Colin Powell did the same thing...no outrage from conservatives there
I thought about this. When Colin Powell was the SoS iPods, thumb drives and other forms of communications were allowed in a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF). Times have changed and new rules are in place. Colin Powell also did not set up an email server in his bathroom either.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Whether or not there is illegality here is one question...but is it the most important question?
When you are serving as Secretary of State and you take the extraordinary step of setting up a private email server in your basement...not just a personal email account but a private email server...when you are fully aware that the very nature of your job will require the transmission of sensitive information...doesn't that call into question her judgement?
I say yes it does. And her judgment, more than anything else, is why I voted against her and why I do not want to see her secure the nomination.
This shouldn't be a Democrat vs Republican issue. This should be a common sense issue. Many Democrats giving her a pass on this issue would be hopping mad if the presumptive Republican frontrunner had not only done this but was also under federal investigation for it. The party loyalty in this cycle is blinding.
Whether or not there is illegality here is one question...but is it the most important question?
When you are serving as Secretary of State and you take the extraordinary step of setting up a private email server in your basement...not just a personal email account but a private email server...when you are fully aware that the very nature of your job will require the transmission of sensitive information...doesn't that call into question her judgement?
I say yes it does. And her judgment, more than anything else, is why I voted against her and why I do not want to see her secure the nomination.
This shouldn't be a Democrat vs Republican issue. This should be a common sense issue. Many Democrats giving her a pass on this issue would be hopping mad if the presumptive Republican frontrunner had not only done this but was also under federal investigation for it. The party loyalty in this cycle is blinding.
BOOM goes the dynamite!
Give her the manning sentences, traitor, she risked American lives, she compromised national security.
Whether or not there is illegality here is one question...but is it the most important question?
When you are serving as Secretary of State and you take the extraordinary step of setting up a private email server in your basement...not just a personal email account but a private email server...when you are fully aware that the very nature of your job will require the transmission of sensitive information...doesn't that call into question her judgement?
I say yes it does. And her judgment, more than anything else, is why I voted against her and why I do not want to see her secure the nomination.
This shouldn't be a Democrat vs Republican issue. This should be a common sense issue. Many Democrats giving her a pass on this issue would be hopping mad if the presumptive Republican frontrunner had not only done this but was also under federal investigation for it. The party loyalty in this cycle is blinding.
I agree, but if she gets the nomination I will vote for her. She may make mistakes from poor judgement, everything about the current GOP is born of the worst judgement.
Whether or not there is illegality here is one question...but is it the most important question?
When you are serving as Secretary of State and you take the extraordinary step of setting up a private email server in your basement...not just a personal email account but a private email server...when you are fully aware that the very nature of your job will require the transmission of sensitive information...doesn't that call into question her judgement?
I say yes it does. And her judgment, more than anything else, is why I voted against her and why I do not want to see her secure the nomination.
This shouldn't be a Democrat vs Republican issue. This should be a common sense issue. Many Democrats giving her a pass on this issue would be hopping mad if the presumptive Republican frontrunner had not only done this but was also under federal investigation for it. The party loyalty in this cycle is blinding.
I agree, but if she gets the nomination I will vote for her. She may make mistakes from poor judgement, everything about the current GOP is born of the worst judgement.
Unfortunately if I was living in a swing state I would have to think long and hard about it, too.
Whether or not there is illegality here is one question...but is it the most important question?
When you are serving as Secretary of State and you take the extraordinary step of setting up a private email server in your basement...not just a personal email account but a private email server...when you are fully aware that the very nature of your job will require the transmission of sensitive information...doesn't that call into question her judgement?
I say yes it does. And her judgment, more than anything else, is why I voted against her and why I do not want to see her secure the nomination.
This shouldn't be a Democrat vs Republican issue. This should be a common sense issue. Many Democrats giving her a pass on this issue would be hopping mad if the presumptive Republican frontrunner had not only done this but was also under federal investigation for it. The party loyalty in this cycle is blinding.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. This is politics, there is no room for such thoughtful comments pertaining to introspection. You have to violently agree with everything in your party or else! Disregard that it's rare, if not impossible, to fully agree with friends and family. You should sheepily follow people you don't even know and that always have at least some motivations that are not aligned with your own. It's exactly as they want it.
And this applies to the entire left-right continuum btw. (not all people, but people from all parts of the political spectrum that is).
Whether or not there is illegality here is one question...but is it the most important question?
When you are serving as Secretary of State and you take the extraordinary step of setting up a private email server in your basement...not just a personal email account but a private email server...when you are fully aware that the very nature of your job will require the transmission of sensitive information...doesn't that call into question her judgement?
I say yes it does. And her judgment, more than anything else, is why I voted against her and why I do not want to see her secure the nomination.
This shouldn't be a Democrat vs Republican issue. This should be a common sense issue. Many Democrats giving her a pass on this issue would be hopping mad if the presumptive Republican frontrunner had not only done this but was also under federal investigation for it. The party loyalty in this cycle is blinding.
I agree, but if she gets the nomination I will vote for her. She may make mistakes from poor judgement, everything about the current GOP is born of the worst judgement.
Whether or not there is illegality here is one question...but is it the most important question?
When you are serving as Secretary of State and you take the extraordinary step of setting up a private email server in your basement...not just a personal email account but a private email server...when you are fully aware that the very nature of your job will require the transmission of sensitive information...doesn't that call into question her judgement?
I say yes it does. And her judgment, more than anything else, is why I voted against her and why I do not want to see her secure the nomination.
This shouldn't be a Democrat vs Republican issue. This should be a common sense issue. Many Democrats giving her a pass on this issue would be hopping mad if the presumptive Republican frontrunner had not only done this but was also under federal investigation for it. The party loyalty in this cycle is blinding.
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy. This is politics, there is no room for such thoughtful comments pertaining to introspection. You have to violently agree with everything in your party or else! Disregard that it's rare, if not impossible, to fully agree with friends and family. You should sheepily follow people you don't even know and that always have at least some motivations that are not aligned with your own. It's exactly as they want it.
And this applies to the entire left-right continuum btw. (not all people, but people from all parts of the political spectrum that is).
It really is a non-issue. I am glad that there was some place left for her to get work done without prying eyes. Kind of like this forum.
Doesn't make sense, is English your second language? If so you do pretty well, if not you have a tenuous grasp on how to construct sentences. In what way was her private server like this forum?
It really is a non-issue. I am glad that there was some place left for her to get work done without prying eyes. Kind of like this forum.
Doesn't make sense, is English your second language? If so you do pretty well, if not you have a tenuous grasp on how to construct sentences. In what way was her private server like this forum?
Tenuous - I see what you did there.
There are no doubt some people converse and send messages on here that they would not do with a work computer.
It really is a non-issue. I am glad that there was some place left for her to get work done without prying eyes. Kind of like this forum.
Doesn't make sense, is English your second language? If so you do pretty well, if not you have a tenuous grasp on how to construct sentences. In what way was her private server like this forum?
Tenuous - I see what you did there.
There are no doubt some people converse and send messages on here that they would not do with a work computer.
Ok, now I understand what you are getting at! You are probably right, but we have some anonymity here and Clinton did not.
It really is a non-issue. I am glad that there was some place left for her to get work done without prying eyes. Kind of like this forum.
Doesn't make sense, is English your second language? If so you do pretty well, if not you have a tenuous grasp on how to construct sentences. In what way was her private server like this forum?
Tenuous - I see what you did there.
There are no doubt some people converse and send messages on here that they would not do with a work computer.
Ok, now I understand what you are getting at! You are probably right, but we have some anonymity here and Clinton did not.
I do believe however that she may have thought she had some anonymity at the time. Lots of people who don't fully understand how servers/computers/clouds etc assume that they have privacy.
"Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc."
While weaving in and out of the interwebs I found a link to this page... I was doing some background on how often the FBI: Allows the subject of their investigation to voluntarily turn over evidence vs issuing a warrant sub poena or injunction. And in those cases who and how long they were given to voluntarily comply.
How often the FBI has give multiple immunity deals, 5 in this casev without prosecuting.
I didn't spend to much time with it but it does peak my curiosity. The links and exhibits referenced appear on the surface to be authentic but you know how the interwebs work so take for what its worth.
while I think she probably made an error in judgment, really, this does not deserve the attention it's getting.
I think it does. It's not just that she used a private server. It is also her refusal to cooperate. 30,000 emails were not about wedding and yoga. Just about any work place that uses a computer has an email agreement that all emails on the company's account are company property. Any work related emails on a private account are still the company property. I would assume the highest level of government has something similar. If she choses to use a private account for work purposes, then she also choses to lose her privacy in those accounts. If there really was nothing to hide, she could have easily handed over every email to a single committee with the agreement that all non work related emails be handed back over and not disclosed to anyone else. Problem solved and no one would be talking about it anymore. But she chose not to do that, chose to delete and destroy them. The bigger issue is lying to the FBI and choosing to delete and destroy them AFTER a subpoena was issued to hand them over. Anyone else would be in jail if we destroyed something after a subpoena was issued. Why would she risk that over yoga? She wouldn't. Bottom line is it is only a big issue because Hilary made it one. She could have made this a story that lasted a weekend, she chose not to. So I have to assume she prefers whatever mess this has created over whatever mess she covered up with it.
while I think she probably made an error in judgment, really, this does not deserve the attention it's getting.
I think it does. It's not just that she used a private server. It is also her refusal to cooperate. 30,000 emails were not about wedding and yoga. Just about any work place that uses a computer has an email agreement that all emails on the company's account are company property. Any work related emails on a private account are still the company property. I would assume the highest level of government has something similar. If she choses to use a private account for work purposes, then she also choses to lose her privacy in those accounts. If there really was nothing to hide, she could have easily handed over every email to a single committee with the agreement that all non work related emails be handed back over and not disclosed to anyone else. Problem solved and no one would be talking about it anymore. But she chose not to do that, chose to delete and destroy them. The bigger issue is lying to the FBI and choosing to delete and destroy them AFTER a subpoena was issued to hand them over. Anyone else would be in jail if we destroyed something after a subpoena was issued. Why would she risk that over yoga? She wouldn't. Bottom line is it is only a big issue because Hilary made it one. She could have made this a story that lasted a weekend, she chose not to. So I have to assume she prefers whatever mess this has created over whatever mess she covered up with it.
that commente I made, if you'll notice, was from a year and a half ago. I changed my tune that it absolutely should deserve the attention it got.
I just found it interesting how so many opinions on this matter seem to have changed over the course of that time (mine included).
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
while I think she probably made an error in judgment, really, this does not deserve the attention it's getting.
I think it does. It's not just that she used a private server. It is also her refusal to cooperate. 30,000 emails were not about wedding and yoga. Just about any work place that uses a computer has an email agreement that all emails on the company's account are company property. Any work related emails on a private account are still the company property. I would assume the highest level of government has something similar. If she choses to use a private account for work purposes, then she also choses to lose her privacy in those accounts. If there really was nothing to hide, she could have easily handed over every email to a single committee with the agreement that all non work related emails be handed back over and not disclosed to anyone else. Problem solved and no one would be talking about it anymore. But she chose not to do that, chose to delete and destroy them. The bigger issue is lying to the FBI and choosing to delete and destroy them AFTER a subpoena was issued to hand them over. Anyone else would be in jail if we destroyed something after a subpoena was issued. Why would she risk that over yoga? She wouldn't. Bottom line is it is only a big issue because Hilary made it one. She could have made this a story that lasted a weekend, she chose not to. So I have to assume she prefers whatever mess this has created over whatever mess she covered up with it.
that commente I made, if you'll notice, was from a year and a half ago. I changed my tune that it absolutely should deserve the attention it got.
I just found it interesting how so many opinions on this matter seem to have changed over the course of that time (mine included).
Sorry I didn't notice the date on the OP. I read through the short thread and saw the last one was this morning, so I just assumed this all started last night. I was wondering why this topic was started when this discussion as going on in at least 2 or 3 other threads. Makes sense now. And a lot are still defending it too.
I stumbled upon this weaving in and around the interwebs, very interesting to say the least. It all sounds good if the statements are factual. Many many highly coincidental happenings here, if true. (on your maks.... get set....)
FBI Director James Comey testified under oath at a hearing before Congress, that the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, where she sent and received ‘top secret’ emails, did not warrant pressing criminal charges against her.
In essence, he said, not only was Hillary not smart enough, or qualified, to know that using an unsecured email server put our nations security at risk, but she was incapable of determining what was top secret material was.
More than 200 republicans sent a letter demanding to know why he didn’t recommend federal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of private email servers.
Clinton “clearly placed our nation’s secrets in peril,” the letter states. “No one is above the law, and the American people deserve a more robust explanation for your decision to not recommend criminal charges.”
According to Mini Planet, a review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.
In other words, his opinion was biased, and based on that fact, he should not have participated in the investigation let alone lead it and make the final determination.
These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
Lockheed Martin
When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.
But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year. Comey served as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft for two years of the Bush administration. When he left the Bush administration, he went directly to Lockheed Martin and became vice president, acting as a general counsel.
How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation.
Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010.
According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010.
In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department.
In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings.
“Mr. Comey’s appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” according to HSBC company records.
HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. For instance, HSBC Holdings has partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to “retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector” in “New York City.”
“Retrofitting” refers to a Green initiative to conserve energy in commercial housing units. Clinton Foundation records show that the Foundation projected “$1 billion in financing” for this Green initiative to conserve people’s energy in low-income housing units.
Who Is Peter Comey?
When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey,” a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website.
Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper. James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing.
DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base.
DLA Piper ranks #5 on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs.
And here is another thing: Peter Comey has a mortgage on his house that is owned by his brother James Comey, the FBI director.
Peter Comey’s financial records, obtained by Breitbart News, show that he bought a $950,000 house in Vienna, Virginia, in June 2008. He needed a $712,500 mortgage from First Savings Mortgage Corporation.
But on January 31, 2011, James Comey and his wife stepped in to become Private Party lenders. They granted a mortgage on the house for $711,000. Financial records suggest that Peter Comey took out two such mortgages from his brother that day.
This financial relationship between the Comey brothers began prior to James Comey’s nomination to become director of the FBI.
DLA Piper did not answer any question as to whether James Comey and Peter Comey spoke at any point about this mortgage or anything else during the Clinton email investigation.
This needs to be seen by all:
Lead FBI agent John Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation in February 2016. pay-for-play involving the Clinton Foundation were not properly vetted, ultimately white washed FBI agents were blocked from serving search warrants to retrieve key evidence FBI agents were not allowed to interrogate witnesses and targets without warning FBI agents had been trying to interview Clinton since December 2015, approval delayed by top brass FBI agents believed Clinton case was being “slow-walked” to run-out-the-clock FBI agents stunned that targets Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview. Clinton and aides cited amnesia. In Clinton’s case she claimed due to medical complications. Attempts to secure Clinton’s medical records to confirm her head injury were sabotaged by FBI Director James Comey
How many people involved in the Hilliary email scandal have pled the 5th? I've lost count
Judicial Watch announced today that another witness in the Clinton email matter asserted his Fifth Amendment rights during a Judicial Watch deposition today. The deposition of John Bentel, the State Department’s former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”), was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. S/ES-IRM is the office that handles information technology for the Office of the Secretary. Mr. Bentel answered over 90 questions with “On advice from my legal counsel, I decline to answer the question and I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights.”
It occured to me yesterday when I was hearing about this on the news how little I give a fuck about Hillary Clinton's email server.
This guy seems to sum it up nicely. Even a year and a half later.
This guy is a flippin genius! I remember after the Greenville show he recognized me from the Facebook post that was shaming me for having a baby. Half the commenters thought it was a bootleg booze baby doll lol
His Cubs are going to have some trouble with those Indians though...
It occured to me yesterday when I was hearing about this on the news how little I give a fuck about Hillary Clinton's email server.
This guy seems to sum it up nicely. Even a year and a half later.
This guy is a flippin genius! I remember after the Greenville show he recognized me from the Facebook post that was shaming me for having a baby. Half the commenters thought it was a bootleg booze baby doll lol
His Cubs are going to have some trouble with those Indians though...
Hahaha! Seems like such a douchey thing to do!
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
Comments
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
When you are serving as Secretary of State and you take the extraordinary step of setting up a private email server in your basement...not just a personal email account but a private email server...when you are fully aware that the very nature of your job will require the transmission of sensitive information...doesn't that call into question her judgement?
I say yes it does. And her judgment, more than anything else, is why I voted against her and why I do not want to see her secure the nomination.
This shouldn't be a Democrat vs Republican issue. This should be a common sense issue. Many Democrats giving her a pass on this issue would be hopping mad if the presumptive Republican frontrunner had not only done this but was also under federal investigation for it. The party loyalty in this cycle is blinding.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Give her the manning sentences, traitor, she risked American lives, she compromised national security.
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/remember-bradley-manning-hillary-clinton-probably-does-these-days.html/
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2015/08/13/chelsea-manning-and-hillary-clinton-a-case-of-double-standards/
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/flashback-when-hillary-clinton-worried-about-protecting-government-secrets
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
And this applies to the entire left-right continuum btw. (not all people, but people from all parts of the political spectrum that is).
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I am glad that there was some place left for her to get work done without prying eyes.
Kind of like this forum.
In what way was her private server like this forum?
There are no doubt some people converse and send messages on here that they would not do with a work computer.
You don't need sentences to make a point.
You are probably right, but we have some anonymity here and Clinton did not.
-EV 8/14/93
"Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc."
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7011
I was doing some background on how often the FBI:
Allows the subject of their investigation to voluntarily turn over evidence vs issuing a warrant sub poena or injunction. And in those cases who and how long they were given to voluntarily comply.
How often the FBI has give multiple immunity deals, 5 in this casev without prosecuting.
http://www.opnlttr.com/letter/dear-congressional-oversight-committee-stop-ignoring-elephant-room-911-saudis-hillary-clinton
I didn't spend to much time with it but it does peak my curiosity. The links and exhibits referenced appear on the surface to be authentic but you know how the interwebs work so take for what its worth.
If there really was nothing to hide, she could have easily handed over every email to a single committee with the agreement that all non work related emails be handed back over and not disclosed to anyone else. Problem solved and no one would be talking about it anymore. But she chose not to do that, chose to delete and destroy them.
The bigger issue is lying to the FBI and choosing to delete and destroy them AFTER a subpoena was issued to hand them over. Anyone else would be in jail if we destroyed something after a subpoena was issued. Why would she risk that over yoga? She wouldn't.
Bottom line is it is only a big issue because Hilary made it one. She could have made this a story that lasted a weekend, she chose not to. So I have to assume she prefers whatever mess this has created over whatever mess she covered up with it.
I just found it interesting how so many opinions on this matter seem to have changed over the course of that time (mine included).
-EV 8/14/93
(on your maks.... get set....)
http://truthuncensored.net/busted-fbi-director-received-millions-from-clinton-foundation-his-brothers-law-firm-clintons-taxes-video/
FBI Director James Comey testified under oath at a hearing before Congress, that the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, where she sent and received ‘top secret’ emails, did not warrant pressing criminal charges against her.
In essence, he said, not only was Hillary not smart enough, or qualified, to know that using an unsecured email server put our nations security at risk, but she was incapable of determining what was top secret material was.
More than 200 republicans sent a letter demanding to know why he didn’t recommend federal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of private email servers.
Clinton “clearly placed our nation’s secrets in peril,” the letter states. “No one is above the law, and the American people deserve a more robust explanation for your decision to not recommend criminal charges.”
According to Mini Planet, a review of FBI Director James Comey’s professional history and relationships shows that the Obama cabinet leader — now under fire for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton — is deeply entrenched in the big-money cronyism culture of Washington, D.C. His personal and professional relationships — all undisclosed as he announced the Bureau would not prosecute Clinton — reinforce bipartisan concerns that he may have politicized the criminal probe.
In other words, his opinion was biased, and based on that fact, he should not have participated in the investigation let alone lead it and make the final determination.
These concerns focus on millions of dollars that Comey accepted from a Clinton Foundation defense contractor, Comey’s former membership on a Clinton Foundation corporate partner’s board, and his surprising financial relationship with his brother Peter Comey, who works at the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation’s taxes.
Lockheed Martin
When President Obama nominated Comey to become FBI director in 2013, Comey promised the United States Senate that he would recuse himself on all cases involving former employers.
But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year.
Comey served as deputy attorney general under John Ashcroft for two years of the Bush administration. When he left the Bush administration, he went directly to Lockheed Martin and became vice president, acting as a general counsel.
How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation.
Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010.
According to records, Lockheed Martin is also a member of the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt, which paid Bill Clinton $250,000 to deliver a speech in 2010.
In 2010, Lockheed Martin won 17 approvals for private contracts from the Hillary Clinton State Department.
In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings.
“Mr. Comey’s appointment will be for an initial three-year term which, subject to re-election by shareholders, will expire at the conclusion of the 2016 Annual General Meeting,” according to HSBC company records.
HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. For instance, HSBC Holdings has partnered with Deutsche Bank through the Clinton Foundation to “retrofit 1,500 to 2,500 housing units, primarily in the low- to moderate-income sector” in “New York City.”
“Retrofitting” refers to a Green initiative to conserve energy in commercial housing units. Clinton Foundation records show that the Foundation projected “$1 billion in financing” for this Green initiative to conserve people’s energy in low-income housing units.
Who Is Peter Comey?
When our source called the Chinatown offices of D.C. law firm DLA Piper and asked for “Peter Comey,” a receptionist immediately put him through to Comey’s direct line. But Peter Comey is not featured on the DLA Piper website.
Peter Comey serves as “Senior Director of Real Estate Operations for the Americas” for DLA Piper. James Comey was not questioned about his relationship with Peter Comey in his confirmation hearing.
DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base.
DLA Piper ranks #5 on Hillary Clinton’s all-time career Top Contributors list, just ahead of Goldman Sachs.
And here is another thing: Peter Comey has a mortgage on his house that is owned by his brother James Comey, the FBI director.
Peter Comey’s financial records, obtained by Breitbart News, show that he bought a $950,000 house in Vienna, Virginia, in June 2008. He needed a $712,500 mortgage from First Savings Mortgage Corporation.
But on January 31, 2011, James Comey and his wife stepped in to become Private Party lenders. They granted a mortgage on the house for $711,000. Financial records suggest that Peter Comey took out two such mortgages from his brother that day.
This financial relationship between the Comey brothers began prior to James Comey’s nomination to become director of the FBI.
DLA Piper did not answer any question as to whether James Comey and Peter Comey spoke at any point about this mortgage or anything else during the Clinton email investigation.
This needs to be seen by all:
Lead FBI agent John Giacalone abruptly resigned in the middle of the investigation in February 2016.
pay-for-play involving the Clinton Foundation were not properly vetted, ultimately white washed
FBI agents were blocked from serving search warrants to retrieve key evidence
FBI agents were not allowed to interrogate witnesses and targets without warning
FBI agents had been trying to interview Clinton since December 2015, approval delayed by top brass
FBI agents believed Clinton case was being “slow-walked” to run-out-the-clock
FBI agents stunned that targets Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were permitted to sit in on Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview.
Clinton and aides cited amnesia. In Clinton’s case she claimed due to medical complications.
Attempts to secure Clinton’s medical records to confirm her head injury were sabotaged by FBI Director James Comey
Judicial Watch announced today that another witness in the Clinton email matter asserted his Fifth Amendment rights during a Judicial Watch deposition today. The deposition of John Bentel, the State Department’s former Director of Information Resource Management of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-IRM”), was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. S/ES-IRM is the office that handles information technology for the Office of the Secretary. Mr. Bentel answered over 90 questions with “On advice from my legal counsel, I decline to answer the question and I invoke my Fifth Amendment rights.”
we will find a way, we will find our place
I remember after the Greenville show he recognized me from the Facebook post that was shaming me for having a baby. Half the commenters thought it was a bootleg booze baby doll lol
His Cubs are going to have some trouble with those Indians though...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/25/trump-campaign-video-shows-clinton-coordinated-with-liberal-group-to-incite-crowds.html#
Godfather.
we will find a way, we will find our place
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-kim-dotcom-says-deleted-mails-can-be-recovered-2437812
1. Clinton's deleted emails can be retrieved from NSA
2. Podesta emails can be verified as authentic by NSA