It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
FBI investigators shrugged off brazen deceit. An unnamed FBI agent on the case responded to a fellow FBI agent who asked how an interview went with a witness who worked with the Clintons at their Chappaqua residence: “Awesome. Lied his a-- off. Went from never inside the scif (sensitive compartmented information facility) at res (residence), to looked in when it was being constructed, to removed the trash twice, to troubleshot the secure fax with HRC a couple times, to every time there was a secure fax i did it with HRC. Ridic.” When his colleague replied that “would be funny if he was the only guy charged n this deal,” he replied, “aint noone gonna do s--t” as far as filing charges.
The FBI waited until the end of the investigation to interview Clinton and had decided to absolve her “absent a confession from Clinton,” the IG report noted.
There was no recording and no transcript. Instead, a 302 report allowed FBI Director James Comey to proceed with the preordained “not guilty” finding. Clinton had received numerous classified emails, some of which were marked with a (C) on her private email server. The IG report notes, “According to the FD-302 from Clinton’s interview, Clinton told the FBI that she did not know what the ‘(C)’ meant and ‘speculated it was a reference to paragraphs ranked in alphabetical order.’ ”
The IG noted, “Witnesses told us, and contemporaneous emails show, that the FBI and Department officials who attended Clinton’s interview found that her claim that she did not understand the significance of the ‘(C)’ marking strained credulity. (FBI) Agent 1 stated, ‘I filed that in the bucket of hard to impossible to believe.’ ”
originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: Grambler
I agree with you, if someone commits a crime they should be charged regardless of the party.
However, it is unlikely that Mueller will indict any of Clinton’s associates because he was not investigating them.
My question about this is why did Donald invent the lock her up chant and then not tell Sessions to go after her? Sessions recused himself from Russia only, he could have went after Hillary. So why didn’t he?
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: Grambler
I agree with you, if someone commits a crime they should be charged regardless of the party.
However, it is unlikely that Mueller will indict any of Clinton’s associates because he was not investigating them.
My question about this is why did Donald invent the lock her up chant and then not tell Sessions to go after her? Sessions recused himself from Russia only, he could have went after Hillary. So why didn’t he?
He was investigating the 2016 election and the possibility of Russian interference.
Hillary bought intel from Russian intelligence agents in an attempt to influence the 2016 election.
So why is he not investigating them again?
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff
Good point.
How about some evidence that the investigation should exist in the first place.
Good morning
Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.
This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?
I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.
Best
Rob Goldstone
President Trump tweeted Sunday that the purpose of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between Russians, Donald Trump Jr., and some of his top campaign officials was "to get information on an opponent."
Why it matters: The claim represents the latest in a series of shifting explanations from the Trump team about the true nature of the June 9, 2016 meeting, which was first described as a "short introductory meeting" about Russian adoptions last summer before culminating with the president's admission this morning.
Despite their insistence that there was “no collusion” with the Kremlin, Trump associates had plenty of secretive interactions with Russians. The Washington Post reported on Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has evidence that a meeting in the Seychelles days before Donald Trump’s inauguration was an effort to set up a back channel between the Kremlin and the incoming administration. As you may recall, Jared Kushner previously admitted that he discussed the possibility of communicating privately with Moscow during the transition — though he said his goals were innocent, and the link was never established.
However, it is unlikely that Mueller will indict any of Clinton’s associates because he was not investigating them.
The ongoing Special Counsel investigation is a United States law enforcement and counterintelligence investigation of any foreign government efforts to interfere, with large focus on Russia, in the 2016 presidential election.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary.
originally posted by: Lumenari
originally posted by: BlackJackal
a reply to: Grambler
I agree with you, if someone commits a crime they should be charged regardless of the party.
However, it is unlikely that Mueller will indict any of Clinton’s associates because he was not investigating them.
My question about this is why did Donald invent the lock her up chant and then not tell Sessions to go after her? Sessions recused himself from Russia only, he could have went after Hillary. So why didn’t he?
He was investigating the 2016 election and the possibility of Russian interference.
Hillary bought intel from Russian intelligence agents in an attempt to influence the 2016 election.
So why is he not investigating them again?
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff
Good point.
How about some evidence that the investigation should exist in the first place.