"FBI head challenges Clinton's description of email probe"

Billary couldn't tell the truth if her life depended on it.

By Julian Hattem - 05/11/16 01:59 PM EDT
The head of the FBI on Wednesday appeared to challenge Hillary Clinton’s characterization of the federal investigation into her private email server.

Clinton and her allies have repeatedly called the probe a routine “security inquiry.”

But Director James Comey told reporters that wasn’t an accurate description.
"It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry,' " Comey said at a roundtable with reporters, according to Politico.

“We’re conducting an investigation ... That’s what we do,” he said, according to Fox News.

Comey reportedly declined to say whether or not the investigation is “criminal” in nature.

The months-long federal probe appears to be entering its final stages, following reports in recent days that a number of Clinton allies have been interviewed. Clinton herself is expected to answer questions from FBI investigators and federal prosecutors in coming days or weeks.

Comey on Wednesday said the investigation is not “tethered to any external deadline,” such as this summer’s Democratic convention.

Still, he said he was under “pressure” to finalize the investigation promptly and efficiently.

"We want to do it well and we want to do it promptly. I feel pressure to do both of those things," Comey said. "As between the two things, we will always choose 'well.' "

Comey’s description of the investigation could frustrate the likely Democratic nominee’s efforts to dismiss concerns about her email arrangement.

The federal investigation into Clinton’s server, and the possibility that classified information may have been mishandled, has magnified criticism about the bespoke email setup.

Her decision to use a private server throughout her time as secretary of State has been a repeated target for Clinton’s Republican critics, and is likely to be hammered once the likely Democratic nominee squares off against presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Clinton’s campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry from The Hill about Comey’s characterization.

The FBI itself has been closely scrutinized throughout the investigation, despite the refusal of Comey, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other top officials to discuss the matter.

The heightened partisan tensions on both sides of the probe make it likely that any decision on how to proceed — whether the investigation turns into a criminal indictment or not — quickly becomes a target of political fire from one side or the other.

Critics of Clinton, who fear that the Justice Department will abandon the probe into Clinton’s email setup, have pushed for investigators to release details of the probe, if it comes up short of a criminal charge.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279552-fbi-head-challenges-clinton-on-email-probe

nochain wrote:

Billary couldn't tell the truth if her life depended on it.

By Julian Hattem - 05/11/16 01:59 PM EDT
The head of the FBI on Wednesday appeared to challenge Hillary Clinton’s characterization of the federal investigation into her private email server.

Clinton and her allies have repeatedly called the probe a routine “security inquiry.”

But Director James Comey told reporters that wasn’t an accurate description.
"It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry,' " Comey said at a roundtable with reporters, according to Politico.

“We’re conducting an investigation ... That’s what we do,” he said, according to Fox News.

Comey reportedly declined to say whether or not the investigation is “criminal” in nature.

The months-long federal probe appears to be entering its final stages, following reports in recent days that a number of Clinton allies have been interviewed. Clinton herself is expected to answer questions from FBI investigators and federal prosecutors in coming days or weeks.

Comey on Wednesday said the investigation is not “tethered to any external deadline,” such as this summer’s Democratic convention.

Still, he said he was under “pressure” to finalize the investigation promptly and efficiently.

"We want to do it well and we want to do it promptly. I feel pressure to do both of those things," Comey said. "As between the two things, we will always choose 'well.' "

Comey’s description of the investigation could frustrate the likely Democratic nominee’s efforts to dismiss concerns about her email arrangement.

The federal investigation into Clinton’s server, and the possibility that classified information may have been mishandled, has magnified criticism about the bespoke email setup.

Her decision to use a private server throughout her time as secretary of State has been a repeated target for Clinton’s Republican critics, and is likely to be hammered once the likely Democratic nominee squares off against presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.

Clinton’s campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry from The Hill about Comey’s characterization.

The FBI itself has been closely scrutinized throughout the investigation, despite the refusal of Comey, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and other top officials to discuss the matter.

The heightened partisan tensions on both sides of the probe make it likely that any decision on how to proceed — whether the investigation turns into a criminal indictment or not — quickly becomes a target of political fire from one side or the other.

Critics of Clinton, who fear that the Justice Department will abandon the probe into Clinton’s email setup, have pushed for investigators to release details of the probe, if it comes up short of a criminal charge.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279552-fbi-head-challenges-clinton-on-email-probe

To hrc it's a "security inquiry" and to the former president "it's a game"....Nothing to due with her wrongdoings and disregard for laws...rules...protocol for handling of classified documents/information...For both it is a game and typical of how they've handled such 'games' in the past...it's not perjury everybody lies about affairs...blame the republicans and right wingers ...and then start up with the attack machines to go after those that dare to question or challange the Clintons....It's always political and never their problem....She proved to be incompetent to run the State Department and yet he calls her the smartest woman he's known [well that may be true compared to his conquests] and she believes she did a great job as secretary of state and is entitled to be the president/commander-in-chief....Again....she is a horrible untrustworthy candidate and yet she's a worse human being....being that she refuses to accept responsibility and accountability then it's no wonder why she was chosen to serve in this administration...

Yet another example of the Farm Animal ignoring security protocols for her convenience.

"Clinton abandoned secure line to use home phone, new email shows"

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279764-email-clinton-abandoned-secure-line-to-use-home-phone

nochain wrote:

Yet another example of the Farm Animal ignoring security protocols for her convenience.

"Clinton abandoned secure line to use home phone, new email shows"

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/279764-email-clinton-abandoned-secure-line-to-use-home-phone

The House is getting ready to subpeona WH Strategist Rhodes for his comments of lying and manipulating about the Iran Deal....He's lied and the WH is attempting to cover for him....now remember it was Rhodes' ego that bragged about the lying/manipulation this isn't the evil republicans or a right wing conspiracy....Once again the way this cowh/administration has lied....is it any wonder why they get along so well with hrc?....She supported the deal and the cowh's foreign policies.....

It seems so odd to me that there are so many that don't mind being lied to. I knew within about a year that bush2 wasn't what he campaigned as... no way I could vote for him in 04.

I sure hope she doesn't out any CIA agents.

I knew the Clintons had no ethics or respect for the military before Bill was ever elected and never voted for a Clinton to begin with.. Remember, they went to Russia during the war to protest against OUR military in Viet Nam..

polecat wrote:

I sure hope she doesn't out any CIA agents.

Just killed an Ambassador....and 3 others.......

nochain wrote:

polecat wrote:

I sure hope she doesn't out any CIA agents.

Just killed an Ambassador....and 3 others.......

and countless civilians in libya and syria... she even encouraged the violence in egypt and tunisia... but not iran. Go figure.

nochain wrote:

polecat wrote:

I sure hope she doesn't out any CIA agents.

Just killed an Ambassador....and 3 others.......

Like that time Ronald Reagan killed 180 Marines in Beirut I think it was.

It's a good thing Mexico will pay for that giant wall because it doesn't sound like Trump contributes much in the way of taxes. - John Fugelsang

In 2012 that Republicans had cut funding for embassy security because defending Americans abroad was not a “priority”:


For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012….

[In 2011] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

These cuts occurred, of course, not long before the deadly attacks the GOP is so desperate to pin on their favorite enemies.

Go figure.

nochain wrote:

polecat wrote:

I sure hope she doesn't out any CIA agents.

Just killed an Ambassador....and 3 others.......

Oh, so the calls for impeachment....and a scandal that would reach the steps of the White House when an agent...or not an agent was outed...or not outed....these were some reactions of democrats when it was a republican administration and yet some of these same democrats are suddenly defensive when it comes to the incompetent/reckless behavior of hrc in her utilizing...sending.receiving classified on a private server which was not authorized...Some of the same democrats are suddenly accepting of these inactions/incompetence while four were murdered....these events weren't a spontaneous protest---as the initial lie was and certainly not the result of an internet video---another lie that was spread by hrc...susan rice and others even after knowing within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack and the ambassador murdered had requested additional security weeks prior....Yeah it's easy to attempt to be funny and blame others errors/mistakes to cover for this amatuer administration but when the cowh and hrc can stand in front of caskets returning and tell the victim's surivors that they'll get a the responsible party----the maker of an internet video....that's aboout as low as any two human beings can go....

polecat wrote:

In 2012 that Republicans had cut funding for embassy security because defending Americans abroad was not a “priority”:


For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department’s Worldwide Security Protection program — well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012….

[In 2011] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

These cuts occurred, of course, not long before the deadly attacks the GOP is so desperate to pin on their favorite enemies.

Go figure.

You really need to "go figure" your facts again. LOLDNC

BTW the Clinton State Dept denied several requests for additional security. Those requests were not denied because of lack of funds but lack of awareness/interest in the situation. That info is also in the CNN fact check link.

"A GOP House Appropriations Committee aide confirmed the House bill had less in these accounts than what the administration requested.
However, the final bill, after being worked on by the Democratic-led Senate, put in more money than what had passed in the House. The final bill, which passed with bipartisan support, gave a total of $2.37 billion to these accounts for fiscal 2012 -- about $270 million less than what the administration had requested.
Conclusion: The GOP-led House did initially approve about $330 million less than what the administration requested, but in the final bill, passed with bipartisan support after adjustments by the Senate, put the amount a little closer to the administration's target."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/12/politics/fact-check-benghazi-security/