Changes

In a nationally televised address on April 10, 2016 [[President Obama]] intervened on behalf of the presumptive [[Democrat]] presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Obama made clear that he did not want criminal charges brought against Clinton. Obama made two points: Mrs. Clinton 1) had exhibited “carelessness,” and 2) had not intended to breach national security when she stored and transmitted classified information on her private system.  

In a nationally televised address on April 10, 2016 [[President Obama]] intervened on behalf of the presumptive [[Democrat]] presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Obama made clear that he did not want criminal charges brought against Clinton. Obama made two points: Mrs. Clinton 1) had exhibited “carelessness,” and 2) had not intended to breach national security when she stored and transmitted classified information on her private system.  

Dir. Comey wrote an internal memorandum saying Hillary Clinton and others were guilty of gross negligence punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment;<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/06/report-comey-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-in-email-case/?utm_source=site-share </ref> Comey sent draft copies of a public announcement he was planning to Dep. Dir. Andrew McCabe, general counsel James Baker and chief of staff James Rybicki for their input.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/comey-draft-said-it-was-reasonably-likely-that-hillarys-server-was-hacked/?utm_content=bufferf8260&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer </ref> Comey had already decided to exonerate Clinton. Clinton herself and 17 other key witnesses had not yet been interviewed. Comey's memo further is evidence of he wholly anticipated on May 2, 2016 to usurp the [[Attorney General]]'s authority contradicting his sworn testimony he only decided days in advance of his public press conference because the Attorney General had compromised herself by meeting privately with [[Bill Clinton]] in Phoenix in late June.

Dir. Comey wrote an internal memorandum saying Hillary Clinton and others were guilty of gross negligence punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment;<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/06/report-comey-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-in-email-case/?utm_source=site-share</ref> Comey sent draft copies of a public announcement he was planning to Dep. Dir. Andrew McCabe, general counsel James Baker and chief of staff James Rybicki for their input.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/14/comey-draft-said-it-was-reasonably-likely-that-hillarys-server-was-hacked/?utm_content=bufferf8260&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer</ref> Comey had already decided to exonerate Clinton. Clinton herself and 17 other key witnesses had not yet been interviewed. Comey's memo further is evidence of he wholly anticipated on May 2, 2016 to usurp the [[Attorney General]]'s authority contradicting his sworn testimony he only decided days in advance of his public press conference because the Attorney General had compromised herself by meeting privately with [[Bill Clinton]] in Phoenix in late June.

The FBI admited it recovered thousands of State Dept. emails that originated or passed through Clinton’s private server — some which had been deleted — that were never turned over to the State Department as government records by Clinton’s team. Comey told Sen. Grassley that the FBI did investigate whether violations of Federal Records Act occurred.

The FBI admitted it recovered thousands of State Dept. emails that originated or passed through Clinton’s private server — some which had been deleted — that were never turned over to the State Department as government records by Clinton’s team. Comey told Sen. Grassley that the FBI did investigate whether violations of Federal Records Act occurred.

The principal [[felony]] offense in Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code). To prove this offense, the prosecutor must prove that the official 1) had possession of the information, 2) had “reason to believe [it] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,” 3) transmitted it to an authorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency, and 4) acted willfully, which means acting intentionally and with an understanding that one’s actions are wrongful. This is a straightforward case of [[criminal]] intent.  

The principal [[felony]] offense in Clinton’s case is the willful retention or transmission of classified information — subsections (d) and (e) of the Espionage Act (section 793 of the federal penal code). To prove this offense, the prosecutor must prove that the official 1) had possession of the information, 2) had “reason to believe [it] could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,” 3) transmitted it to an authorized person or place, or failed to deliver it on demand to an authorized government agency, and 4) acted willfully, which means acting intentionally and with an understanding that one’s actions are wrongful. This is a straightforward case of [[criminal]] intent.  

There is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; she must merely be aware that it could happen. Of course, every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this. Making the official aware of it and having the official expressly acknowledge her awareness are essential parts of the indoctrination that is a condition of getting the clearance. And thus every government official with a security clearance knows it is wrongful to transfer classified information to a person not authorized to have it or to a place where its storage is not authorized.<ref>http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/455202/hillary-clinton-email-investigations-trump-justice-department-revives-motive-criminal-intent </ref>

There is no requirement to prove an intent to harm the United States. The statute calls only for an awareness that the information could be used to hurt the U.S. or benefit a foreign nation. To be guilty, the official does not need to want that to happen; she must merely be aware that it could happen. Of course, every government official who is privileged to hold a security clearance is well aware of this. Making the official aware of it and having the official expressly acknowledge her awareness are essential parts of the indoctrination that is a condition of getting the clearance. And thus every government official with a security clearance knows it is wrongful to transfer classified information to a person not authorized to have it or to a place where its storage is not authorized.<ref>http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/455202/hillary-clinton-email-investigations-trump-justice-department-revives-motive-criminal-intent</ref>

Agent Peter Strzok changed the term “grossly negligent” in Comey's memo to “extremely careless.” If Comey used the words “grossly negligent,” it would be the equivalent of pronouncing Clinton guilty. The pre-edited statement read “we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s private email account.” However, Comey’s July 5 public statement read, “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

Agent Peter Strzok changed the term “grossly negligent” in Comey's memo to “extremely careless.” If Comey used the words “grossly negligent,” it would be the equivalent of pronouncing Clinton guilty. The pre-edited statement read “we assess it is reasonably likely that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s private email account.” However, Comey’s July 5 public statement read, “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

Senate Homeland Security chairman Ron Johnson stated, "The edits to Director Comey’s public statement, <ref>http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Screen-Shot-2017-12-14-at-3.59.10-PM-620x363.png </ref> made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions." Johnson stated the edits “raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of President Trump.”<ref>https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/government-corruption/comey-concluded-hillary-hacked.htm </ref>

Senate Homeland Security chairman Ron Johnson stated, "The edits to Director Comey’s public statement,<ref>http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Screen-Shot-2017-12-14-at-3.59.10-PM-620x363.png</ref> made months prior to the conclusion of the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s conduct, had a significant impact on the FBI’s public evaluation of the implications of her actions." Johnson stated the edits “raise profound questions about the FBI’s role and possible interference in the 2016 presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of President Trump.”<ref>https://www.conservativeinstitute.org/government-corruption/comey-concluded-hillary-hacked.htm</ref>

===James Comey===

===James Comey===

FBI director James Comey decided well in advance, before the investigation was complete but after he determined Sec. Clinton had committed felonies, not to recommend prosecution. His recommendation came on the heals of President Obama's high profile intervention in the case. Comey perjured himself on numerous occasions about what, when, and why he made the recommendation not to prosecute Clinton.

FBI director James Comey decided well in advance, before the investigation was complete but after he determined Sec. Clinton had committed felonies, not to recommend prosecution. His recommendation came on the heals of President Obama's high-profile intervention in the case. Comey perjured himself on numerous occasions about what, when, and why he made the recommendation not to prosecute Clinton.

Comey and Strzok conspired together to obstruct justice. Strzok suggested reducing Comey's finding of [[felon]]ious gross negligence against Hillary Clinton with the obsequious characterization of extremely careless.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html </ref> On July 5, 2016 Comey publicly stated that Sec. Clinton and staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," and "there is evidence of potential violations of the [[statute]]s regarding the handling of classified information…There is [[evidence]] to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation." Comey referred the matter to the Justice Dept. for a prosecutorial decision. In the absence of prosecution, security or administrative sanctions are the norm.<ref>[https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system Statement by Director James Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System] (July i5, 2015).</ref> Comey's decision to by-pass DoJ rules and take matters into his own hands may have been part of a counterintelligence ooeration.<ref>https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comey-is-maxwell-smart-1501022653?mod=e2fb</ref> Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote in a performance review of Comey's behavior,  

Comey and Strzok conspired together to obstruct justice. Strzok suggested reducing Comey's finding of [[felon]]ious gross negligence against Hillary Clinton with the obsequious characterization of extremely careless.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-comey/index.html</ref> On July 5, 2016 Comey publicly stated that Sec. Clinton and staff were “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," and "there is evidence of potential violations of the [[statute]]s regarding the handling of classified information…There is [[evidence]] to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation." Comey referred the matter to the Justice Dept. for a prosecutorial decision. In the absence of prosecution, security or administrative sanctions are the norm.<ref>[https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system Statement by Director James Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System] (July i5, 2015).</ref> Comey's decision to by-pass DoJ rules and take matters into his own hands may have been part of a counterintelligence ooeration.<ref>https://www.wsj.com/articles/james-comey-is-maxwell-smart-1501022653?mod=e2fb</ref> Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein wrote in a performance review of Comey's behavior,  

{{Quotebox|"The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

{{Quotebox|"The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General's authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation's most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte."<ref>https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/rosenstein-letter-annotated/526116/ </ref>}}

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his "goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it." But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then - if prosecution is warranted - let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte."<ref>https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/rosenstein-letter-annotated/526116/</ref>}}

Although originally not planning on asking him to resign,<ref>Rodriguez, Katherine (April 12, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/12/trump-does-not-intend-ask-fbi-director-james-comey-resign/ Trump Does Not Intend to Ask FBI Director James Comey to Resign]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 13, 2017.</ref> President [[Donald Trump]], at the recommendation of Attorney General [[Jeff Sessions]] and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, fired Comey for being unfit to serve in the position.<ref>

Although originally not planning on asking him to resign,<ref>Rodriguez, Katherine (April 12, 2017). [http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/12/trump-does-not-intend-ask-fbi-director-james-comey-resign/ Trump Does Not Intend to Ask FBI Director James Comey to Resign]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 13, 2017.</ref> President [[Donald Trump]], at the recommendation of Attorney General [[Jeff Sessions]] and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, fired Comey for being unfit to serve in the position.<ref>

* Noble, Andrea; Dinan, Stephen (May 9, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/9/james-comney-fired-fbi-director/ Trump fires FBI Director James Comey]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 9, 2017.

* Noble, Andrea; Dinan, Stephen (May 9, 2017). [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/9/james-comney-fired-fbi-director/ Trump fires FBI Director James Comey]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 9, 2017.

===Andrew McCabe===

===Andrew McCabe===

On January 12, 2017, one week before President-elect Trump was sworn in, an FBI Inspector General began a review of [[Andrew McCabe]], FBI Deputy Dir. and others for [[conflict of interest]] in the Hillary Clinton email probe.<ref>https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-01-12%20DOJ%20OIG%20to%20CEG%20et%20al%20-%20Review%20of%20Clinton%20Investigation%20Process.pdf</ref> McCabe, who assisted in writing the bogus Benghazi talking points for [[Susan Rice]] and oversaw the whitewashing of Hillary's email investigation, is married to a candidate for the Virginia state Senate who took $700,000 from [[Terry McAuliffe]]'s PAC while the FBI’s investigation of Clinton's emails was ongoing. McAuliffe simultaneously with Clinton was under FBI investigation for pay-to-play schemes involving a Chinese businessman.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1294661.html</ref> McAuliffe ran [[Bill Clinton]]'s [[United States presidential election, 1996|1996 presidential campaign]] which was marred by a foreign influence peddling scheme known as [[Chinagate]]. McAuliffe was [[Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign|Hillary's 2008 campaign manager]]. McCabe succeeded James Comey as Acting FBI Director after Comey's firing. McCabe's last act as Acting FBI Dir. was illegally seizing a transcript of Paul Manafort's Congressional testimony which specifically was outside a warrant served on Manafort in June of 2016.

On January 12, 2017, one week before President-elect Trump was sworn in, an FBI Inspector General began a review of [[Andrew McCabe]], FBI Deputy Dir. and others for [[conflict of interest]] in the Hillary Clinton email probe.<ref>https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-01-12%20DOJ%20OIG%20to%20CEG%20et%20al%20-%20Review%20of%20Clinton%20Investigation%20Process.pdf</ref> McCabe, who assisted in writing the bogus Benghazi talking points for [[Susan Rice]] and oversaw the whitewashing of Hillary's email investigation, is married to a candidate for the Virginia state Senate who took $700,000 from [[Terry McAuliffe]]'s PAC while the FBI’s investigation of Clinton's emails was ongoing. McAuliffe simultaneously with Clinton was under FBI investigation for pay-to-play schemes involving a Chinese businessman.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1294661.html</ref> McAuliffe ran [[Bill Clinton]]'s [[United States presidential election, 1996|1996 presidential campaign]] which was marred by a foreign influence peddling scheme known as [[Chinagate]]. McAuliffe was [[Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign|Hillary's 2008 campaign manager]]. McCabe succeeded James Comey as Acting FBI Director after Comey's firing. McCabe's last act as Acting FBI Dir. was illegally seizing a transcript of Paul Manafort's Congressional testimony which specifically was outside a warrant served on Manafort in June 2016.

===Peter Strzok===

===Peter Strzok===

Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin lie to FBI investigator Peter Strzok. “Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private server until after Clinton’s [Department of State] tenure...Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time....Abedin did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge.”<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/ </ref> Email exchanges from 2009 to 2011 exist in which both Mills and Abedin directly discussed or were involved in discussing Clinton’s server.  Mills asked about it in a Feb. 27, 2010 email to Abedin and an aide to Bill Clinton who helped set up the Clinton Chappaqua server. “Ur funny. We are on the same server,” Cooper replied. Mills and Abedin were also involved in an Aug. 30, 2011 exchange in which State Department official Stephen Mull mentioned that Clinton’s “email server is down.” In a Jan. 9, 2011 email exchange, Cooper told Abedin that Clinton’s server had been malfunctioning because “someone was trying to hack us.” “Had to shut down the server,” wrote Cooper, who told the FBI in his interviews that he discussed Clinton’s server with Abedin in 2009, when it was being set up. Neither Mills or Abedin were prosecuted for making lying to the FBI.

Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin lie to FBI investigator Peter Strzok. “Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private server until after Clinton’s [Department of State] tenure...Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time....Abedin did not know that Clinton had a private server until about a year and a half ago when it became public knowledge.”<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/04/clinton-aides-went-unpunished-after-making-false-statements-to-anti-trump-fbi-supervisor/</ref> Email exchanges from 2009 to 2011 exist in which both Mills and Abedin directly discussed or were involved in discussing Clinton’s server.  Mills asked about it in a Feb. 27, 2010 email to Abedin and an aide to Bill Clinton who helped set up the Clinton Chappaqua server. “Ur funny. We are on the same server,” Cooper replied. Mills and Abedin were also involved in an Aug. 30, 2011 exchange in which State Department official Stephen Mull mentioned that Clinton’s “email server is down.” In a Jan. 9, 2011 email exchange, Cooper told Abedin that Clinton’s server had been malfunctioning because “someone was trying to hack us.” “Had to shut down the server,” wrote Cooper, who told the FBI in his interviews that he discussed Clinton’s server with Abedin in 2009, when it was being set up. Neither Mills or Abedin were prosecuted for making lying to the FBI.

==Associated scandals==

==Associated scandals==