• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New FBI files contain allegations of 'quid pro quo' in Clinton's emails

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,493
Reaction score
39,818
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Who wants to bet that Patrick Kennedy gets a promotion in the Clinton Administration?


FBI interview summaries and notes, provided late Friday to the House Government Oversight and Intelligence Committees, contain allegations of a "quid pro quo" between a senior State Department executive and FBI agents during the Hillary Clinton email investigation, two congressional sources told Fox News....

He said "there was an alleged quid pro quo” involving Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy and the FBI “over at least one classified email.” “In return for altering the classification, the possibility of additional slots for the FBI at missions overseas was discussed,”.


Story has continued to break: apparently FBI officials higher up found out about and nixed it, and Kennedy instead asked that documents be made FOIA-exempt.
 
We keep hearing that the number of allegations of sexual impropriety by Trump warrant his conviction as a sexual predator. Why don't we hear the same thing about the allegations of corruption related to Hillary?
 
We keep hearing that the number of allegations of sexual impropriety by Trump warrant his conviction as a sexual predator. Why don't we hear the same thing about the allegations of corruption related to Hillary?

Are you kidding?

Do you seriously believe that people like that would say anything that would jeopardize their political agenda?

LMAO

.
 
I'd like to see that email.
 
We keep hearing that the number of allegations of sexual impropriety by Trump warrant his conviction as a sexual predator. Why don't we hear the same thing about the allegations of corruption related to Hillary?
Sex sells and Hillary is rather boring. That's why.

Sad but true.
 
Who wants to bet that Patrick Kennedy gets a promotion in the Clinton Administration?





Story has continued to break: apparently FBI officials higher up found out about and nixed it, and Kennedy instead asked that documents be made FOIA-exempt.
So, let me make sure I've got this right:

A Republican Congressman named Chaffetz makes the claims in the Fox headline, but hasn't read the documents or seen the mail?

Then, the FBI issues this statement:

"A spokesperson at the FBI provided a lengthy statement to Fox Saturday night -- disputing Chaffetz's characterization and stating that, while the conversation did happen, the two issues discussed were not connected. "

The FBI communique then proceeds with a more details, where they claim their was no impropriety - but they kicked it up for higher review as is customary.

Do I have this right?
 
We keep hearing that the number of allegations of sexual impropriety by Trump warrant his conviction as a sexual predator. Why don't we hear the same thing about the allegations of corruption related to Hillary?

The Old Broad from the plain is already a proven liar.
 
So, let me make sure I've got this right:

A Republican Congressman named Chaffetz makes the claims in the Fox headline, but hasn't read the documents or seen the mail?

Then, the FBI issues this statement:

"A spokesperson at the FBI provided a lengthy statement to Fox Saturday night -- disputing Chaffetz's characterization and stating that, while the conversation did happen, the two issues discussed were not connected. "

The FBI communique then proceeds with a more details, where they claim their was no impropriety - but they kicked it up for higher review as is customary.

Do I have this right?

The story is continuing to roll out.


...A senior State Department official repeatedly pressed the FBI to change the classification of emails stored on Hillary Clinton's private server, according to FBI interview summaries set to be released in the coming days. Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, discussed providing additional overseas slots for the FBI in exchange for revisions to classifications of the sensitive emails.

The 34 summaries, known as FBI "302s," will be released in connection with a Freedom of Information Act request and after pressure from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Two additional 302s are being withheld because they contain information classified at the Top Secret/SAP level.

[[cpwill interjection. Oye Vey]]

The summaries, described to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by five intelligence and congressional officials familiar with their contents, are sure to bolster Donald Trump's criticism of corruption at Clinton's State Department, the FBI and Washington, D.C., with just more than three weeks until the 2016 presidential election....
 
The story is continuing to roll out.




[[cpwill interjection. Oye Vey]]
Thank you.

I had problems with the pay-wall, but eventually got past it.

So apparently, it seems Congressmen who have seen these docs are leaking info prior to the docs being released?

Then I guess we'll know the details, soon enough.

But my next question is: What's the Hillary tie? How is Patrick Kennedy tied to HRC? I saw no mention of HRC in the article, short of the sensationalist title.
 
If true, that's criminal

 
Back
Top Bottom