Tag: Probe

Hitlery Cover-Up Update: FBI Refuses To Cooperate In Email Server Probe

FBI Refuses To Cooperate In Hillary Clinton Email Server Probe – Wadhinton Times

.

.
The FBI refused to cooperate Monday with a court-ordered inquiry into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email server, telling the State Department that they won’t even confirm they are investigating the matter themselves, much less willing to tell the rest of the government what’s going on.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan had ordered the State Department to talk with the FBI and see what sort of information could be recovered from Mrs. Clinton’s email server, which her lawyer has said she turned over to the Justice Department over the summer.

The FBI’s refusal, however, leaves things muddled.

“At this time, consistent with long-standing Department of Justice and FBI policy, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation, nor are we in a position to provide additional information at this time,” FBI General Counsel James A. Baker wrote in a letter dated Monday – a week after the deadline the Justice Department had set for the FBI to reply.

Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest law firm that is pursuing at least 16 open records cases seeking emails from Mrs. Clinton and her top aides, said at this point it’s not even clear what Mrs. Clinton provided, since all that’s been made public at this point are the former secretary of state’s public comments and some assertions, made through her lawyer, to the State Department.

Judicial Watch is prodding the courts to try to delve more deeply into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and the group said a number of questions persevere about both Mrs. Clinton and top aides such as Huma Abedin, who did public business on an account tied to the server Mrs. Clinton maintained.

“We still do not know whether the FBI – or any other government agency for that matter – has possession of the email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department,” Judicial Watch said.

“We also do not know whether the server purportedly in the possession of the FBI – an assumption based on unsworn statements by third parties – is the actual email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department or whether it is a copy of such an email server. Nor do we know whether any copies of the email server or copies of the records from the email server exist,” the group said in its own court filing Monday afternoon.

Judicial Watch did release more than 50 pages Monday of emails it obtained from Ms. Abedin’s account on Mrs. Clinton’s server, and said it was clear she was talking about “sensitive” topics that shouldn’t have been discussed on an insecure account.

Many of those were details of Mrs. Clinton’s movements overseas, such as hotels she was staying at.

“These emails Judicial Watch forced out through a federal lawsuit show that Huma Abedin used her separate clintonemail.com account to conduct the most sensitive government business, endangering not only her safety but the safety of Hillary Clinton and countless others,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

He questioned what reason Ms. Abedin – who did maintain an account, huma@clintonemail.com, on State.gov servers – would have for using the other account for important business. Mrs. Clinton said she kept only one account, the one on the clintonemail.com server, because it was more convenient, but that reasoning does not appear to apply to Ms. Abedin.

The State Department is making all of Mrs. Clinton’s emails public under order of Judge Rudolph Contreras. But the department has said it won’t make all of the emails public from Ms. Abedin or other top Clinton aides Cheryl Mills or Philippe Reines. Instead the department only plans to release those messages specifically requested in open records demands.

Mrs. Clinton turned over about 30,000 email messages in December, while her aides turned over more than 100,000 pages between them, with the final set only being returned, by Ms. Abedin, earlier this month, the department said in court filings.

Without those documents in hand, the State Department has been unable to do full and complete searches in response to subpoenas, congressional inquiries or Freedom of Information Act requests.

The State Department has asked for dozens of cases to be put on hold while it tries to get a single judge to coordinate all of its searches in more than two dozen cases. But the people requesting the records have objected, and say the State Department has nobody to blame but itself.

“The State Department acts as if Ms. Abedin’s and Ms. Mills’ documents fell from the sky on the eve of the State Department’s production deadline, but that is not remotely the case,” Citizens United, one of the plaintiffs who has sued under the FOIA, said in a filing late last week.

Citizens United says the State Department missed its own deadline for producing Ms. Mills’ and Ms. Abedin’s documents.

The Obama administration countered that it went above and beyond its duties under the law by asking Ms. Abedin and Ms. Mills to return their records and then to search them in response to open records requests. The State Department says it’s moving as quickly as possible, but says the sheer number of documents – and the number of requests for them – calls for a stay in most cases.

But of the 26 requests where the State Department has sought to halt proceedings, six have already been denied. Only one has been granted, one was granted in part and denied in part by the same judge, and another is being held in abeyance.

The State Department told one of the federal judges Monday that it’s facing nearly 100 different open records lawsuits – not all of them related to Mrs. Clinton’s email server – that have stretched officials to their limit.

Monday’s FBI letter underscores the tangled situation Mrs. Clinton’s emails have produced. The letter was addressed to Mary McLeod, a lawyer at the Justice Department, which oversees the FBI – and which means, in effect, that the FBI is refusing to talk to its own parent department about the matter.

Mr. Baker pointedly noted in his letter that he was aware the response would be submitted to the court, which would presumably make it public.

Earlier this month the Justice Department, in another pleading, insisted Mrs. Clinton didn’t do anything wrong in being the one who decided which of her messages were official business records that must be returned to the government and which were purely personal and able to be expunged.

Judicial Watch said that raises thorny questions for a department that is supposedly investigating Mrs. Clinton.

Last week Sen. John Cornyn, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, called for Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch to name a special counsel to oversee the investigation, citing too many potential conflicts of interest.

.

.

Federal Sources Say FBI Investigation Into Htlery’s Emails Is A Criminal Probe

FBI Investigation Of Hillary’s Emails Is ‘Criminal Probe’ – New York Post

.

.
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured e-mail account is not just a fact-finding venture – it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.

The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.

“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.

“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”

Clinton’s camp has downplayed the inquiry as civil and fact-finding in nature. Clinton herself has said she is “confident” that she never knowingly sent or received anything that was classified.

The inspector general for the intelligence community has told Congress that of 40 Clinton e-mails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information.

If Clinton is proven to have knowingly sent, received or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, said former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon.

The statute – which was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005, is rarely used and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general.

Still, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon said. “The threshold under the statute is not high – they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he said.

Clinton’s lawyer in the e-mail probe is longtime Bill Clinton attorney David Kendall, who also repped Petraeus, who pled guilty earlier this year to providing classified documents to his mistress biographer.

“My guess is they’re looking to see if there’s been either any breach of that data that’s gone into the wrong hands [in Clinton’s case], through their counter-intelligence group, or they are looking to see if a crime has been committed,” said Makin Delrahim, former chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bush DOJ.

“They’re not in the business of providing advisory security services,” Delrahim said of the FBI. “This is real.”

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

Leftist Rag Changes Story About Criminal Probe Into Hitlery’s Emails After She Bitches About It

New York Times Alters Clinton Email Story – Politico

.

.
The New York Times made small but significant changes to an exclusive report about a potential criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s State Department email account late Thursday night, but provided no notification of or explanation for of the changes.

The paper initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation “into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state.”

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry “into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state.”

The Times also changed the headline of the story, from “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email” to “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account,” reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton’s possible role. The article’s URL was also changed to reflect the new headline.

As of early Friday morning, the Times article contained no update, notification, clarification or correction regarding the changes made to the article.

One of the reporters of the story, Michael Schmidt, explained early Friday that the Clinton campaign had complained about the story to the Times.

“It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them,” Schmidt said.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, said in an email that Clinton always followed “appropriate practices.”

“Contrary to the initial story, which has already been significantly revised, she followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials. As has been reported on multiple occasions, any released emails deemed classified by the administration have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were transmitted,” Merrill said.

The inspectors general request comes after their assessment that Clinton’s private email account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails.” The Times’ report notes that it is not clear whether the contents of the emails were marked as classified by the State Department when then-Secratry of State Clinton sent or received them.

Clinton’s use of a private email account at the State Department has been a subject of intense scrutiny by both the media and Republican adversaries for months. No news outlet has been more aggressive in its coverage of that issue than the Times.

The Times’ report also includes the following error: It states that a hearing in Washington about the State Department’s refusal to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests had taken place on Monday. That hearing took place last week.

.

.

Most Corrupt AG In History Bars Lead Investigator From Testifying Before Congress In IRS Probe

Eric Holder Bars Lead Investigator From Testifying Before Congress In IRS Probe – Gateway Pundit

The IRS Conservative Targeting Scandal involved:

* At least 292 conservative groups
* At least 5 pro-Israel groups
* Constitutional groups
* Groups that criticized Obama administration
* At least two pro-life groups
* An 83 year-old Nazi concentration camp survivor
* A 180 year-old Baptist paper
* A Texas voting-rights group
* A Hollywood conservative group was targeted and harassed
* Conservative activists and businesses
* At least one conservative Hispanic group
* IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed

Despite the uproar the FBI closed the case on the IRS targeting scandal before interviewing a single one of the 292 conservative groups that were targeted.

And now Eric Holder will not allow the lead investigator in the case from testifying before Congress.

.

.
Eric Holder’s DOJ said Thursday it will not allow the lead attorney in the IRS targeting investigation to testify before Congress.

The Washington Times reported:

The Justice Department said Thursday it is refusing to let a key lawyer testify to the House oversight committee on the criminal investigation into the IRS, saying that to let her brief Congress could potentially skew its probe.

But oversight committee Republicans said blocking lawyer Barbara Bosserman from testifying only makes the Justice’s investigation look more partisan.

After an internal audit last year revealed the IRS was unfairly targeting tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny and blocking their applications for tax-exempt status, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. called for a criminal probe into the tax agency.

Eight months later, the probe has shown few public signs of progress, and many of the tea party victims say they still haven’t heard from the FBI or Justice Department lawyers.

House Republicans said they were concerned about the direction of the probe, and Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican and a subcommittee chairman on the House oversight committee, asked Ms. Bosserman to testify at a hearing next week.

The GOP has identified her as the lead lawyer on the investigation, and they have questioned her role, given her history as a significant political donor to President Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Mr. Holder has denied Ms. Bosserman is the leader of the investigation and in a new letter to Mr. Jordan on Tuesday Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, Mr. Holder’s deputy, said Ms. Bosserman won’t be testifying, nor will the department let anyone else appear.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Conservatives Who Backed Wisconsin Governor Walker Reportedly The Targets Of Secret Probe

Conservatives Who Backed Wisconsin Gov. Walker Appear Target Of Secret Probe – Fox News

Dozens of conservative groups that support Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker reportedly have been subpoenaed by a special prosecutor demanding donor lists and other documents pertaining to their backing of Walker’s union overhaul and recall fight.

.

The so-called “John Doe” investigation bars those subpoenaed from talking publicly.

But Eric O’Keefe, director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, told The Wall Street Journal recently that investigators have raided at least three homes and that he “wants the public to know what is going on,” despite the personal risk.

He also suggested the probe is having a chilling effect on conservative groups as Walker approaches a 2014 re-election effort.

He said the subpoenas, including the one he received in early October, “froze my communications and frightened many allies and vendors of the pro-taxpayer political movement in Wisconsin… The process is the punishment.”

Watchdog.org reported in late October that authorities were confiscating equipment and files from targets of the probe, and demanding phone and email records. Watchdog.org also reported this week that three of the unidentified targets have hired top First Amendment and campaign finance experts as part of their defense team.

The Journal piece states more than two dozen groups received subpoenas – ranging from the Walker campaign and state-level organizations such as O’Keefe’s and Wisconsin Family Action to the national Republican Governors Association and American Crossroads, co-founded by former Bush administration adviser Karl Rove.

This is the second time in less than four years that Walker has been investigated.

In 2010, Milwaukee County Democratic District Attorney John Chisholm investigated whether staffers for Walker, when he was county executive, used government offices for political purposes. The probe closed in February with findings that included an aide sending campaign email on government time but no charges against Walker.

Both probes were first reported by The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The new investigation purportedly asks for donor information from nonprofit groups not required to reveal such information and follows revelations this spring that conservative-leaning groups seeking tax-exempt status from the IRS were also targeted for extra scrutiny.

It began in the office of Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, according to the Journal, and is being led by special prosecutor Francis Schmitz. Landgraf did not return a call this week seeking comment, and Schmitz also could not be reached.

The author of the Journal article says that he has seen copies of two subpoenas related to the 2011-12 recall effort on Walker and state senators, and that one demands: “all records of income received, including fundraising information and the identity of persons contributing to the corporation.”

He writes the subpoenas don’t make clear a specific allegation but the demands suggest the government is looking at the possibility of independent groups illegally coordinating with candidate campaigns.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Obama Cancels Chicago Democrat’s “Champion Of Change” Award Due To Corruption Probe

Obama Forced To Cancel Chicago Democrat’s “Champion Of Change” Award After FBI Begins Corruption Probe – Weasel Zippers

Wait, a Chicago Democrat is corrupt? I guess there’s a first for everything.

.

Via Politico:

The Chicago alderman who was supposed to receive an award as a Champion of Change on Monday, has been removed as an honoree for now, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Alderman Joe Moore will no longer receive the award from the White House until the results of an FBI ethics probe into his office is known.

“We did not honor him as a Champion of Change today and will hold that honor until we know the results of his investigation,” the official told the Tribune on Wednesday.

Moore, who is a veteran alderman, thinks of the probe as unfair and is disappointed that it has cost him the award. He has denied all allegations against him.

On the day he was scheduled to get the award, an inspector general report accused Moore of paying two employees more than he should have after they were fired, saying that he paid one of them “hush money” to not speak of anything in the office.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Congress To Probe Suspected Connection Between Anwar Al-Awlaki And 9/11

Congress To Probe Suspected Connection Between Anwar Al-Awlaki And 9/11 – Fox News

The House Homeland Security Committee “has initiated an investigation” into the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and whether he was an overlooked key player in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a letter from the committee chairman to Attorney General Eric Holder says.

………………………

The three-page letter, obtained exclusively by Fox News, makes the case that a decade after the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil, the full story of 9/11 has not been told.

“This congressional investigation will seek to determine:

“1. To what extent Anwar al-Awlaki wittingly or unwittingly facilitated the plot of the 9/11 hijackers; and

“2. to what extent al-Awlaki was an al Qaeda operative, offering support to acts of terrorism prior to 9/11.”

The letter to Holder, sent by Republican Rep. Peter King of New York on May 26, confirms that investigators believe the American cleric’s contacts with three of the five hijackers on Flight 77, which slammed into the Pentagon, were more than a series of coincidences, but rather evidence of a purposeful relationship.

“Given the greater collection of intelligence and integration of pertinent data since the attacks of 9/11, I believe that al-Awlaki may have played greater roles in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, as well as other terrorist plots, than those of which we have been previously aware,” King writes. “Accordingly, I request the full assistance of the Department of Justice in carrying out this inquiry.”

The hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were the first two hijackers into the U.S. – arriving in January 2000 at Los Angeles International Airport. One question always puzzled investigators: Why would the self-described architect of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, send two of his most experienced operatives, who spoke virtually no English, to the ghetto of San Diego unless there was someone there to meet them.

As part of the Fox News Specials Unit’s ongoing investigation of the cleric, the executive director of the 9/11 commission Philip Zelikow confirmed that his investigators were highly suspicious of al-Awlaki and his relationship with the hijackers in San Diego.

“We put the spotlight on Awlaki about as brightly as we could, and as brightly as any government agency could,” Zelikow said, adding that he was always surprised the media did not immediately pick up on their suspicions about al-Awlaki’s role when the final 9/11 report was issued in 2004.

In “The American Terrorist,” which profiled the cleric’s life in Colorado, Southern California and Virginia before 9/11, Fox News confirmed through documents and interviews that al-Awlaki met on a regular basis with the two hijackers al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar in San Diego in 2000. It was in a small anteroom above al-Awlaki’s mosque with a single entryway. One of al-Awlaki’s closest associates, a Yemeni, Mohdar Abdullah helped the hijackers find a place to live and find jobs in San Diego.

By early 2001, al-Awlaki moved to a new mosque in Falls Church, Va., where hijacker al-Hazmi seemed to follow him. After they finished their flight training in Arizona, al-Hazmi and pilot Hani Hanjour attended services at al-Awlaki’s mosque.

In Virginia, as seen in Fox News’ “The Secrets of 9/11,” the same pattern seen in San Diego was repeated. Al-Awlaki’s Virginia associate, this time a Jordanian, Eyad al-Rababah, helped the hijackers settle in Alexandria before driving the men to Paterson, N.J., where they rented an apartment and connected with three other hijackers.

By May 2002, the New Jersey landlord reported six men were living in a one room apartment, according to the 9/11 Commission report. All of them were hijackers. Soon, a seventh hijacker would join them, Khalid al-Mihdhar, who also knew al-Awlaki from the San Diego mosque.

The House committee investigation is seeking “all documents … in the possession of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any other DOJ entity or component” that pertain to al-Awlaki and seven other individuals, including his associate in San Diego Mohdar Abdullah and his associate in Virginia Eyad al-Rababah who directly aided the hijackers.

In addition, it is seeking “files, reports, analysis, assessments, memoranda, notes and presentation in all forms” that are related to long-closed FBI investigations of al-Awlaki in 1999. In that case, the San Diego terrorism task force was investigating an alleged link between al-Awlaki, Usama bin Laden and a “known procurement agent named Ziyad Khaleel…(who) had previously purchased a satellite phone for (bin Laden).”

The tone of the letter and the materials being sought suggest that the congressional investigation believes there is compelling evidence that al-Awlaki may have been Al Qaeda from the beginning, and that his rise to an operational commander in the Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, considered the most active, was not a surprise but rather a logical progression.

“With years of hindsight into al-Awlaki’s growing status within al Qaeda, including his involvement in the Christmas Day attack in 2009, there exists the critical need to reexamine the facts surrounding al-Awlaki and the 9/11 attacks,” the letter states.

In addition, King’s committee is requesting immediate access to certain witnesses, including people on terrorism task forces in San Deigo, New York City and Washington, D.C.

A spokesman for King would not comment beyond the contents of the three-page letter, which requested the documents and witnesses by June 17.

A Justice Department spokesman confirmed the letter had been received. Nothing has yet been turned over to the committee, and the department is still working with FBI to respond.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story