From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

Image result for crooked hillaryThe incomplete records of the Hillary Clinton email investigation released by the FBI raise questions about the conduct not only of Clinton but of her top aides and the staffers working under their direction. Perhaps the most serious is whether the Clinton team destroyed evidence which they were under legal order to save and produce to congressional investigators.

Out of a massive investigation, the FBI has released just two documents: a heavily-redacted version of its summary report and a writeup — the so-called 302 — from agents' July 2 interview with Clinton. The rest, including reports from interviews with other players, remains secret, although the FBI has shared it with Congress, with redactions and under tight viewing restrictions.

Shortly after the two documents were released on the Friday afternoon before Labor Day, Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, sent out a statement suggesting he does not believe the documents tell the full story, and that if the full story were told it might suggest wrongdoing on the part of the Clinton team.

"The FBI selectively releasing Secretary Clinton's interview summary is of little benefit to the public unless and until all relevant documents and witness interview summaries are released," Gowdy said. "The public is entitled to all relative information, including the testimony of the witnesses at Platte River Networks, the entity which maintained the private server. The public will find the timeline and witness responses and failures to respond instructive."

What did Gowdy mean? What are the still-unreleased documents? And what does "instructive" mean? Here is what we know, from what the FBI has released, plus earlier reports about the investigation into the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi:

Nine days after the attack, on Sept. 20, 2012, the House Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense, and Foreign Operations, which is part of the larger Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a document request to Clinton, who was still Secretary of State. It was a broad request, intended to cover anything written or recorded in any way that might have something to do with Benghazi. It without question covered emails. The State Department produced some material in response, but never any emails from Clinton.

Several months later, on Aug. 1, 2013, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena covering the documents asked for, but not received, after the Sept. 20, 2012 request.

In May, 2014, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was formed. On July 23, 2014, the State Department agreed to produce records to the committee. The FBI report picks up the story from there:

[The State Department] sent a formal request to former Secretaries of State on October 28, 2014, asking them to produce e-mails related to their government work. After State requested that Clinton provide her e-mails, Clinton asked her attorneys, David Kendall and [Cheryl] Mills, to oversee the process of providing Clinton's work-related emails to State. Heather Samuelson, an attorney working with Mills, undertook a review to identify work-related e-mails, while Kendall and Mills oversaw the process. Ultimately, on December 5, 2014, Williams & Connolly [Kendall's firm] provided approximately 55,000 pages of e-mails to State in response to State's request for Clinton to produce all e-mail in her possession that constituted a federal record from her tenure as Secretary of State. State ultimately reviewed the 55,000 pages of e-mail to meet its production obligations related to [Freedom of Information Act] lawsuits and requests….Clinton told the FBI she directed her legal team to provide any work-related or arguably work-related emails to State; however she did not participate in the development of the specific process to be used or in discussions of the locations of where her e-mails might exist. Clinton was not consulted on specific e-mails in order to determine if they were work-related.

read more:

Views: 278

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

i do not doubt this at all coming from this vile contemptible piece of crap   VOTE TRUMP

You can bet the CRACK team at the FBI won't have a CLUE!  With their leader, James Comey' reputation for honesty and integrity COMPLETELY DESTROYED, it appears, ,with he and the even worse Attorney General Loretta Lynch running the now demonstrated TOTALLY CORRUPT FBI and Justice Department, every continuing disclosure of illegal actions and cover-up will be completely ignored.

Imagine, such a corrupt person as Hillary even a possibility of becoming President (just because she doesn't have a "pepe" - but do we know that for sure?)!

They should have gone in and seized everything at one time and arrested her.

 The Left are criminals sucking this country dry. They are sinners that are over due to die a disgraceful death. Their skulls should be crushed or at least fractured? Put a round in it.

I find it depressing to realize that Hillary Clinton will never be prosecuted for crimes that would result in incarceration for any of us "little people" had we been caught committing them. Having spent over thirty years in military service working with publications that were "Classified" or higher, I know the rules for their handling and understand what may happen if one is caught and charged with mishandling them. Reading through Mrs. Clinton's responses to questions concerning her knowledge of the government classification system and her knowledge of security required for digital communication creates a permeating essence of BS. I find it incredulous that a candidate for POTUS would claim to be so ignorant and publicly abase herself by doing so. Despite her imperious manner and icy stares, she is groveling and will do anything to gain the Presidency. By her own admission,  she is too stupid to be President. By her own performance as Secretary of State, she is unfit.


The devil doesn't even believe this vile pig! Bill doesn't believe her, either!




Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel


Gohmert: Dems Will Drag Out Impeachment — Try To Get ‘Best Socialist’ Nominated For President

During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN on Thursday, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) offered his best assessment of what House Democrats were trying to accomplish with their impeachment efforts.

Gohmert told WVNN’s “The Jeff Poor Show” impeachment could tie up the Democratic Party’s presidential campaign efforts but predicted Democrats would use the occasion to nominate “the best socialist” they can.

“They would lose in the Senate,” Gohmert said on impeachment. “And besides that, the entire time it was on trial in the Senate, the Democrats who are running for president wouldn’t be allowed to campaign. That’s in the Constitution. They wouldn’t be able to campaign. I just can’t imagine them wanting to do that because if they send it to the Senate, they have now perfectly set up the scenario of 1996, where they will reassure Donald Trump is reelected as president. They don’t want to do that. They’re probably going to drag this thing out as long as they possibly can … through Iowa, through primaries — try to get the best socialist they can to be nominated.”

“Then just end up and say, ‘Now we’re close enough to the general election. We’ve thrown mud at the president through the House,’” he continued. “What they’re really doing — they’re using taxpayer funds to campaign against Trump. That’s all this is — a campaign fund that taxpayers are paying for in order to try to throw mud at the president. I’ll be surprised if they have that vote, but I can’t imagine they want to set up this president for reelection by having a trial in the Senate where they lose.”

Veteran's Day Tribute

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service