Its the Inspector Generals report you're not going to be very pleased with!
Spike Bull 's Link
Not like your opinion can make any difference compared to the FACTS......
Spike Bull 's Link
Spike Bull 's Link
And when it's Paul Z and his various personas then it's also a pathological LIAR.
Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe gets most the publicity these days, but another investigation involving the 2016 election is wrapping up soon and could be just as explosive.
For the last 12 months, the inspector general of the Department of Justice has been conducting a review of the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.
A final report on the investigation is expected within several months. But in the coming days, the Department of Justice is also expected to provide Congress with “many, many more” records related to the review, according to the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz' investigation is looking at a variety of allegations, including whether it was improper for former FBI Director James Comey to make a public announcement about not recommending prosecution over the email arrangement. (Associated Press)
“[The IG is] doing a thorough job that folks across the political spectrum will be interested in,” Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that has sued for Clinton’s emails, told Fox News.
The investigation is looking at a variety of allegations, including whether it was improper for former FBI Director James Comey to make a public announcement about not recommending prosecution over the email arrangement – he also faulted Clinton and her associates for being “extremely careless” with classified information.
Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz also is reviewing whether FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should have recused himself from the probe early because of his family’s ties to the Democratic Party. (He did not do so until a week before the election.)
Horowitz told lawmakers during a November congressional hearing that he is aiming to release the report in the “March, April time period.”
“We’re moving along quite expeditiously,” Horowitz told the House Oversight Committee.
The inspector general said his team has interviewed dozens of people and had reviewed about 1.2 million records in the course of its investigation.
The IG probe is also reviewing whether FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe should have recused himself from the probe because of his family’s ties to the Democratic Party. (Associated Press)
And Congress is gearing up to thumb through them.
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing last month, Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said the Justice Department has committed to turning over a large number of those records by Jan. 15.
'We’re moving along quite expeditiously.'
- Justice Department IG Michael Horowitz, on the Clinton email case review So far, other documents already turned over to the committee have made a big splash.
The inspector general’s review uncovered the anti-Trump texts from FBI official Peter Strzok, who called Trump an “idiot” and texted about an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.
Strzok had been assigned to Robert Mueller’s special counsel probe, but has since been reassigned.
The inspector general’s review uncovered the anti-Trump texts from FBI official Peter Strzok, who called Trump an “idiot” and texted about an “insurance policy” against a Trump presidency.
As the one-year anniversary of Horowitz' announcement of the review approaches, the inspector general says the classified information involved and necessary security clearances have slowed the process.
That announcement spelled out the scope of the probe. On Jan. 12, 2016, a release from Horowitz said the review would look into allegations that DOJ or FBI policies were not followed with Comey’s public announcement and letters to Congress about the Clinton probe.
Horowitz said his team would look at whether “certain underlying investigative decisions were based on improper considerations.”
Congressional Republicans have since raised questions about another aspect: Comey's team drafting a statement effectively clearing Clinton even before interviewing her and other key witnesses. It's unclear whether Horowitz will tackle this in his findings.
Horowitz, though, said he would look into allegations that McCabe should have been recused from the investigation. McCabe’s wife ran as a Democrat for a Virginia Senate seat in 2015, and she received donations from the super PAC of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally.
A recent story published by The Washington Post said McCabe plans to retire in several months after becoming eligible for benefits – which means it’s plausible he could leave the FBI before the review about him is released.
The review is also looking at whether the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for legislative affairs “improperly disclosed non-public information to the Clinton campaign” and should have been recused. That’s in reference to official Peter Kadzik, who had been an attorney in the past for Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
For the last 12 months, the inspector general of the Department of Justice has been conducting a review of the FBI and DOJ’s actions related to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server while serving as secretary of state. (Reuters)
Horowitz said the review is looking at whether any DOJ or FBI employees improperly disclosed non-public information.
It seems likely that the president and other conservatives will seize on the report after it’s released.
“The political compromise of the DOJ and FBI during the Obama administration needs to be confronted immediately,” Fitton said.
But Fitton also acknowledged that the report could be welcomed by Clinton – who has blamed Comey’s Oct. 28, 2016 letter telling Congress he had re-opened the email investigation for contributing significantly to her loss.
“Recall the focus of the investigation was what Comey was doing in respect to Hillary Clinton – did he do something inappropriate in releasing information about his investigation of her,” he said. “So it could be something that Hillary Clinton would be interested in.”
Alex Pappas is a politics reporter at FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexPappas.
It's about keeping Hillary's name in the news as a trigger for the rubes. Strictly pandering to his base and it makes it look like the alternative was even worse. The worse he gets, the worse she has to be.
the best thing you could ever do for yourself and fellow liberals is STFU, all you do is embarrass yourself and your fellow dweebs...
You cry a good game but we all know that you are just circling the wagons to prevent the collapse of your party by anyone actually enforcing the law!
Being out of power or politically unviable means nothing, justice for crimes coommitted against America and Americans means everything.
We are coming for ALL of the criminals and will be using Trump and/or anyone else neccessary.
There may be a need for an occasional special tribunal and special procedures to manage such matters. It may be rare but when you need it, you really need it.
Face it, the bitch is untouchable.
The FBI has been neutered.
WRT Hillary, yeah, "intent" shouldn't matter.... it surely wouldn't with any of us. I want those who intentionally destroyed and ORDERED the destruction of evidence convicted and sentenced. There is a pile of em. As well as anyone who obstructed the investigation, right up the ladder to Obama and his AG. That's just the e-mail BS.
The FBI/Justice mess...... having higher up internally running cover for the Clintons et al...... using phony "evidence" to open investigations on Trump and his campaign.... they need to be held accountable as well. Separate issues and events.... but clearly tied together by the same players.
I'm guessing you helped Hillary burn the evidence last week and are feeling confident.
"The FBI did a significant investigation, lead by a Republican who is also Conservative, Bill Comey."
Yeah, so significant that they wrote her exhoneration before they interviewed 17 key witnesses, (INCLUDING HER!) and then they never did even put her under oath when they did talk! That garauntees her immunity from ever being brought back in for something she said, as in what they did to Flynn! Yep, a significant investigation GARAUNTEED to make sure she got off!
Possibly even funnier is you calling Comey a CONSERVATIVE!!!! ROTFLMAO at you!
" I think the system works pretty well to have Congress, the DOJ, and FBI separate and checking each other's powers." It WOULD, if the Demons, the WH, and the FBI, DOJ, and IRS were not all weaponized against the American people by OBAMA!
They get a second chance now because Congress is looking askance at what the DOJ and the FBI did, they call it a re-investigation, though it is clearly the first time an ACTUAL investigation, run according to normal protocal is being done. Anyways, that IS what you asked for, the powers to watch each other, right?
" I think the system works pretty well to have Congress, the DOJ, and FBI separate and checking each other's powers."
NOPE! That is exactly what the commiEs want, though! WE want a system where the PTB apolitically apply their jurispradence equally across the board and report it completely and let the chips fall where they may no matter what the results. But that has not yet happened, not even close, and we will press on until it does!
That feeling you are remarking about stems from the fact that most of us have been watching this whole criminal project unfold from the very beginning and we have seen WAY more than enough to know what the outcome of a VERY REAL, VERY COMPLETE properly done investigation will really be because, unlike the left, we have had our eyes and ears OPEN from day one. You and the left refuse to see and understand the facts already available to you. More info, as from a thorough investigation will only dig a deeper hole for the Clinton/Obama Cartel.
EX: you have been erroneously led to believe that intent has anything to do with this case. WELL, it does NOT!! NO STANDARD OF INTENT IS NECESSARY TO BREAK THOSE LAWS. Look it up.
Spike Bull 's Link
And of course YOUR business didn't suffer, you're a lawyer. Try being in construction.....in a DEMOCRAT controlled state.
We are living in some scary times.
Ignorance of the law being no excuse and all that.
INTENT is not necessary in that charge according to a whole plethora of lawyers I have seen and read over the last year and she signed a statement saying she understood that she could not do those things, AND, Comey's words, changed from the original chargeable offense to a direct synonym for the charge!!
Go ahead and look at Trump, BUT DO NOT TRY TO STOP FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS INTO OBAMAS ADMINISTRATION OR COVER UP CRIMINAL,TREASONOUS ACTS BY OBAMA, CLINTON, THE HEADS OF THE DOJ, AND THE FBI WITH THE "RUSSIA" DISTRACTION!!!
bad karma's Link
bad karma's Link
The mens rea is knowingly or willfully, but I think knowingly comes from the decision to use her own server. Knowing how sensitive the information would be, it's hard to understand why one would do this. I have plenty of friends who have had high level security clearances, and not one would ever think this was proper. Several people here have had high level security clearances, and will undoubtedly agree with that statement. I don't care who she is, Hillary has significant legal exposure on this issue. Frankly, she's gotten a free pass because of who she is, not what she did. The prosecutors here would have charged Mother Theresa for these crimes.
.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information 18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information
A federal prosecutor would naturally focus first on the most serious allegations: willfully transmitting or willfully retaining Top Secret and Compartmented (TS/SCI) material using a private server system. The individual who transmits and the individual who receives and retains TS/SCI information on a private server jointly share the culpability for risking the compromise and exploitation of the information by hostile intelligence services. The prosecutor’s charging document would likely include felony counts under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and under 18 U.S. Code § 798 against each transmitting individual as well as separate counts against each receiving and retaining individual. Violation of either provision of the U.S. Code cited above is a felony with a maximum prison term of ten years.
The prohibited conduct is the insecure transmission of highly classified information, as well as the receipt and retention of highly classified information in an unapproved manner. The requisite mens rea is the willful commission of the prohibited conduct and the knowledge that compromised information could result in prejudice or injury to the United States or advantage to any foreign nation. Proof of intent to disclose the classified information is not required.
2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
If the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and an accused person has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 793 and 18 U.S. Code § 798 may be “pled-down” to a single or to multiple misdemeanor counts under 18 U.S. Code § 1924. A misdemeanor conviction would probably result in a period of probation and a less significant fine. The prohibited conduct is the unauthorized removal of classified information from government control or its retention in an unauthorized location. The mens rea required is the intent to remove from government control or the intent to store the classified information in an unauthorized location.
3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
To sustain a charge under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b), a federal prosecutor need only prove that the accused transferred and held the only copies of official government records (whether classified or not), the very existence of which was concealed from government records custodians. The mens rea required is that an accused knows that official government records were transferred or removed from the control of government records custodians. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) is a felony with a maximum prison term of three years.
4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records
Again, if the federal prosecutors are of a charitable disposition and accused has been cooperative, the felony charges under 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) can be “pled down” to a misdemeanor under 18 U.S. Code § 641. The prohibited conduct is the conversion of official records (whether classified or not) to the accused’s exclusive use and the mens rea is simply the intent to do so. Conviction on the lesser misdemeanor charge would likely result in a period of probation and the imposition of a fine.
5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
If it can be proven that an accused destroyed, withheld, or concealed the existence of official records being sought under subpoena by a committee of Congress, the accused can be convicted of obstruction under 18 U.S. Code § 1505. The prohibited conduct includes destruction, concealment and withholding of documents, thereby impeding or obstructing the committee’s rightful pursuit of information. The mens rea is knowledge of the committee’s interest in obtaining the official records in the accused’s custody or control. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1505 is a felony with a maximum prison term of five years.
6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations
If it can be proven that an accused knowingly concealed the existence of official records being sought by the Department of State Inspector General (DOS/IG) or by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), such accused can be convicted of obstruction. The prohibited conduct is the concealment and withholding of documents that impede or obstruct an investigation. The mens rea is the intent to conceal or withhold. Violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1519 is a felony with a maximum prison term of twenty years.
7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States 18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television 18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud” 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States
If it can be proven that an accused arranged for the Department of State to hire an Information Technology (IT) specialist to primarily administer and maintain a private server system owned by the accused, then the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and probably wire fraud. The prohibited conduct is having the United States pay an employee salary and/or official travel funds for performing private services on behalf of accused. The mens rea is simply the knowledge of the employee’s status as a public servant and that the government was not fully reimbursed for the costs to the government of such services. The wire fraud conviction can be sought if it can be proven that accused used electronic means of communication in undertaking such scheme or artifice to defraud.
8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense
If any accused and any third party can be proven to have colluded in any violation of federal, criminal law, then all involved can be charged with criminal conspiracy as well as being charged with the underlying offense.
The old adage, that a good prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted, is bad news for any public servant who risks the compromise of classified information or otherwise violates any of the other federal criminal statutes listed above. Specifically, this Administration has a history of vigorously prosecuting and winning convictions in the mishandling of classified information and other criminal violations of the public trust.
However, Hillary Clinton is anything but a ham sandwich; and she knows it. She and her senior aides will not even be formally investigated by this Justice Department, much less indicted. The president will allow Hillary Clinton and her aides to “tough it out” for as long it is politically possible. However, if and when the political and public opinion costs of a “tough it out” tactic become too great, President Obama will simply use that famous pen of his to issue a succinct pardon and make formal mockery of the concept of equal justice.
Kenneth Bergquist served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the United States Department of Justice during the Reagan Administration and serves now as pro bono legal counsel to the Special Operations Education Fund (OPSEC).
Spike Bull 's Link
She is guilty of felonies, as described by Comey in his own statement about why he would not indict her!!
Enough is enough, if the criminal criteria is met, the evidence is there, charge, prosecute via trail of your peers and put them away period. Otherwise if its not there quit wasting everyone's time and the taxpayers money. (See option 1 above). Move on.
2. Nav: I have seen the article on dailycaller that you posted that from. Here is the entire code for just 1 law mentioned. Please note the language related to intent-there is plenty in each of the Statutes if you read them related to intent in this case. Now, Bad Karma and I could argue the next 24 months as attorneys if that is true, but I can assure you, there is a legitimate argument to be made both ways. Bad: step in if you agree/disagree. It's not quite the cut and dry issue most of you guys think it is. And back to my original point, which is, we need to be skeptical and critical of our elected officials, but we have people who work hard to hold people (especially from the "other party" accountable). 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information US Code (a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or (b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or (c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or (d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or (e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or (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, (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. (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. (h) (1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States, irrespective of any provision of State law, any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, from any foreign government, or any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, as the result of such violation. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. (2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection. (3) The provisions of subsections (b), (c), and (e) through (p) of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853(b), (c), and (e)–(p)) shall apply to— (A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection; (B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and (C) any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property, if not inconsistent with this subsection. (4) Notwithstanding section 524(c) of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law. (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.)
1. Thanks Spike for the cite, and yes, I have read it. Along with concluding I am mentally ill are you going to threaten to beat me up now that we don't agree on something?
Please show us CF rubes where Spike threatened to beat you up.
Meanwhile, back at the Clinton Foundation fondering...
(Note: internal links at link)
A new Department of Justice probe of the email and charity fraud scandals won't end well for Bill or Hillary...
Until recently, the Clinton Foundation has been monitored by the IRS, the Department of Justice, and the FBI, and multiple state government authorities that are seeded with persons loyal to either the Clintons or the Obamas.
But now it appears key authorities may finally be turning strict attention toward answering tough questions about public filings of Clinton “charities” inside and outside the United States. When these powerful organizations engage motivated minds, they will wish to concentrate on a few areas that have long gone begging for attention.
The first time the Clinton Foundation was investigated, between 2001 and 2005, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, then-Deputy Attorney General James Comey, and others could not seem to find obvious and escalating frauds as a supposed presidential library complex in Little Rock, Arkansas, also “fought HIV/AIDS internationally” from unregistered offices in New York and Massachusetts without ever obtaining required audits of worldwide activities.
Strangely, as the first investigation wound down, evidence in the public domain suggests that the Clinton Foundation also defrauded the National Archivist by making demonstrably false representations in a binding legal agreement.
For example, there is no evidence the IRS provided final approval to the Clinton Foundation to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally” as a tax-exempt purpose by Nov. 18, 2004, the date the presidential archive was officially donated.
That Nov. 18, 2004, agreement is nowhere to be found today on the Clinton Foundation website and in public filings despite the charity’s more than 13 years of widespread solicitation across state and national boundaries using telephones, mail, and the internet.
The next major investigation started in December 2009 when the French government launched a detailed look into UNITAID, a multilateral international organization — primarily funded by France — that has sent more than $650 million to arms of the Clinton Foundation engaged, at least in theory, in fighting HIV and AIDS.
Reports concerning this investigation, written in French and published in 2010 and 2011, show that French government authorities, like their U.S. counterparts, missed the heart of the problem posed by the Clinton Foundation.
The foundation, by its own description, started soliciting funding for its fight against HIV and AIDS early in 2002, though its authorized charitable status didn’t change until March 2004, after the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was officially recognized on March 24, 2004, in Arkansas.
Applications made to the IRS, to various states and to foreign governments for tax exemption and solicitation rights to pursue this radically different mission, are not available on the central portal operated by the Clinton Foundation, nor forthcoming, yet, from the governments concerned.
Federal tax filings for this entity for the partial year in 2004 and for 2005 aren’t available on the Clinton Foundation website, perhaps because they show substantial activities that seem to fall far outside tax-exempt purposes approved by the IRS.
In addition, these and other tax filings fail to explain payments to members of the Clinton family for services received and for reimbursement of expenses by donors to the Clinton Foundation.
Even though there is no public record that the Clinton Foundation ever was authorized to control a supposed charity “fighting HIV/AIDS internationally,” the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Inc. was supposedly liquidated as of Dec. 31, 2005, with all of its worldwide activities and obligations supposedly taken over by the parent foundation. There is no evidence in the public domain that the merger was lawfully completed in each U.S. state and foreign country in which either entity operated.
From 2006 through 2009, the Clinton Foundation solicited funds and received a majority of its growing revenues, in theory, to fight HIV and AIDS internationally. Required audits were not prepared to strict U.S. requirements.
Moreover, versions of these audits on the Clinton Foundation website exclude key “combining” statements that show for 2007 through 2009 just how substantial HIV- and AIDS-specific financial amounts are compared to the combined total. The Clinton Foundation attempted to reorganize in 2009, but available public filings could place multiple individuals in significant jeopardy.
For example, claims made to the IRS in applications for federal tax exemption on Form 1023, under penalties of perjury, are false and materially misleading concerning numerous entities created after Sept. 4, 2009, to carry on unauthorized activities in which the Clinton Foundation had been engaged starting in 2002.
To get to the heart of the vexing problems that allowed the largest unprosecuted charity frauds ever attempted to flourish from January 2001 forward, one must ask many questions of central figures in federal, state and foreign governments.
How did Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, while U.S. attorney in Maryland, miss the fact that the Clinton Foundation was promoting use of potentially adulterated HIV and AIDS drugs from October 2003 forward, even as he took until May 2013 to help win a $500 million set of penalties against the Indian manufacturer of the generic drugs?
Why was an African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?
How did Rosenstein miss obvious errors in the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 (originally submitted in 2011 with amended versions submitted in 2015) concerning a $37.1 million donation to the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund at a P.O. Box address in Baltimore, Maryland, that was never declared, as required, in key states like New York?
Why did Rosenstein (and many other officials, including New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman), fail to require Laureate Education and the Clinton Foundation to explain how they organized the “Clinton Global Initiative University” and why the Clinton Foundation tax filings for 2010 through 2016 don’t explain what Bill Clinton did for the $17.6 million he was paid as part-time chancellor while he held key roles at the Clinton Foundation?
Former Congresswoman Corrine Brown, a Florida Democrat, reports to jail for a five-year term in federal prison following her conviction of being part of an $800,000 charity fraud. Why was this African-American selected for prosecution during her re-election campaign in 2016 when Hillary Clinton was left unscathed despite the many years of questionable charitable activities by the Clinton Foundation?
Former presidents in either the Democratic or Republican parties are not above the law. Now it’s up to President Donald Trump to make this fact abundantly clear.
2. Annony: I'm a business man first, but you're probably correct on your assessment. Here's the bottom line. Some of you guys are convinced a deep state exists and there is no fairness for rich people or elites or especially the Clintons (would you say the same about the Trumps?). I believe there are good people in Washington who have the nations best interest at heart and do the right thing, or at least try to do the right thing. Evidence of that is the investigations of Clinton and Trump. Not that I am naive enough to think any of us would be treated with the kid-gloves these high-level politicians are. But if they cross the line far enough, I think they end up with consequences eventually. But I also think our job as American's is to keep a critical eye on them and have these discussions. I don't think I'm going to change BS CF minds on that-it's interesting that most people see the evidence in a way that backs up their own position. But that's another thread.
So instead of manning up and admitting you lied about your insinuation about Spike threatening to beat you up, you chose to double up on your blathering insincerity ie lies. You have chosen to take the path of a fraud and a lying capon and will be treated as such.
the Clintons are crooked as any mafia run cartel ... this Clinton Cash documentary is straight to the point and outlines much of their illegal dealings ..
Of course in the liberal mind...the ways justify the means. Abuse of power- oh its for our own good. Free speech is great....unless you are speaking against their philosophy.
They still don't get that this is exactly why Trump was elected...he is an outsider cleaning the swamp protecting the American people from abuse of power...our 'System' has been seriously compromised.....some swamp cleaning is necessary.
EXACTLY! Why's this so hard for some to grasp???
Good Lord, here we go with the “you lied” garbage again. How about you man up and show us where he said Spike was going to beat him up.
You might want to google the term “rhetorical question” first.
Annony Mouse's Link
Huma Abedin Backed Up Classified Emails to Anthony Weiner's Computer, Despite Telling the FBI She Had Not Done So
Lock 'em up.
EXCLUSIVE: Huma Abedin backed up her emails to Anthony Weiner's laptop after leaving the State Department – even though she said on oath and to FBI agents that she did no such thing
An examination of emails released by the State Department shows that backup copies were created in the dates after Clinton left the State Department in 2013
The messages were archived from 'BBB Backup' and 'LoaderBackup' from a BlackBerry Bold 9700
The FBI discovered the emails on Anthony Weiner's laptop after it was seized just weeks before the 2016 election
At least five messages released this week were marked 'Classified' which included discussions on Israel and other Middle Eastern issues from 2010 - 2012
Huma Abedin had told FBI that she did not have a method of preserving the emails she exchanged on a private server with her boss
She also claimed to have lost most of them as a result of the transition from the State Department - which she left on January 20, 2013
By Alana Goodman For Dailymail.com
PUBLISHED: 10:42 EST
Huma Abedin backed up copies of her emails with Hillary Clinton to her pervert husband Anthony Weiner's laptop, DailyMail.com can disclose - conflicting with her account to the FBI and in court that she did not preserve the conversations.
An examination by DailyMail.com of emails released by the State Department shows that backup copies of many of Abedin's work-related messages with Clinton were created in the dates after Clinton left the State Department in early 2013.
The emails, released at the end of December, show that they had been put on Weiner's laptop by a BlackBerry archiving program.
A tech expert told Dailymail.com that Abedin would have to have activated the backup program and may well have plugged her device into the laptop - raising further questions over her testimony to the FBI.
Like Clinton, she was cleared by then FBI director James Comey in the wake of the investigation into the former Secretary of State and her staff's handling of classified material.
Kallstrom also went on to call the Clinton Foundation a “criminal conspiracy” and “giant slush fund.”