Posted on 05/10/2016 1:14:05 PM PDT by simpson96
Edited on 05/10/2016 1:19:21 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A topic that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be “off limits?”
Is this a criminal investigation?
Or is it a carefully choreographed whitewash?
I guess she is also in the “privileged” criminal class. It can’t be “white privilege” because she is black. By the way, what did she do with the things she took out of Vince Foster’s wall safe in the White House before the FBI arrivfed. Enquiring minds want to know.
THE
FIX
IS
IN.
Simple - haul her in before the Grand Jury: no lawyer and no limitations on questions. She can take the Fifth, answer truthfully or lie and hopefully face the consequences of doing so.
I hope this goes on long enough for Trump to get into office and prosecute these criminals.
Another Washington Post piece of crap.
I wish you had excerpted the part that explained why.
Mills claimed attorney-client privilege. She IS an attorney, but I don’t know how she could REPRESENT Clinton, while being employed by the US government. That seems like a conflict of interest.
Oh....the Washington Post talked with Bob the Wino about this.
Let’s hear what the FBI has to say.
I doubt that Judicial Watch will make the same agreement during their discovery questioning. But there’s always the fifth or gee, I forget.
This isn’t going anywhere. A complete waste of time...the fix is in.
Only way that would have happened would have been had she said she would not be interviewed unless the e mail thing was off the plate. Unless under subpeona, which would have required testimony before a grand jury, she does not have to say a word about anything. Hopefully when the interview was done, they gave her one.
A question about Carlos Danger?
Since when does the Justice Department tell the FBI how to interview
subjects.
Not to worry, Putin/the Kremlin has all of these missing emails, and they will probably be available for all of us to read after Cankles becomes the Rat candidate.
Hillary’s Emails Hacked by Russia – Kremlin Deciding Whether to Release 20,000 Stolen Emails
The Gateway Pundit ^ | May 10, 2016 | Jim Hoft Posted on 5/10/2016, 6:38:13 AM by maggief
The Kremlin is debating whether to release the 20,000 emails they have hacked off of Hillary Clinton’s server.
According to a report from four days ago, beginning in 2011, the Russians began monitoring Romanian computer hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel (aka Guccifer) after he attempted, unsuccessfully, to break into the computer system of the Russian funded RT television network.
After monitoring Guccifer, the Russians were reportedly able to record (both physically and electronically) his actions which allowed the Russian intelligence analysts, in 2013, to not only detect his breaking into the private computer of Secretary Clinton, but also break in and copy all of its contents as well.
The report notes that shortly after Russia obtained Clinton’s emails, they released a limited amount to RT TV which were published in an article in March 2013, titled Hillary Clinton’s ‘hacked’ Benghazi emails: FULL RELEASE.
Apparently no Western journalists promoted this story in 2013.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com .
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3429226/posts
And they describe her as a "cooperating witness"????
Any of my clients who were "cooperating witnesses" usually knew they were cooperating so they were not named in the True Bill, and began their testimony with something along the line of "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned
Beth Wilkenson may be better known to readers of Free Republic as Mrs. David Gregory.
Simple... unless the prosecuting attorney is politicized. The DOJ is run by Loretta Lynch, whom I suspect is very attentive to Obama's desires.
The FBI says there’s nothing to see here. Move along.
Isn’t this all so the civil depositions can be blocked on the grounds it would interfere with an ongoing federal investigation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.