"The Deep State" aka the American Intelligence Community

[old salt]

Show me ONE complaint from you or Old Salt about the FBI looking into any prominent Dem.

There's an entire thread on Hunter. FBI has been on him for 6 years.

Where are your complaints?

Where are your accusations that it was the "Trump FBI" that started that investigation? And that that makes them biased.

Complaints about Giuliani "working with the FBI" to gin up information on him?

Complaints about the FBI opening up an investigation in the first place, as you and Durham have with Trump.

Complaints that they "Tricked Hunter" into getting interviewed.

Not one of the moronic fake complaints you both had when they were going after TrumpyPants.

It's all so transparently stupid, and you both know it.

You didn't say Sh*t. Neither did Old Salt. And you've had SIX YEARS to even PRETEND to care, or tell us that the FBI is corrupt.

Why? Because you two want to get an indictment. You trust the FBI more than you ever have. Just so long as they go after someone that doesn't have a R by their name. And when they get that indictment on Hunter, neither of you are self aware enough to demand an investigation into the FBI agents who investigated Hunter, checking for "bias" or text messages showing the they, like everyone else, think that Hunter is an idiot.

No complaints about the FBI investigating Manafort or Hunter, because irrefutable evidence was provided against them.

Giuliani didn't gin up the evidence that got the FBI to investigate Hunter. The computer shop guy turned the laptop over to the FBI months before he contacted Giuliani. Nobody needed to tip off the IRS that Hunter didn't pay his taxes, or to examine all his LLC's or investigate all the SAR's submitted by his banks. He got thrown out of Navy training for a failed drug test, all on his own (ignoring Beau's warning). He & Beau's widow stiffed a local private school in my town that made the local papers. His gun turned up in a dumpster. He denied paternity & tried to stiff his baby mama on child support. Nobody needed to trick Hunter -- he left a slime trial that was there for anyone who bothered to look. Yet he lives in the WH, dodging process servers, attending state dinners, still riding AF1 around the world on family vacations. Compare that to the scrutiny & media uproar about Javanka for their security clearances & WH access, for which they both had FBI background investigations.

Compare the FARA scrutiny of Hunter to Manafort or Flynn.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/23/hunter-bi ... s-experts/

Pick a better whatabout dodge/victim than Hunter.

[old salt]

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-pre ... y-origins/

I remember when an Inspector General commanded respect…..oh well….most folks have forgotten this….

Weak diversion. A Special Prosecutor has a broader scope & a wider reach than an IG.

Durham corroborated the DoJ IG report & was able to dig further, because he could also investigate the Intel Agencies & access intel (foreign & domestic) not available to the DoJ IG.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.acslaw.org/projects/the-pre ... y-origins/

I remember when an Inspector General commanded respect…..oh well….most folks have forgotten this….

Weak diversion. A Special Prosecutor has a broader scope & a wider reach than an IG.

Durham corroborated the DoJ IG report & was able to dig further, because he could also investigate the Intel Agencies & access intel (foreign & domestic) not available to the DoJ IG.

Un huh.

[a fan]

No complaints about the FBI investigating Manafort

Then you've changed your tune. Manafort is Trump's campaign manager, not just some random guy who lives in Cleveland.

So naturally, the FBI looked into the Trump Campaign, and Manafort is an enormous reason why.

There. I just saved you 7 years of complaining, pretending you just can't figure out why the FBI looked into thIs. OF COURSE they did. And were sidetracked by all the stupid lying TeamTrump did....leading to multiple felony convictions for lying and wasting everyone's time.

Poof. There goes your Deep State.

Giuliani didn't gin up the evidence that got the FBI to investigate Hunter. The computer shop guy turned the laptop over to the FBI months before he contacted Giuliani.

We don't know why the FBI started an investigation into Hunter, remember? And naturally, you don't care why they fired it up. Because unlike with little R's, it never once occurred to you that you don't know why.

Nobody needed to tip off the IRS that Hunter didn't pay his taxes

That's the IRS. Not the FBI.

Pick a better whatabout dodge/victim than Hunter.

You can't keep your nonsense straight.

I'm not the one who claims to believe the FBI is corrupt, and that it has nothing to do with partisanship. That's YOU.

I'm the guy who believes the FBI is doing its job, freaking OF COURSE they investigated TeamTrump and Hunter Freaking Biden.

YOU are on the hook for explaining why you think an investigation that yielded MULTIPLE FELONY CONVICTIONS was invalid, yet a six year long
investigation into Hunter is perfectly fine, even when you can't tell me why the FBI investigated him.

I trust the FBI, and understand why they went after Hunter and TeamTrump. You DON'T, remember?

[a fan]

Thanks for admitting HRC started this entire debacle

Nope. If HRC started a debacle, and it was a farce...how'd the DoJ get multiple felony convictions?

If Hunter is convicted, are you gonna (snicker) complain that that proves the FBI shouldn't have investigated him? Or does this bassackwards logic only work with Republican convictions?

Sure Trump met with a russian that supposedly had dirt on HRC

Told you that you didn't care. This is incredibly dangerous, my man. Don't get how you don't see this.

but hey, look at the mess your party created, you should be thrilled your party made our gov't bigger.....you happy?

You're the one who's been telling me that you don't care about spending, don't understand interest on debt, and don't care the government keeps getting bigger.

A bit low brow trying to accuse me of running. There are times to speak and times to be silent.

Yes. That' why we argue about this stuff. You speak when Dems are in power, or they do something you don't like. And are silent when your team is in power, and does the same stuff (like spending) you pretend to care about elsewhere.

TO your point, I no longer need to fuss about Hunter, Ill leave that and score-boarding to you ....I emphatically stated years ago, that nothing would come of HRC's claim of Trump Collusion, nothing would come of HRC's server, and now nothing will come of Hunter.

Yes. This is the R's and D's game....where you're convinced that the FBI, that was and is loaded with R appointees, is in the bag for the Dems. Evidence and party affiliation notwithstanding.

And ask any Dem if Comey screwed Hillary, costing her the election, with how he handled the server mess. But you dismiss that, naturally, because you think that only you and the R's are allowed to have conspiracy theories about the FBI. It's straight up nuts.

My entire point, is this place is filled with people that claimed Trump and Putin where boys and Trump and our gov't had the goods.

That wasn't me. You don't get to tar me with that brush. I told you and OS BEFORE Mueller was reported that not only did I not see any direct evidence of Russian collusion, but that I couldn't see Mueller coming up with it. And shocker, I was right.

Your best friend, Adam Schiff was certain Trump committed election crimes....and now the crow just came out of the oven and you don't like eating it.

So now I'm responsible for what he says because......why? No crow for me, sorry. This is the lovely benefit of thinking for myself, and not letting little D's and R's color my thinking. If you think about it, you'll remember me hitting lefties like Maddow for allowing Trump to take their shows into the trash can with their speculative nonsense. Again, no crow for me.

We all know Trump was incompetent

Apparently not, because you think the FBI was wrong to look into their nonstop lies. You're convinced that they HAD to be corrupt, and the fact that an entirely different Department, the DoJ found multiple members of TeamTrump guilty of lying.....is a footnote.

If you REALLY thought Trump and his people were incompetent, you wouldn't have spent even five minutes blaming the FBI for looking into their shenanigans. Who the F names a campaign manager that just got done working for Putin in Eastern freaking Europe!!!!!!!!!!!????

And we ALL wonder why the majority of our population distrusts everyone now.

I've told you why: Dems give Dems leaders a pass, and R voters give R leaders a pass. THAT is why we don't trust people: you partisans don't believe in holding their team accountable.

I, on the other hand, know perfectly well why the FBI would look into both Hunter AND TeamTrump. And I'm glad they did it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Thanks for admitting HRC started this entire debacle

Nope. If HRC started a debacle, and it was a farce...how'd the DoJ get multiple felony convictions?

If Hunter is convicted, are you gonna (snicker) complain that that proves the FBI shouldn't have investigated him? Or does this bassackwards logic only work with Republican convictions?

Sure Trump met with a russian that supposedly had dirt on HRC

Told you that you didn't care. This is incredibly dangerous, my man. Don't get how you don't see this.

but hey, look at the mess your party created, you should be thrilled your party made our gov't bigger.....you happy?

You're the one who's been telling me that you don't care about spending, don't understand interest on debt, and don't care the government keeps getting bigger.

A bit low brow trying to accuse me of running. There are times to speak and times to be silent.

Yes. That' why we argue about this stuff. You speak when Dems are in power, or they do something you don't like. And are silent when your team is in power, and does the same stuff (like spending) you pretend to care about elsewhere.

TO your point, I no longer need to fuss about Hunter, Ill leave that and score-boarding to you ....I emphatically stated years ago, that nothing would come of HRC's claim of Trump Collusion, nothing would come of HRC's server, and now nothing will come of Hunter.

Yes. This is the R's and D's game....where you're convinced that the FBI, that was and is loaded with R appointees, is in the bag for the Dems. Evidence and party affiliation notwithstanding.

And ask any Dem if Comey screwed Hillary, costing her the election, with how he handled the server mess. But you dismiss that, naturally, because you think that only you and the R's are allowed to have conspiracy theories about the FBI. It's straight up nuts.

My entire point, is this place is filled with people that claimed Trump and Putin where boys and Trump and our gov't had the goods.

That wasn't me. You don't get to tar me with that brush. I told you and OS BEFORE Mueller was reported that not only did I not see any direct evidence of Russian collusion, but that I couldn't see Mueller coming up with it. And shocker, I was right.

Your best friend, Adam Schiff was certain Trump committed election crimes....and now the crow just came out of the oven and you don't like eating it.

So now I'm responsible for what he says because......why? No crow for me, sorry. This is the lovely benefit of thinking for myself, and not letting little D's and R's color my thinking. If you think about it, you'll remember me hitting lefties like Maddow for allowing Trump to take their shows into the trash can with their speculative nonsense. Again, no crow for me.

We all know Trump was incompetent

Apparently not, because you think the FBI was wrong to look into their nonstop lies. You're convinced that they HAD to be corrupt, and the fact that an entirely different Department, the DoJ found multiple members of TeamTrump guilty of lying.....is a footnote.

If you REALLY thought Trump and his people were incompetent, you wouldn't have spent even five minutes blaming the FBI for looking into their shenanigans. Who the F names a campaign manager that just got done working for Putin in Eastern freaking Europe!!!!!!!!!!!????

And we ALL wonder why the majority of our population distrusts everyone now.

I've told you why: Dems give Dems leaders a pass, and R voters give R leaders a pass. THAT is why we don't trust people: you partisans don't believe in holding their team accountable.

I, on the other hand, know perfectly well why the FBI would look into both Hunter AND TeamTrump. And I'm glad they did it.

These educated folk seem to believe that you only open an investigation when you know you will find enough evidence to get a “guilty” verdict.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Thanks for admitting HRC started this entire debacle

Nope. If HRC started a debacle, and it was a farce...how'd the DoJ get multiple felony convictions?

If Hunter is convicted, are you gonna (snicker) complain that that proves the FBI shouldn't have investigated him? Or does this bassackwards logic only work with Republican convictions?

Sure Trump met with a russian that supposedly had dirt on HRC

Told you that you didn't care. This is incredibly dangerous, my man. Don't get how you don't see this.

but hey, look at the mess your party created, you should be thrilled your party made our gov't bigger.....you happy?

You're the one who's been telling me that you don't care about spending, don't understand interest on debt, and don't care the government keeps getting bigger.

A bit low brow trying to accuse me of running. There are times to speak and times to be silent.

Yes. That' why we argue about this stuff. You speak when Dems are in power, or they do something you don't like. And are silent when your team is in power, and does the same stuff (like spending) you pretend to care about elsewhere.

TO your point, I no longer need to fuss about Hunter, Ill leave that and score-boarding to you ....I emphatically stated years ago, that nothing would come of HRC's claim of Trump Collusion, nothing would come of HRC's server, and now nothing will come of Hunter.

Yes. This is the R's and D's game....where you're convinced that the FBI, that was and is loaded with R appointees, is in the bag for the Dems. Evidence and party affiliation notwithstanding.

And ask any Dem if Comey screwed Hillary, costing her the election, with how he handled the server mess. But you dismiss that, naturally, because you think that only you and the R's are allowed to have conspiracy theories about the FBI. It's straight up nuts.

My entire point, is this place is filled with people that claimed Trump and Putin where boys and Trump and our gov't had the goods.

That wasn't me. You don't get to tar me with that brush. I told you and OS BEFORE Mueller was reported that not only did I not see any direct evidence of Russian collusion, but that I couldn't see Mueller coming up with it. And shocker, I was right.

Your best friend, Adam Schiff was certain Trump committed election crimes....and now the crow just came out of the oven and you don't like eating it.

So now I'm responsible for what he says because......why? No crow for me, sorry. This is the lovely benefit of thinking for myself, and not letting little D's and R's color my thinking. If you think about it, you'll remember me hitting lefties like Maddow for allowing Trump to take their shows into the trash can with their speculative nonsense. Again, no crow for me.

We all know Trump was incompetent

Apparently not, because you think the FBI was wrong to look into their nonstop lies. You're convinced that they HAD to be corrupt, and the fact that an entirely different Department, the DoJ found multiple members of TeamTrump guilty of lying.....is a footnote.

If you REALLY thought Trump and his people were incompetent, you wouldn't have spent even five minutes blaming the FBI for looking into their shenanigans. Who the F names a campaign manager that just got done working for Putin in Eastern freaking Europe!!!!!!!!!!!????

And we ALL wonder why the majority of our population distrusts everyone now.

I've told you why: Dems give Dems leaders a pass, and R voters give R leaders a pass. THAT is why we don't trust people: you partisans don't believe in holding their team accountable.

I, on the other hand, know perfectly well why the FBI would look into both Hunter AND TeamTrump. And I'm glad they did it.

If anyone was hurt by an over zealous FBI, it was in fact Hillary Clinton….don’t see Old Salt or Young Salt whining about it.

[old salt]

No complaints about the FBI investigating Manafort

Then you've changed your tune. Manafort is Trump's campaign manager, not just some random guy who lives in Cleveland.

So naturally, the FBI looked into the Trump Campaign, and Manafort is an enormous reason why.

There. I just saved you 7 years of complaining, pretending you just can't figure out why the FBI looked into thIs. OF COURSE they did. And were sidetracked by all the stupid lying TeamTrump did....leading to multiple felony convictions for lying and wasting everyone's time.

Poof. There goes your Deep State.

Giuliani didn't gin up the evidence that got the FBI to investigate Hunter. The computer shop guy turned the laptop over to the FBI months before he contacted Giuliani.

We don't know why the FBI started an investigation into Hunter, remember? And naturally, you don't care why they fired it up. Because unlike with little R's, it never once occurred to you that you don't know why.

Nobody needed to tip off the IRS that Hunter didn't pay his taxes

That's the IRS. Not the FBI.

Pick a better whatabout dodge/victim than Hunter.

You can't keep your nonsense straight.

I'm not the one who claims to believe the FBI is corrupt, and that it has nothing to do with partisanship. That's YOU.

I'm the guy who believes the FBI is doing its job, freaking OF COURSE they investigated TeamTrump and Hunter Freaking Biden.

YOU are on the hook for explaining why you think an investigation that yielded MULTIPLE FELONY CONVICTIONS was invalid, yet a six year long
investigation into Hunter is perfectly fine, even when you can't tell me why the FBI investigated him.

I trust the FBI, and understand why they went after Hunter and TeamTrump. You DON'T, remember?

A Special Prosecutor just produced a 300 page report about who the FBI went after & why. You'd do well to consider it.

I never questioned what happened to Manafort. He was guilty of financial crimes before he joined the Trump campaign.

What felony convictions were for actions taken during or after the campaign ? Process crimes -- like Flynn's perjury trap, Stone lying to Congress, or Papadop getting the dates wrong -- none of which would have taken place had they not been pursued because Crossfire Hurricane was launched without checking out Papadop's wine bar gossip, because of confirmation bias of the Clinton campaign's Russian collusion disinformation op.

The FBI, in total, isn't corrupt. A few partisans, in high positions in the FBI, abused the power of their positions for political purposes.
Durham cites numerous officials within the FBI who questioned what was going on, threw up red flags, & tried to stop the runaway train.

I gave you a list of likely reasons why Hunter nay be under investigation. The DoJ has not yet told us that he is being investigated & why.
The IRS can do referrals to the FBI.

[MDlaxfan76]

Good lord, this is SO ridiculous.

[Typical Lax Dad]

No complaints about the FBI investigating Manafort

Then you've changed your tune. Manafort is Trump's campaign manager, not just some random guy who lives in Cleveland.

So naturally, the FBI looked into the Trump Campaign, and Manafort is an enormous reason why.

There. I just saved you 7 years of complaining, pretending you just can't figure out why the FBI looked into thIs. OF COURSE they did. And were sidetracked by all the stupid lying TeamTrump did....leading to multiple felony convictions for lying and wasting everyone's time.

Poof. There goes your Deep State.

Giuliani didn't gin up the evidence that got the FBI to investigate Hunter. The computer shop guy turned the laptop over to the FBI months before he contacted Giuliani.

We don't know why the FBI started an investigation into Hunter, remember? And naturally, you don't care why they fired it up. Because unlike with little R's, it never once occurred to you that you don't know why.

Nobody needed to tip off the IRS that Hunter didn't pay his taxes

That's the IRS. Not the FBI.

Pick a better whatabout dodge/victim than Hunter.

You can't keep your nonsense straight.

I'm not the one who claims to believe the FBI is corrupt, and that it has nothing to do with partisanship. That's YOU.

I'm the guy who believes the FBI is doing its job, freaking OF COURSE they investigated TeamTrump and Hunter Freaking Biden.

YOU are on the hook for explaining why you think an investigation that yielded MULTIPLE FELONY CONVICTIONS was invalid, yet a six year long
investigation into Hunter is perfectly fine, even when you can't tell me why the FBI investigated him.

I trust the FBI, and understand why they went after Hunter and TeamTrump. You DON'T, remember?

A Special Prosecutor just produced a 300 page report about who the FBI went after & why. You'd do well to consider it.

I never questioned what happened to Manafort. He was guilty of financial crimes before he joined the Trump campaign.

What felony convictions were for actions taken during or after the campaign ? Process crimes -- like Flynn's perjury trap, Stone lying to Congress, or Papadop getting the dates wrong -- none of which would have taken place had they not been pursued because Crossfire Hurricane was launched without checking out Papadop's wine bar gossip, because of confirmation bias of the Clinton campaign's Russian collusion disinformation op.

The FBI, in total, isn't corrupt. A few partisans, in high positions in the FBI, abused the power of their positions for political purposes.
Durham cites numerous officials within the FBI who questioned what was going on, threw up red flags, & tried to stop the runaway train.

I gave you a list of likely reasons why Hunter nay be under investigation. The DoJ has not yet told us that he is being investigated & why.
The IRS can do referrals to the FBI.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/1 ... s-00097060

[old salt]

If anyone was hurt by an over zealous FBI, it was in fact Hillary Clinton….don’t see Old Salt or Young Salt whining about it.

...after giving her months to destroy the evidence, she had one softball FBI interview before Comey publicly exonerated her, then mishandled delaying exposing Weiner's weiner until after the election.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/c ... ing-there/

Hillary Clinton’s Mind-Boggling FBI Interview – What Was Cheryl Mills Doing There?
Share

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, September 2, 2016

...the FBI-302 report of the interview of Hillary Clinton, along with the other notes of investigation released today, make for mind boggling reading. Most bracing is the fact that Mrs. Clinton had her server wiped clean sometime between March 25 and 31, 2015, only three weeks after the New York Times on March 3 broke the story of the server system’s existence. ...at the same time the Democrats’ Janus-faced presidential nominee was outwardly taking the position that she “want[ed] the public to see my email,” she was having her minions frantically purge her emails behind the scenes.

...this was five months before she feigned ignorance when Fox News’s Ed Henry pressed her on whether she’d “tried to wipe the entire server … so there could be no email – no personal, no official.” Henry finally asked, “Did you wipe the server?” Famously, Clinton scoffed, “Like with a cloth or something?” But we now know, as the FBI notes recount, she had the server purged with a sophisticated software program, BleachBit, which eventually made it extraordinarily difficult for the FBI to recover her emails, several thousand of which were successfully destroyed.

And remember: We’ve just learned that 30 emails related to Benghazi were on the server Clinton purged – emails that she never turned over to the State Department despite claiming repeatedly that she’d surrendered all of her government-related emails. I would thus note that the March 2015 purge right after public revelation of the server’s existence occurred long after Mrs. Clinton was well aware of several official government investigations of the Benghazi massacre – one by the State Department, several by Congress, and a judicial proceeding involving the one defendant who has been indicted for the terrorist attack. There were also, quite obviously, several relevant Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigations. From what I’ve been able to glean so far, it is not clear from the FBI’s notes (and it was certainly not clear from Director James Comey’s press conference and House testimony) whether any consideration was given to indicting Mrs. Clinton for obstruction of justice and of government investigations – and if not, why not.

Among the most eye-popping claims Clinton made to the FBI was that she was unfamiliar with the markings on classified documents. Yes, you read that correctly: one of the highest ranking national security officials in the United States government – an official whose day-to-day responsibilities extensively involved classified information; who had secure facilities installed in her two homes (in addition to her office) so she could review classified information in them; and who acknowledged to the FBI that, as secretary of state, she was designated by the president as “an Original Classification Authority,” meaning she had the power to determine what information should be classified and at what level – had the audacity to tell the interviewing agents that she did not know what the different classification symbols in classified documents signified.

For example, when asked about an email chain containing the symbol “(C)” – meaning “confidential,” a designation ubiquitous in classified documents – Clinton claimed not to know what it meant and, according to the notes, “could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.” This is a response so absurd as to be insulting (the interview notes do not tell us if the FBI asked her to find (A), (B) and (D) notations that would be necessary to have the “alphabetical order” story make sense – assuming, for argument’s sake that one would indulge the possibility that this could be a truthful answer from a classified information consumer as high-level as Clinton).

Mind you, Mrs. Clinton was not just secretary of state for four years. She was a United States senator for eight years, during nearly all of which she was assigned to the Senate Armed Services Committee (and such Armed Services components as the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities). Reviewing classified information, including highly sensitive national defense secrets, is a routine part of that committee’s work.

Clinton also claimed that she “did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information.” The interview notes do not explain how the FBI squared this with, for example, (a) Clinton’s acknowledgement that top-secret “special access program” (SAP) information was delivered to her by paper in her office and she knew it was supposed to be handled with extraordinary care; and (b) Clinton’s admission that she made use of her Original Classification Authority at times (though she couldn’t say how often). That means she had to have assigned to some information the very classification levels with which she portrays herself as scarcely familiar.

We also learn in the FBI documents not only that Mrs. Clinton frequently lost her Blackberry devices, but that the FBI failed to account for some thirteen of them, most if not all of which she used while transmitting the over 2,000 classified emails the FBI identified.

Clinton aides told the FBI that her devices – loaded with stored emails – would at times disappear and their whereabouts would become unknown. Interestingly, in the notes of Mrs. Clinton’s interview, the FBI says she told them that her BlackBerry devices would occasionally “malfunction”; when this happened, “[h]er aides would assist in obtaining a new BlackBerry.” I have not yet found indications that the FBI asked her about lost rather than malfunctioning devices.

We do learn, though, that on February 9, 2016, the Justice Department asked Clinton’s lawyers to turn over all 13 mobile devices that the FBI identified as having potentially transmitted emails. Almost two weeks later, on February 22, the lawyers told the FBI “they were unable to locate any of these devices.” As a result, the notes recount, “the FBI was unable to acquire or forensically examine any of these 13 mobile devices.”

Finally, something else about those lawyers. I nearly fell out of my chair upon reading the very first paragraph of the notes of Clinton’s interview, which identifies the lawyers for Clinton who were permitted to be present for the interview. Among them is Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s longtime confidant and chief-of-staff at the State Department.

I suggested back in May that “the fix” was in in the investigation of the Clinton emails. The reason was that the Justice Department was allowing Cheryl Mills – a witness, if not a subject, of the investigation – to invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in order to thwart the FBI’s attempt to inquire into the procedure used to produce Clinton’s emails to the State Department. Mills was a participant in that procedure – and it is the procedure in which, we now know, well over 30,000 emails were attempted to be destroyed, including several thousand that contained government-related business.

When she worked for Clinton at State, Mills was not acting in the capacity of a lawyer – not for then-Secretary Clinton and not for the State Department. Moreover, as Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Mills was intimately involved in issues related to Clinton’s private email set up, the discussions about getting her a secure BlackBerry similar to President Obama’s, and questions that were raised (including in FOIA requests) about Clinton’s communications.

That is to say, Mills was an actor in the facts that were under criminal investigation by the FBI. Put aside that she was not Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer while working for the State Department; as I explained in the May column, Mills, after leaving the State Department, was barred by ethical rules from acting as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer “in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee.”

There is no way Mills should have been permitted to participate as a lawyer in the process of producing Clinton’s emails to the State Department nearly two years after they’d both left. I thought it was astonishing that the Justice Department indulged her attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI’s ability to question her on a key aspect of the investigation. But it is simply unbelievable to find her turning up at Mrs. Clinton’s interview – participating in the capacity of a lawyer under circumstances where Clinton was being investigated over matters in which Mills participated as a non-lawyer government official.

According to the FBI’s report, Mrs. Clinton had four other attorneys (one whose name is deleted from the report for some reason) representing her at the interview. She clearly did not need another lawyer. And it is Criminal Investigations 101 that law enforcement never interviews witnesses together – the point is to learn the truth, not provide witnesses/suspects with an opportunity to keep their story straight, which undermines the search for truth.

Why on earth was Cheryl Mills permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Good lord, this is SO ridiculous.

Can’t rule out brain lesions.

[Typical Lax Dad]

If anyone was hurt by an over zealous FBI, it was in fact Hillary Clinton….don’t see Old Salt or Young Salt whining about it.

...after giving her months to destroy the evidence, she had one softball FBI interview before Comey publicly exonerated her, then mishandled delaying exposing Weiner's weiner until after the election.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/c ... ing-there/

Hillary Clinton’s Mind-Boggling FBI Interview – What Was Cheryl Mills Doing There?
Share

By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY, September 2, 2016

...the FBI-302 report of the interview of Hillary Clinton, along with the other notes of investigation released today, make for mind boggling reading. Most bracing is the fact that Mrs. Clinton had her server wiped clean sometime between March 25 and 31, 2015, only three weeks after the New York Times on March 3 broke the story of the server system’s existence. ...at the same time the Democrats’ Janus-faced presidential nominee was outwardly taking the position that she “want[ed] the public to see my email,” she was having her minions frantically purge her emails behind the scenes.

...this was five months before she feigned ignorance when Fox News’s Ed Henry pressed her on whether she’d “tried to wipe the entire server … so there could be no email – no personal, no official.” Henry finally asked, “Did you wipe the server?” Famously, Clinton scoffed, “Like with a cloth or something?” But we now know, as the FBI notes recount, she had the server purged with a sophisticated software program, BleachBit, which eventually made it extraordinarily difficult for the FBI to recover her emails, several thousand of which were successfully destroyed.

And remember: We’ve just learned that 30 emails related to Benghazi were on the server Clinton purged – emails that she never turned over to the State Department despite claiming repeatedly that she’d surrendered all of her government-related emails. I would thus note that the March 2015 purge right after public revelation of the server’s existence occurred long after Mrs. Clinton was well aware of several official government investigations of the Benghazi massacre – one by the State Department, several by Congress, and a judicial proceeding involving the one defendant who has been indicted for the terrorist attack. There were also, quite obviously, several relevant Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigations. From what I’ve been able to glean so far, it is not clear from the FBI’s notes (and it was certainly not clear from Director James Comey’s press conference and House testimony) whether any consideration was given to indicting Mrs. Clinton for obstruction of justice and of government investigations – and if not, why not.

Among the most eye-popping claims Clinton made to the FBI was that she was unfamiliar with the markings on classified documents. Yes, you read that correctly: one of the highest ranking national security officials in the United States government – an official whose day-to-day responsibilities extensively involved classified information; who had secure facilities installed in her two homes (in addition to her office) so she could review classified information in them; and who acknowledged to the FBI that, as secretary of state, she was designated by the president as “an Original Classification Authority,” meaning she had the power to determine what information should be classified and at what level – had the audacity to tell the interviewing agents that she did not know what the different classification symbols in classified documents signified.

For example, when asked about an email chain containing the symbol “(C)” – meaning “confidential,” a designation ubiquitous in classified documents – Clinton claimed not to know what it meant and, according to the notes, “could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.” This is a response so absurd as to be insulting (the interview notes do not tell us if the FBI asked her to find (A), (B) and (D) notations that would be necessary to have the “alphabetical order” story make sense – assuming, for argument’s sake that one would indulge the possibility that this could be a truthful answer from a classified information consumer as high-level as Clinton).

Mind you, Mrs. Clinton was not just secretary of state for four years. She was a United States senator for eight years, during nearly all of which she was assigned to the Senate Armed Services Committee (and such Armed Services components as the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities). Reviewing classified information, including highly sensitive national defense secrets, is a routine part of that committee’s work.

Clinton also claimed that she “did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information.” The interview notes do not explain how the FBI squared this with, for example, (a) Clinton’s acknowledgement that top-secret “special access program” (SAP) information was delivered to her by paper in her office and she knew it was supposed to be handled with extraordinary care; and (b) Clinton’s admission that she made use of her Original Classification Authority at times (though she couldn’t say how often). That means she had to have assigned to some information the very classification levels with which she portrays herself as scarcely familiar.

We also learn in the FBI documents not only that Mrs. Clinton frequently lost her Blackberry devices, but that the FBI failed to account for some thirteen of them, most if not all of which she used while transmitting the over 2,000 classified emails the FBI identified.

Clinton aides told the FBI that her devices – loaded with stored emails – would at times disappear and their whereabouts would become unknown. Interestingly, in the notes of Mrs. Clinton’s interview, the FBI says she told them that her BlackBerry devices would occasionally “malfunction”; when this happened, “[h]er aides would assist in obtaining a new BlackBerry.” I have not yet found indications that the FBI asked her about lost rather than malfunctioning devices.

We do learn, though, that on February 9, 2016, the Justice Department asked Clinton’s lawyers to turn over all 13 mobile devices that the FBI identified as having potentially transmitted emails. Almost two weeks later, on February 22, the lawyers told the FBI “they were unable to locate any of these devices.” As a result, the notes recount, “the FBI was unable to acquire or forensically examine any of these 13 mobile devices.”

Finally, something else about those lawyers. I nearly fell out of my chair upon reading the very first paragraph of the notes of Clinton’s interview, which identifies the lawyers for Clinton who were permitted to be present for the interview. Among them is Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s longtime confidant and chief-of-staff at the State Department.

I suggested back in May that “the fix” was in in the investigation of the Clinton emails. The reason was that the Justice Department was allowing Cheryl Mills – a witness, if not a subject, of the investigation – to invoke attorney-client privilege on behalf of Mrs. Clinton in order to thwart the FBI’s attempt to inquire into the procedure used to produce Clinton’s emails to the State Department. Mills was a participant in that procedure – and it is the procedure in which, we now know, well over 30,000 emails were attempted to be destroyed, including several thousand that contained government-related business.

When she worked for Clinton at State, Mills was not acting in the capacity of a lawyer – not for then-Secretary Clinton and not for the State Department. Moreover, as Clinton’s chief-of-staff, Mills was intimately involved in issues related to Clinton’s private email set up, the discussions about getting her a secure BlackBerry similar to President Obama’s, and questions that were raised (including in FOIA requests) about Clinton’s communications.

That is to say, Mills was an actor in the facts that were under criminal investigation by the FBI. Put aside that she was not Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer while working for the State Department; as I explained in the May column, Mills, after leaving the State Department, was barred by ethical rules from acting as Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer “in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee.”

There is no way Mills should have been permitted to participate as a lawyer in the process of producing Clinton’s emails to the State Department nearly two years after they’d both left. I thought it was astonishing that the Justice Department indulged her attorney-client privilege claim, which frustrated the FBI’s ability to question her on a key aspect of the investigation. But it is simply unbelievable to find her turning up at Mrs. Clinton’s interview – participating in the capacity of a lawyer under circumstances where Clinton was being investigated over matters in which Mills participated as a non-lawyer government official.

According to the FBI’s report, Mrs. Clinton had four other attorneys (one whose name is deleted from the report for some reason) representing her at the interview. She clearly did not need another lawyer. And it is Criminal Investigations 101 that law enforcement never interviews witnesses together – the point is to learn the truth, not provide witnesses/suspects with an opportunity to keep their story straight, which undermines the search for truth.

Why on earth was Cheryl Mills permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview?

no mention of Evelyn Farkas?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/558200/

“New reports reveal that decisions made by a number of officials, acting out of a variety of motives, injured not Trump’s candidacy—but that of his opponent.”

You should be hopping mad!!

[Typical Lax Dad]

In contrast, former FBI director James Comey never apologized for sending the Oct. 28 letter that I believe my book proves with hard data was the final decisive reason why Donald Trump won the election. Even after the DOJ Inspector General found Comey’s sending that letter to Congress 11 days before the election to be a violation of long-standing DOJ policies and an act of “insubordination”—as well as his July 5 globally televised press conference that offered his negative opinion on the subject of the investigation without bringing any charges—Comey never apologized or even admitted to an erroneous judgment.

[old salt]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/558200/

“New reports reveal that decisions made by a number of officials, acting out of a variety of motives, injured not Trump’s candidacy—but that of his opponent.”

You should be hopping mad!!

As I said -- they mishandled Weiner's weiner, ...Comey feared whistleblowers would reveal McCabe's slow walk cover up until after the election.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/558200/

“New reports reveal that decisions made by a number of officials, acting out of a variety of motives, injured not Trump’s candidacy—but that of his opponent.”

You should be hopping mad!!

As I said -- they mishandled Weiner's weiner, ...Comey feared whistleblowers would reveal McCabe's slow walk cover up until after the election.

Deep State went after Hillary.

[old salt]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/558200/

“New reports reveal that decisions made by a number of officials, acting out of a variety of motives, injured not Trump’s candidacy—but that of his opponent.”

You should be hopping mad!!

As I said -- they mishandled Weiner's weiner, ...Comey feared whistleblowers would reveal McCabe's slow walk cover up until after the election.

Deep State went after Hillary.

In their texts, the FBI lovebirds expressed fear that Prez HRC would hold MidYearExam against them after she was elected.

[a fan]

Good lord, this is SO ridiculous.

Six years of it. He won't change. He's is unable to figure out that Trump played him.

The reason you go after your enemies like that is that you can make ANYTHING look bad.

So for the Durham investigation? If I put the entire DoJ on the stand, how hard would it be to get someone who worked in the DoJ to say "I thought Durhams investigation was political". Or to say "I thought Durham should have wrapped it up years ago". Or to find someone who loved Trump? Or find someone who believed Durham was biased.

It's the easiest game in the world. And OS doesn't get he was played, and just needs to move on.

Now, naturally, he thinks the FBI is on the level again, despite not having evidence of this one way or another. It's just silly.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/558200/

“New reports reveal that decisions made by a number of officials, acting out of a variety of motives, injured not Trump’s candidacy—but that of his opponent.”

You should be hopping mad!!

As I said -- they mishandled Weiner's weiner, ...Comey feared whistleblowers would reveal McCabe's slow walk cover up until after the election.

Deep State went after Hillary.

In their texts, the FBI lovebirds expressed fear that Prez HRC would hold MidYearExam against them after she was elected.

Where is Evelyn?