Senate To Investigate FBI ‘Cover-Up’ Of Illegal Clinton Emails

The U.S. Senate will consider whether or not to launch a full blown investigation into claims that the FBI covered-up criminal activity by Hillary Clinton during their email investigation last year.

A matter of fact, When Bill Clinton became President, he removed all FBI Officers investigating the Clinton’s in land scams and sex crimes.

Senate to consider launching new investigation over claims the FBI covered-up Hillary Clinton's misuse of an email server during their investigations

Senator Jeff Sessions is calling for an investigation into how the FBI granted immunity to Clinton Foundation director Cheryl Mills and destroyed evidence under congressional subpoena. reports:

“I was a U.S. attorney and an assistant U.S. attorney before that and I have been through a lot of these issues,” Sessions says.

Sessions said when he was a Department of Justice lawyer, he worked regularly with FBI agents and he was always impressed by their professionalism and their apolitical approach to their work.

“I love the FBI,” he said.

But, now after witnessing the extraordinary handling of evidence, witnesses involved in the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email scheme and her handling of classified electronic correspondence, he is forced to reassess, he said.

Clinton is the Democratic nominee for president and Comey announced July 5 that he was recommending to the Department of Justice that she not be prosecuted in regard to the scandal.

“This is scary to me,” Sessions tells Carr. “I tried not to be critical of Comey at first.”

Sessions said the more he learns about Comey and the FBI’s operating outside of the bureau’s regular practices, the more concerned he becomes.

While the House of Representatives has made an effort to investigate Comey and the FBI’s behavior in the Clinton email scandal, the Senate needs to get involved also, he said.

Central to the FBI’s mismanagement of the scandal investigation is their preferential treatment of Mills, he said. Mills was Clinton’s chief of  staff at the State Department, an attorney in the administration of her husband President William J. Clinton and is now a member of the Clinton Foundation’s board of directors.

Howie Carr asked Sessions how is it that the former first lady could have Mills treated by the FBI and the Department of Justice as her attorney, while Clinton also had another team of lawyers from Williams and Connolly.

The efforts to cover up and protect everyone involved in the email scandal were blatant, Carr said. “Richard Nixon never dreamed of doing things like this.”

The Alabama senator said that benefit given to Mills was not justified.

“It is really unhealthy,” the senator said.

“She should not be treated as a legitimate lawyer–she surely had a conflict of interest,” he said. As it is understood in the Common Law, attorney-lawyer privilege protects communications between a lawyer and his client. But, there are limits on the privilege, so that it cannot be used to obstruct an investigation into a past or ongoing crime.

Mills and the FBI set up an investigation process, where Mills was in a position to know everything that was going on as both a potential target, witness and attorney, who was granted privilege with other targets and witnesses and allowed to attend interviews between the FBI and other potential targets and witnesses.

Sessions told Carr: “I don’t see how it is possible for someone so involved in a case that they refuse to provide testimony and information without a grant of immunity.”

Mills must know she is in legal jeopardy, he said.

“That suggests that they think a truthful and or a truthful production of documents could incriminate them–and then, she turns around and is the lawyer for another possible co-conspirator in this activity?” he asked.

“It is a breathtaking thing,” the senator said.

Sessions said Mills, who was Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, then was granted attorney-lawyer privilege in regards to relationship with Clinton and was allowed to participate in FBI interviews with other individuals involved in the email scandal.

“I really don’t see how Congress can issue a subpoena for records and they then destroy those records,” he said.

“I am telling you that every business knows that if they get a subpoena for business records, and they destroy those records, they are subject to criminal prosecution and will be prosecuted,” Sessions said. “That’s a high prosecution case.”

Edits by the TTTG Netwok Team:

Views: 632

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I have long said that the FBI investigation should be treated as a cover-up and that the FBI officials be subject to indictment and jail for their actions in this matter... no one is above the law.  Dir. Comey obviously refused to use the best FBI practices during the investigation and many of his own operatives leaked information of the irregularities and suspect actions of the Director.

It is also very, very troubling that Pres. Trump has asked Dir. Comey to stay on... in light of his previous promises to prosecute Hillary and her criminal cabal.  It would only be reasonable for Dir. Comey to resign or be let go after the many irregularities surrounding the Clinton investigation and its outcome... not too mention the other leaks and cases coming out of the FBI... Russia Gate, Wienner Emails, and the on going Clinton Foundation issues... 

In fact, the latter... FBI Clinton foundation investigation seems to have disappeared from the Radar and National News... Where has it gone?  Why have no indictments issued, from the use of the Foundation, to launder illegal bribes taken by Hillary? She obviously was selling access to her office, in exchange, for donations/gifts to her foundation?

The FBI has a bloody nose and its Director may well be guilty of more than incompetent handling of the Clinton Email and Foundation investigation. 

Alice Trinity Littlefoot


But what did you mean by '' interesting ''

Did you mean my designed picture ?

Hi Wes,

Of course, Alice is a little rebel at heart

Tif Morgan

Your right,

I went to her page and read a number of her comments

she is interesting

especially her logo

check it out




I would say she is one in a million, she is a x-irs officer, that where several irs officers exposed the irs as a fake...long story

Mr. Ronald Nelson,

First I want to thank you for answering my question I appreciate the knowledge you were willing to past on.

In reading your replies on issues you seem very knowledge, just curious what is your background. 

Regarding this subject I agree with you I think many of us do, however in reading this article it indicates Session is going to look into this, or am I reading this wrong.  Could it be their letting Comey stay for that reason?

Do you think the decision was made to kind of "protect" TRUMP!, so that he does not take all the blame for everything from the LSM? Place Trump in the position of Reactor instead of Protagonist in this issue? It seems to me that who takes the blame for both Comey and klinton has to have been a priority in the Cabinet.


Trump will be blamed no matter what... no matter how guilty Hillary is or how corrupt the FBI has become... Trump will be blamed.

How could President Trump be blamed, this was prior to him taking office?

 Ronald A. Nelson Col.USA (Ret)


PRESIDENT TRUMP will be blamed by the '' LOONY LEFT '' no doubt .. !

BUT .... it will be for EXPOSING '' CRIMINAL CLINTON '' and all her cronies.





''  SO  BE  IT  ''




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service