Internal war at FBI revealed in new WEINER-GATE Shockers

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe

Laptop may contain thousands of messages sent to or from Mrs. Clinton’s private server

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton greets a crowd in Pompano Beach, Fla., on Sunday. ENLARGE
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton greets a crowd in Pompano Beach, Fla., on Sunday. Photo: jewel samad/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

As federal agents prepare to scour roughly 650,000 emails to see how many relate to a prior probe of Hillary Clinton’s email use, the surprise disclosure that investigators were pursuing the potential new evidence lays bare tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the Democratic presidential nominee.

Metadata found on the laptop used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, suggests there may be thousands of emails sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter. It will take weeks, at a minimum, to determine whether those messages are work-related from the time Ms. Abedin served with Mrs. Clinton at the State Department; how many are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and whether they include either classified information or important new evidence in the Clinton email probe.

The FBI has had to await a court order to begin reviewing the emails, because they were uncovered in an unrelated probe of Mr. Weiner.

The new investigative effort, disclosed by FBI Director James Comey on Friday, shows a bureau at times in sharp internal disagreement over matters related to the Clintons, and how to handle those matters fairly and carefully in the middle of a national election campaign. Even as the previous probe of Mrs. Clinton’s email use wound down in July, internal disagreements within the bureau and the Justice Department surrounding the Clintons’ family philanthropy heated up, according to people familiar with the matter.

The latest development began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the bureau’s second-in-command, that while investigating Mr. Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged messages to a minor, they had recovered a laptop with 650,000 emails. Many, they said, were from the accounts of Ms. Abedin, according to people familiar with the matter.

Those emails stretched back years, these people said, and were on a laptop that hadn’t previously come up in the Clinton email probe. Ms. Abedin said in late August that the couple were separating.

The FBI had searched the computer while looking for child pornography, people familiar with the matter said, but the warrant they used didn’t give them authority to search for matters related to Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement at the State Department. Mr. Weiner has denied sending explicit or indecent messages to the teenager.

In their initial review of the laptop, the metadata showed many messages, apparently in the thousands, that were either sent to or from the private email server at Mrs. Clinton’s home that had been the focus of much of the FBI’s investigative effort. Senior FBI officials decided to let the Weiner investigators proceed with a closer examination of the metadata on the computer and report back to them.

At a meeting early last week of senior Justice Department and FBI officials, a member of the department’s senior national-security staff asked for an update on the Weiner laptop, the people familiar with the matter said. At that point, officials realized that no one had acted to obtain a warrant, these people said.

Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop’s contents could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially relevant.

Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case and notified Congress on Friday, with explosive results. Senior Justice Department officials had warned Mr. Comey that telling Congress would violate policies against overt actions that could affect an election, and some within the FBI have been unhappy at Mr. Comey’s repeated public statements on the probe, going back to his press conference on the subject in July.

The back-and-forth reflects how the bureau is probing several matters related, directly or indirectly, to Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle.

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in the bureau’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case.

New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, attended a news conference in New York in 2013. Mr. Weiner had attempted to revive his career with a bid for New York City mayor, but that effort was doomed after a website published lewd photos that he had evidently sent to another woman. ENLARGE
New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, attended a news conference in New York in 2013. Mr. Weiner had attempted to revive his career with a bid for New York City mayor, but that effort was doomed after a website published lewd photos that he had evidently sent to another woman. Photo: eric thayer/Reuters

That led to frustrations among some investigators, who viewed FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.

It isn’t unusual for field agents to favor a more aggressive approach than supervisors and prosecutors think is merited. But the internal debates about the Clinton Foundation show the high stakes when such disagreements occur surrounding someone who is running for president.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.

Mr. McAuliffe said he supported Dr. McCabe in the hopes she and a handful of other Democrats might help win a majority in the state Senate. Dr. McCabe lost her race last November, and Democrats failed to win their majority.

A spokesman for the governor has said that “any insinuation that his support was tied to anything other than his desire to elect candidates who would help pass his agenda is ridiculous.”

Dr. McCabe told the Journal, “Once I decided to run, my husband had no formal role in my campaign other than to be” supportive.

In February of this year, Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state.

FBI officials have said Mr. McCabe had no role in the Clinton email probe until he became deputy director, and by then his wife’s campaign was over.

But other Clinton-related investigations were under way within the FBI, and they have been the subject of internal debate for months, according to people familiar with the matter.

Early this year, four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark.—were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling, according to people familiar with the matter.

Los Angeles agents had picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation, these people said.

The Washington field office was probing financial relationships involving Mr. McAuliffe before he became a Clinton Foundation board member, these people said. Mr. McAuliffe has denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyer has said the probe is focused on whether he failed to register as an agent of a foreign entity.

Clinton Foundation officials have long denied any wrongdoing, saying it is a well-run charity that has done immense good.

The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock, the people familiar with the matter said.

In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well.

Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career public integrity prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case.

“That was one of the weirdest meetings I’ve ever been to,” one participant told others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter.

Justice Department officials told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn’t authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way, these people said.

About a week after Mr. Comey’s July announcement that he was recommending against any prosecution in the Clinton email case, the FBI sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe, with Mr. McCabe deciding the FBI’s New York office would take the lead, with assistance from Little Rock.

Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee in September on a variety of subjects including the investigation into former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server. ENLARGE
Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee in September on a variety of subjects including the investigation into former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images

The Washington field office, FBI officials decided, would focus on a separate matter involving Mr. McAuliffe. Mr. McCabe had decided earlier in the spring that he would continue to recuse himself from that probe, given the governor’s contributions to his wife’s former political campaign.

Within the FBI, the decision was viewed with skepticism by some, who felt the probe would be stronger if the foundation and McAuliffe matters were combined. Others, particularly senior officials at the Justice Department, felt that both probes were weak, based largely on publicly available information, and had found little that would merit expanded investigative authority.

According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe, despite the department’s refusal to allow more aggressive investigative methods in the case. Mr. McCabe said agents still had the authority to pursue the issue as long as they didn’t use those methods.

The Justice Department official was “very pissed off,” according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dead. Others said the Justice Department was simply trying to make sure FBI agents were following longstanding policy not to make overt investigative moves that could be seen as trying to influence an election. Those rules discourage investigators from making any such moves before a primary or general election, and, at a minimum, checking with public integrity prosecutors before doing so.

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied, “Of course not,” these people said.

For Mr. McCabe’s defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a case and Justice Department leaders who didn’t think much of the case, one person said. Those people said that following the call, Mr. McCabe reiterated past instructions to FBI agents that they were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had.

Mr. McCabe’s defenders in the agency said that following the call, he repeated the instruction that he had given earlier in the Clinton Foundation investigation: Agents were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had.

Others further down the FBI chain of command, however, said agents were given a much starker instruction on the case: “Stand down.” When agents questioned why they weren’t allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director—Mr. McCabe.

Others familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction.

For agents who already felt uneasy about FBI leadership’s handling of the Clinton Foundation case, the moment only deepened their concerns, these people said. For those who felt the probe hadn’t yet found significant evidence of criminal conduct, the leadership’s approach was the right response.

In September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.”

Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau’s leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Mr. Comey’s disclosure to Congress and setting off the furor that promises to consume the final days of a tumultuous campaign.

Write to Devlin Barrett at devlin.barrett@wsj.com

Obama Using NSA And CIA Teams To Attack People “Dangerous” To Hillary Campaign

Obama Using NSA And CIA Teams To Attack People “Dangerous” To Hillary Campaign

 

Posted by Elliot Bougis | Oct 15, 2016 | Top Article

 

 

 

Big Brother Hussein Is Watching You

 

The 2016 election is unlike anything we’ve seen before, and here are just a few reasons why:

 

  • A high-energy billionaire with zero political background has dominated the field, vanquishing sixteen Republican opponents and winning unprecedented support among minorities.

  • The wife of a former president and the heir apparent of the current president barely managed to win the nomination.

  • The media has all but lost control of “The Narrative” and finds itself trying to keep a frustrated viewing audience on the leash while also battling a flood of online, alternative media exposure.

  • Donald Trump has shown us that all bets are off: insiders are out, policy pales in comparison to patriotism, and leaked documents are as important as the official debates.

 

Both parties have risen to the new challenges, relying heavily on social media and other technology to win supporters and influence undecideds. One example of these techno-political on the Trump side of the race, is the website RealTrueNews.org. RTN’s main focus is to expose and destroy the incestuous bond between Washington, D.C., Wall Street, and the Mainstream Media. As a result, they are all firmly opposed to Hillary Clinton, who has shown herself to be the new, cackling face of the globalist, crony-capitalist elitism that currently dominates American politics, finance, and the news.

 

On the Hillary side of this race, undoubtedly the most significant techno-political force is David Brock’s Super PAC, Correct The Record. CTR modestly describes itself as “a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC.” RTN paints a more vivid picture: CTR “is a battalion of paid trolls whose job it is to disrupt, demoralize, and defame any Trump supporters and message boards.”

 

 

This description comes from a post at RTN by “Max Insider,” dated September 27, 2016, which was a day after the first presidential debate. Max Insider adds that CTR trolls “communicate using a secure messaging software called ‘Slack’ pictured above.”

 

And that’s when things get really interesting.

 

Max Insider explains:

 

We were able to get some monitoring software onto a junior analyst’s laptop to take a look inside the Slack-channel where they were doing work. What we found was startling. In the fall-out from last night’s debate, they are beginning a new campaign of targeted harassment (or worse) against the “ring leaders” of the decentralized online Trump movement.

 

Without a traditional campaign infrastructure to target, it appears they have been reduced to going after the “most influential voices” in the online debate.

 

Now we will make our way through this CTR chat. I don’t expect the image below to make much sense at first glance, so I will highlight and discuss elements of it as we proceed. Please be advised there is some offensive language involved–call it “locker room talk.”

 

 

 

First of all, who are these people? As we’ll see, brock is David Brock and efink is apparently Elliot Fink, another CTR employee.

 

 

Next, what are they discussing?

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

ekim [5:52 AM]

 

set the channel purpose: clean up this mes[s]

 

 

brock [5:52 AM]

 

joined post-debate from an invitation by @ekim

 

 

“Why correct the record, David, when you can just delete it?”

 

 

efink [5:55 AM]

 

the only good thing about it was that whoever that was, she looked pretty good. how tf did they do that?

 

By “this mess” they mean the voter reaction to the first debate. Fink is saying that “the only good thing about” the first debate is that “whoever she was” looked pretty good. As disturbing as it sounds, Fink is saying that he doesn’t know who the woman was in the first debate or how “they” pulled off the deception, but it worked. If you’re interested, I have written about this issue before here at CDP.

 

brock [5:56 AM]

 

i can’t talk [about how “they” put the woman into the debate]. very hush hush. still, we’ve lost every online poll and we need to get tough here. get this under control.

 

still, i hope we put the sick thing to bed.

 

In light of Hillary Clinton’s chronic health problems, it is hard not to conclude that Fink and “brock” are referring to her as ” the sick thing.”

 

ekim [5:59 AM]

 

i don’t see what’s so bad. She [“whoever that was”] looked really healthy! I thought she did GREAT!

 

she [i.e., Hillary Clinton, “the sick thing”] was scoring 3 on AMTS a couple of weeks ago and 22 on mmse. Yeah, whoever that was was normal.

 

AMTS means “Abbreviated Mental Test Score” and MMSE means “Mini Mental State Exam.” Both tests are used to assess confusion and cognitive impairment. So, how did “the sick thing” do?

 

There are ten questions on the AMTS, each worth 1 point. A score of 6 or less indicates dementia or delirium.

 

A couple weeks before the first debate, apparently Hillary Clinton scored a 3.

 

With a 22, she fared no better on the MMSE scale:

 

  • ≥25 – normal

  • 21 – 24 – mild impairment

  • 10 – 20 – moderate impairment

  • <10 – severe impairment

 

That level of cognitive impairment would have been obvious to everyone watching, but “whoever that was” in the first debate against Trump, “was normal.” Nevertheless, Fink is fuming.

 

efink [6:00]

 

but the telemetry sucks.  look at all the snap onlines: we’re losing 100%

 

 

ekim [6:01 AM]

 

but those don’t mean anything

 

efink [6:01 AM]

 

it means they’re enthusiastic. organized. if they [i.e., Trump supporters] can swarm a poll whats to stop them swarming a voting booth?

 

it also creates a counter-nar[rative]. the free press will sniff it. we have to stop the bleeding.

 

 

[but] don’t worry. we have something. GET SHAW OUT OF BED.

 

 

cshaw [6:06 AM]I read the [post-debate] round-up. It looked good?

 

brock [6:07 AM]

 

the round up my burning ass. I’m talking about the real world. Trump made her look like a girl. Today we hit back. We hit back hard.

 

 

efink [6:10 AM]

 

okay. guys, this is 18-2381 stuff. Got it?

 

 

“this is 18-2381 stuff”

 

cshaw [6:10 AM]

 

yes

 

ekim [6:10 AM]

 

yes sir.

 

efink [6:11 AM]

 

alright. … we need to start hurting people and that’s what this is about. This is about winning because we’ll never get a chance at this again. everything is justified. David?

 

brock [6:11 AM]

 

dramatic.

 

[6:13]

 

f**k–okay. so the Trump team is an emergent order. thirty million little chan and reddit a**holes that bump around and then congeal to vote in a poll or push a meme or make a hashtag trend or whatever. This is new. It isn’t like fighting a centrally organized campaign.

 

It’s more like fighting a disease.

 

[6:14]

 

So what we need to do is break the pattern. The usual means isn’t working. Trump’s too charismatic. Morale is too high. This is an army of chaos[,] folks.

 

so we have full clearance. Word of God.

 

Max Insider believes “Word of God” refers to Obama, and I’m inclined to agree.

 

brock [6:15 AM]

 

Fink–let’s do this. I have a plane to catch.

 

efink [6:16 AM]

 

uploaded and commented on an image: foxacid.jpg

 

 

This is a slide from an official NSA Powerpoint presentation that was released by Edward Snowden. Dated: 01/08/2007; To Be Declassified On: 11/23/2029

 

ekim [6:16 AM]Ew.

 

cshaw [6:16 AM]

 

i like it! wtf is it??

 

efink [6:17 AM]

 

This is manna from heaven, kids.

 

Max Insider also thinks “heaven” refers to the White House, where “Word of God” lives.

 

efink [6:18 AM]

 

We have the use of an NSA intrusion package. We are going to find the thought leaders. the meme-generators. … I need a target analysis for reddit, twitter, and the chans by tomorrow 5 PM.

 

You will monitor, identify, and using the FA [Foxacid] software set we have, identify/dox

 

On the Internet, “dox” means to reveal someone’s identity and personal information.

 

cshaw [6:18 AM]

 

that [Foxacid] will dox them??

 

efink [6:20 AM]

 

It will man-on-the-side [MotS] for the anon boards and intercept traffic. We can use that for IP addresses and loading tracking software and magic lantern onto their devices. …

 

 

Details from another slide in the same NSA Powerpoint presentation that Snowden released. “Magic Lantern” is data-tracking software used by the FBI.

 

ekim [6:26 AM]

 

What are we going to do with that?

 

brock [6:27 AM]

 

[do] u really want [to] f**king know, kim?

 

ekim [6:27 AM]

 

i’m good.

 

brock [6:28 AM]

 

u better be. I am going to get a plane. …

 

efink [6:30 AM]

 

Get those files together.

 

ekim [6:30 AM]

 

I’m on it. Do you know what brock is going to do with them? I do kind of want to know, sir.

 

efink [6:31 AM]

 

google Seth Rich and shut up about it.

 

END TRANSCRIPT

 

As Max Insider explains, “Seth Rich is the recently deceased (murdered) whistle-blower who gave information to Wikileaks.”

 

Is this authentic? We can’t know for sure, of course, but there seem to be too many real-world details that mesh together to reject it out of hand. If you ever had any doubt our own government was out to get us, wonder no more. The establishment is so terrified of the positive changes Donald Trump will make, that they’d rather commit treason and murder than let the people have a fair vote. As David Brock said, “This is about winning because we’ll never get a chance at this again. Everything is justified.”

 

 

<

p style=”margin-bottom:0;line-height:100%;”> 

 

Doug Band To John Podesta: “If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”

Doug Band To John Podesta: “If This Story Gets Out, We Are Screwed”

Tyler Durden's picture

Until the Friday blockbuster news that the FBI was reopening its probe into the Hillary email server, the biggest overhang facing the Clinton Campaign was the escalating scandal involving the Clinton Foundation, Doug Band’s consultancy firm Teneo, and Bill Clinton who as a result of a leaked memo emerged was generously compensated for potential political favors by prominent corporate clients using Teneo as a passthru vehicle for purchasing influence.

In a section of the memo entitled “Leveraging Teneo For The Foundation,” Band spelled out all of the donations he solicited from Teneo “clients” for the Clinton Foundation.  In all, there are roughly $14mm of donations listed with the largest contributors being Coca-Cola, Barclays, The Rockefeller Foundation and Laureate International Universities. Some of these are shown below (the full details can be found in “Leaked Memo Exposes Shady Dealings Between Clinton Foundation Donors And Bill’s “For-Profit” Activities“)

Foundation Donations

 

Band also laid out the millions in speaking fees arranged by Teneo:

Foundation Donations

Further, the head of Teneo also offered the following commentary on the “$50 million in for-profit activity” he was able to secure for Bill Clinton (as of November 2011) as well as the “$66 million in future contracts, should he choose to continue with those engagements.”

 
 

Independent of our fundraising and decision-making activities on behalf of the Foundation, we have dedicated ourselves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities – including speeches, books, and advisory service engagements.  In that context, we have in effect served as agents, lawyers, managers and implementers to secure speaking, business and advisory service deals.  In support of the President’s for-profit activity, we also have solicited and obtained, as appropriate, in-kind services for the President and his family – for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.  Neither Justin nor I are separately compensated for these activities (e.g., we do not receive a fee for, or percentage  of, the more than $50 million in for-profit activity we have personally helped to secure for President Clinton to date or the $66 million in future contracts, should he choose to continue with those engagements).

 

With respect to business deals for his advisory services, Justin and I found, developed and brought to President Clinton multiple arrangements for him to accept or reject. Of his current 4 arrangements, we secured all of them; and, we have helped manage and maintain all of his for-profit business relationships.  Since 2001, President Clinton’s business arrangements have yielded more than $30 million for him personally, with $66 million to be paid out over the next nine years should he choose to continue with the current engagements.

In effect, what Band was doing, as the NYT’s Nick Confessore summarized, “was selling his clients on idea that giving to foundation was, in essence, a way to bolster their influence. Clinton & Band built a platform for executives to bolster their companies’ images, bathe in BC’s praise, and do some good, while Teneo extracted earnings for Band and, depending on what you see in these e-mails, Clinton himself. Teneo paid Clinton until late ’11.

As Confessore also pointed out, “I guess you can wave it all off as a nothingburger. But Chelsea Clinton and some of Clinton’s other aides were clearly freaking out.”

And he concluded by saying “Generally, the emails show Clinton’s *own closest aides* troubled or horrified by things that her surrogates have spent years waving off.

Today, with this context, we focus on one particular email disclosed in the latest Podesta email release, in which an email from Doug Band to Cheryl Mills and John Podesta dated November 12, 2011, or just days before the abovementioned memo was sent out, admits that “I’m starting to worry that if this story gets out, we are screwed.”

Here is the full email:

 
 

Need get this asap to them although I’m sure cvc [Chelsea Clinton] won’t believe it to be true bc she doesn’t want to Even though the facts speak for themselves.

 

John, I would appreciate your feedback and any suggestions I’m also starting to worry that if this story gets out, we are screwed. Dk [Declan Kelly] and I built a business. 65 people work for us who have wives and husbands and kids, they all depend on us. Our business has almost nothing to do with the clintons, the foundation or cgi in any way. The chairman of ubs could care a less about cgi. Our fund clients who we do restructuring and m and a advising the same just as bhp nor tivo do. These are real companies who we provide real advice to through very serious people. Comm head for goldman, dep press secretary to bloomberg, former head of banking, and his team, from morgan stanley for asia and latin am.

 

I realize it is difficult to confront and reason with her but this could go to far and then we all will have a real serious set of other problems. I don’t deserve this from her and deserve a tad more respect or at least a direct dialogue for me to explain these things. She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues to justify what she’s doing because she, as she has said, hasn’t found her way and has a lack of focus in her life. I realize she will be off of this soon but if it doesn’t come soon enough…

Four years later, the story is out, not thanks to Chelsea Clinton as Doug Band was concerned, but due to a hack of John Podesta’s email account.

However, in light of the latest FBI scandal involving Anthony Weiner, It remains to be seen if either Band or the Clintons are screwed – it appears that the general public has more than enough distractions to forget about this potential graft scandal involving the Clintons and their influence-peddling clients.

A Scandal Too Far? Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty as Corruption, Lesbian Sex and Pedophilia Enter Presidential Race

A Scandal Too Far? Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton, and a Test of Loyalty

Photo

 
Huma Abedin boarded the Clinton campaign plane in Westchester County, N.Y., on Monday. Credit Doug Mills/The New York Times

In the summer of 2013, Hillary Clinton had just left the State Department and returned to New York. She planned a quiet year, basking in sky-high approval ratings and enjoying a respite from the media spotlight as she laid the groundwork for a second presidential run.

Then Carlos Danger happened.

Anthony D. Weiner, the husband of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aide, Huma Abedin, was running for mayor of New York when news broke that he had continued to exchange lewd messages with women online after the practice cost him his congressional seat. This time, he used the embarrassing Spanish-inspired moniker.

The tawdry story line and Ms. Abedin’s closeness to Mrs. Clinton made the events explode far beyond New York, dragging Mrs. Clinton’s name into messy headlines about penis pictures, Mr. Weiner’s descriptions of his sexual appetites and his online paramour named Sydney Leathers.

Now, with Mrs. Clinton seemingly on the cusp of winning the White House, Mr. Weiner, who once described himself as “a perpetually horny middle-aged man,” has pulled her into another drama. Federal investigators looking into his sexual messaging with an underage girl stumbled upon thousands of emails potentially pertinent to the F.B.I. inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s private email server.

Graphic

What We Know About the Investigation Into Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server

The F.B.I. recently uncovered new emails potentially related to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

OPEN Graphic

The jolting development highlighted not only the intersecting lives of Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin and Mr. Weiner, but also the pattern that has characterized the Clintons’ relationships with the sometimes oddly behaving inhabitants of their insular world: Even amid accusations of sexual or financial impropriety, the Clintons’ first instinct is to hunker down and protect those in their orbit, sometimes leading to more ugly eruptions later and, eventually, to messy public breakups.

Continue reading the main story

On Friday, several of Mrs. Clinton’s friends and allies suggested she distance herself from Ms. Abedin, a painful prospect given that Mrs. Clinton has described Ms. Abedin as a surrogate daughter and has relied on her more than anyone else during her nearly two-year pursuit of the White House.

The two women’s closeness has both intimidated those in the Clinton circle of status-conscious advisers and caused envy. Even as Mrs. Clinton learned on Friday that the F.B.I.’s interest in her email server, which she thought had ended in July, had reignited, Ms. Abedin was by her side as she prepared to make a statement to the news media in Des Moines.

Pressed by a reporter there about the emails’ having been discovered during the investigation into Mr. Weiner’s sexting, Mrs. Clinton dismissed the reports as “rumors.”

“We of course stand by her,” her campaign chairman, John D. Podesta, said on Saturday when asked whether Ms. Abedin would step down from the campaign.

Hillary Clinton has a 90% chance of winning the presidency.
 

Mrs. Clinton has always been circumspect about Mr. Weiner and her feelings toward him. She has steadfastly supported Ms. Abedin, 40, as the younger woman stood by her husband, despite the public ridicule and career damage that resulted from his behavior. The Clintons have never publicly criticized Mr. Weiner.

It was only two months ago that Ms. Abedin announced that she was separating from her husband, after she learned that The New York Post planned to publish a story reporting that Mr. Weiner had sent a picture of his crotch to a woman online as he lay next to the couple’s 4-year-old son in bed. Mrs. Clinton was vacationing in the Hamptons at the time and stayed away from the story.

Privately, aides to Mrs. Clinton suggested on Friday that Ms. Abedin would remain alongside Mrs. Clinton for the final, breakneck stretch of the campaign. But some senior Democrats are now wondering whether, if Mrs. Clinton is elected, she will be able to bring Ms. Abedin along with her for what was once widely expected to be a senior role in the White House.

Mrs. Clinton’s loyalty to Ms. Abedin (and vice versa) stems from the decades they have spent working closely together, beginning when Ms. Abedin was a 19-year-old intern to the first lady in the 1990s.

At the State Department, Ms. Abedin served as deputy chief of staff to Mrs. Clinton. Emails released by the State Department captured the closeness of their relationship. A jet-lagged Mrs. Clinton once emailed Ms. Abedin at 12:21 a.m. to take her up on an offer to come over to Mrs. Clinton’s house for a chat. “Just knock on the door to the bedroom if it’s closed,” she wrote.

Ms. Abedin’s loyalty and strong identification with both Clintons was conspicuous at the State Department. At a staff meeting in early 2009, she was going through a list of requests from “the president.” When others in the room looked at her in puzzlement, Ms. Abedin clarified: “Not President Obama. Our president: Bill Clinton.”

Ms. Abedin’s high profile and proximity to Mrs. Clinton also brought her scrutiny. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has questioned Ms. Abedin’s arrangement to earn income privately while she worked for Mrs. Clinton at the State Department. In addition to being on Mrs. Clinton’s personal payroll, Ms. Abedin received money from the Clinton Foundation and Teneo, a consulting firm co-founded by Douglas J. Band, a former senior aide to Mr. Clinton. And some of Ms. Abedin’s emails on Mrs. Clinton’s private server led to accusations that foundation donors had received special access to the State Department.

Through it all, Mrs. Clinton and her longtime adviser Philippe Reines have fiercely protected Ms. Abedin.

Mrs. Clinton played a part in introducing Ms. Abedin and Mr. Weiner, then a brash and outspoken Democratic congressman from New York. In August 2001, the young congressman asked Ms. Abedin, then an aide to Mrs. Clinton in the Senate, if she would go out for a drink. Standing behind Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Abedin waved her arms at her boss and shook her head “no.” “Of course all you young people should go out,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Mr. Weiner eventually won Ms. Abedin’s affections in January 2007, when he sat between Mrs. Clinton and her rival, then-Senator Barack Obama, at President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address. “I appreciate you looking out for my boss,” Ms. Abedin texted him. They went out for coffee and were married in July 2010; Mr. Clinton performed the ceremony.

Slide Show

Slide Show|12 Photos

On the Trail: Week of Oct. 23

On the Trail: Week of Oct. 23

CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

Ms. Abedin and Mrs. Clinton’s personal lives have in some ways taken parallel tracks, with each woman choosing to forgive her husband’s humiliating transgressions.

Others close to Mrs. Clinton have not been as understanding. On a campaign conference call the day that Mr. Weiner admitted he had continued to engage in online liaisons, Mr. Reines berated him, yelling that he would “reach through the phone” and “rip out” his throat, adding an expletive.

On Saturday, Ms. Abedin was working from the campaign’s Brooklyn headquarters rather than traveling with Mrs. Clinton on a campaign swing in Florida. Mr. Reines, who is not officially on the campaign’s staff, was, however, accompanying Mrs. Clinton.

Some advisers to the Clintons were exasperated earlier this year to learn that Mr. Weiner and Ms. Abedin were bringing about another distraction: The couple had permitted a behind-the-scenes documentary about Mr. Weiner’s circuslike mayoral bid to be made, resurrecting the sexting stories once again.

But deciding how to handle the current situation could be especially difficult. Cutting out employees who prove politically damaging may seem like Politics 101, but for the Clintons, it has never been easy, particularly when it comes to their oldest and most loyal aides. Ms. Abedin and Mr. Band both started as White House interns, spent their formative years working for the Clintons and ultimately brought unwelcome headlines to their bosses.

Before the email news broke on Friday, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was answering questions about Mr. Band’s private consulting firm, Teneo, and its ties to the Clinton Foundation. “I think voters, first of all, understand that Hillary Clinton is the candidate that’s on the ballot, not Doug Band,” her campaign manager, Robby Mook, told reporters on Friday.

<

p class=”story-body-text story-content”>It remained to be seen whether he would soon need to say the same of Ms. Abedin.

Senators Seek Arrest Of Huma Abedin: New Evidence Shows Abedin Lied To FBI “Under Oath” as Weiner Pedophile Investigation Reaches Climax

ReutersWHAT HAPPENED? Huma Abedin Swore Under Oath She Gave Up ‘All the Devices’ With State Dept. EmailsThe FBI found emails pertinent to its Clinton investigation, reportedly on a computer from her aide’s home. That doesn’t jibe with she told lawyers this summer.

M.L. Nestel

Jackie Kucinich

10.29.16 12:27 PM ET

In a normal election year, a normal candidate’s close aide who caused even minor embarrassment to a campaign so near to Election Day would be whisked away as quickly as possible to avoid becoming a distraction. 
But Huma Abedin is not simply a close aide, she’s a critical member of Hillary Clinton’s tiny inner circle that protects and at times enables the deeply flawed and secretive Democratic nominee. 

So despite FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the bureau is reviewing emails from Abedin’s time at the State Department reportedly found on a laptop she shared with her soon-to-be ex-husband Anthony Weiner (confiscated as a part of the FBI’s investigation into allegations he sexted with a 15-year-old North Carolina girl), the campaign made clear on Saturday that she’s not going anywhere. 

John Podesta, the chairman of the Clinton campaign, told reporters on a conference call that Abedin had been nothing but cooperative with investigators and sat for hours of depositions last summer as part of the civil lawsuit filed byJudicial Watch.

“There’s nothing that she’s done that we think calls into question anything that she’s done with respect to this investigation… we fully stand behind her,” Podesta said.

But the new information that the FBI found State Department-related email on her home laptop also calls into question whether Abedin in fact turned over all of the devices she used to send and receive email while working at State.  

On June 28, 2016, Abedin said under oath in a sworn deposition that she looked for all devices that she thought contained government work on them so the records could be given to the State Department. (These records were subsequently reviewed by the FBI.)

“How did you go about searching for what records you may have in your possession to be returned to the State Department?” Attorney Ramona Cotca for Judicial Watch asked her.

“I looked for all the devices that may have any of my State Department work on it and returned returned gave them to my attorneys for them to review for all relevant documents. And gave them devices and paper,” Abedin answered.

Cotca then asked Abedin specifically what devices she gave her attorneys.

“If memory serves me correctly, it was two laptops, a BlackBerry, and some files that I found in my apartment,” Abedin said, adding the BlackBerry was associated with her Clintonemail.com account. 

Abedin maintained that she was “not involved in the process” of what records on her devices would be given to the State Department.

“I provided them [her attorneys] with the devices and the materials and asked them to find whatever they thought was relevant and appropriate, whatever was their determination as to what was a federal record, and they did. They turned the materials in, and I know they did so….”

Abedin was asked whether she supplied her login, password and other credentials to her “Clintonmail.com” account so that her attorneys could eyeball “all of the emails that were on that account” Abedin said she had. 

Pressed how she was sure, Abedin said, “I cannot answer that question.”

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!
Daily DigestStart and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.
Cheat SheetA speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don’t).
By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
 

Abedin said her practice was to rely on her State Department email through her laptop and BlackBerry for the “vast majority of my work” but acknowledged her personal account was a de facto business account too. 

“I used that for the Clinton family matters and, frankly, I used it for my own personal e-mail, as well,” she testified. 

Abedin helped set up a private email address for Clinton at the start of her tenure as Secretary of State, according to State Department emails. In one email, Clinton wrote Abedin on Nov. 12, 2010: “…I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

Asked about this exchange in her deposition, Abedin said she interpreted Clinton’s words to mean the Secretary of State hoped personal matters would “not accessible to anybody.”

“I would imagine anybody who has personal e-mail doesn’t want that personal e-mail to be read by anybody else,” Abedin said. 

Asked whether the decision was made to deliberately avoid public disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act, Abedin responded, “I absolutely do not believe that no.” 

When told she used her Clintonmail.com address for “State-related matters,” Abedin didn’t deny it. 

“Yes. There were occasions when I did do that, correct,” she said.

But Abedin said she rarely deleted emails when it came to her official State Department email account or her personal Huma@Clintonemail.com.

“My practice with my Clinton e-mail was similar to what I had with my State account, which is that I left everything in in the Inbox, and I transitioned to a new e-mail once the Secretary’s office was set up, her personal office post State Department. And I was and I no longer used Clinton e-mail.”

Abedin added that just before she left the State Department and “ceased” using her Clintonemail.com account, she couldn’t “recall how many [e-mails] were returned … I certainly don’t recally how many was on was on the account. I just left everything on what on the system, I guess.”

It appears that Abedin amassed emails on her computers and government-issued BlackBerry that she thought were automatically purged. 

 

“The e-mails on my State Department system existed on my computer, and I didn’t have a practice of managing my mailbox other than leaving what was in there sitting in there. 

“So for my BlackBerry, if I exceeded the limit, I think it auto deleted. But, no, I didn’t … go into my e-mails and delete State.gov e-mails. They just lived on my computer.”

Abedin said she didn’t keep any paper printouts of any of the correspondence that may have been deleted or otherwise lost.

“Honestly, I wish I thought about it at the time. As I said, I wasn’t perfect. I tried to do all of my work on State.gov. And I do believe I did the majority of my work on State.gov.

“And many of the instances where I was on Clinton e-mail, it was because I had forwarded something from a State.gov account into Clinton e-mail, and in other instances from my Clinton e-mail I was communicating with somebody who was on a State.gov account, and it was captured through there. I did the best I could to do everything right. It did not occur to me to print and file.”

Abedin was asked if she had “any concerns” about Clinton’s use of her private email server for State Department business.

“I assumed it was allowed,” Abedin answered. “It didn’t occur to us.”

Judicial Watch followed up, asking why no one inquired with a State Department official in charge of managing records to make sure it was allowed.

 
 

“We all wish we could go back and that not be the case,” Abedin, a wish that must only be greater 10 days before voters decide her boss’s fate.