FBI Agents Signed NDA For Matters Involving Hillary’s Emails

a reply to: AlaskanDad

Where did we learn that Clinton foundation employees were subpoenaed by the FBI because no search I do shows that. Or any information that the Clinton foundation is under investigation by the FBI for that matter. So exactly what is this investigation that there is no media coverage of?
I see they were subpoenaed by the state department. But not by the FBI.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: BlueAjah

We really need to thank Comey and stop criticizing him.

And what may have happened if he closed his press conference with,

"Well, I will be out of a job tomorrow and the Wicked Witch Of North America gets a get out of jail free card. She should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but she has too many high ranking friends so we were ordered to stop. It is obviously time to start new proceedings under the Second Amendment!"

That is what a brave American might of done.

All he did was cover his arse and probably gets a promotion into the bargain. Watch and see!

P

If he was going to recommended indictment, he could never have said what he did at the press conference. That would have been seen as prejudicing a case. An FBI Director can not lay out details of a case in the public and draw conclusions in public if he intends to go to trial.

The only way he was able to say what he did was because he was not recommending charges.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Notice his wording - "that is the one I'm compelled to give".

Notice in that case Comey also publicly revealed damning information and spoke harshly about Clinton. He is clearly no on their side, or he would be spinning these cases and not saying things like that.

I recall reading, I believe on Judicial Watch, that it was the prosecutor in that case who said that they would not be able to find a jury that would convict a First Lady. I'll dig up the source when I have more time later.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Comey revealed in his testimony before Congress that there was an investigation regarding the Clinton Foundation.
..

a reply to: LifeMode

Agents should not be required to honor it if something in their findings would have constituted her intent or the intent of her staff. That to me is an unlawful order and would set up Comey and Lynch for indictment. If I were an agent and I knew or had something I would reveal it to the media. Every single one of them would get a big envelope.

NDAs are quite common throughout the Federal Government. I work for the Fed, and we use NDAs all the time to protect the integrity of acquisitions, intelectual property, personal information, etc. In the case of the eMail server in question, som eof the material was most likely private stuff like Clinton said (although I think even the most rabid Clinton supporter will admit that she ran the servers to contol official information, lied about it, and is busted), so they did not want every bit of personal info spread out to the media. The Agency I work for monitors when employees look up any personal information, and even has a special list that automatically flaggs searches into public figures (polliticians, movie stars, etc.).

We have a very large DB on everyone in the country – what they earn each year, heath records, birth records, etc. Even if I came across a record of a politician who was running for office and I found out they were lying I could not disclose it to the public unless I wanted to pull a Snowden and leave the US for ever. When you sign a NDA you are giving your word. If you don't want to sign, don't. But you will not be given access to the information and might have to find a differnet job. I admire your commitment to the truth, but if you buy the ticket, you take the ride.

Unless you want to pull a Snowden...

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Sillyolme

Comey revealed in his testimony before Congress that there was an investigation regarding the Clinton Foundation.
..

That is not what he said.

He said that he could not comment on any investigation that may or may not be taking place.

a reply to: BlueAjah

No he didn't. I watched start to finish. He never said that AT ALL. Find even one headline that mentions anything like it.
There should be at least one other that interpreted statements like you have. There are none.

a reply to: Sillyolme

There was a question asked that mentioned the Clinton Foundation, and he replied "I can not comment on an ongoing investigation".

The reply you are referring to occurred later in the hearing.
I was not the only one who heard it. You can refer to the thread that was going live during the hearing.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: AlaskanDad

..Or any information that the Clinton foundation is under investigation by the FBI for that matter.

Lies. Lies. Lies, yeah.

You actually provided a source, yourself, saying the FBI was investigating the Clinton Foundation, the other day -- albeit inadvertently (You thought the FTC was the FBI, I think...lol): Link to your comment

I called it to your attention then: Link to my comment

It was from the Washington Examiner:

"The charitable organization is still under investigation by the FBI, which is looking into allegations of public corruption stemming from Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state. Those include concerns that foundation resources were improperly commingled with those belonging to the federal government, and that it received contributions from foreign dignitaries Clinton was in a position to benefit."

Link to Washington Examiner

It's simple. One of the agents involved in the case simply needs to setup a private email server in their own residence and then "unknowingly" send the evidence incriminating Clinton to someone else whose not under the NDA to release it to the press.

Surely they too can get away with it, right?

a reply to: IAMTAT

The whole thing already smelled like a signed deal even before this came out. But im pretty sure the left will all chant "what does it matter at this point?".

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Great comment, I wish I could star it again. Thanks for posting

a reply to: Sillyolme

It's amazing to me that you are such a devout Hillary supporter, trying to defend her on ATS of all places. So do you think she will make for a great leader? Do you believe she has integrity and will be a fine representative of our nation, even with her background?

I can understand going to bat for her on FaceBook or Twitter where plenty of other people are still in the dark, but this is ATS and most participants are fully aware of Hillary's tarnished past (and more recently, her blatant lies she continues to spew throughout her campaign). I'm not trying to discourage you from posting AT ALL, I'm just wondering why you choose ATS of all places. You certainly won't convert me anyway I commend you for your persistence at any rate, but I strongly disagree.