Who'll Get The Beer?

[Kathianne]

Will he get immunity too?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-emails-state-department-220689


<header style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Second State employee refuses GOP questions on Clinton serverJohn Bentel is a former employee who managed IT security issues.
</header><footer class="meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">By Rachael Bade (http://www.politico.com/staff/rachael-bade)
<time datetime="2016-03-13T05:48-0400" style="box-sizing: border-box;">03/13/16 05:48 PM EDT</time>
Updated <time datetime="2016-03-13T08:47-0400" style="box-sizing: border-box;">03/13/16 08:47 PM EDT</time>
</footer>

...

[Kathianne]

Hmmm

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/15/judicial-watch-names-clinton-aides-to-be-deposed/




<header id="masthead" class="site-header" style="box-sizing: border-box; padding-top: 44px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><nav class="top-bar" data-topbar="" style="box-sizing: border-box; overflow: visible; height: 45px; line-height: 45px; position: relative; margin: 0px auto; z-index: 101; opacity: 0.99; max-width: 64em; background: rgb(199, 57, 48);"><section class="top-bar-section" style="box-sizing: border-box; position: relative; width: auto; transition: left 300ms ease-out; z-index: 101; left: 0px !important; background-image: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-size: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial;"></section></nav>

</header><section id="topad-1" class="topad row" style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 846.438px; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 64em; padding: 10px; text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><iframe id="google_ads_iframe_/10519169/Politics/Politics_Articles_0" title="3rd party ad content" name="google_ads_iframe_/10519169/Politics/Politics_Articles_0" width="728" height="90" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; max-width: 100%; vertical-align: bottom; z-index: 0 !important;"></iframe>


</section><section id="topad-2" class="topad row hide-for-small" style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 846.438px; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 64em; padding: 10px; text-align: center; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; display: inherit !important;"></section><section id="container" class="row" style="box-sizing: border-box; width: 846.438px; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 64em; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">

<main id="main" class="site-main" role="main" style="box-sizing: border-box;">http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/dcnf.gif (http://dailycallernewsfoundation.org/)
Judicial Watch Names Clinton Aides To Be Deposed


MARK TAPSCOTT
4:16 PM 03/15/2016

(http://dailycaller.com/author/mark-tapscott/)

ight present and past Department of State officials linked to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private email scandal will be deposed by Judicial Watch in the non-profit government watchdog’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit if the federal judge hearing the case agrees.

Judicial Watch attorneys told U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Emmet G. Sullivan Tuesday it wants to depose the following individuals and could complete the depositions within two months of beginning:



Stephen D. Mull, executive secretary of the State Department from June, 2009, to October, 2012. Mull proposed Clinton use a State Department BlackBerry for email. Her identity would have been protected but the messages would have been subject to the FOIA.
Lewis A. Lukens, executive director of the department’s executive secretariat from 2008 to 2011. Lukens suggested to Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick F. Kennedy and Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, have a government computer to read messages sent to her clintonmail.com address.
Patrick F. Kennedy preceded Clinton at the department, having served since 2007. He became Clinton’s primary adviser on technology and information services issues.
Donald R. Reid, senior coordinator for security infrastructure in the department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, a position he has held since 2003. Judicial Watch believes Reid participated in discussions in 2009 about Clinton’s use of the Blackberry and other communications devices to conduct official government business.
Cheryl Mills, chief of staff throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff for the entirety of Clinton’s tenure. Abedin also had an email account on the Clinton server and accompanied Clinton whenever she was seen in public.
Bryan Pagliano, Clinton’s IT guru from her unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign and the individual who kept the private server located at her New York residence operational while she was at the department.
The eighth individual would be somebody designed by the department to provide information on the process by which FOIA requests are processed in the agency.

Clinton’s deposition “may be necessary” but would only occur with the judge’s approval and would be “based on information learned during discovery.”

Sullivan granted Judicial Watch’s motion for discovery Feb. 23, 2016, and he is expected to announce his decision on the deposition plan after April 15.







</main>
</section>

[NightTrain]

Have to hand it to Judicial Watch... this whole thing would have never come to light except for them using FOIA.

[Kathianne]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/16/hillary-faces-national-security-establishment-uprising-over-emails/


Hillary Faces National Security Establishment ‘Uprising’ Over Emails RICHARD POLLOCK (http://dailycaller.com/author/richard-pollock/)
10:00 PM 03/16/2016


Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is facing an “uprising” in the national security establishment prompted by long-standing anger about her cavalier handling of classified materials and government secrets.

As Clinton’s case progresses, it appears the probe is being directed by intelligence and national security law enforcement authorities rather than civilian agencies subject to political influence, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation investigation.

There are currently at least four national security investigations, including those by the FBI, Department of Justice, and the inspectors general for the Department of State and the Intelligence Community.

“The way I’m reading this is that there’s this uprising in the national security bureaucracies to prosecute Mrs. Clinton,” Tom Fitton told TheDCNF. Fitton is president of the nonprofit government watchdog Judicial Watch, which is preparing to depose top Clinton aides and possibly her as well, in litigation stemming from the State Department’s maladroit handling of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

...

[Kathianne]

Not sure what this means as far as an indictment, (in which case I may get the beer. ;) ). It certainly seems both relevant and maybe worse for Hillary. Much of this I haven't seen explained so clearly:

http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/


Hillary Has an NSA Problem

The FBI has been investigating Clinton for months—but an even more secretive Federal agency has its own important beef with her

By John R. Schindler (http://observer.com/author/john-r-schindler/) • 03/18/16 8:45am

...

Specifically, the Federal Bureau of Investigation examination of EmailGate, pursuant to provisions of the Espionage Act, poses a major threat to Ms. Clinton’s presidential aspirations. However, even if the FBI recommends prosecution of her or members of her inner circle for mishandling of classified information—which is something the politically unconnected routinely do face prosecution (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/14/if-your-name-isnt-hillary-the-hammer-for-mishandling-secrets) for—it’s by no means certain that the Department of Justice will follow the FBI’s lead.

What DoJ decides to do with EmailGate is ultimately a question of politics as much as justice. Ms. Clinton’s recent statement (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/debate-hillary-clinton-indicted-email-drop-out-not-going-to-happen-jorge-ramos) on her potential prosecution, “it’s not going to happen,” then refusing to address the question at all in a recent debate, led to speculation about a backroom deal with the White House to shield Hillary from prosecution as long as Mr. Obama is in the Oval Office. After mid-January, however, all bets would be off. In that case, winning the White House herself could be an urgent matter of avoiding prosecution for Ms. Clinton.

That said, if DoJ declines to prosecute after the Bureau recommends doing so, a leak-fest of a kind not seen in Washington, D.C., since Watergate should be anticipated. The FBI would be angry that its exhaustive investigation was thwarted by dirty deals between Democrats. In that case, a great deal of Clintonian dirty laundry could wind up in the hands of the press, habitual mainstream media covering for the Clintons (http://observer.com/2015/10/hillarys-email-troubles-are-far-from-over/) notwithstanding, perhaps having a major impact on the presidential race this year.

...

The State Department has not released the full document trail here, so the complete story remains unknown to the public. However, one senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. “It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff,” he explained, “the whole ‘rules are for other people’ act that I remembered from the Nineties.” Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer, like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question, given what a major scandal EmailGate turned out to be. “What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it?” the former NSA official asked, adding, “I wonder now, and I sure wish I’d asked about it back in 2009.”

He’s not the only NSA affiliate with pointed questions about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were really up to—and why they went to such trouble to circumvent Federal laws about the use of IT systems and the handling of classified information. This has come to a head thanks to Team Clinton’s gross mishandling of highly classified NSA intelligence.

As I explained in this column (http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/) in January, one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton’s emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011 to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Hillary’sunsavory (http://observer.com/2015/11/just-who-is-sidney-blumenthal-the-clintons-closest-advisor/) friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan’s top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only twenty-four hours before.

To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this is unmistakably signals intelligence, termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Hillary only one day later.

...

Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from their reports. “It’s word-for-word, verbatim copying,” one of them explained. “In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report” that was classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence.

How Sid Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there’s no firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA reports – none of which he was supposed to have any access to – and pass the details of them to Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special Intelligence channels, indicates something highly unusual—as well as illegal—was going on.
Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthal’s intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, whoconveniently died (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/tyler-drumheller-ex-cia-official-who-disputed-bush-dies-at-63.html?_r=1) last August before EmailGate became front-page news. However, he, too, had left Federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports.

There are many questions here about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were up to, including Sidney Blumenthal, an integral member of the Clinton organization, despite his lack of any government position. How Mr. Blumenthal got hold of this Top Secret-plus reporting is only the first question. Why he chose to email it to Ms. Clinton in open channels is another question. So is: How did nobody on Secretary Clinton’s staff notice that this highly detailed reporting looked exactly like SIGINT from NSA? Last, why did the State Department see fit to release this email, unredacted, to the public?

These are the questions being asked by officials at NSA and the FBI right now. All of them merit serious examination. Their answers may determine the political fate of Hillary Clinton—and who gets elected our next president in November.

[NightTrain]

Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from their reports. “It’s word-for-word, verbatim copying,” one of them explained. “In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report” that was classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence.

How Sid Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there’s no firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA reports – none of which he was supposed to have any access to – and pass the details of them to Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special Intelligence channels, indicates something highly unusual—as well as illegal—was going on.


Is it any wonder that the Russians and Chinese know all of our secrets? This is incompetence of the highest order in our intelligence agencies.

[Kathianne]

[/B]
Is it any wonder that the Russians and Chinese know all of our secrets? This is incompetence of the highest order in our intelligence agencies.

and something for CT's that 'know' Hillary:


Suspicion naturally falls on Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA senior official who was Mr. Blumenthal’s intelligence fixer, his supplier of juicy spy gossip, who conveniently died (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/tyler-drumheller-ex-cia-official-who-disputed-bush-dies-at-63.html?_r=1) last August before EmailGate became front-page news. However, he, too, had left Federal service years before and should not have had any access to current NSA reports.

[NightTrain]

Saw that.

Pancreatic cancer is usually lethal from what I've been told, though.

[Kathianne]

Been a bit of awhile, but this is reminding me more and more of how Watergate unraveled. Linking of Benghazi and emails:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-second-federal-court-grants-discovery-in-clinton-email-case/


Judicial Watch: Second Federal Court Grants Discovery in Clinton Email Case (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-second-federal-court-grants-discovery-in-clinton-email-case/)MARCH 29, 2016


Ruling Comes in FOIA Litigation over Benghazi Controversy(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth granted “limited discovery (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-memorandum-discovery-01242/)” to Judicial Watch into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email matter. Lamberth ruled that “where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases.”
The court’s ruling comes in a July 2014 Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit (https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-three-new-lawsuits-obama-administration-records-relating-benghazi-attack/) seeking records related to the drafting and use of the Benghazi talking points (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-announces-three-new-lawsuits-obama-administration-records-relating-benghazi-attack/) (No. 1:14-cv-01242)). The lawsuit seeks records specifically from Hillary Clinton and her top State Department staff:



Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency


Judge Lamberth granted Judicial Watch’s Motion for Discovery (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-discovery-motion-01242/), which was filed in opposition to the State Department’s Motion for Summary Judgement (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-summary-judgment-motion-01242/). The court ruled:



An understanding of the facts and circumstances surrounding Secretary Clinton’s extraordinary and exclusive use of her “clintonemail.com” account to conduct official government business, as well as other officials’ use of this account and their own personal e-mail accounts to conduct official government business is required before the Court can determine whether the search conducted here reasonably produced all responsive documents. Plaintiff is certainly entitled to dispute the State Department’s position that it has no obligation to produce these documents because it did not “possess” or “control” them at the time the FOIA request was made. The State Department’s willingness to now search documents voluntarily turned over to the Department by Secretary Clinton and other officials hardly transforms such a search into an “adequate” or “reasonable” one. Plaintiff is not relying on “speculation” or “surmise” as the State Department claims. Plaintiff is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials. Whether the State Department’s actions will ultimately be determined by the Court to not be “acting in good faith” remains to be seen at this time, but plaintiff is clearly entitled to discovery and a record before this Court rules on that issue.


The Court must observe that the Government argues in its opposition memorandum (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-opposition-discovery-01242/) that “the fact that State did not note that it had not searched Secretary Clinton’s e-mails when it responded to Plaintiffs FOIA request … was neither a misrepresentation nor material omission, because these documents were not in its possession and control when the original search was completed.” The Government argues that this does not show a lack of good faith, but that is what remains to be seen, and the factual record must be developed appropriately in order for this Court to make that determination.
Today’s ruling refers to U.S. District Court Emmett Sullivan’s decision to grant Judicial Watch discovery on the Clinton email matter in separate litigation:



Briefing is ongoing before Judge Sullivan. When Judge Sullivan issues a discovery order, the plaintiff shall — within ten days thereafter–file its specific proposed order detailing what additional proposed discovery, tailored to this case, it seeks to have this Court order. Defendant shall respond ten days after plaintiff’s submission.


Judge Sullivan is expected to rule on Judicial Watch’s discovery plan (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-presents-federal-court-with-proposed-witness-list-discovery-plan-in-clinton-email-matter/) after April 15. Judicial Watch’s discovery plan seeks the testimony of eight current and former State Department officials, including top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, former State IT employee Bryan Pagliano, and Clinton’s two top aides at the State Department: Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.


“This remarkable decision will allow Judicial Watch to explore the shifting stories and misrepresentations made by the Obama State Department and its current and former employees,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “This Benghazi litigation first uncovered (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-dept-state-1242-rice-talking-points-hillary-emails/) the Clinton email scandal, so it is good to have discovery in this lawsuit which may help the American people find out why our efforts to get Benghazi answers was thwarted by Clinton’s email games.”

###

[NightTrain]

It appears that the FBI has shifted gears from collecting the evidence to interviewing suspects - to include Hillary and her merry band of staffers.

I see a few staffers going to jail from copying classified email & sending it to the unauthorized system. They were just following orders, of course, but they knew it was wrong... if my boss told me to rob a bank, I'd probably have to decline without much thought.

[Gunny]

It appears that the FBI has shifted gears from collecting the evidence to interviewing suspects - to include Hillary and her merry band of staffers.

I see a few staffers going to jail from copying classified email & sending it to the unauthorized system. They were just following orders, of course, but they knew it was wrong... if my boss told me to rob a bank, I'd probably have to decline without much thought.

Having dealt with classified info for years, the whole thing is a farce. She should be in prison. Anyone following an unlawful order as blatant as this should be in there with her. The rules are clear and playing dumb don't cut it with me. The handling of classified material is grilled into your brain. There's no questions and no "well I thoughts ..." to it. Anyone else that has handled classified material knows the drill.

[NightTrain]

Having dealt with classified info for years, the whole thing is a farce. She should be in prison. Anyone following an unlawful order as blatant as this should be in there with her. The rules are clear and playing dumb don't cut it with me. The handling of classified material is grilled into your brain. There's no questions and no "well I thoughts ..." to it. Anyone else that has handled classified material knows the drill.

The fun part here is that during the interviews, the FBI already knows the answers to the questions. This is an opportunity to gain additional charges with lying, perjury & hindering prosecution... we'll see just how smart these staffers really are.

I expect a few dozen extra charges will stem from the interviews themselves.

[Gunny]

The fun part here is that during the interviews, the FBI already knows the answers to the questions. This is an opportunity to gain additional charges with lying, perjury & hindering prosecution... we'll see just how smart these staffers really are.

I expect a few dozen extra charges will stem from the interviews themselves.

I'll bet they aren't smart at all. Billery is a lawyer/liar. She likes to play word games. She's nowhere near as good as Bill was. I still think his definition of what sex is was a classic. That was more wordsmithing than I've seen lawyers pull on Law & Order. Staffers, on the other hand, ain't all that bright.

And the basic fact is, no staffer put an e-mail server in the closet next to Billary's bathroom.

[Kathianne]

Here's to hoping:

http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/31/clinton-investigation-dangerous-phase


<hgroup style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica, helvetica, sans-serif;">The Clinton Investigation Enters a Dangerous PhaseThe presumptive Democratic nominee faces a prudent legal but treacherous political decision.</hgroup>Andrew Napolitano (http://reason.com/people/andrew-napolitano/all) | March 31, 2016


...

We know that the acquisition and corroboration phase of the investigation has been completed because the prosecutors have begun to ask Clinton's top aides during her time as secretary of state to come in for interviews. This is a delicate and dangerous phase for the aides, all of whom have engaged counsel to represent them.


Here are the dangers.


The Department of Justice (DOJ) will not reveal to the aides or their lawyers what it knows about the case or what evidence of criminal wrongdoing, if any, it has acquired on each of them. Hence, if they submit to an FBI interview, they will go in "blind." By going in blind, the aides run the risk of getting caught in a "perjury trap." Though not under oath, they could be trapped into lying by astute prosecutors and aggressive FBI agents, as it is a crime—the equivalent of perjury—to lie to them or materially mislead them.


For this reason, most white-collar criminal defense lawyers will not permit their clients to be interviewed by any prosecutors or FBI agents. Martha Stewart's lawyers failed to give her that advice, and she went to prison for one lie told in one conversation with one FBI agent.


After interviewing any Clinton aides who choose to be interviewed, the DOJ personnel on the case will move their investigation into its final phase, in which they will ask Clinton herself whether she wishes to speak with them. The prosecutors will basically tell her lawyers that they have evidence of the criminal behavior of their client and that before they present it to a grand jury, they want to afford Clinton an opportunity blindly to challenge it.


This will be a moment she must devoutly wish would pass from her, as she will face a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't dilemma.


Here is her dilemma.


If she were to talk to federal prosecutors and FBI agents, they would catch her in many inconsistencies, as she has spoken with great deception in public about this case. She has, for example, stated many times that she used the private server so she could have one mobile device for all of her emails. The FBI knows she had four mobile devices. She has also falsely claimed publicly and under oath that she neither sent nor received anything "marked classified." The FBI knows that nothing is marked classified, and its agents also know that her unprotected secret server transmitted some of the nation's gravest secrets.


The prosecutors and agents cannot be happy about her public lies and her repeated demeaning attitude about their investigation, and they would have an understandable animus toward her if she were to meet with them.


If she were to decline to be interviewed—a prudent legal but treacherous political decision—the feds would leak her rejection of their invitation, and political turmoil would break loose because one of her most imprudent and often repeated public statements in this case has been that she can't wait to talk to the FBI. That's a lie, and the FBI knows it.


Some Democrats who now understand the gravity of the case against Clinton have taken to arguing lately that the feds should establish a different and higher bar—a novel and unknown requirement for a greater quantum of evidence and proof of a heavier degree of harm—before Clinton can be prosecuted. They have suggested this merely because she is the likely Democratic presidential nominee.


The public will never stand for that. America has a bedrock commitment to the rule of law. The rule of law means that no one is beneath the law's protections or above its requirements. The DOJ is not in the business of rewriting the law, but the Democrats should get in the business of rethinking Clinton's status as their presumptive presidential nominee, lest a summer catastrophe come their way.

[NightTrain]

Free beer is the best beer.

:beer:

[Kathianne]

Free beer is the best beer.

:beer:

If Hillary pays a price, it's worth paying for! :cool:

[Kathianne]

Ah, good news keeps coming! I've been disappointed before though:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/monica-crowley-the-clintons-sense-a-breakdown/


The FBI stalks Hillary while Bill Clinton trolls Obama

The Clintons may sense a breakdown


ANALYSIS/OPINION
Do Bill and Hillary Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-clinton/) sense a breakdown in whatever deal they may have struck with President Obama to protect her presidential ambitions? Is whatever negotiation they may have been conducting over her email server problem and any inside information she may have on him now imploding? Or have the Clintons “won” the negotiation with Mr. Obama, freeing them to hit him publicly to get her elected?

Something has happened, which has led Mr. Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-clinton/) to openly slam Mr. Obama: ” If you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us ” he said recently. A few days later, Chelsea Clinton launched a broadside on Obamacare’s costs. A classic Clintonian one-two punch, coming just days before a report that the FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/) is seeking interviews with Mrs. Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-clinton/)’s top aides, and likely Mrs. Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-clinton/) herself. Most investigations interview the target last.


What’s going on? No one knows for sure, but we have a clue.


In political scandals, sometimes it’s the person you’d least expect who says or does something that brings down the whole house of cards.


On July 16, 1973, Alexander Butterfield, former deputy assistant to President Nixon but a relatively minor White House player, revealed the existence of an Oval Office taping system to the Senate Watergate Committee and the nation. That disclosure began the denouement of the Nixon presidency.

Today, another relatively minor player may be revealing highly damaging information about someone who would like Mr. Nixon’s old job.

Former Hillary Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-clinton/) IT specialist Bryan Pagliano, a key witness in the investigation into her use of a private server, struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department and apparently has been singing. An intelligence source told Fox News that he has told the FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/) a range of details about how her personal email system was set up and maintained. The source described him as a “devastating witness.”

Mr. Pagliano is a pivotal — perhaps the pivotal — key to Mrs. Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-clinton/)’s server and what was being done on and through it — and by whom.




...


In another deeply problematic development, the FBI (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/federal-bureau-of-investigation/) is focused on documents she and her aides sent rather than received, because sending them demonstrates deliberate intent much more than receiving them would. It’s been reported that over 100 highly sensitive documents originated with her.


If there are major classified emails that were sent by Mrs. Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-clinton/), then one of my sources said “there won’t be escape from prosecution”.


Mrs. Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-clinton/)’s defense has been that she neither sent nor received anything “marked classified” at the time. This is more Clintonian parsing: documents are classified “confidential,” “secret” or “top secret.” Further, in January 2009 Mrs. Clinton (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/hillary-clinton/) signed the classified information non-disclosure agreement indicating that she understood that classified information could be marked and unmarked, and that it included verbal communications.


The Pagliano immunity deal is a piece of the puzzle. But in what way? As a general matter, DOJ does not like to grant offers of immunity unless it is assured something major in return.


...

[Kathianne]

Not so good, :(

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435

Clinton aides unite on FBI legal strategy


Four former staffers have been using the same lawyer during the investigation — suggesting they're not worried about legal jeopardy.
</header><footer class="meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">By Rachael Bade (http://www.politico.com/staff/rachael-bade)
<time datetime="2016-04-01T05:29-0400" style="box-sizing: border-box;">04/01/16 05:29 AM EDT</time>
</footer>

Four of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides appear to have adopted an unusual legal strategy, hiring the same ex-Justice Department attorney to represent them in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton's private email server.

Beth Wilkinson, a well-connected former assistant U.S. attorney best known for prosecuting Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, is listed as representing three of Clinton’s top State Department staffers, according to a congressional letter obtained by POLITICO and dated Feb. 10. A fourth Clinton aide, Philippe Reines, is also represented by Wilkinson, according to sources familiar with their representation.


...

Hiring the same attorney allows Clinton’s advisers to have one gatekeeper for most of the DOJ's inquiries — and it likely indicates that they expect to offer substantially similar testimony if they're questioned. Lawyers are barred from simultaneously representing people who may have conflicting interests in an investigation, or who would say something negative or potentially legally harmful about the lawyer’s other clients, experts say, although some such conflicts can be waived by the clients.
Thus, the aides' decision to use a so-called “joint-representation” or “common-defense” strategy suggests the staffers believe they’re in this together and are unlikely to turn on each other.


On the other hand, if one of the aides ends up in criminal jeopardy as part of the probe, choosing a “common-defense” strategy could mean trouble for that staffer, who may need to say something adverse about his or her attorney’s other clients.


“The premise of employing the same counsel is that they believe there is not likely to be a situation where they start pointing a finger at one another to save their own skins — or perhaps at Secretary Clinton,” said Dan Metcalfe, founding director of the DOJ's office of information and privacy. “And there’s a sense that if one of them goes down, they all go down. It shows they think they can coordinate the defense to everyone’s benefit.”


Metcalfe, now a law professor at American University, called it an “optimistic approach”: “They must believe prosecutors don’t have that much.”


...DiGenova questioned why the DOJ would greenlight the arrangement in the first place, arguing that it “presents an amazing conflict of interest” and allows for coordination of stories.


“If it’s a serious case, you don’t run the risk of having all sorts of collusion between people — it’s just not done,” said diGenova. “If the department has accepted that, that tells me they’re walking down the line of not bringing a case, because they’re not serious if they have accepted that arrangement … They’ve thrown in the towel.”


The DOJ declined to comment.


Several lawyers said the legal strategy would certainly benefit Clinton, if not the aides.


“If I were Ms. Clinton, I would want these secondary people to all say the same thing — not turn on one another, let alone me, and having one attorney represent them makes it all a hell of a lot simpler,” Metcalfe said.

[NightTrain]

Not so good, :(

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435

<header style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">[B]

Well, tried to fix that quoting weirdness there, Kathi, but damn if it won't take the fix! Hell with it.


Anyway, Judge Jeanine had a few things to say about the staffers hiring the same attorney. I expect when those hard questions begin, they'll all quickly hire their own and start trying to throw each other under the bus.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oBaC4xBeHsI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></header>

[Kathianne]

Make of this what you will:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/08/source-no-coincidence-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradited-amid-clinton-probe.html


Source: No 'coincidence' Romanian hacker Guccifer extradited amid Clinton probe

http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/person/h/catherine-herridge/_jcr_content/image.img.png/48/48/1454353841681.png (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/catherine-herridge/bio)


By Catherine Herridge, (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/catherine-herridge/bio) Pamela K. Browne (http://www.foxnews.com/archive/pamela-browne)
<time itemprop="datePublished" pubdate="" datetime="2016-04-08T09:49:00.000-04:00" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 3px; padding: 0px; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(153, 153, 153); line-height: 22px; display: inline-block; vertical-align: top; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; background: 0px 0px;">Published April 08, 2016</time> FoxNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/)

The extradition of Romanian hacker “Guccifer” to the U.S. at a critical point in the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email use is “not a coincidence,” according to an intelligence source close to the case.

One of the notches on Guccifer’s cyber-crime belt was allegedly accessing the email account of Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, one of Clinton’s most prolific advice-givers when she was secretary of state. It was through that hack that Clinton's use of a personal account -- clintonemail.com -- first came to light.

Former law enforcement and cyber security experts said the hacker, whose real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar, could – now that he’s in the U.S. – help the FBI make the case that Clinton’s email server was compromised by a third party, one that did not have the formal backing and resources of a foreign intelligence service such as that of Russia, China or Iran.

“Because of the proximity to Sidney Blumenthal and the activity involving Hillary’s emails, [the timing] seems to be something beyond curious,” said Ron Hosko, former assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Investigative Division from 2012-2014.

...

[NightTrain]

Make of this what you will:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/08/source-no-coincidence-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradited-amid-clinton-probe.html


:beer:

[NightTrain]

In a 2015 prison interview from Romania with reporter Matei Rosca for Pando.com, Lazar told Rosca that, "I used to read [Clinton's] memos for six or seven hours ... and then do the gardening."

...


The Romanian government told Fox News that the request to extradite Lazar came from the FBI, but when Fox News asked when the process began, a government spokesperson said they were not authorized to comment further.


Romanian media have reported the request came on or about Dec. 29, 2015. That would have been shortly after the intelligence community’s identification of emails beyond “top secret” on Clinton’s personal server, which became public in mid-January.

Airtight, baby!

Espionage all day long - "Failure to secure state secrets".

[Gunny]

Airtight, baby!

Espionage all day long - "Failure to secure state secrets".

She knows better. She's just trying to play Bill and Monica. Problem for her is she clearly violated the law. Bill just violated his cigar.

[NightTrain]

She knows better. She's just trying to play Bill and Monica. Problem for her is she clearly violated the law. Bill just violated his cigar.

Absolutely she knows better. While I loathe the woman, I do see that she's very intelligent. I suspect her bravado is flagging by now, as she watches the witnesses and noose tighten.

I'm hoping to get a mascara-streaked Tammy Faye style mugshot to frame.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8713&stc=1

[Gunny]

Absolutely she knows better. While I loathe the woman, I do see that she's very intelligent. I suspect her bravado is flagging by now, as she watches the witnesses and noose tighten.

I'm hoping to get a mascara-streaked Tammy Faye style mugshot to frame.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8713&stc=1

Braver man than me. I'm one of the few on the right that doesn't criticize Bill for screwing around on the sow. :laugh: And I don't need pics.

[Kathianne]

Judicial Watch scores again in the courts:

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/a-vast-email-conspiracy-1460069105-lMyQjAxMTE2NjAyNzEwODc2Wj


A Vast Email ConspiracyHillary’s biggest problem isn’t Bernie. It’s the Freedom of Information Act. By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
<time class="timestamp" style="margin: 0px 0px 4px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; outline: 0px; vertical-align: baseline; font-family: 'Whitney SSm', sans-serif; display: block; line-height: 2.2rem; color: rgb(102, 102, 102); background: 0px 0px;">April 7, 2016 6:45 p.m. ET

Hillary Clinton (http://topics.wsj.com/person/C/Hillary-Clinton/6344) is good at imagining partisan plots, and to listen to her team, no less than several inspectors general, the intelligence community, and the entire Republican ecosphere are colluding to turn her home-brew email system into a fake scandal. To this conspiracy, she must now add the federal judiciary.


In recent weeks, not one, but two, esteemed federal judges have granted an outside group—Judicial Watch—the right to conduct discovery into the origins and handling of her private email system. It’s a reminder that Mrs. Clinton’s biggest problem this election isn’t Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump (http://topics.wsj.com/person/T/Donald-Trump/159). Her problem is a 1966 statute known as the Freedom of Information Act, and the judges who enforce it.


The judges have taken unprecedented steps to resolve this case. It is exceedingly rare—almost unheard of—for a judge to allow discovery in a FOIA proceeding. This is a testament to how grave Mrs. Clinton’s email problem is. In the usual course of things, an outside group demands documents, a judge requires a federal department to hand them over, and the public learns something.


In this case—as we all know—the problem is that the State Department doesn’t have the documents. Or rather, it can’t confirm that it has them all, because State left it to Mrs. Clinton and her aides to possess them, and then to unilaterally decide what to hand over. To Judge Royce Lamberth, this is cut and dry “evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith,” and the law demands a full accounting of how this situation came to be, what records exist, and where they are now.


Speaking of the judge’s words, they too are a testament to Mrs. Clinton’s mess. Judge Lamberth was unplugged in his order, calling the former secretary of state’s email set up “extraordinary,” and slamming “constantly shifting admissions by the government and former government officials” about the setup. Judge Emmet Sullivan, the first to allow discovery, referred in his own hearing to Mrs. Clinton’s “totally atypical system” and noted that it “boggles the mind that the State Department allowed this circumstance to arise in the first place. It’s just very, very, very troubling.”


Fueling the judges’ suspicions has been new evidence that Mrs. Clinton didn’t turn everything over. Judicial Watch recently obtained emails showing that State Department and National Security Agency personnel had big concerns with Mrs. Clinton’s early demands that she be allowed to use a BlackBerry (http://quotes.wsj.com/BBRY) for secure correspondence. They wanted her to sit at a computer in a secure facility—as everyone else does. These documents include a February 2009 email from then-Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills to her boss, crowing that State was coming around to Mrs. Clinton’s demands, and a return email the same day from Mrs. Clinton saying, “That’s good news.”


These are clearly work-related emails. They speak to the question of Mrs. Clinton’s communications while at the State Department. They aren’t about yoga routines. And yet, guess what? That email chain was not included in the 55,000 pages of documents Mrs. Clinton turned over. Perhaps it was an oversight, but far more likely, the Clinton team—knowing the firestorm over a home-brew system—chose to withhold documents showing that State and NSA considered Mrs. Clinton’s email demands unsafe and unreasonable. What else did Mrs. Clinton choose to withhold from the public?


One other aspect of these new emails: Mrs. Clinton sent her “good news” email to Ms. Mills via her private hdr22@clintonemail.com account in February 2009. And yet the former secretary of state has publicly claimed she didn’t start using that address until March 2009, well after she was sworn in as secretary of state.


Judicial Watch is hoping to use discovery to interview eight current and former State Department officials, including Ms. Mills, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, top State Department official Patrick Kennedy, and former State IT employees Bryan Pagliano (who is reported to have recently been granted immunity by the FBI). And yet in a hearing this week in Judge Sullivan’s court, State Department officials were already moving to limit or shut down what questions Judicial Watch could ask—including those pertaining to how classified information was handled on the system.


Put another way, State wants to put off-limits the questions that are at the heart of the Clinton email scandal. And no surprise. The Judicial Watch discovery holds the potential to expose the many and varied ways Mrs. Clinton may have skirted the rules, and in turn to put enormous pressure on the FBI to act. These depositions meanwhile are currently set to happen this summer, right before the Democratic convention.


The beauty of FOIA is that it is designed to bring things to light. Mrs. Clinton has grown talented at outfoxing investigators, Congress, inspectors general, the press. But she made the error this time of playing games with a law that federal judges take seriously, and that gives outside watchdogs real leverage.
</time>

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Judicial Watch scores again in the courts:

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/a-vast-email-conspiracy-1460069105-lMyQjAxMTE2NjAyNzEwODc2Wj

All of that is good news to read --BUT-- NONE OF IT MATTERS IF THE HILDABEAST GETS INTO THE PRESIDENCY.
If she becomes President--all of that will go away(by her force) and her enemies will all be destroyed in any and every way possible.
Its a race to see if they(her and Bill's corrupt team/masters) can stall any meaningful action(prosecution) until after the election.
After the election--if she wins it all becomes moot AND SHE GETS 8 YEARS TO COMPLETE WHAT THE TRAITOR OBAMA STARTED.
THIS NATION WILL FALL.

RUSSIA AND CHINA BOTH ARE GEARING UP, BOTH ARE OUT JUST TAKING TERRITORY NOW!
IF SHE GETS IN, THEY KNOW WEAKNESS AND HAVE THE GOODS ON HER AND BILL, THEY BLACKMAIL AND USE THEIR
PREFERRED STATUS TO GET EVEN MORE--THE CLINTONS ARE BOTH QUASI-SOCIALISTS(HER FAR MORE SO THAN SLICK WILLIE).--Tyr

[Kathianne]

It's been awhile:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/23/state-department-moved-benghazi-files-after-subpoena-was-issued/

and from the left:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/as-long-as-hillary-clinto_b_9571406.html

[NightTrain]

There's a couple of obstruction laws broken, I certainly hope the FBI will nail whoever hid those files.


They said the files had been overlooked by State Department officials because the executive secretary’s office transferred them to another department and flagged them for archiving last April, shortly after receiving a subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

[NightTrain]

On another note, why does this thread look so weird? Is it corrupted from all the Hillary shenanigans?
jimnyc

[Kathianne]

NT, have you been saving for my win?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/god_comey_and_the_clinton_email_scandal.html


April 27, 2016God, Comey, and the Clinton Email ScandalBy Jonathan F. Keiler (http://www.americanthinker.com/author/jonathan_f_keiler/)


The Wall Street Journal had an otherwise interesting editorial (http://www.wsj.com/articles/clintons-negative-majority-1461106609?mod=djemMER) the other day that discussed Hillary Clinton's rising unpopularity despite effectively securing the Democrat nomination "barring an act of God or FBI Director Jim Comey[.]" I won't quibble about God, who presumably could easily short-circuit anyone's nomination, assuming that was on the heavenly agenda. But I do have a problem with the second part of the assertion, which is commonplace among conservatives these days, even in the rarified offices of the Journal, and a little disturbing in its flippant disregard of pretty obvious realities. Neither I nor anyone else seems to know what the FBI director's intentions are in the Clinton email affair, but whether he intends to refer charges to the Justice Department or not, Hillary Clinton – barring supernatural intervention – is going to win the Democrat nomination.

...

[NightTrain]

NT, have you been saving for my win?

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/god_comey_and_the_clinton_email_scandal.html


Rather ominous radio silence from the FBI lately, is it not?

For a year now we've had a steady drip-drip of "leaks" with damning info, and nothing in the last couple of weeks.

The last media frenzy told us that they've moved to Interview stage... no word on if they've invited Hellary personally but her staffers were certainly invited down to chat with the Men In Black.

I think it's Comey's version of a Dramatic Pause. :happy0203:




BTW, I prefer pale ales!

[Kathianne]

I haven't forgotten, not boding well if this pans out:

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/05/fbi-interviews-clinton-aides-in-connection-with-email-investigation/


FBI interviewing Clinton aides about private server, Hillary is next

POSTED AT 10:41 PM ON MAY 5, 2016 BY JOHN SEXTON


An afternoon exclusive from CNN. According to a story with three reporters in the byline, Huma Abedin and other Clinton aides have already been interviewed by the FBI in connection with the email investigation. Clinton herself will be interviewed in coming weeks. However, the big news is the claim in this story that, as of now, there is no prosecutable offense (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html?adkey=bn):



The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven’t found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.

In recent weeks, multiple aides have been interviewed — some more than once, the officials said. A date for an FBI interview of Clinton has not been set, these officials said, but is expected in the coming weeks. Abedin has cooperated with the probe, the officials said. Lawyers for Abedin declined to comment. The officials say the interviews of Clinton and her aides would be a routine part of an investigation like this.

The probe remains focused on the security of the server and the handling of classified information and hasn’t expanded to other matters, the officials said. Spokesmen for the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment.


So is this over? Maybe so if this is accurate, but a few thoughts on the story. First, there’s the use of that word “willfully.” Since last year Hillary Clinton has been leaning on the claim that none of the material was “marked” classified, the implication being that even if it was classified she didn’t know it. Some observers claim that’s important legally and differentiates Clinton’s situation from that of General Petraeus. Petraeus was on tape saying he knew the material he showed his mistress was highly classified. Since there appears to be no similar recording of Clinton, she can claim she never knew there was a problem.

However, the law covering Clinton’s actions in this case also specifically mentions gross negligence (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/04/04/former-doj-lawyer-hillary-clinton-should-be-prosecuted-over-email-handling/) which would seem to be the more appropriate category here. As you’ll see in the CNN clip below, there is apparently agreement that this private server should never have happened. Has the FBI decided she was negligent but not that negligent?

Second, there is no source named for this story but it does say the FBI and DOJ “declined to comment.” Speculating a bit here, the other agency that has been heavily involved in the process from the start is the State Department. The State Department has reliably taken Clinton’s side at every point, making their judgment somewhat suspect. Of course we can’t say for sure that’s where this is coming from but if it is then it’s little better than a press release from the Clinton camp.

Third, earlier this week Rep. Darrell Issa suggested (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/issa-clinton-investigation-likely-to-extend-beyond-election/article/2590075?custom_click=rss) there might be a “summary finding” about the email investigation before the election but that a second part of the investigation might continue well after the election. That analysis seems based on the assumption that the FBI is running a two-track investigation, something that Fox News Catherine Herridge reported to be the case back in January (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html). Clinton denied that claim at the time and this CNN story says the probe “hasn’t expanded to other matters.” If that’s true then Rep. Issa and Fox News seem to have received some bad information.

Finally, we’ve seen Clinton’s camp (and the State Department is firmly in her camp) try to get ahead of negative stories before with statements that turn out to be false or at least unverifiable. For instance, last August when the FBI seized Clinton’s private server she put out a statement which said, “She directed her team to give her email server that was used during her tenure as Secretary to the Department of Justice…” That made it sound as if she was the one taking the initiative when, in fact, it appears she had nothing to do with the decision and no choice in the matter (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/20/platte-river-networks-fbi-asked-us-to-turn-over-hillary-clinton-email-server/). When asked if Clinton had given this direction to her staff before or after being contacted by the FBI, her spokesman would not say.

If nothing else, this story does make it sound as if the FBI is wrapping this up in a matter of weeks. That means we’ll know the final outcome soon enough.

[jimnyc]

On another note, why does this thread look so weird? Is it corrupted from all the Hillary shenanigans?
@jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1)

Wow, that was strange! The code from one of the sites that Kath posted about had some strange 'header' code in it that warped the page. She nor anyone else did anything improperly, I guess vbulletin here just didn't care for it much!

Sorry for the delay, I'm not up to speed much on the 'mentions'. Yes, I know, I suck!! :laugh:

[NightTrain]

This nail should serve to hold down a corner of the coffin.



EXCLUSIVE: The Romanian hacker who says he easily breached Hillary Clinton’s personal email server also claimed, in a series of interviews with Fox News, that he spoke with the FBI at length on the plane when extradited from Romania to Virginia last month.

"They came after me, a guy from the FBI, from the State Department," 44-year-old Marcel Lehel Lazar, who goes by the moniker "Guccifer," told Fox News during a jailhouse phone interview. He said the conversation was "80 minutes ... recorded," and he took his own notes.


A government source confirmed that the hacker had a lot to say on the plane but provided no other details. Lazar was flown to the U.S. to face separate cyber-crime charges.


In addition to the apparent conversation with the FBI on the plane, Fox News has learned a meeting was expected as early as this week at the Alexandria, Va., detention center where he’s being held involving Guccifer, the FBI, the U.S. attorney and the defendant’s court-appointed lawyer.


These officials have not commented on his clams or detention.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/06/romanian-hacker-who-claims-breached-clinton-server-says-spoke-with-fbi-at-length.html?intcmp=hpbt1


FBI interviewed him for 80 minutes, now they're returning for another interview with a US Attorney, eh? That sounds pretty ominous.

I'm getting thirsty, Kathi.

[Kathianne]

This nail should serve to hold down a corner of the coffin.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/06/romanian-hacker-who-claims-breached-clinton-server-says-spoke-with-fbi-at-length.html?intcmp=hpbt1


FBI interviewed him for 80 minutes, now they're returning for another interview with a US Attorney, eh? That sounds pretty ominous.

I'm getting thirsty, Kathi.
You know I hope this works. She really needs to go down.

[NightTrain]

Kathianne

Looks like I'd better choose a beer to send you.

What's your poison? Light or Dark?

[Black Diamond]

Kathianne

Looks like I'd better choose a beer to send you.

What's your poison? Light or Dark?

She may have to pay you back down the road. But for now....

[Kathianne]

@Kathianne (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=8)

Looks like I'd better choose a beer to send you.

What's your poison? Light or Dark?
Thanks, Rick. I don't drink beer, so you're off the hook. Friendly bet!:thumb:

[Abbey Marie]

Thanks, Rick. I don't drink beer, so you're off the hook. Friendly bet!:thumb:

C'mon, girl, you know you can request coffee instead!

[Kathianne]

C'mon, girl, you know you can request coffee instead!

LOL! Was made for fun, no reason to enrich fed-ex. ;)