Image 01 Image 03

FBI Expands Hillary Clinton Investigation to Include Public Corruption

FBI Expands Hillary Clinton Investigation to Include Public Corruption

Did Clinton’s Secretary of State business “intersect” with that of the Clinton Foundation?

Bad news for Hillary Clinton as Fox News reported Monday that the FBI has expanded its investigation.

What began as an investigation into Hillary’s use of a personal email account during her tenure as Secretary of State due to classified information found on their home-brewed server has expanded to include examination of business conducted the The Clinton Foundation.

Fox News reported:

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

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.

FBI agents with experience investigating cases like Clinton’s are pressing for prosecution.

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter.

It is unclear which of the two lines of inquiry was opened first by the FBI and whether they eventually will be combined and presented before a special grand jury. One intelligence source said the public corruption angle dates back to at least April 2015. On their official website, the FBI lists “public corruption as the FBI’s top criminal priority.”

Fox News is told that about 100 special agents assigned to the investigations also were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, with as many as 50 additional agents on “temporary duty assignment,” or TDY. The request to sign a new NDA could reflect that agents are handling the highly classified material in the emails, or serve as a reminder not to leak about the case, or both.

“The pressure on the lead agents is brutal,” a second source said. “Think of it like a military operation, you might need tanks called in along with infantry.”

Separately, a former high-ranking State Department official emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate non-use of her government email address may be increasingly “significant.”

“It is virtually automatic when one comes on board at the State Department to be assigned an email address,” the source said.

“It would have taken an affirmative act not to have one assigned … and it would also mean it was all planned out before she took office. This certainly raises questions about the so-called legal advice she claimed to have received from inside the State Department that what she was doing was proper.”

More than once, reports suggested that Clinton may have improperly used her role as Secretary of State for the financial benefit of The Clinton Foundation. See here and here.

When “Clinton Cash” hit book stores in April, the New York Times ran a lengthy exposé detailing The Clinton Foundation’s receipt of undisclosed Russian donations right around the time Russians acquired Uranium One. In that account, the NYT explained how Clinton was required by the White House to sign a memorandum of understanding, agreeing to restrict the foundation’s activities.

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on her husband’s foundation’s activities. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

In April of 2015 I wrote:

Thus far, Clinton’s private email and mysteriously empty private server tales have dominated headlines, and for good reason. That the embattled former Secretary of State may have quite literally traded diplomatic favors in exchange for private donations is even more concerning.

If we’re to look at EmailGate and the Clinton Foundation allegations as layers, or strata of the same scandal, the facts that Clinton 1) used a personal email account and 2) that her private server was supposedly wiped clean, make more sense than if the two are separated into self-sustaining scandals. Further, if may provide context for why Mrs. Clinton opted to wander down the unprecedented path of being the sole proprietor of her official records.

As I’ve suspected from the early stages of the EmailGate story, Hillary’s involvement with The Clinton Foundation, not her use of private email, will be the biggest headache for the Clintons this go-round. And a fight they’ll be hard-pressed to win.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Da chickenezzzzzzzzz are comin’ home…to ROOOOOST!!!!”

    Swarms of them… it looks like that old Hitchcock film ‘The Birds’ except with chickens.

    legacyrepublican in reply to Ragspierre. | January 11, 2016 at 4:28 pm

    Rags, soon, maybe, you will be able to go on and say “She didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Prison landed her!”

    I certainly hope you are correct, but with the Clintons and Obama don’t count your chickens before they have actually made it home to the roost.

    53% of democrats say she should stay in race for president even if she is indicted. Democrats and the democrat party have no sense of shame or honor left whatsoever.

    mariner in reply to Ragspierre. | January 12, 2016 at 2:47 am

    But not yet. This ensures they’ll fly around a while longer.

    How much longer? Can’t talk about this ongoing investigation. (Translation: as long as Obama wants them to.)

I’m still not terribly clear how the FBI could force the DOJ’s hand and force them to indict.

    I don’t think they can, but they sure can leak information.

      rorschach256 in reply to Paul. | January 11, 2016 at 3:14 pm

      If they were to leak information, would that not undermine any future prosecution by another administration?

        I expect she’ll be pardoned by Obama on his way out the door.

        rorschach256, this is really in reply to your comment about pardoning a “co-conspirator!” Pity all indent levels can’t have replies.

        The president’s pardon power is absolute “… except in Cases of Impeachment.” Can’t show me any further infringements because they’re not there!

        So, could he pardon himself? Why not? Obama, especially, why not? That would be the safe bet, given what many believe to be an involvement with some of Hillary’s activities.

        Nixon didn’t pardon himself, and I don’t truly understand why he didn’t, because, IMHO, he could have. Yes, Ford did pardon Nixon and, TTBOMK, for anything Nixon might have done prior to the issuance of Ford’s pardon. Maybe Nixon was thinking about being a good upright person, doing the “right” thing, that one time.

        Wonder if Bubba might have pardoned both himself and Lady Hillary for anything at all, federally, just before he left office. Of course, a Presidential Pardon only applies to prior offenses against the the US, so maybe that needs to be refreshed for Hillary.

    Ragspierre in reply to rorschach256. | January 11, 2016 at 3:14 pm

    They can raise a very, very public stink that will essentially INVITE an indictment.

      rorschach256 in reply to Ragspierre. | January 11, 2016 at 4:17 pm

      That would only do something if the AG and/or Obama gave a damn what the public/congress thought. I suspect that is not the case.

“Did Clinton’s Secretary of State business “intersect” with that of the Clinton Foundation?”

In one word: Duh!
In slightly more than one word: Yes, of course. Collecting tens of millions of dollars worth of donations for your own private slush fund from the same people you’re doing government business with as the SecState is so blatantly wrong that only a Clinton could think it was legal. For crying out loud, the Feds make employees get permission to sell Avon, and even then you’re not supposed to do business with your government contacts.

New Fill-In-The-Dots puzzle that the MSM is finally able to complete.

Clinton ———– Corruption
(1). ————— .(2)

I don’t know how you avoid the appearance of impropriety with an entity such as the Clinton Foundation, when it takes money from foreign donors. They are even more up-front than Donald Trump about expecting a quid pro quo.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Valerie. | January 12, 2016 at 9:15 am

    The interesting thing here is that when they were doing the quid pro quo, while Herself was Sec. of State, it was the Bill Clinton foundation. Now, the name of the foundation includes her name, as well as the name of their daughter. Which means that that is the name that is being used now, and would (I think) likely be the name used at trial. Which means that you have the State Department doing nice things for parties who gave a lot of money to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton foundation. There is a possibility that they could keep her name out of the foundation’s name at trial, but I think it would be hard to keep the tie out. Not that it probably matters, since at the time time the quid pro quos were done, he was her husband (and was taking large sums personally from parties with business before her State Department for speaking).

    I don’t think that they worked this through, esp. by putting her name on the foundation, and giving her some management duties. Not that it didn’t stink to high heaven before that. But, now, I think that it is too blatant to ignore. What must be kept in mind here is that money is fungible, which ultimately means that her department was doing favors for entities that contributed millions to a foundation that shortly thereafter had her name on it, and she partially controlled.

    It should look interesting.

So it sounds like the FBI was able to retrieve the missing emails?

The significant proportion of potential voters and donors who STILL support Hillary (including the coveted Sabrina Fulton, mother of St. Skittles, endorsement) are a testimonial to how deeply troubled this poor nation is.

Yeah, so? Until Obama considers Hillary a political liability, he will do whatever he needs to do to shield her from prosecution; including a Presidential Pardon.

The women of the FBI hot on the trail of Hillary: we must We must we must increase our bust.

100 agents?

That’s because there is so some much “THERE” there.

Question: Are any senior officials of the FBI making these decisions former Navy SEALs? Those are not enemies anyone (even the Clintons) want to have. It might as well be Jane Fonda being investigated by Vietnam POWs. them dogs bite.

Looks like screeching grandma has some splaining to do!

Henry Hawkins | January 11, 2016 at 5:09 pm

Wouldn’t a charity with Bill Clinton’s name on it be better termed a pubic charity? The boy has always given it away – whether you want it or not.

Another Voice | January 11, 2016 at 5:49 pm

Obama has already declared as early as 2014 he wants to be the Sec. Gen. of the United Nations. He envisions global status as his true legacy, not being able to achieve it as President of a country he has tried to diminish. He will not allow the “hand that feeds the machine” take a hit on something like this where he has the “right” to neutralize. Bill is his ticket to ride the express train to global status with his goal of being larger than life, more revered than Mandela or King. Obama will do whatever to shut this down.

Hillary will be absolved or pardoned if convicted of any wrong doing. Bill will have held up his end of the bargain with Hillary, to get her to the White House, and Obama will have held up his end of the bargain by keeping her out of prison.

Who will be the first Democrat to realize they don’t want to be either Thelma or Louise?

The corrupt, incompetent old crow’s on her way out.

Wouldn’t it be great to be on the sidelines during her perp walk – throwing rotten tomatoes?

The DOJ will prosecute and Hillary’s gonna earn herself a Sternly Written Letter, suspended probation, and a presidential pardon come this October.

“Democrats and the democrat party have no sense of shame or honor left whatsoever.”

More than no sense of shame and more a sense of an over abundance of self-righteous entitlement. They cannot and will not be denied. You who reject this, are being on the wrong side being right. Always.

Disgraced, nonetheless.

The bonus is that Bill Clinton’s impeachment will make sense to a wider number of people.

Let’s face it… we’re beating our meat like it owes us money.

There will be no indictment, there will be no prosecution. If she’s elected there will be no impeachment even if the entire FBI file is made public.

It’s all a vast right wing conspiracy, anyway.

Investigating the Clinton Foundation and Hillary’s top aides. Hmmmm.

I know it’s unrealistic of me to expect anything resembling justice but I still can’t help dreaming of a big fat RICO case.

The Clintons have spent 25+ years skating free unscathed from all manner of scandals and alleged crimes. I’ll believe she’ll be indicted when I see it.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to maxmillion. | January 12, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    And think you (and me) have a long wait on that one. Nothing will happen to her, or to Bill. If she loses, she will continue making a good living off of speeches and her scam foundations.

Henry Hawkins | January 12, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Not that I think she’ll do one minute of time, but can you imagine being Hillary’s cell mate?

Who thinks that a Russian company who wants to buy an American uranium mining company is just going to donate $145 million to the Clinton foundation out of the goodness of their hearts? No one in their right mind does. I bet that this company has never donated significant amounts to any western non-profit until they needed Hillary’s acquiescence to this sale