FBI Made Deal With Hillary To Destroy Evidence Along With Deal To Ignore Evidence

[mudwhistle]

Well....it's out in the open now. The FBI was on the take. The FBI agreed with Hillary to destroy evidence that the Republican Congress had demanded be retained in their investigation.

BREAKING: FBI Made 'Side Deals' to Destroy Top Clinton Aides' Laptops

This was just your average FBI investigation, you see, in which the same woman was: (1) a subject of the probe, (2) a key witness in the probe, (3) a dubious immunity recipient, and (4) a lawyer to the primary subject -- who was allowed to sit in on her quasi-client's interview with investigators. And if that wasn't enough, the FBI reportedly agreed to permanently destroy two pieces of evidence after reviewing them. I'll defer to law enforcement experts as to whether or not this sort of thing is remotely standard practice, but to a layperson, it seems like yet another peculiarity surrounding this case.

Whoa: The FBI Made 'Side Deals' to Destroy Top Hillary Aides' Laptops, For Some Reason​

 

[pismoe]

let JUSTICE be done though the heavens may fall --- that way of looking at things is probably outdated !!

 

[mudwhistle]

I noticed....that when revelations like this show up...the leftist vampires stay away like it's garlic.

 

[Brynmr]

Unbelievable!

Electing Clinton will be electing a criminal and a continuation of an utterly corrupt administration.

 

[Brynmr]

It's a shame pneumonia didn't take this bitch out.

 

[bodecea]

Well....it's out in the open now. The FBI was on the take. The FBI agreed with Hillary to destroy evidence that the Republican Congress had demanded be retained in their investigation.

BREAKING: FBI Made 'Side Deals' to Destroy Top Clinton Aides' Laptops

This was just your average FBI investigation, you see, in which the same woman was: (1) a subject of the probe, (2) a key witness in the probe, (3) a dubious immunity recipient, and (4) a lawyer to the primary subject -- who was allowed to sit in on her quasi-client's interview with investigators. And if that wasn't enough, the FBI reportedly agreed to permanently destroy two pieces of evidence after reviewing them. I'll defer to law enforcement experts as to whether or not this sort of thing is remotely standard practice, but to a layperson, it seems like yet another peculiarity surrounding this case.

Whoa: The FBI Made 'Side Deals' to Destroy Top Hillary Aides' Laptops, For Some Reason​

Of course....they are ALL against you.

 

[Brynmr]

Well....it's out in the open now. The FBI was on the take. The FBI agreed with Hillary to destroy evidence that the Republican Congress had demanded be retained in their investigation.

BREAKING: FBI Made 'Side Deals' to Destroy Top Clinton Aides' Laptops

This was just your average FBI investigation, you see, in which the same woman was: (1) a subject of the probe, (2) a key witness in the probe, (3) a dubious immunity recipient, and (4) a lawyer to the primary subject -- who was allowed to sit in on her quasi-client's interview with investigators. And if that wasn't enough, the FBI reportedly agreed to permanently destroy two pieces of evidence after reviewing them. I'll defer to law enforcement experts as to whether or not this sort of thing is remotely standard practice, but to a layperson, it seems like yet another peculiarity surrounding this case.

Whoa: The FBI Made 'Side Deals' to Destroy Top Hillary Aides' Laptops, For Some Reason​

Of course....they are ALL against you.

Good people stand against corruption.

 

[dannyboys]

Unbelievable!

Electing Clinton will be electing a criminal and a continuation of an utterly corrupt administration.

Elect The Clinton Crime Corp. and watch what they do to the SC.
Say fucking GOODBYE to the USA!

 

[aris2chat]

What happened to firing squads?

 

[alang1216]

I noticed....that when revelations like this show up...the leftist vampires stay away like it's garlic.

I've made a number of posts (elsewhere) that use CNN, NY Times, or some other mainstream news organization for support. I've noticed that some conservatives are happy to ignore the evidence since it comes from a "left-wing" source. I guess there are liberals that feel the same way about unknown right-wing sources and just ignore them.

 

[pwjohn]

Well....it's out in the open now. The FBI was on the take. The FBI agreed with Hillary to destroy evidence that the Republican Congress had demanded be retained in their investigation.

BREAKING: FBI Made 'Side Deals' to Destroy Top Clinton Aides' Laptops

This was just your average FBI investigation, you see, in which the same woman was: (1) a subject of the probe, (2) a key witness in the probe, (3) a dubious immunity recipient, and (4) a lawyer to the primary subject -- who was allowed to sit in on her quasi-client's interview with investigators. And if that wasn't enough, the FBI reportedly agreed to permanently destroy two pieces of evidence after reviewing them. I'll defer to law enforcement experts as to whether or not this sort of thing is remotely standard practice, but to a layperson, it seems like yet another peculiarity surrounding this case.

Whoa: The FBI Made 'Side Deals' to Destroy Top Hillary Aides' Laptops, For Some Reason​

Hogwash.

 

[mudwhistle]

I noticed....that when revelations like this show up...the leftist vampires stay away like it's garlic.

I've made a number of posts (elsewhere) that use CNN, NY Times, or some other mainstream news organization for support. I've noticed that some conservatives are happy to ignore the evidence since it comes from a "left-wing" source. I guess there are liberals that feel the same way about unknown right-wing sources and just ignore them.

CNN has proven to be unreliable at times because of their bias and the NY Times stopped being a news organization 20 years ago.

 

[alang1216]

I noticed....that when revelations like this show up...the leftist vampires stay away like it's garlic.

I've made a number of posts (elsewhere) that use CNN, NY Times, or some other mainstream news organization for support. I've noticed that some conservatives are happy to ignore the evidence since it comes from a "left-wing" source. I guess there are liberals that feel the same way about unknown right-wing sources and just ignore them.

CNN has proven to be unreliable at times because of their bias and the NY Times stopped being a news organization 20 years ago.

And the source you cited has been proven reliable? Did you judge it the same way you judge the mainstream media or do they get a pass because they support your opinions?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I noticed....that when revelations like this show up...the leftist vampires stay away like it's garlic.

I've made a number of posts (elsewhere) that use CNN, NY Times, or some other mainstream news organization for support. I've noticed that some conservatives are happy to ignore the evidence since it comes from a "left-wing" source. I guess there are liberals that feel the same way about unknown right-wing sources and just ignore them.

CNN has proven to be unreliable at times because of their bias and the NY Times stopped being a news organization 20 years ago.

And the source you cited has been proven reliable? Did you judge it the same way you judge the mainstream media or do they get a pass because they support your opinions?

Sometimes you need to consult alternative sources in order to fill in the blanks of MSM biased omission. Better to get a comprehensive take than rely solely on left wing (MSM) media.

 

[alang1216]

I noticed....that when revelations like this show up...the leftist vampires stay away like it's garlic.

I've made a number of posts (elsewhere) that use CNN, NY Times, or some other mainstream news organization for support. I've noticed that some conservatives are happy to ignore the evidence since it comes from a "left-wing" source. I guess there are liberals that feel the same way about unknown right-wing sources and just ignore them.

CNN has proven to be unreliable at times because of their bias and the NY Times stopped being a news organization 20 years ago.

And the source you cited has been proven reliable? Did you judge it the same way you judge the mainstream media or do they get a pass because they support your opinions?

Sometimes you need to consult alternative sources in order to fill in the blanks of MSM biased omission. Better to get a comprehensive take than rely solely on left wing (MSM) media.

re: Better to get a comprehensive take than rely solely on left wing (MSM) media

So long as you don't rely solely on "alternative sources" and ignore the MSM as Mr. Whistle appears to have done.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I noticed....that when revelations like this show up...the leftist vampires stay away like it's garlic.

I've made a number of posts (elsewhere) that use CNN, NY Times, or some other mainstream news organization for support. I've noticed that some conservatives are happy to ignore the evidence since it comes from a "left-wing" source. I guess there are liberals that feel the same way about unknown right-wing sources and just ignore them.

CNN has proven to be unreliable at times because of their bias and the NY Times stopped being a news organization 20 years ago.

And the source you cited has been proven reliable? Did you judge it the same way you judge the mainstream media or do they get a pass because they support your opinions?

Sometimes you need to consult alternative sources in order to fill in the blanks of MSM biased omission. Better to get a comprehensive take than rely solely on left wing (MSM) media.

re: Better to get a comprehensive take than rely solely on left wing (MSM) media

So long as you don't rely solely on "alternative sources" and ignore the MSM as Mr. Whistle appears to have done.

No I think he gets both since left wing biased MSM is ubiquitous. The onus is on those rely only on MSM.

 

[Care4all]

hmmmm, maybe because the FBI got the investigation as a SECURITY REFERRAL not a Criminal Referral and the clients, all being lawyers, requested LIMITED IMMUNITY just to be sure the partisan congress critters would not be able to drag the investigation on for simply political posturing. and it was Republicans that fed their right wing media with delusions of grandeur that this FBI investigation, began as a criminal investigation, which IT DID NOT.

READ LAST PARAGRAPH IN LINK...the FBI investigation began as a security review, it had nothing to do with the Benghazi committee with congress critters...

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/...ng_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf



And BTW they WERE NOT given IMMUNITY, they were given LIMITED immunity....distinctly different.

 

[2aguy]

hmmmm, maybe because the FBI got the investigation as a SECURITY REFERRAL not a Criminal Referral and the clients, all being lawyers, requested LIMITED IMMUNITY just to be sure the partisan congress critters would not be able to drag the investigation on for simply political posturing. and it was Republicans that fed their right wing media with delusions of grandeur that this FBI investigation, began as a criminal investigation, which IT DID NOT.

READ LAST PARAGRAPH IN LINK...the FBI investigation began as a security review, it had nothing to do with the Benghazi committee with congress critters...

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/...ng_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf



And BTW they WERE NOT given IMMUNITY, they were given LIMITED immunity....distinctly different.

Sorry...FBI director Comey, the democrat stooge himself said that the FBI does not do Security Checks.....

Sorry.......those laptops were directly part of the investigation...they did not need to immunize, and would not have immunized anyone else in any other case.....Andrew McCarthy talks about this in his columns....he successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheik, the guy behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center.....and a 30 year friend of Comey...

You can tell McCarthy is really disapointed by Comey.....

 

[2aguy]

Here is the take by the man who prosecuted the Blind Sheik.....

Please Tell Me These FBI/DOJ ‘Side Deals’ with Clinton E-Mail Suspects Didn’t Happen

According to House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), the immunity agreements struck by the Justice Department with Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson, two top subjects of the FBI’s Clinton e-mail investigation, included “side agreements.” Pursuant to these side agreements, it was stipulated that

(a) the FBI would not scrutinize any documents dated after January 31, 2015 (i.e., about five weeks before the most disturbing actions suggestive of obstruction of justice occurred);

and

(b) the FBI — in an investigation critically involving destruction of documents — would destroy the computers after conducting its search.

----

For anyone who worked in the Justice Department for any length of time, the striking of side deals with a defense lawyer (in this instance, Beth Wilkinson, who represents both Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson) is bracing.

Written agreements with the Justice Department (regarding, for example, guilty pleas and cooperation) customarily include a clause explaining that the four corners of the document contain the entirety of the understandings between the parties.

This is done precisely because defendants often claim they were enticed into signing the agreement because of this or that side deal purportedly agreed to by the government.

The Justice Department likes to be able to say, “We don’t engage in those sorts of shenanigans. The agreement is the single agreement as written.”

Why did the Justice Department make side deals in this case (which we’ve been told was treated like any other case . . . except, alas, when it wasn’t)?

More fundamentally, as I’ve been arguing since we learned of the immunity agreements, why did the government grant immunity in the first place?

Unfortunately, the question, at this point, is rhetorical.

Immunity was granted because the Justice Department would not use the grand jury against Mrs. Clinton.

As I’ve explained, the computers were physical evidence.

The law empowers the government to compel production of physical evidence by subpoena (or by search warrant if there is suspicion that the evidence will be tampered with or destroyed).


Importantly, however, the power to compel production of evidence derives from the grand jury.

In the Clinton e-mails case, unlike virtually every other criminal case, the Justice Department apparently declined to convert the FBI’s investigation into a grand-jury investigation. This meant grand-jury subpoenas would not be issued.

 

[alang1216]

No I think he gets both since left wing biased MSM is ubiquitous. The onus is on those rely only on MSM.

You think? Well until I see some evidence of that I'll just ignore him and let others deal.