Was I the only one who missed the "public corruption" leak in January?

[IdaBriggs]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track, FOX News, January 11, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.

(snip)

"No, there’s nothing like that that is happening," Clinton said, according to a tweet from Jacobs.

Experts including a former senior FBI agent said the bureau does not have to notify the subject of an investigation.

(more at link)

Special thanks to a new DUer who posted an information dense piece with tons of backup links (originally with a misleading title) that can be read below. The article details out MULTIPLE crimes that appear to have been committed. Just a snip about the "upgrade the server" situation is pretty damning....

OPINION: WHY HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE INDICTED FOR MISHANDLING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, Georgia Political Review, April 14, 2016

http://georgiapoliticalreview.com/opinion-why-hillary-clinton-will-be-indicted-for-mishandling-classified-information/

More so, once the FBI approached Platte River Networks to retrieve Clinton’s original server, there are reports that employees at the company began to fear a cover-up . The company reportedly received a letter from Clinton Executive Service Corp instructing them to “cut the back up”.

The employees did not do so and the FBI has now recovered deleted emails which they considered to contain work-related information. This debunks her claim, which she made under the penalty of perjury, that she turned over all her work-related emails to the State Department. Depending on the nature of these recovered e-mails, she could be charged with tampering of evidence, lying to federal officials, and an obstruction of justice.

The key words are "could" and "if" -- the facts may be becoming clearer, but "what happens next" is speculation until the FBI and the DOJ finish their work. The author concludes:

However, there is a legitimate case to be made for criminal charges against Clinton which warrant time in prison by law. But the FBI can only issue a recommendation, it’s the decision of the Department of Justice to prosecute Clinton on these charges. There have been reports that FBI Director James Comey would resign in protest if Attorney General Loretta Lynch declines to prosecute the case. We also can’t rule out the possibility of an official pardon from President Barack Obama, who said this week that Clinton did not “intentionally put America in jeopardy.”

(snip)

(C)areer Justice Department attorneys have been assigned to the case. When Attorney General Loretta Lynch was asked when the investigation would be wrapped up she said, “That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, as well as career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice.” This is almost indisputable proof that the FBI probe has at least progressed beyond the initial referral. Why would the Department of Justice bring in their own attorneys if the FBI wasn’t going to recommend further action? DOJ agents are now likely using the government’s full investigative tool box – including subpoena power for individuals, business or phone records, as well as witnesses, to create their case against Hillary Clinton. FBI Director James Comey himself will interview Clinton and her aides in the next few days. Second, Lynch would not answer whether or not a grand jury has been assembled yet. If there was no grand jury being convened, Lynch would have likely said so to quell rumors that she will be indicted. If a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence, she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.

Things look like they will be coming to a head soon.

[nc4bo]

1. "Sunshine on my shoulder makes me happy. Sunshine in my eyes can make me cry.

Sunshine on the water looks so looooovelyyyyyy.

Sunshine almost always makes me high."

[monmouth4]

2. That was lovely nc4 and in key too...LOL..n/t

[pdsimdars]

16. Or how about. . . .zippidy do da, zippidy ay, my, oh, my what a wonderful day . . . . . .

Plenty of sunshine, heading my way, zippidy do dah, zippidy ay

[Skwmom]

3. What we will be finding out is how corrupt this government actually is...

[CorporatistNation]

11. WHEN WILL THIS INDICTMENT Take Place ... 2025?

WTF? GET ON W/ IT!

[pdsimdars]

13. I think the FBI wants to be VERY careful and dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s because

the Clintons are such slippery people. You have to make sure you cover all the legal loopholes or she may weasel her way out on some technicality.
I do want them to get things rolling BEFORE the convention, but I'd rather them be certain they've got the case airtight than to rush it.

[Bob41213]

14. And the truth be told, they may just nail her on something in the interview

That's where the real danger is. She's got to speak on the record (sadly she can lie to us all she wants but it's a crime to lie to them). She should plead the 5th but it would be quite damaging if it were to get out that she plead the 5th. She doesn't know what they know. And she has to answer their questions. I suspect her memory will get quite foggy.

[amborin]

4. truth be told, it always seemed, all along, as if they were also investigating the

Clinton Foundation angle; and based on what's been unearthed here, with so little effort, these past several weeks, there's probably a mountain of incriminating evidence out there

[IdaBriggs]

10. I think the "recovered" emails are the ones that are going to be big trouble.

I have seen two different things - one report saying her husband doesn't use email, and then her saying in a press conference she deleted their personal stuff.

[Bob41213]

12. I didn't realize it at the time but she planned for that

I still think they could be a problem, but if you go back and read the stories she claims she deleted emails based on keywords or maybe rather that she archived based on keyword. And also that her lawyers did it.

The thing I find odd is that any lawyer worth their salt would take any risk in a situation like this. Find me a lawyer that would potentially destroy evidence and tell me what kind of lawyer that is.

[WhiteTara]

5. about the author of the opinion piece

I’m a 22 year old senior at the University of Georgia, double majoring in Microbiology and Economics (an unlikely candidate to write an article like this, I know).

I have no background in investigative journalism or law. I have not gone to law school, journalism school, or ever worked for a newspaper, magazine or any other publication. That’s why you may see scattered typos, grammar mistakes and incorrect legal phrasing. I tried to write this as deeply and as quickly as possible before I thought this story would be told by someone else. Please send proof-reads my way if you notice any, I am still going back and correcting mistakes here and there.

I have written only two other lengthy works.My Economics thesis which analyzed the merger between two biotech companies – Thermo Fisher Scientific and Life Technologies.

And a class report for the Center for International Trade and Security – surrounding the United Nation’s decision to militarily intervene in Libya, but not Syria, during the Arab Spring.

My background in research, writing and arguing comes almost exclusively from the 7 years I spent as a policy debater, both at Johns Creek High School and at UGA. My notable accomplishments in debate are my leading the team to defeat the University of Oxford, England in a public debate in 2014. As well as placing within the top 32 teams nationwide at the 2015 National Debate Tournament.

I am otherwise a student of science mostly. I spent 3 years working in a laboratory at UGA’s Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, and am currently working part-time at a biotech company called Swissaustral. I will be starting a full-time position as a Strategy & Operations consultant with Deloitte (working primarily on their CDC projects) in August.

I run a separate blog purely dedicated to satire called The Shallot which I started last December. From the title you can see it’s a (poor) imitation of The Onion but I think you will enjoy the satirization of current events and pop culture.

I'll wait for a real journalist and I also take Comey at his word, that Clinton is not a target.

[IdaBriggs]

7. His FACTUAL links are valid; I stressed the emphasis on the

"could" and "if" because it is pure speculation. Comey has NOT said that Clinton is not a target in any piece I have seen. Do you have a (recent) link I haven't seen for that?

I also 100% agree that whatever the FBI says is what must be accepted.

[passiveporcupine]

6. As far as I'm concerned,

any time I hear this:

sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News

I ignore the rest of the story until some legitimate news comes out to confirm it.

[IdaBriggs]

8. I think I missed this in January because FOX.

These two reporters have been getting some nice exclusives on this story, and so far they have been accurate. For example, they were leaked and posted as a PDF the subpoena Clinton said she never got, and the fact they verified with three different sources ... It certainly would make sense to me, based on the rest of what I have been piecing together about this situation.

But at the end of the day, we shall see and hopefully soon.

[840high]

9. The sooner the better. Thank you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. You know

Background is used by all media. This is what this is by the way. And Fox has been scooping people left and right. Part of the reason is the two sons. Murdoch might not want to, but his sons are inheriting the operation and they want this to be a news service.

Speaking of background. I am on the phone. But there are some fascinating pieces of what should be best classified as an internal civil war. One way they are going about it, like the WAPO in 1973, lousy paper, they are angling for a few pullitzers. They are doing well in that regard.

[IdaBriggs]

17. Agreed. Clues for me are the fact these two have MULTIPLE sources.

And look at some of her previous stuff on the topic --

Source: No 'coincidence' Romanian hacker Guccifer extradited amid Clinton probe, April 8, 2016 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/08/source-no-coincidence-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradited-amid-clinton-probe.html

According to the 15-page federal indictment, Lazar "specialized in gaining unauthorized access to the online accounts of high-profile individuals" including Clinton ally Blumenthal, who appears to be identified as “Victim 5 … a journalist and former presidential advisor who was the true owner of an AOL account with subaccounts known to the grand jury.”

Grand jury is probably just for his hacking, but he was already in prison, so why spend money to bring him here?

Clinton skipped special cyber briefing in 2011, document show, March 25, 2016 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/25/clinton-skipped-special-cyber-briefing-in-2011-documents-show.html

Source: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness', March 11, 2016 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/11/source-clinton-it-specialist-revealing-server-details-to-fbi-devastating-witness.html "The January 2009 classified information non-disclosure agreement signed by Clinton says she understood that classified information could be marked and unmarked, as well as verbal communications."

The more I read, the uglier this is getting for her.

The intelligence source described the morale of agents as "very good and nobody is moping around which is the first sign a big case is going south."

Oh, boy, I would not want happy FBI agents after me!

[passiveporcupine]

19. Well, maybe I'm trying not to count my chicks

before they hatch.

I just think it's never going to be big enough to bring a Clinton "in the machine" down. I hope I'm wrong.

I think they have too much power, money, influence, including the current admin. I don't think they ever "follow regular processes" but they just seem to keep getting away with everything they do.

[snagglepuss]

18. knr

[mmonk]

20. Nope. Where "Benghazi" I saw seemed bogus,

the public corruption area I saw as problematic.