Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

FBI Interviews Hillary About Email Scandal for Over Three Hours

FBI Interviews Hillary About Email Scandal for Over Three Hours

A “voluntary interview” at FBI headquarters

Hillary’s long-awaited date night with the FBI apparently took place this morning in Washington D.C. and lasted for 3 1/2 hours.

ABC News reports:

Hillary Clinton gave a “voluntary interview” to the FBI today regarding her email arrangements while she was secretary of state, her campaign says.

“Secretary Clinton gave a voluntary interview this morning about her email arrangements while she was Secretary,” spokesman Nick Merrill said. “She is pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the Department of Justice in bringing this review to a conclusion. Out of respect for the investigative process, she will not comment further on her interview.”

The interview occurred at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., and lasted approximately three and a half hours, according to a Clinton aide.

The plan is to figure out whether or not to recommend filing charges before the Democrat convention later this month.

ABC News continues:

The FBI is in the final stages of its email-related investigation, looking at how Clinton and her aides handled classified information when she was secretary of state.

The Justice Department’s goal is to complete the investigation and make recommendations on whether charges should be filed before the two major party conventions take place toward the latter half of July, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

Officials want ample time to review Clinton’s interview and compare it to everything they have discovered in the months-long investigations, according to the source.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch has said she will accept the recommendations of the career prosecutors and investigators regarding the case.

Lynch, of course, made a gross error in judgment earlier this week by meeting with Bill Clinton in Arizona and then clumsily trying to cover it up.  With her credibility undermined and calls for her resignation multiplying, Lynch attempted Friday to explain the process of recommendation and her “full expectation” that she will accept those recommendations.

The Daily Mail reports:

News of the potential interview came on a day when Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she ‘fully’ expects to accept the recommendation of the career professionals as to how to proceed on the case, although she left herself some wiggle room.

‘The recommendations will be reviewed by career supervisors in the Department of Justice and in the FBI, and by the FBI director, and then as is the common process, they present it to me and I fully expect to accept their recommendations,’ Lynch said at a panel in Aspen Friday.

Lynch said she would be accepting those recommendations, although she notably said she was not recusing herself from the matter entirely, giving herself an opportunity to steer the process.

Reactions on Twitter range from the silly to the serious:

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Secretary Clinton gave a voluntary interview this morning about her email arrangements while she was Secretary,” spokesman Nick Merrill said. “She is pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the Department of Justice in bringing this review to a conclusion. Out of respect for the investigative process, she will not comment further on her interview.”

– Think I’m getting vertigo…

    Paul in reply to HUTCH68. | July 2, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    My thought exactly…. “Out of respect for the investigative process” my ass.

    What a disgusting, vile lying whore. The whole thing has been one giant episode of corruption and obstruction.

    4fun in reply to HUTCH68. | July 2, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/07/judge_jeanine_pirro_on_why_hillary_wont_be_indicted.html

    “The reason she will not be indicted is because her first witness as a defendant in a criminal case is the President of the United States. Why? Because Hillary Clinton emailed President Barack Obama. He knew she had a private email server. So he is complicit. And they will not allow a constitutional crisis where the President of the United States knew about the risking of security of the United States,” said Pirro.

    The judge said Clinton “threw a shot across the bow” recently when she said publicly that “everyone” in Washington knew she was using a private email.

    “Translation? Mr. President, this isn’t happening because you’re my first witness,” said Pirro, explaining that this investigation is a “charade and a dance” at this point.

      MrE in reply to 4fun. | July 2, 2016 at 10:21 pm

      I don’t understand this argument. How does one make the leap between “clintonemail.com” and a server in her home? Couldn’t it just as easily have been an alias or simple forward to a dot GOV server? Obummer might have simply thought it was a ‘vanity’ email address, hosted on a GOV mail server.

Beginning to believe that the scenario of Hillary learning that she is, unfortunately, too ill to campaign this fall will actually happen.

Plus, given the precedence set back in 1972, when the Dem VP candidate was replaced after their convention, Hillary will be replaced by …; name your own choice for the ultimate Dem nominee.

Further, given Hillary’s severe illness and long term prognosis of her chronic health issues, and Bubba’s too, Obama might issue his own prescription resolving their long lingering health issues; which will never see the light of day, officially, so that they might live long and guide their Clinton foundation forward.

Is it customary for the FBI to do this?
Are they fishing for more information?
Seems to me it might make more sense to interview her on the stand, under oath, rather than risk error.
And what might they disclose to her via the questions they asked. I really don’t know.

inspectorudy | July 2, 2016 at 2:41 pm

If this wasn’t hillary clinton and this other person was being investigated by the FBI, do you think for one minute that the Demorats would think that this person should be able to buy a gun? So if you are being investigated by the FBI and cannot buy a gun, should you be able to run for the highest office in the land? Does this seem like a no brainer to you too? One thing we can say about the clinton’s is that they do things that the history books have never recorded and probably never will again unless Chelsae runs for office!

The headline is wrong. It should read “Hillary interviewed by FBI for ONLY 3 hours.” The very short amount of time indicates that they got tired of hearing her say, “I don’t remember” or “I can’t recall” or the ever popular “I have no recollection of that.”

Or the thought provoking “On advice of my attorney I am refusing to answer on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me, you worthless peons!”

Hillary Server Email: A March 27, 2011 titled, “Chris Stevens mission.”:

“The current game plan is for Mr. Stevens to move no later than Wednesday from Malta to Benghazi. He will stage offshore initially for a one day visit during which he will have meetings with TNC interlocutors and get a sense of the situation on the ground. The goal of this one day trip is for him to lay the groundwork for a stay of up to 30 days.” https://foia.state.gov/searcha
Hillary’s use of the private server killed the Ambassador.

Enough said.

What if the meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch was to work out an immunity agreement? (/wishful thinking)

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to MrE. | July 2, 2016 at 11:39 pm

    Or maybe was a quid pro quo/feather both our nests agreement: Lynch stays on when Hillary is takes office, which she (Lynch) can facilitate by not seeking an indictment.

What am I missing? If you are the target of an investigation you do not submit to questioning!
If Hillary Clinton is the target of a criminal investigation, the agents conducting the interview would be obligated to inform her of her right to remain silent and if she agrees to questioning, they would request that she sign a waiver of her rights.
No attorney would allow their client to answer any questions put to her by an FBI agent:

https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc

NSA executive Thomas Drake spoke to the FBI to inform them about corruption. They used Drakes own statements to charge him with violations of the espionage act:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?311537-1/nsa-whistleblower-discusses-intelligence-community

So, really, what is going on here?

    That’s what you do if you think they don’t have enough evidence on you and you might be able to beat the rap.

    If on the other hand they lay out enough of their case to show that they have you dead to rights, you spend four hours talking to them to see if there’s any possible way out of the deep hole you’re in.

      Oh, God no. No, no, no. Your *lawyer* may talk to them for four hours, but if you’re the >target< of the investigation and you have the sense God gave a goose, you shut the heck up and don't say a word, not even Hello. I'm not a lawyer and I know that.

      There are two exceptions: One is if you are a fool and really want to go to jail. The second is if God has somehow anointed you with magic pixie memory dust that has erased your entire memory of anything that might be covered by the investigation, and this dust is contagious to the interviewers, leading to a massive wave of amnesia and some specific pardons.

      I'm suspecting pixie dust here.

Love, love, love the fact that the “voluntary interview” was conducted on the Saturday of a holiday weekend.

    snopercod in reply to Leslie Eastman. | July 2, 2016 at 7:04 pm

    When I had a Top Secret clearance, any interview wouldn’t have been “voluntary”. Why does the FBI give Hillary special consideration? Oh nevermind, forget I asked…

      The FBI didn’t say it was voluntary.

      Hillary’s press secretary claimed it was.

      Milhouse in reply to snopercod. | July 3, 2016 at 10:48 am

      It wouldn’t have been voluntary? Under what authority could they have compelled you to come in and answer their questions, without arresting and charging you? If you’d refused, what could they have done to you? Had you fired? Cancelled your clearance? Clinton can’t be fired, because she doesn’t work for the government, if she becomes president she won’t need a clearance, and if she doesn’t she still won’t need one. So how could an interview have been anything but voluntary?

Well, you could always hope the real target of the investigation was Obama, and Hillary is just another witness…

What if?
In this administration Obama controls anything & everything he chooses to. Obsessively so.

It’s undeniable he’s owned the Clintons from the beginning. He made her S. of S., he’s manipulated her as much & too the degree he’s chosen. He’s capitalized on her inevitable screw-ups, played the whole production to his advantage. Nothing happened he couldn’t have stopped well before it’s reached the present situation.

Those of the govt media with a brain have played along & enjoyed every minute. They love watching a master perform his craft.

Two things are possible with Obama.
This whole exercise is being performed so in the end the “investigation” will find insufficient evidence to continue the process further ; in effect giving Clinton a pass & exoneration to continue.
I believe Obama hates the democrats & democrat white liberal leadership as much as he hates republicans. Possibly more. He owns the republicans & both know it. Democrats on the other hand have pretensions of superiority. They believe they made him.

Which puts Obama in a win – win situation whatever happens. In the meantime he’s had free rein to do any & all damage to the overall country he desires. Manipulations, distractions, lies & chaos are his tool’s of his trade.

To Fuzzy ;
It’s interesting you chose the Hillary picture that makes her look like the transformed from pumpkin to carriage imagery from Cinderella. Will the glass slipper somehow fit? Or will the princess be back to mopping up the semen of the former king?

    Secondwind, I just like the shot of Hillary in an orange jumpsuit. Gee, I wonder why? Heh

    Mac45 in reply to secondwind. | July 2, 2016 at 5:09 pm

    Actually, Obama owns nothing. Obama is a wholly owned subsidiary of the current financial establishment in this country. He does nothing that does not meet with the approval of the monied class in this country. And, he certainly does not own Hillary. Back in the 2008 campaign, Hillary could have made a big deal of the controversy over Obama’s citizenship, which would likely have cooled support for him as President. She didn’t. In exchange she was given an appointment as Secretary of State , a cabinet position which is almost ceremonial, at this point, and a promise that she would be the Democrat nominee in 2016. This is all payback. And, it is payback from the Democrat party and its financial masters.

      Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | July 3, 2016 at 10:55 am

      Oh, really. And who exactly is this “financial establishment”, and “monied class”?

Did she wear Hillary Orange to the interview?

Orange you glad I didn’t say Trump?

My guess is the result will be the lie: “it was stupid but not criminal”. And Democrats will smile and gloat, then proceed to vote for the stupid candidate. A thought: if the shrew is exonerated and becomes President, what exactly happens to all these agents who investigated and interviewed her?

    Probably another mass-retirement like we saw with the Generals and Majors in the aftermath of Benghazi.
    If you looked at that, you would see pretty much a re-structuring. Huge turnover.

If FBI doesn’t recommend indict, or such recommendation is ignored, Law and Justice are meaningless in this land. What a legacy. Could anyone be so foolish?

Question No. 1 the next time Clinton or any of her staff appear in public: “Did the FBI read Sec. Clinton her Miranda rights?” Question No. 2 “Did Sec. Clinton assert her 5th Amendment right not to answer any question asked of her by the FBI?” Question No. 3: “How many time did Sec. Clinton reply ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t remember’ or some variation of that answer to a question by the FBI?” Actually, 3 1/2 hrs is fairly short given the scope of the investigation and the complexity but I would bet the FBI had a specific, targeted list of key questions which need to be answered in order to either get an admission or a false denial. The FBI would not want to be seen as harassing this poor woman (the whole War on Women thing). As for voluntary; it was only voluntary to the extent that she wants to keep running for President and a refusal (as she did to the State Dept IG) would be the kiss of death which no one could defend.

Hillary Clinton “questioned” for 3.5 hrs by the FBI. This indicates that there will be no indictment, no charges filed and no arrest. Hillary Clinton is a target in a criminal investigation and no attorney worth his salt is going to allow her to submit to any type of questioning, in a case where it is abundantly clear that so many violations of law have occurred. Unless… there is no possibility of criminal charges being filed, against her, in this matter.

    Mercyneal in reply to Mac45. | July 2, 2016 at 6:09 pm

    You have no way of knowing that. I was interviewed by the FBI as a source for a criminal investigation. It was very productive. Length of interview has absolutely NO bearing on the outcome. Stop reading tea leaves

    See my reply to catscradle upthread.

Picture John Banner as Sgt. Schultz.

Words mean things. The only way, in my opinion, that Lynch can “fully expect to accept” any recommendation is if she already knows what that recommendation will be.

The four most used words were know, remember and understand ,preceded by don’t .
She used the understand line when she needed some time to figure whether she forgot or just didn’t know

Comey must have put the screws to her. You can bet that she has been putting him off.
Trying to get it done before the convention does not look good for her . If there were going to be no charges , anytime would work.

Lynch said she would accept the recommendations but she didn’t say she would act on them.
I have “accepted” many funky ties for fathers day ,wearing them ,not so much

healthguyfsu | July 2, 2016 at 10:52 pm

Any interview is technically voluntary unless you are under arrest, since the interviewee is free to leave or refuse to cooperate.

That said, many people cooperate in these situations because it is worse for them not to, and that is exactly what is happening here.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states as follows:

“The President…shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

“Presidential pardons can be granted anytime after an offense has been committed including before, during, or after a conviction for the offense. If granted before a conviction is given, it prevents any penalties from attaching to the person. If granted after a conviction, it removes the penalties, and restores the person to all his or her civil rights. However, a pardon can never be granted before an offense has been committed – because the president does not have the power to waive the laws.”

“Furthermore, because the power of the presidential pardon comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, it cannot modified, diminished or altered by any laws passed by Congress, except by an amendment to the Constitution (which is generally very difficult to do). Also, the president has unlimited pardon power, except in cases of impeachment. This means the president can pardon as many individuals as he or she wants for any federal criminal acts against the United States, unless that individual has been impeached by Congress (which is also very rare).”

http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=61&pageid=321

Note: President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to all the Vietnam draft dodgers.
https://www.justice.gov/pardon/vietnam-war-era-pardon-instructions

President Ford offered amnesty to draft evaders and military deserters
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0916.html

    Milhouse in reply to catscradle. | July 3, 2016 at 10:58 am

    Furthermore, because the power of the presidential pardon comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, it cannot modified, diminished or altered by any laws passed by Congress, except by an amendment to the Constitution (which is generally very difficult to do). Also, the president has unlimited pardon power, except in cases of impeachment. This means the president can pardon as many individuals as he or she wants for any federal criminal acts against the United States, unless that individual has been impeached by Congress (which is also very rare).

    Incorrect. The president can pardon someone who was impeached. It just doesn’t cancel the impeachment, or save them from trial in the senate.

JackRussellTerrierist | July 2, 2016 at 11:31 pm

What’s terribly wrong about all this is that we don’t know. The lack of transparency from all levels of government now have us all, whether we will admit it or not, pretty much in the dark on most subjects of importance, especially those involving integrity and corruption.

We know they think we are stupid. They’ve said so directly, in words, and also in deeds, policies, tyrannical mandates and legislation.

VaGentleman | July 2, 2016 at 11:36 pm

I don’t believe that the meeting between B Clinton and Lynch was a lapse of judgement. Meeting with the spouse of the subject of a (high profile) investigation requires too big a lapse in judgement to be believable. I will believe that it was a means to communicate to H Clinton where the land mines were in the FBI interview. I can believe that very easily.

The FBI plans interviews thoroughly. They have been laying the groundwork for this interview for months, and have known for weeks what questions they were going to ask and what conflicts Hillary needed to explain away. Knowing when to say, “I don’t remember”, is important. Avoid the lie at all costs.

In that regard, the meeting was about grandkids – as in, “If she ever wants to see hers again outside prison …”.

Putting her in that category is an insult to all vile lying whores.

    re:

    Paul | July 2, 2016 at 2:11 pm

    My thought exactly…. “Out of respect for the investigative process” my ass.

    What a disgusting, vile lying whore. The whole thing has been one giant episode of corruption and obstruction.

None of the reports i have seen mentioned if she had an attorney present or if she pleaded the 5th.

    Mercyneal in reply to dunce1239. | July 3, 2016 at 7:32 am

    I saw a report that said attorney David Kendall was with her and possibly others.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Mercyneal. | July 3, 2016 at 12:39 pm

      The presence of Kendall and other counsel means Hillary answered almost nothing and that the FBI may actually be serious about recommending an indictment. It seems she came kicking and screaming strictly for election purposes, not to bamboozle the FBI.

Never, ever gets old. “Try to Remember” Paul Shanklin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWQureIC1QM

So the investigation was apparently parked, ready for her testimony on short notice. They knew all that they needed to know to formulate questions? So what were they waiting for to summon her?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend