Court Filing: FBI Claims Documents on Trump Statements Are Subject of Russia Investigation

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2016
Posted on Thu May 11, 2017 at 01:06:45 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe would not tell Congress if Trump was under investigation.

In an FOIA case pending in federal court in the District of Columbia, filed by Ryan Shapiro and Jason Leopold, the FBI has been a little more forthcoming.

In August, 2016, Shapiro and Leopold, in separate FOIA requests, asked for:

“disclosure of any and all records, including investigative records, mentioning or referring to Donald J. Trump’s statement on 27 July, 2016 [regarding Secretary Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails], ‘Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,’ and ‘I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.’”

The FBI did not timely respond, so they sued. Their cases are consolidated. In its first response, the FBI refused to confirm or deny there were documents that were responsive to the request.[More...]

Then on March 20, for the first time, James Comey publicly acknowledged the investigation. Here's what he said:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential Election. And that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

The FBI, no longer restricted from acknowledging the existence of the investigation, modified its position on Jason and Ryan's request for documents about Trump's Russia statement in a status report filed in court. You can read the document here.

First, it is going to search for the documents responsive to the request. It thinks there are some.

9. Although initial searches began only as recently as the week of March 20, 2017, and definitive information is not yet available, the FBI expects that it possesses at least some records that are responsive to Plaintiffs’ Russia Request and subject to FOIA.

Again, Shapiro and Leopold only requested documents pertaining to Donald Trump's statement, not anyone else's statements. The FBI filing goes on to say:

10. Because of the existence of an active, ongoing investigation, the FBI anticipates that it will assert Exemption 7(A), on a categorical basis, to withhold all records that are responsive to the Russia Request, because releasing any responsive records (or portions thereof) "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A).

So the FBI is confirming that documents about Donald Trump's statement about Russia and Democrats' emails could interfere with enforcement proceedings.

Does this mean Trump is the subject or a target of the federal criminal investigation? No. But it confirms that his statement, and documents concerning his statement, are relevant to the FBI's ongoing investigation into "links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia’s efforts."

The Court set a deadline of July 25, 2017 for the FBI to file a pleading explaining how release of the documents sought by Shapiro and Leopold would interfere with an ongoing law enforcement operation.

< Trump's Poll Numbers Decline Further | Trump and Pence: The Unraveling Begins >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Court Filing: FBI Claims Documents on Trump Statements Are Subject of Russia Investigation | 74 comments (74 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The FBI investigation is likely to go deep. (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2017 at 02:12:40 PM EST

According the WBAL-TV News in Baltimore, federal agents are presently executing a search warrant at the offices of Strategic Consulting Group, a GOP-affiliated fundraising firm in Annapolis, MD.

: UPDATE: Strategic Consulting Group (SCG) ... (none / 0) (#2)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2017 at 04:47:34 PM EST

... has apparently had a fairly sketchy past with regards to its professional practices and so to be fair to Trump and the members of his campaign, I must clarify that today's FBI raid on its offices likely has little or nothing at all to do with the agency's ongoing Trump-Russia probe.
In this instance, the media jumped the gun because SCG apparently has some ties with former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort. And by extension, I jumped that gun as well in posting this morning's breaking news. Further information has since come to light in this matter, which compels me to clarify what happened here.
Back in 2014, SCG was sued by former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in his individual capacity as an unsuccessful 2013 gubernatorial candidate. In his lawsuit, he claimed that SCG ran a PAC that raised over $2 million for his gubernatorial campaign but actually spent little of that money in support of him. The firm has since settled the civil suit with Cuccinelli for $85,000.
SCG President Kelley Rogers has since confirmed to reporters that a half-dozen agents arrives at his offices early this morning to execute the warrant, and that the FBI raid and its investigation are related to the work SCG performed on behalf of Cuccinelli's 2013 gubernatorial campaign. He further noted that SCG's focus is primarily on state and local candidates and races in Maryland and Virginia, and not necessarily federal campaigns.
So, the events in Annapolis this morning was part of an unrelated political corruption investigation involving the 2013 Virginia governor's race, and don't involve Trump. My apologies for any misunderstanding which may have occurred by the early report.
Aloha.

Oh, for Heaven's sake! Enough already, Jim! (5.00 / 2) (#69)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 15, 2017 at 10:44:33 AM EST

Jeralyn's already told you above that you are wrong, and to cease and desist. Take a hint and get a clue.

: Uh, Evidently no one told Comey (none / 0) (#71)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 15, 2017 at 02:04:41 PM EST

It is whether they have a good faith belief they can prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Loretto Lynch was perfectly happy for Comey to take the heat. Otherwise she could have put her No. 2 at DOJ in.
And after Comey said what he said, who in the Obama DOJ would hace disagreed?
On a broader point, DOJ has new people in charge and may very well have "good faith" that Hillary is guilty and can be shown to be so.
But I see that you really are nervous and you really know that I have made some very accurate points.
So get out from behind Jeralyn and speak, if you can, for yourself.
Joe! Don't quit your day job.

Oh, good lord (5.00 / 3) (#73)
by Ga6thDem on Mon May 15, 2017 at 02:14:55 PM EST

You've been screaming about Hillary in prison orange for what? 2 years now. It's never going to happen. The wingnut welfare brigade has spent years lying to you.

It looks like the only person who is going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit is Trump and his associates like Manafort, Page and Flynn.

Ah, Jim, still at it (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Lora on Mon May 15, 2017 at 10:37:25 PM EST

Her server, while not the approved method of communication, was likely more secure than the government's server. That's her entire "crime," that she used her own server instead of the government's and there was some classified information included in some of the emails that should've been only sent through the insecure but supposedly more secure government email system. Period. And maybe she didn't know it was classified, or maybe she didn't care. I don't know. That's the kind of thing you can't prove. And anyway, nothing was leaked or hacked, as far as anyone can tell.

Hardly the crime of the century, especially when compared to Petraeus, who deliberately and knowingly gave reams of highly classified information into the keeping of his highly unclassified mistress and then flat-out lied about it. Now there's a man who perhaps ought to be locked up. But no, Trump liked him enough to consider him for secretary of state. Beyond pathetic!

And now you have Trump himself, who doesn't even seem to understand what classified means.

Oh please (2.00 / 1) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2017 at 08:10:41 PM EST

Surely you can find something besides a

rhe·tor·i·cal ques·tion
noun
a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.

You do that all the time, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 11, 2017 at 08:13:43 PM EST

Don't begrudge Jeralyn if and when she does the same.


: Thank you Donald (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Thu May 11, 2017 at 08:20:45 PM EST

Thank you for defining that term, Jim (5.00 / 6) (#6)
by Peter G on Thu May 11, 2017 at 08:21:50 PM EST

We can't rely on Linea all the time to teach us English vocabulary. Sometimes someone else needs to step up.


And thank you Peter, Donald, MT (none / 0) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 11, 2017 at 11:26:42 PM EST

and all the rest of you boys and girls.

And Donald, I don't begrudge Jeralyn anything so please don't put words in my mouth. I am merely noting what Trump was doing.

And I must add that I find the criticism of Trump for doing what you wanted done just plain funny.

Here's a better look at it.

"Understood," he said. "So if Hillary Clinton had won the White House would you have recommended that she fire FBI Director James Comey?"
"Well let me tell you something," Waters responded. "If she had won the White House, I believe that given what he did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him, yes!"
"So she should have fired him but he shouldn't have fired him?" he asked. "This is why I'm confused."
"No, no you're not confused," she claimed.
"I am confused," he responded.

When MSNBC starts poking fun at you then you really need to consider your position.


That's not "MSNBC" (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Yman on Fri May 12, 2017 at 08:24:34 AM EST

That's one MSNBC reporter pretending to be "confused" about an issue that a5th grader could understand. But for those that can't aren't a smart as a 5th grader, I'll be happy to explain:

Comey broke with DOJ protocols by holding his solo press conference and editorializing about an investigation where it was unanimously agreed by the team of investigators that no charges were justified.
Coney did it again when he interfered with the election by sending his letter to Congress, creating a media uproar over a nothingburger less than 2 weeks before the election.
Unlike the email investigation, Comey never revealed the Trumo campaign was being investigated until AFTER the election.
Comey should have been fired back then for all of these reasons.
Instead, Trump PRAISED Comey and decided to keep him on as Director.
Trump has decided to fire him NOW, after Comey refused to pledge an oath of loyalty to him, like they might do in a third world dictatorship.
Trump has decided to fire him NOW, after Comey requested more resources for the Russia-Trump investigation.
Trump has decided to fire him NOW, after Comey has convened a federal grand jury and begun issuing subpoenas to business associates of Trump campaign members.
Trump tried to lie about the reasons he fired Comey, but was forced to reveal the real reasons when Eisenstein threatened to go public/design.
Trump has decided to fire him NOW, because of the fact that Comey wouldn't assure him he wasn't under investigation and wouldn't pledge loyalty to him. Trump did all of this because of the Trump-Russia investigation.

Happy to educate those who are easily "confused" any time. :)


And what does that have to do with (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 12, 2017 at 09:44:35 PM EST

the fact that the Left wanted him fired up until
Trump fired him.

Yes, either you are confused or dishonest...or maybe both.


The Left wanted him fired (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Yman on Fri May 12, 2017 at 10:23:23 PM EST

... back when he should have been fired, for legitimate reasons. Trump, and you, wanted him fired to obstruct an investigation of Trump and his Russian supporters.

You are either ignorant of this simple fact or dishonest ...

... or both.


Do you read English, Jim? (none / 0) (#12)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 12, 2017 at 10:23:46 PM EST

If you do, then I would suggest that you re-read Yman's comment, this time for actual comprehension.

Because it's readily apparent to me at least, that either you either didn't read it carefully before responding, or perhaps you neglected to first translate Yman's post into Russian for your online handlers, so that they could then inform you of the proper response.

Имеют приятный вечер, товарищ. (Have a nice evening, comrade.)


I do read writing and I write reading, Donald (none / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2017 at 09:43:06 AM EST

And I also have a grasp of logic.

You wanted something and you got it.

Now you want to use it as a political tool.

Comrade, every person with an IQ above room temperature knows what you are doing.

;-)

And it has backfired.


: You don't speak for "everyone," Jim. (none / 0) (#26)
by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 13, 2017 at 04:04:42 PM EST

You may speak only for yourself. And if you want to continue residing in that impenetrable neo-conservative cocoon you've spun around yourself, creating a parallel universe where white-wing prejudices and fantasies dictate the political calculus making rather than actual cold facts and hard truths, that's your sorry-a$$ed business.
You're merely setting yourself up for a real blindsiding and some very serious grief down the road, simply because you refuse to put two and two together. Nobody would be going to these extreme and extraordinary lengths as Trump & Co. are, firing both an acting Attorney General and the FBI Director, if they didn't have something very serious to hide. And in that regard, it's increasingly apparent that all roads in this journey lead to Moscow.
Wise up, guy. Ignorance is not bliss, and when the schitt finally comes down, it's not going to stop just because you're enthralled by the view up your own arse.
Have a nice evening.

A.G. Lynch, having put herself in a... (none / 0) (#13)
by unitron on Sat May 13, 2017 at 05:01:01 AM EST

...jam by talking to Bill out by the airplanes, said she'd follow whatever the Bureau recommended WRT prosecuting HRC or not, so she kinda left Comey holding the bag.

Perhaps he would have been wiser to just inform DOJ of their findings and leave them stuck with explaining "We found lots of carelessness and stupidity, but not criminal intent.", but just the same, he got stuck with making the decision.

So I think how he handled it was more un-wise than malicious or partisan.

Then later when the emails were found on Weiner's laptop, he found himself in the uncomfortable position of having already told Congress that they'd finished up the investigation only to have to re-open it, and not really having a choice about informing them of that, even though he knew one or more on the GOP side would blab it to the press the instant that he informed them.

If, when he found out about the laptop emails, he'd assumed they were dups and nothing need be done and Congress could be kept in the dark about it, imagine if it had turned out that one of them had actually been a "smoking gun", and by the time that was revealed HRC had already gotten enough EC votes to win.

The right wing would have exploded and nothing would be getting done in DC except her impeachment.

He got dealt a lousy hand on this whole Clinton email thing and as best I can tell tried to do what he thought was right.

Not saying he couldn't have been smarter about some of it, but if there's a villain in all of this, I don't see it as being him.


Never said he was a "villain" (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Yman on Sat May 13, 2017 at 07:35:25 AM EST

... but he made numerous bad choices throughout the whole process. The most obvious being his decisions to break with DOJ policy by editorializing about HC when announcing no charges were warranted. Then, perhaps even more egregious, was his decision to break with DOJ policy again by sending a letter to Congress that he knew would be made public just over a week before the election. Not to mention his decidedly different treatment of the Trump investigation, which he kept secret until after the election.

All of which ignores the point. His firing was justified back them for his handling of the Clinton email investigation. His firing NOW to impede the Trump/Russia investigation is not justified, and may in fact be a crime.


His (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by FlJoe on Sat May 13, 2017 at 08:18:52 AM EST

"villany" lies in his actions being strongly influenced by CYA considerations over longstanding policy.

His original editorializing was pure appeasement to the Republicans who were busy building the gallows for Hillary. Somehow he felt he needed to heap scorn on her as a sop to them.

The letter was even worse, he had to know that the odds of finding a smoking gun were virtually nil, but he was probably certain that his own agents would leak the "possibility" and once again he gave more weight to CYA than anything else.

IMO, in the days leading up to the elections the odds were orders of magnitude higher of discovering wrong doing related to tRump by the building Russian investigation than the likely meaningless loose end of an exhaustive and straightforward inquiry.


: He had all the smoking guns he needed (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2017 at 10:39:26 AM EST

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
There was plenty of time for Hillary to be replaced as the candidate.
And irrespective of what he thought of Trump he should have acted.
And Comey is no stranger to politics

In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring,

He acted in face of what was sure to be seen as a political act by the Repubs and cheered by the Demos.
Remarkably similar to what happened with Clinton.

Yes, Lynch and Clinton (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 13, 2017 at 10:04:55 AM EST

placed him in a bad position.

And I do believe he did what he thought was right.

But it was a moment in which his choice was not to please everyone, but to tell the truth and then act properly. Tell Lynch that Hillary had done this and that and she had broken the law.

He told the truth but then he brought politics into the situation introducing "intent."

I have always thought intent has nothing to do with whether a law had been broken. It has to do with punishment.


: She didn't (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 13, 2017 at 10:44:01 AM EST

break the law but you can't handle the truth. To you fantasies are preferable to real facts and evidence. It's just sad.

: Lol once again, don't know whether to laugh or cry (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by jondee on Sat May 13, 2017 at 01:49:45 PM EST

as if a clown who suddenly wants to discount all historical precedent vis a vis intent, Isn't "bringing politics into the situation."

: What you "think" is irrelevant (none / 0) (#20)
by Yman on Sat May 13, 2017 at 10:50:44 AM EST

He told the truth but then he brought politics into the situation introducing "intent."
I have always thought intent has nothing to do with whether a law had been broken. It has to do with punishment.
Comey didn't bring "politics" into the situation by discussing intent - it's required by the law. As any first-year law student will be able to tell you, intent is a critical element to almost every crime. The level of intent varies based on the crime, but it is almost always required. Whether you believe it should be doesn't matter.
BTW - Did you see where Pence accidentally hit the young boy in the face the other day. In JimWorld, Pence would be guilty of assault. In the real world, assault requires a level of intent and this accident does not rise to the level of a crime.
Thank Dog we live in the real world.

ha ha. very funny. (none / 0) (#75)
by linea on Tue May 16, 2017 at 10:56:05 PM EST

i am fluent in English at a university masters degree level.

We can't rely on Linea all the time to teach us English vocabulary.

many americans, who i interact with on a daily basis, are not fluent in english. i often spend a considerable amount ot time picking the BEST word and sometimes i include a definition of that word with my post to be better understood.


are you really so dim (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by CaptHowdy on Tue May 16, 2017 at 11:06:02 PM EST

that you dont understand that silly annoying self serving comments like this one is exactly why someone like Peter who is the most forgiving and even tempered commenter on this blog would make such a joke?

which was funny enought to get six fives.

free clue. our english is just fine. and it was in the good ole days before you arrived.


ok. im sorry (none / 0) (#77)
by linea on Tue May 16, 2017 at 11:44:29 PM EST

i didnt realize that it was so offensive to you. i didnt feel people were actually offended. im sorry im so stupid.

dim-witted: too dim to understand the joke


: well (none / 0) (#78)
by CaptHowdy on Tue May 16, 2017 at 11:51:20 PM EST

now you do
i think we are makin real progress

"with few exceptions" (none / 0) (#9)
by Mr Natural on Fri May 12, 2017 at 01:56:37 PM EST

President Donald Trump's tax lawyers issued a statement on Friday that the White House wants you to take seriously: The president has not received income or taken on any debt or equity from Russian sources over the past 10 years, "with a few exceptions."
Trump has a history of emphatically denying that he has any monetary connection to Russia. In January, he tweeted: "NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA - NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!" His lawyers' new admission of the "few exceptions" indicates this blanket denial was false. The letter written by Sherri Dillon and Willie Nelson, Trump's tax lawyers at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, is dated March 8.

- from Don't Take Anything Trump's Lawyers Say About His Tax Returns Seriously, By Paul Blumenthal and Ben Walsh, Huffpost, May 12, 2017

I recommend (none / 0) (#21)
by Towanda on Sat May 13, 2017 at 12:44:53 PM EST

following the #withfewexceptions hashtag on Twitter.

It's hilarious . . . with a few exceptions, of course.


i still dont get the russian hysteria (none / 0) (#31)
by linea on Sat May 13, 2017 at 06:44:30 PM EST

there are no restrictions on using russian banks; or opening up businesses or hotels in russia; every company i have ever worked for has development offices in russia, in my current office an entire floor is filled with russian h1b visa holders running QA tests; and the entire EU is having a libertarian-orgasm over kaliningrad oblast - a business utopia where toxic sludge can be dumped anywhere and if the workers are unhappy they can always complain to vladimir putin's sympathetic ear.

if candidate trump was pro-russian then obviously he would want pro-russian advisors. maybe some of trumps advisors were involved in shaddy dealings. probably. it sometimes seems like half that country makes a living by engaging in sex-trafficking and selling club drugs.


"Hysteria"??? Seriously??? (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by Yman on Sat May 13, 2017 at 07:12:57 PM EST

Leaving aside the irony in your choice of that word, how is that even possible? We're not talking about some, random person doing business with Russia. We're talking about the President of the United States, who was elected with the aid of the Russian government, through illegally interfering in our election - the foundation of our democracy. How is it possible that you don't understand why we have to have a full and complete understanding of the Trump's campaign ties to Russia, as well as his business interest and conflicts of interest that can arise therefrom?


We Don't Know Yet What the Crime Was (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by RickyJim on Sat May 13, 2017 at 09:37:05 PM EST

A short while ago, I was not convinced that Trump or his campaign broke any laws in his dealings with Russia(ns). However, I can't fathom any explanation of his recent statements and firing of Comey besides he is desperately trying to cover up something illegal.


The (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by FlJoe on Sun May 14, 2017 at 05:39:21 AM EST

possible crimes are:
Conspiracy to commit data theft.
Money Laundering.
Perjury
Illegal campaign financing.
Obstruction of justice.
Espionage.

IMO tRump and his associates have been dealing with dirty Russian and Ukrainian money for years, the money trail will kill them.

BTW: Their behaviour has been screaming coverup for months now this is just the latest escalation, yet there are plenty of political leaders, press and members of the public still can't "fathom" what is going on.

There is no reason to fathom anything sailor, the ship of state has run aground, unless the vast majority of Americans from top to bottom come to understand that very quickly, we are doomed.


possible crimes are: (none / 0) (#42)
by linea on Sun May 14, 2017 at 12:18:11 PM EST

good list

Conspiracy to commit data theft.
Money Laundering.
Perjury
Illegal campaign financing.
Obstruction of justice.
Espionage.

i suppose it's possible that members of donald trump's staff (flynn, manafork, etc.) were involved in typical russian shenanegans. i can imagine money laundering, failure to register as a foreign agent, IRS violations of failure to report income. maybe illegal campaign financing but wouldnt that require the collusion of an accountant and finance lawyer?

i doubt there will ever be evidence this happened:

Ambassador Kislyak, "We hacked the DNC servers. It has some content that makes Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz look less than fair in their dealings with Bernie Sanders..."
Candidate Trump, Can we leak that? Maybe give it to WikiLeaks?"
Kislyak, "I'll get it done."


linea (none / 0) (#53)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 05:48:27 PM EST

Do you have a link???


a link? (none / 0) (#54)
by linea on Sun May 14, 2017 at 06:20:38 PM EST

linea (#53)
by jimakaPPJ
Do you have a link???

im sorry. there is no link. i must have authored that post poorly if you thought i was referencing something, it's just my opinion.

FlJoe provided a lists of violations that could possibly come out of an investigation and i provided my opinion on the issue:

given my low-opinion of russian business dealings, i could IMAGINE people working for trump might be involved with activities such as money laundering, failure to register as a foreign agent, and IRS violations on reporting income.
i consider "illegal campaign financing" to be less likely as an accountant and a legitimate legal finance advisor would need to be involved.
i completely discount this imagined scenario (see below), thought this is what some TLers seem to be expecting:

Ambassador Kislyak, "We hacked the DNC servers. It has some content that makes Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz look less than fair in their dealings with Bernie Sanders..."
Candidate Trump, "Can we leak that? Maybe give it to WikiLeaks?"
Kislyak, "I'll get it done."

there is no link.
i authored it.


Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 07:57:28 PM EST

You have a great imagination.

I think it has been helped by all the speculation put out by Left Wingers.


And stimulated also (none / 0) (#59)
by jondee on Sun May 14, 2017 at 08:15:36 PM EST

by Right Wingers frightened, hyper-defensive reaction that it usually reserves only for things like new scientific advances.


You may want to (none / 0) (#60)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 14, 2017 at 08:27:47 PM EST

read what actually is the law that Hillary violated.

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information--.....
(b) As used in subsection (a) of this section--
The term "classified information" means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is, for reasons of national security, specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for limited or restricted dissemination or distribution;
The terms "code," "cipher," and "cryptographic system" include in their meanings, in addition to their usual meanings, any method of secret writing and any mechanical or electrical device or method used for the purpose of disguising or concealing the contents, significance, or meanings
of communications;....

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

Again what Comey said:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information,...

Comey transcript

My lengthy comment and a reading of the law shows that Hillary did:

....knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person...

Hillary's crimes are proven by what Comey said. He tried to claim no intent but he failed. Instead he proved it. Which I think was his intent. He couldn't say prosecute her without raising a firestorm of epic proportions.

Whatever Trump may or may not have done is speculation. Should we ignore hers while blathering about Trump?


it's over. sorry. but it's over. (none / 0) (#61)
by linea on Sun May 14, 2017 at 08:46:54 PM EST

Justice Department formally closes Clinton email investigation with no charges
The Justice Department on Wednesday formally closed its investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server... "I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation," Lynch said.

linea, the investugation was over last July (none / 0) (#65)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 15, 2017 at 07:52:46 AM EST

It was then reopened in Oct. That is the act that Democrats hated and why they called for Comey's firing.

Here's a very partisan Repub video showing Demos at their worst.

Now, will the investigation be reopened? Probably not. But many on the Right are demanding it and if the Left keeps on attacking Trump you can expect him to fire back. He's not a Bushie.

And yes. The investigation can be reopened.

: Tell him to fire away (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Yman on Mon May 15, 2017 at 09:24:41 AM EST

The allegations against Clinton were thoroughly investigated and they rightfully (and unanimously) determined no charges should be brought. I dare your Orange Julius to try it. It would be yet another failure/broken promise and embarrassment if he tried. These silly, empty threats won't stop the legitimate Trump-Russia investigation.
Tick, tock ... tick, tock.

: Come (none / 0) (#67)
by FlJoe on Mon May 15, 2017 at 09:41:18 AM EST

on Jim, in lieu of defending your boy tRump, you insist on beating your favorite deceased equine.
I'm disappointed in you Jim, you should be spending all your time and energy describing and defining the worldwide "hoax" being perpetrated against your precious leader.