FBI Will Hand Over Notes on Clinton email Investigation to Congress: Report

a reply to: Xcathdra

That certainly has been the $50,000 question hasn't it. I'm still thinking this goes way back to the CF.

Congress has the documents this afternoon, now.
www.washingtonpost.com...

SPAM removed by admin

originally posted by: carewemust


Is there a thread that describes Hillary's overall e-mail saga? I can't figure out which batch is attached to which scandal, or potential crime.

Not that I am aware....I wish we did have one thread as a go to for a timeline.
Maybe someone could create a thread like that?

It would be a long, years worth of timeline....
and many events to go along with it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
What I want to know is why Brian Pagliano received immunity for his testimony.

I've wondered the same thing. Perhaps he was instrumental in
helping them find the other servers?

Hillary claimed there was only one, we know from the FBI
director there were several servers.

I'm sure they must have gotten something from him?

originally posted by: Xcathdra

As for the state department wanting the FBI files first - absolutely not. I can see them sitting on that info till after the election.

And news just in...FBI refused to give the files to The State Dept,
and so far has not. Congress was first!

Although the State Department has asked the FBI to provide notes from its July interview with Hillary Clinton, the law enforcement agency refused to do so before giving Congress the notes Tuesday in a batch of classified documents from its year-long investigation of the Democratic nominee.


www.washingtonexaminer.com...

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Xcathdra

As for the state department wanting the FBI files first - absolutely not. I can see them sitting on that info till after the election.

And news just in...FBI refused to give the files to The State Dept,
and so far has not. Congress was first!

Although the State Department has asked the FBI to provide notes from its July interview with Hillary Clinton, the law enforcement agency refused to do so before giving Congress the notes Tuesday in a batch of classified documents from its year-long investigation of the Democratic nominee.


www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Wow, woohoo! Looks like Bill shouldn't have raked the FBI over the coals.

Good on them refusing to let State Dept view them first!

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

That's a crock. They tried to prosecute her in the court of public opinion because they knew they couldn't in any real court.
They need to get Comey to answer to a democrat committee for justice or some such and have him answer all the BUTS in the story.
Gowdy asked very specific very on point questions and stopped Comey's testimony at yes or no. Totally fair . Totally legal.
Totally would have been objected to had it been a trial. Believe me the republicans do not want a trial. They want to pillory her .
So the three emails that had markings let's review:
They were three paragraphs in three different emails.
The paragraphs were marked (C) indicating a confidential classification. The lowest classification.
No heading stating classified material was contained within.
So three of those.
That was the extent of the emails that were marked classified.
Did Gowdy let Comey say that? NO.
He asked Were there any emails marked classified.
Comey answered yes.
Gowdy stopped him right there.
So yes it's true. There were emails marked classified. And out of tens of thousands of emails over a four year period four years previous there were those three little c s beside a paragraph.. She knew she didn't have any with a classified banner or heading that would be an alert because as she said she got those in person not electronically.
As for the other emails that were retroactively classified they too are not marked and the info is of the confidential nature or secret. One I think is Top secret but wasn't when she got it.
This all matters .
Most people already get it. Hence her rising numbers.
It needs to be repeated in the capacity that the allegations were laid out. Televised. No curtains. No smoke and mirrors.

a reply to: texasgirl

Looks like HRC is brooding silently...

.@mitchellreports: Reax to FBI putting out your interview notes?

HRC: "I have nothing to say"

Do you want them all out?

No response.

a reply to: burntheships

If only one of these things would catch up to her... I'm not going to hold my breath, but I'm going to hold out hope.

I expect there will be massive deflection/disinformation leaks soon,
coming from The Clinton Camp.



I hope anyone who finds any updates on leaks, or
released information posts a new thread. :up;

a reply to: burntheships

No they are not. They are releasing her testimony only.

www.usnews.com...

www.politico.com...

a reply to: StoutBroux

Before prosecution? Remember they didn't charge her. Are we going backward now?

a reply to: burntheships

No one else is saying they are handing over the classified emails. That's a crock.
Only their notes on Clinton's interview. Clinton's interview.
abcnews.go.com...

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Perros perspective is decidedly skewed. Rolls eyes.

a reply to: Sillyolme

So yes it's true. There were emails marked classified.

Through your own words, you agree that she broke the law.

Now please, continue to defend her.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: burntheships

No they are not. They are releasing her testimony only.

You keep using these news sources as if they are definitive.

Please, from the actual source of Congress:

This should include, but is not limited to, all witness interview transcripts,
notes, 302 reports, documents collected, and memorandum or
analysis created during the course of the investigation.

oversight.house.gov...

MSM spinning this for a downplay.

Big damage coming for Hillary and all Democrat candidates running for office.



The washing machine is draining the dirty water.

It looks like State Department received the new emails that the FBI had found that the State Department did not previously receive, but they don't have the interview notes or additional FBI information.

QUESTION: Yesterday, your colleague mentioned that you wanted to see the notes – the FBI notes – that would be passed to the Hill. Have you been able to see them yet, and --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- were there any – if you have, or have you – did you notice any issues?

MR TONER: Yeah. So we did – as you know, my colleague mentioned yesterday, we did ask the FBI that we be kept apprised of any information that they provided to Congress. And the reason why we did this is because it would relate to State Department equities, and this is a – frankly, a time-honored, traditional interagency practice. So we were provided – we have been provided emails with – the FBI intends to give to Congress, and we’ve reviewed them. The State Department obviously respects the FBI’s desire to accommodate the request of its committees of oversight in Congress, just as we do with our oversight committees, and we’re going to continue to cooperate, just as we have with the FBI in every step of the process.
...
QUESTION: And then there was also the issue of the FBI’s notes from its interviews that would be shared. Have you had the chance yet to review those before they are shared?

MR TONER: So my understanding is that we continue to work with the FBI on that, on those interview summaries – the 302s I guess is what they’re known as. We obviously respect the FBI’s desire to accommodate Congress and its committees of oversight, but we haven’t quite reached an agreement on those.

QUESTION: So you – they haven’t shown them to you yet?

MR TONER: My understanding is we’ve not received those summaries yet.

State Dept Daily Press Briefing 08-16-16

This was also in today's State Department briefing linked above:

QUESTION: Thank you. So we understand there was a discussion here at the State Department about the feasibility of then-Secretary Clinton using a wireless earpiece or Bluetooth earpiece. This is roughly the same time period as the lengthy discussions about BlackBerry use. So was there an informal discussion or a formal request within Secretary Clinton’s proposed use of a wireless earpiece or Bluetooth?

MR TONER: Hold on a second. So I think we just got this request – or this question in an hour or so ago. We’re looking at it. We don’t have an answer for you yet. We’ll get back to you when we know more about whether indeed Secretary Clinton asked for or requested to use a Bluetooth or wireless earpiece within – what I think you’re talking about was within the seventh floor.

QUESTION: And then what’s the --

MR TONER: Mahogany Row, so-called Mahogany Row.

QUESTION: Is there a State Department policy on Bluetooth devices from your security professionals or anything that way then?

MR TONER: Well, again, we’re looking into what the stated policy is. I mean, in general, any kind of Bluetooth – it’s a security assessment whether any kind of device – whether a – whether it’s a phone or, as I said, a Bluetooth earpiece might be used as a way to gain access to information or listen in on conversations, but I don’t have a clear, definitive policy for you. We’ll get that for you.