBI investigating Russia attempting to manipulate our elections, it said nothing about Mueller's direct investigation of the Trump campaign and it's possible collusion with the Russians, though obviously they do go hand in hand considering you can't have one without the other. The authorization to investigate specific campaign members has only been since May of 2017, the job of protecting our government from foreign adversaries is an ongoing job of the FBI which has been in operation since 1908.
Two years of partisan investigations found that Hillary could not have prevented any of the deaths in Benghazi. The investigations were dropped when it finally came out that Congress was actually responsible for authorizing funding for State Department security which they had been attempting to cut even when the recommendations from Secretary Clinton were to increase funding and bolster security.
Key words.............
Fact remains, death involved should justify two years. No death involved, nothing to report even with the leaks stopped (wonder why? Perhaps NOTHING to leak?) and POSSOBLE collusion........Just what would that even mean? Only the fact that perhaps the campaign KNEW and ENCOURAGED the Russian hacking of the DNC which is a no win. Or maybe that the American people were so gullible as to have their mind changed on whom they were voting for because of some posts on social media? (Eerily sounds like "a movie caused the attack in Benghazi) Our very own campaign advertising does the same thing. Bunch of out of context bullshit used to try and sway votes. I don't think any Hillary voter changed their minds except for the Berniebots who MAY have voted for her but then got pissed when they found out that the fix was in against him from the start.
I'm not sure what the problem is here.
A Democratic lobbying firm run by Tony Podesta, the brother of John Podesta, is being investigated by Mueller because of that firms ties to a project they worked on with Manafort.
So far all I see is that this shows that Mueller's investigation is proving to be non-partisan and that he is faithfully carrying out his mandate to look into Russian interference in our elections no mater where, (or how high up), it leads.
What is the big "Got Ya" point of this story that's giving some of our more right leaning folk their erections?
There is no big gotcha, the investigation is going a direction that no one here ever imagined, based on past responses on this site and on the part of some of the more ardent posters. Might ponder that instead of other people's phallic status.
If this is kept up, everyone in congress will be under investigation for one thing or another.
Could be.
When Mueller Starts hitting the Big Boys and Girls in Congress, it will be stopped though.
Our Governor in New York did that to a 'commission to root out political crime'......it was great until it started pointing to the house he lived in, he then scrapped the commission......
Jeez! You and those damn facts!
All roads lead back to Crooked Hillary.
Yeah, gotta love those 6 degrees of separation you got going there!
You wrote roads and I think it more appropriate to be finger pointing.
She never had a finger pointed at her she didn't deserve.
I hope Mueller takes down every single corrupt politician on both sides of the aisle. Can we all agree on that?
yeah, starting with the asshole in the Oval Office.
Trump will be there 8 years, get over it
I don't think so.
He'll be lucky if he completes the first term.
the whole criminal justice is a joke. A prosecutor can charge a ham sandwich. They over charge to get there guy even if they are innocent. Thats waist and abuse of taxpayer money but nothing ever done
The DOJ, FBI, ATF and IRS are the mafia like criminal enforcers for statist Government to control the citizens
defintley agree strok if the definition of biased. a prosecutor with 99 percent conviction rate is same Saddam Hussein and a 99 percent election. They overcharge even if your innocent to bankrupt you
where is the bar association they should be disbarring lawyers. most people in Manaford case get 1 1/2 he facing 300 years. this is mis justice and if the dosia proven to be a fraud Manaford case gets thrown out because thats were it stem from. Fruit of the poisonous tree