Reddit post apparently related to Clintons email coverup

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: burntheships

Well, they are acting as if this is all timed because the election is so close...not because the FBI just concluded their investigation in July...

Nope that can't be the reason...must be the election and a partisan witchhunt.

Yep, it couldn't be because their queen refused to comply with
court ordered preservation records, and tried to destroy evidence
for over 4 years. The mess belongs to Hillary, she orchestrated
it from day 1.

originally posted by: gpols
a reply to: Agit8dChop

What it sounds like is he was searching for a way to set someone else up to take a fall. After finding out he wasn't able to change the email address I guess this is when the decision was made to delete swaths of emails.

Hillary most likely told him to this and this is him trying to find out how to do what she told him to do. The fact he had immunity and still refused to testify should tell us everything we need to know.

Absolutely.

I typically vote Democrat, but will not vote for the party this time due to the corruption, because I'm a Constitutionalist, before I subscribe to any party.

Here's what I find upsetting. The fact that the Democratic part is shielding this group of criminals is beyond me, and the fact that Hillary is able to run for the Highest office, in our land makes my head hurt.

And btw Trump is not much better.

We need to restore ethics, and pull off the partisan blinders.

nvm

a reply to: Grambler

Why has Chaffetz asked the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes (R) for the full investigative notes?

Why has Devin Nunes refused to hold a committee vote on that approval?

Sorry I had to run for a minute. Now the seocnd part of your post

originally posted by: Indigo5

Thus this sidenote:

"These documents are not being withheld from the chairman because of anything these witnesses have done. They are being withheld by the Republican chairman of the intelligence committee," Maloney said.

the obstacle to Chaffetz seeing classified records related to the probe is not the FBI but with the House Intelligence Committee not releasing that information to the oversight panel chairman.

Maloney noted that Chaffetz has asked House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R) for access to the classified records, but no vote on that request has been taken or scheduled.

www.politico.com...

This is the only place I have read about Nunes being the one that wouldn't allow access. Why did the FBI spokesmen then tell Chafettz that they were choosing only release certain things and redact some things. Why wouldn't he say, "Nunes says we can't release this info". From your source.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley voiced a similar complaint Monday, saying his panel—which has primary oversight responsibility over the Justice Department and the FBI—was unable to access even the unclassified information the FBI turned over to the Senate because of restrictions the FBI placed on the records.

"The FBI is trying to have it both ways," Grassley said on the Senate floor. "At the same time it talks about unprecedented transparency, it’s placing unprecedented hurdles in the way of Congressional oversight of unclassified law enforcement matters. It turned over documents, but with strings attached."

Grassley said he's objected to the limits, complaining both to the FBI and within the Senate. "The Senate should not allow its controls on classified material to be manipulated to hide embarrassing material from public scrutiny, even when that material is unclassified," the Judiciary Chairman and Iowa Republican said.

During the House hearing's more substantive exchanges, Herring said FBI Director James Comey was committed to giving Congress as much information as could "responsibly" be released about the probe.

Herring also defended the deletion of personal information from reports given to Congress, saying that releasing sensitive information from witnesses could lead some people to refuse to cooperate with the FBI in the future.

"It is critical for us as FBI agents to obtain cooperation from members of the public....Witnesses who speak with us need to have confidence that they can talk to the FBI without the risk of undue exposure," the veteran FBI agent said. "I wouldn't want there to be a chilling effect for other people going forward."

However, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) noted that 302s are routinely circulated outside the FBI, including to the defense in criminal cases.

Referring to the panel's ranking Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings, Gowdy thundered: "Mr. Cummings used to be a defense attorney. He got to see all your 302s...Probation officers get to see all your 302s. Why can't Congress?"

Herring replied that the panel had some of the documents and would be getting more as they're processed under the Freedom of Information Act. "The remainder of the 302s will come out through the FOIA process," he said.

That response seemed to anger Gowdy and GOP members of the committee.

"Since when did Congress have to go through FOIA to obtain 302s?" Gowdy asked.

So the Senate blames the FBI for not having access, Comey said he had to withhold information, Herring (from the FBI) seconded that. Why wouldn't they say that Nunes wouldn't leave them release that information, instead of giving a bunch of reasons why they chose not to release that information.

It is clear the FBI chose not to release this information. This is information that the House oversight committee is entitled to see, but the FBI said they were concerned about releasing it, and the committee could go through FOI request, to which Gowdy showed is ridiculous.

ALL of that on top of the "emergency" hearing Chaffetz staged was supposed to be closed session, but chaffetz said the closed session room hadn't been sweeped in time, thus the public, televised hearing where the CIA, NSA, FBI could not answer the questions he asked in a public forum.

Chaffetz put on a show with BS...

His own party is withholding the FBI notes from him because they know he will leak them for political purposes.

Now you are misleading what happened here. Lets start with the FBI was supposed to release all information to the committee, which it didn't, so the committee called a meeting. That meeting was supposed to be in private but

Chaffetz said the panel's rules require that the committee convene in public before going into closed session. He also said the committee tried to gather officials from various relevant agencies for a closed-door briefing last week, but they did not show up.

So the committees rules say it had to be in public, and when they tried to have a meeting in private before, none of the people asked to be their from the FBI showed up.

Then after this meeting, another private one was scheduled, but it did not happen. That is where the quote you post comes from. Here is that quote in context.

After more than two hours of public back-and-forth Monday evening, the committee adjourned after 8 p.m. with plans to gather in a secure space in the House Visitor Center for a closed session.

However, a committee source said late Monday that the much-discussed closed session was never convened, reportedly because the room had not been properly swept for the classified exchange.

A spokeswoman for the oversight panel did not immediately respond to a request for comment on what transpired with the planned closed session.

I have not read anywhere in anything you posted about your claim that people in his party are intentionally witholding information from Chaffetz because they know he will link information.

As an interesting side note, this pic was posted to 4chan prior to the committee meeting:



This is why those who are doing everything they can to protect the corruption in government are running scared; they're doing everything they can to bury this entire debacle. They are losing control of even their own house and it will not be long before the people step up and say "enough!"

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
As an interesting side note, this pic was posted to 4chan prior to the committee meeting:

This is why those who are doing everything they can to protect the corruption in government are running scared; they're doing everything they can to bury this entire debacle. They are losing control of even their own house and it will not be long before the people step up and say "enough!"

4chan operatives! need one on the hillary team now.
this is the best damn election year ever

I used to think Comey was a 'Straight Shooter'.
Now...I think he's a hand-picked part of the Clinton Crime Family.

a reply to: Realtruth

Absolutely. I typically vote Democrat, but will not vote for the party this time due to the corruption, because I'm a Constitutionalist, before I subscribe to any party. Here's what I find upsetting.

The fact that the Democratic part is shielding this group of criminals is beyond me, and the fact that Hillary is able to run for the Highest office, in our land makes my head hurt. And btw Trump is not much better.

You SIR we need more off.

Its the Political cheerleaders with their blinders and laziness that overlook their own parties indiscretions , that have ruined our gov't and this country.

That goes for any party.

a reply to: Realtruth

It's just the same with the Republicans that are voting for Hillary. They might claim to be ideologically different, but at the core they all seek the same thing. A monopoly on power. They aren't going to be subject to the laws and policies that they shove down our throats anyway as they always seem to exempt themselves.

Here's what I find upsetting. The fact that the Democratic part is shielding this group of criminals is beyond me, and the fact that Hillary is able to run for the Highest office, in our land makes my head hurt.

They are all shielding Hillary from prosecution. Sure you have some Republicans that are mad about this whole situation, but how many are just acting for the camera's and see this as an opportunity to further their own corrupt agendas.

I'm of the belief that Trump has gotten a few pointers from the Clinton's considering how close they were at one time.

originally posted by: Grambler
Sorry I had to run for a minute. Now the seocnd part of your post

originally posted by: Indigo5

Thus this sidenote:

"These documents are not being withheld from the chairman because of anything these witnesses have done. They are being withheld by the Republican chairman of the intelligence committee," Maloney said.

the obstacle to Chaffetz seeing classified records related to the probe is not the FBI but with the House Intelligence Committee not releasing that information to the oversight panel chairman.

Maloney noted that Chaffetz has asked House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R) for access to the classified records, but no vote on that request has been taken or scheduled.

www.politico.com...

This is the only place I have read about Nunes being the one that wouldn't allow access. Why did the FBI spokesmen then tell Chafettz that they were choosing only release certain things and redact some things. Why wouldn't he say, "Nunes says we can't release this info". From your source.

I think the FBI rep was deliberately hobbled as to what he could and could not say...

The meeting also included Reps from NSA and CIA and the meeting was scheduled to be "closed door" to afford for open discussion in relation to confidential and classified subjects.

Democrats also faulted Chaffetz for convening the hearing in public Monday, when the witnesses were initially told they were being summoned to a closed, classified session.

www.politico.com...

After more than two hours of public back-and-forth Monday evening, the committee adjourned after 8 p.m. with plans to gather in a secure space in the House Visitor Center for a closed session.

However, a committee source said late Monday that the much-discussed closed session was never convened, reportedly because the room had not been properly swept for the classified exchange.

A spokeswoman for the oversight panel did not immediately respond to a request for comment on what transpired with the planned closed session.

www.politico.com...

Obviously there was much that the FBI, CIA, NSA wanted to discuss with Chaffetz in a closed door meeting..

Chaffetz chose to lure them with the promise of a closed door meeting and then make the meeting public for grand-standing purposes...knowing full well the FBI rep was not able to fully answer his questions in open session.

That is what I think the answer is to your question...
"Why did the FBI spokesmen then tell Chafettz that they were choosing only release certain things and redact some things. Why wouldn't he say, "Nunes says we can't release this info". "

"Why" they can't release unredacted information? Could easily be a classified answer.
It could be, as proposed on this thread, that the investigative notes include NSA sources..thus also explaining why the NSA was sitting beside the FBI rep. though Chaffetz chose to beat on the FBI rep. alone and not question the NSA or CIA.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Here's a thought (and d'uh if it's already occurred to everyone but me):

If you guys were in Pagliano's or Combetta's position, the sole reason you would not show up under subpeona -- in contempt of Congress -- would be because your attorney advised you not do that.

I don't believe most, if not all, people would even consider doing such a thing even if they *cough* felt embarrassed pleading the 5th, again, in a public hearing. They could just go, plead the 5th and NOT be charged with contempt.

Their attorneys advised just not showing up, at all. Why? It's not in their best interest to do that.

It has nothing to do with embarrassment, I bet...I think their attorneys are afraid that Combetta and/or Pagliano might actually go rogue and spill their guts. I am sure that Combetta, at least, is chomping at the bit to spill his guts, at this point.

Their attorneys are ill-advising them...opening them up to Contempt charges from Congress because they don't trust them to keep their mouths shut.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I used to think Comey was a 'Straight Shooter'.
Now...I think he's a hand-picked part of the Clinton Crime Family.

They moved him up the ranks for favors he did for them --- especially "pardongate" and the pass he gave Hillary in the New Square clemency case. Of course, this is what I suspect, but how do you prove it. There is no telling what else he has gone selectively blind on.

She lied to the FBI when she told them she didn't know the (C) meant "classified". She knew all the classification codes and had used them herself. But, the FBI, took her word for it instead of investigating just a little bit to show she had actually used the codes, too.

Dirty bunch. I would love to take out a full size billboard on the most major freeway in Washington D.C. saying, "Go Chaffetz! Go Gowdy! Let's take this all the way till the fat lady sings! Americans are behind you!!"

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I recall that their attorneys were all being paid for by Clinton.

If so, and these attorneys are representing a conglomerate
of Clinton minions, they are acting like handlers.

originally posted by: queenofswords
"Go Chaffetz! Go Gowdy! Let's take this all the way till the fat lady sings! Americans are behind you!!"

But then I read thoughts like this from indigo:

"Chaffetz chose to lure them with the promise of a closed door meeting and then make the meeting public for grand-standing purposes...knowing full well the FBI rep was not able to fully answer his questions in open session."

And, I go back to worrying that Republicans will intentionally sabotage this.

I just don't have any confidence in members of either party or in any arm & branch of the federal government.

Is there any reason the oversight committee cannot call Comey back to question him on an investigation into the request that Combetta strip a VIP's email address? I know Reddit got a preservation notice and notice their records 'might' be subpeonaed.

But without actually subpoenaing them, they won't have their 'conclusive evidence' it was him. They should subpeona them now, because there is an enormous amount of circumstantial evidence Stonetear is Combetta.

And if Combetta refuses to show up if subpeonaed, again, or pleads the 5th, they won't get an admission from him.

So, I am just really concerned the effort to get to the bottom of this will be sabotaged without destroying the smoke & mirrors two-party divide.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I don't believe most, if not all, people would even consider doing such a thing even if they *cough* felt embarrassed pleading the 5th, again, in a public hearing. They could just go, plead the 5th and NOT be charged with contempt.

Their attorneys advised just not showing up, at all. Why? It's not in their best interest to do that.

Good question..

Showing up and pleading the 5th recognizes the legitimacy of the subpoena.

Sending your lawyers in your place or not showing means they are questioning the legal validity and justification of the subpoena.

For example, most committees’
rules authorize their subcommittees or chairpersons (occasionally in consultation
with the ranking members) to issue subpoenas requesting documents or
information. If a responding party fails to comply with the subpoena, committee
rules then typically require a majority vote of the full committee before a
resolution of noncompliance may be reported to the parent chamber. This
additional requirement operates as a political brake on any committee or
subcommittee hastily citing a party for contempt.

If there are insufficient votes in committee to report a resolution of
noncompliance to the full chamber, the committee may simply reject the
resolution and pursue no further action. If there are sufficient votes in favor, the
report must typically then pass from the committee to the parent chamber (either
the House or the Senate) to face a floor vote before a resolution of contempt may
be issued.

www.mayerbrown.com... 856/White-Paper-Congressional-Subpoena.pdf

So Chaffetz can issue a subpoena..

But to hold anyone in contempt for not complying?

He needs to get the full committee majority vote..(17 dems and 21 GOP) they have that vote and issued a contempt today..

Now it goes to a vote as a resolution to the full House Chamber where it needs a majority vote before a contempt resolution issued.

They will need 217 out of the 246 republicans to vote for the contempt resolution to get a majority vote in the house.

That should be an easy goal...so what are Pagliona lawyers gambling on?

I suspect they are gambling that the House will refuse to take up the resolution at all...

They will sit on it.

Why?
It has something to do with why Chaffetz is being stonewalled by Devin Nunes, Republican Chairman of the Intelligence Committee AND why Chaffetz lured the FBI, CIA and NSA into a meeting under the heading of closed door and classified, only to grand-stand in an open, televised forum asking questions he knew could not be answered.

Chaffetz is putting on a show for campaign purposes...

I am making a solid prediction right here and now...The GOP controlled house will not take up a vote on the contempt charge against Pagliano...

a reply to: Indigo5

I am making a solid prediction right here and now...The GOP controlled house will not take up a vote on the contempt charge against Combatta...

Except for the fact that this was a contempt charge levied against Bryan Pagliano; who failed to appear twice in response to a legally issued subpoena.



I see you caught your mistake.

We shall see what the outcome is eventually, I suppose.

Keep in mind, everyone, that Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress and he never faced any penalty for that. Pagliano may get to skate as well.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Bingo!

originally posted by: Indigo5
Why?
It has something to do with why Chaffetz is being stonewalled by Devin Nunes, Republican Chairman of the Intelligence Committee AND why Chaffetz lured the FBI, CIA and NSA into a meeting under the heading of closed door and classified, only to grand-stand in an open, televised forum asking questions he knew could not be answered.

I hear you, and am listening. But, don't believe that 'grandstanding' has anything to do with the motivation to sabotage oversight efforts.

Nunes...Chaffetz...the fact that they are Republicans does not convince me they are any different than the Democrats who openly oppose Congressional oversight of this FBI investigation. For all i know, they are just playing the 'oppostion' roles.

'Grandstanding' does not explain the cost involved in opening the meeting after agreeing to a closed meeting.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I don't believe most, if not all, people would even consider doing such a thing even if they *cough* felt embarrassed pleading the 5th, again, in a public hearing. They could just go, plead the 5th and NOT be charged with contempt.

Their attorneys advised just not showing up, at all. Why? It's not in their best interest to do that.

Good question..

Showing up and pleading the 5th recognizes the legitimacy of the subpoena.

Sending your lawyers in your place or not showing means they are questioning the legal validity and justification of the subpoena.

For example, most committees’
rules authorize their subcommittees or chairpersons (occasionally in consultation
with the ranking members) to issue subpoenas requesting documents or
information. If a responding party fails to comply with the subpoena, committee
rules then typically require a majority vote of the full committee before a
resolution of noncompliance may be reported to the parent chamber. This
additional requirement operates as a political brake on any committee or
subcommittee hastily citing a party for contempt.

If there are insufficient votes in committee to report a resolution of
noncompliance to the full chamber, the committee may simply reject the
resolution and pursue no further action. If there are sufficient votes in favor, the
report must typically then pass from the committee to the parent chamber (either
the House or the Senate) to face a floor vote before a resolution of contempt may
be issued.

www.mayerbrown.com... 856/White-Paper-Congressional-Subpoena.pdf

So Chaffetz can issue a subpoena..

But to hold anyone in contempt for not complying?

He needs to get the full committee majority vote..(17 dems and 21 GOP) they have that vote and issued a contempt today..

Now it goes to a vote as a resolution to the full House Chamber where it needs a majority vote before a contempt resolution issued.

They will need 217 out of the 246 republicans to vote for the contempt resolution to get a majority vote in the house.

That should be an easy goal...so what are Pagliona lawyers gambling on?

I suspect they are gambling that the House will refuse to take up the resolution at all...

They will sit on it.

Why?
It has something to do with why Chaffetz is being stonewalled by Devin Nunes, Republican Chairman of the Intelligence Committee AND why Chaffetz lured the FBI, CIA and NSA into a meeting under the heading of closed door and classified, only to grand-stand in an open, televised forum asking questions he knew could not be answered.

Chaffetz is putting on a show for campaign purposes...

I am making a solid prediction right here and now...The GOP controlled house will not take up a vote on the contempt charge against Pagliano...

It seems to me, and I won't pretend to know for sure, but that quote you used for the rules says right at the top "For example most committees" it doesn't say "this committee". So we are presuming that what he is doing he can't do, and then presuming the lawyers are questioning the validity of a subpoena that can't be questioned?

You yourself said that, so if they are advising him to not aknowledge a valid subpoena they aren't making a statement about the validity because there is no question of its validity, they are in fact just hoping to stall in the hopes that the rest of the members won't vote for contempt charge to enforce the subpoena.

This is in fact assuming he can't declare the contempt himself, which apparently the writer, you, nor I know for sure. Does anyone else?