If you have some time, read Chapter Five (page 71) of the IG report on how @Comey's FBI went about Hillary's emails. For example, the feds got "consent" to search "most" (not all Clinton devices).
What I didn't know until today is that the classified (including top secret) emails found in #ButHerEmails were only among the 30K+ emails handed over by Clinton's staff and not the 31K+ they deleted under claim that it was "personal."
Feds "Did not seek to obtain every device including those of Clinton’s senior aides, or the contents of every email account... Reasons for not doing so were based on limitations the Midyear team imposed... [with] the desire to complete the investigation well before the election."
Basically, Comey's FBI wanted to wrap up the email investigation before the election so much that they didn't collect all devices! (They assumed she will win.)
Yet when Trump won, they continued "investigating" him.
HRC would be off the hook had she won; not Trump if he won.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/4 On Inauguration Day, the outgoing POTUS does not personally have physical access to classified documents to fill 25 boxes at will and to secretly direct the movers to corruptly whisk it away. So any talk of Trump "stealing/taking" boxes of such documents is a clown show.
2/4 Can a new admin claim that some documents should not have been given? Yes. But if you read beyond the clickbait headlines and dramatic intros, the "concern" was the security. Did Bush 43 check Clinton's security at Chappaqua?
3/4 Basically, staffers decide which docs can go with a POTUS, but senior people in a new admin have the legal (corruptly-used) power to claim that some documents were given by mistake and can also claim (corruptly) that it's not securely stored; hence the new locks in June. 😃
The nature and gravity of corruption is that if gone unaccounted, it gets worse. Consider this: A few years ago, Trump was "suspected" of being a stooge of a foreign power due to blackmail and collusion. Right? It was a "clear and present danger."
2/5 Yet despite this, Mueller & Weissman didn't have the guts to subpoena a POTUS (or even his children). The SC didn't move on POTUS. Instead, it left it to Congress to decide. Yet 3 years later, the home of a former president was raided by Obama's definition of a fair guy.
3/5 The raid was done despite the underlying issue (whatever it may be) not being such a clear "danger" as what was "feared" when Trump was POTUS; being beholden to an adversary.
2 of the charges against Roger Stone were about records to Congress. One direct; the other Obstruction. Those two could have been levied on Hillary and/or on all those directly involved in beach-cleaning servers after her records were subpoenaed by Congress.
Stone was raided. Trump was raided. Yet not #ButHerEmails@HillaryClinton which were i corruptly deleted and beach-cleaned after a subpoena by Congress. Imagine the pay-to-play crimes those emails contained that HRC & Co violated, apparently, multiple laws to dispose of them.
3/4 The #ButHerEmails likely contained pay-to-play involving Foundation/State Depo and ran afoul of Records Keeping and classified doc laws.
So you have
- corruption
- obstruction of Justice/Congress;
- records keeping
- Classified
What a partisan hack of a clown this @JustinWolfers is. Inflation in July was 8.5% higher from a year ago. No change month over month does not mean no inflation.
"Holy COW: The car at 100 MPH is not speeding because it's at 100 continuously and not above it."