Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
PromoteFacebookTwitter!
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/2/2016 10:16:41 AM

Biggest Election Fraud In History Discovered In The United States

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/2/2016 10:53:04 AM
Here’s the Election Day nightmare scenario that should terrify you


THE MORNING PLUM:

The new Washington Post/ABC News national tracking poll finds Donald Trump leading Clinton by one point in the four-way match-up, 46-45, while Clinton leads in the head-to-head by 48-47. You shouldn’t overreact to individual polls — instead, keep focused on the national and state polling averages.

But plainly, the race is tightening, and it’s increasingly possible we’ll see a very close finish. Which means that it’s time to start pondering an Election Day nightmare scenario that is made up of two parts. First, the tight finish produces an outcome that is contested well beyond Election Day, with Trump (should he lose) claiming the results are rigged. Second, Trump supplements his claim about the rigged outcome by continuing to point to the FBI’s latest discovery of emails as proof of an ongoing cover-up of Hillary Clinton’s criminality.

This morning, election rules expert Michael McDonald arguesthat if the outcome is close, the election could very well “go into overtime,” adding that “in this environment,” this could “rip this country apart.” McDonald posits that in a very close finish, Trump could be favored on election night, but over subsequent days, as the vote counting continues afterwards, Clinton might then edge into the lead:

A Democratic shift from election night to the final tally of votes is predictable. All states count some ballots late, and those tend to break towards Democrats. Nothing nefarious occurs: the casting and counting follow procedures laid out in state law. Some of the states that count more late ballots are key battlegrounds, magnifying the suspense on Election Night.

Mail ballots are one of two types that can shift election results. Many states require mail ballots to be receivedby election officials on Election Day. Others continue to accept ballots postmarked on Election Day, up to two weeks following the election. Among these states are Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

These late ballots may break towards the Democrats. My analysis shows more Democrats than Republicans in Iowa and North Carolina have yet to return their mail ballots. Why? These voters tend to be younger people who tend to return their ballots later. If Trump is slightly ahead in a late mail-ballot return state, he could fall behind after all the mail ballots are counted.

Then there are provisional ballots. States are required under federal law to provide them to anyone with a problem at the polls — a voter who doesn’t have the required form of ID, for instance, or whose name is missing from the voter registration rolls. Election officials review provisional ballots and allow voters to clarify their eligibility after Election Day. In the four states that report separate results for provisional ballots, the voters who cast them broke strongly for the Democrats. So if the presidential race is particularly close, provisional ballots could tilt it.

There’s still more in the link, but you get the idea. Meanwhile,Bloomberg Politics reports that both sides are now gearing up in a serious way for the possibility of a legally contested outcome.

With one week to go, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are in a statistical dead heat nationally. The Fix's Chris Cillizza explains what you should expect from the last week of the election. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

All of that is worrying enough, because as you’ll recall, Trump has refused to say that he’ll accept the outcome if he loses. Evenwhen he clarified this, he explicitly left open the possibility that he would legally contest the outcome if the result is “questionable,” reserving, of course, the right to define what counts as “questionable” for himself. It’s Trump’s right to contest a close, legally murky loss. But, given his continuing insistence that the election is “rigged,” it’s plausible he may go a lot further, and launch a sustained campaign well outside of conventional channels to cast Clinton as an illegitimate president, no matter what our political norms and the electoral and legal realities actually dictate.


What’s more, you cannot mull this possibility without also connecting it to the ongoing battle over the new emails discovered by the FBI. As I’ve noted, Trump is now explicitly arguing to his followers that FBI director James Comey has two choices — either he discovers new evidence of Clinton’s criminality in the discovered emails, or Trump will revert to casting Comey as a participant in a cover-up of that criminality that is designed to deliver the election to Clinton.

And there is no obvious way for Comey to resolve this problem. Or, at least, there is no obvious way to resolve it — short of turning up something new and incriminating in the emails, which can’t be ruled out — that would avert an outcome that Trump casts as corrupt and illegitimate. If Comey announces before the election that he has found no new grounds to revisit his July decision not to recommend charges against Clinton — and if Trump loses — Trump will claim that Comey’s finding was rigged to help elect her president. If Comey does not announce any new finding from the emails — and if Trump loses — Trump will claim that Comey’s failure to produce anything in time was rigged to help elect her president. And then, if and when Comey does eventually clear her, that, too, will constitute still more evidence that the system is rigged, and thus more grounds for grievance.

Many Republican voters will accept whichever of these explanations is relevant. See how this works?

Add to all of this the fact that Trump and his campaign CEO Stephen Bannon are reportedly looking to convert the campaign into a vehicle for sustaining a post-election following. All of these narratives could then converge and become the fuel to drive that vehicle forward. And so, it’s not hard to see a close finish producing an aftermath that gets very ugly and destructive. Which is exactly what Trump would relish.

*********************************************************

* INTERNAL POLLING SHOWS LITTLE SHIFT: The New York Times reports these nuggets about the overall map and about North Carolina:

The F.B.I. director’s letter about the emails has not yet produced a major shift in private polling, according to Republican and Democratic strategists….Mrs. Clinton’s lead over Mr. Trump appears to have contracted modestly, but not enough to threaten her advantage over all…Republicans privy to private polling data said surveys they had seen since the news from the F.B.I. on Friday still showed Mrs. Clinton leading in North Carolina.

Trump must win North Carolina. As the Times notes, Trump is campaigning Michigan and New Mexico, meaning he knows traditional routes to victory are closed off and hopes for a miracle.

* FBI SIFTING THROUGH NEW EMAILS: The Post reports that the FBI is right now examining the newly discovered emails with software that can identify whether they are duplicates or contain classified information:

It should not take long for the FBI to determine if there are emails that are duplicates of ones already collected in the probe, bureau experts said. But if the bureau finds emails that contain potentially classified information, getting those analyzed could take weeks because the agencies whose information was being discussed would need to review them, officials said.

So it’s at least possible that this could be settled before the election, if they are found to be duplicates. But it’s still unclear whether the FBI will say anything more before the voting.

* TRUMP’S TAX AVOIDANCE MANEUVER IS VERY SMART: The New York Times turns up new evidence that Trump may have avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes by stretching a loophole to what experts call an extraordinary degree. Note this:

Moreover, the tax experts said the maneuver trampled a core tenet of American tax policy by conferring enormous tax benefits on Mr. Trump for losing vast amounts of other people’s money — in this case, money investors and banks had entrusted to him to build a casino empire in Atlantic City.

No doubt Trump would say that this, too, “makes me smart.”

* CLINTON LEADING BIG IN PENNSYLVANIA? A new Franklin and Marshall College poll finds Clinton leading Trump by 49-38 among likely voters in Pennsylvania. Still, be cautious: this poll also finds Dem Katie McGinty leading GOP Senator Pat Toomey by 12 points, suggesting it could be an outlier.


Also: 80 percent of the interviews were completed before the FBI news broke. The polling averages put her up six points, but we need more post-FBI data. If her lead holds here, that will be a big tell.


* BURST OF DEM SPENDING SUGGESTS TIGHTENING RACE:
The pro-Clinton Super PAC Priorities USA is set to unleash millions more in ad spending, and note where that money is going:

Some of the spending will occur in Wisconsin, a state where the group had not previously spent any money this election and where Donald J. Trump is running close to Mrs. Clinton. Priorities USA Action will also spend money in Miami and Jacksonville, Fla., for the first time, while adding to its spending across cities in Pennsylvania.

This suggests internal Dem data shows a real tightening in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two states that should be safe for Clinton but that Trump really might be making competitive.

* AFRICAN AMERICAN TURNOUT LAGS IN FLORIDA:Politico’s Marc Caputo reports that Democrats are worried about the weak early voting turnout they are seeing among African Americans in Florida:

After Sunday night’s polls closed, black voters accounted for 16 percent of the in-person early vote ballots cast. And that included five previous days of in-person early voting. But in 2012, in just two days of in-person early voting, blacks cast 25 percent of those early ballots…Due to such strong African-American turnout after the beginning of in-person early voting in 2012, Democrats began outpacing Republicans in total ballots cast before Election Day, by about 10,000. This year, though, Republicans still cling to their own lead of about 9,000.

The Republican lead in overall early voting in Florida is razor thin, so there’s still time for Democrats to take the lead, but Florida is likely to be super-close, so this lag among African Americans could matter.

* FBI NEWS COULD SWING BATTLE FOR SENATE:FiveThirtyEight’s Harry Enten notes that five Senate races (Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina) are within two points, and explains why the emails might shift them:


All these races are so close that a small shift…could swing things. A 2-percentage-point lead just isn’t that safe…we’ve seen that when Clinton’s numbers have gone done this year, so too have Democratic Senate candidates’….there’s been an increasingly strong relationship between Senate and presidential election results….it’s not difficult to imagine that the latest news might push a few more voters to want a Republican Congress as a check on Clinton.

Even if the new emails turn out to be nothing whatsoever, James Comey’s mere release of the letter could help determine which party controls the Senate, with untold consequences. Nice!

* AND THE TRUMP RALLY MOMENT OF THE DAY, LOCK-HER-UP EDITION: Lovely:

In Michigan when Trump first brought up Clinton’s emails, the crowd began to loudly chant: “Lock her up! Lock her up!” In the audience was a woman dressed up in an orange prison jumpsuit labeled “Clinton.”

Imagine how Trump voters will react if Comey announces that the emails contain zero cause to revisit the decision not to recommend criminal charges.

Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant -- what you might call “opinionated reporting” from the left.
Follow @theplumlinegs




(The Washington Post)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/2/2016 1:46:18 PM

Comey faces a firestorm of criticism over renewed Clinton email probe



The Post’s Matt Zapotosky explains why FBI Director James B. Comey has found himself at the center of the presidential campaign in recent days.
(Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)

The Justice Department moved Monday to quell the outrage and frenetic speculation surrounding FBI Director James B. Comey’s disclosure last week that the bureau has resumed its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server after discovering a new trove of emails.

The department signaled that it now wants the politically charged investigation to follow standard procedures, including a strict limit on official comments about the probe and the provision of updates to Congress through routine channels.

But after Comey’s highly unusual disclosure last week rocked the final days of the presidential campaign, it may prove impossible for Justice to lower the temperature and regain control over how the investigation is conducted and depicted to the public.

On Monday, criticism of Comey continued to mount, notably from prominent former law enforcement officials. Democrats and Republicans alike on Capitol Hill amplified their demands that Comey and Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch provide a more detailed account of the investigation into the emails, which were found on a computer belonging to former congressman Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) earlier this fall.

Justice is a staid and secretive department, and on Monday officials tried to restore that traditional bearing, trying to tamp down the highly public disclosures about a confidential investigation.

The Post’s Matt Zapotosky breaks down the unknowns following the FBI’s announcement on Oct. 28 that it will renew its Hillary Clinton email probe. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Justice officials said there will be no further statements or news conferences about the Clinton investigation until it is completed. The FBI has software capable of sifting through thousands of emails found on Weiner’s computer, identifying ones that investigators have already reviewed as well as searching for key words that might indicate that the emails may have contained classified information.

The department also sent a three-paragraph letter to six lawmakers saying it would move quickly in pursuing the renewed investigation into emails potentially tied to Clinton’s server. The letter was sent by the department’s head of legislative affairs — not Comey or Lynch — in a return to standard practice.

“The Department of Justice appreciates the concerns raised in your letter,” wrote Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter J. Kadzik, addressing lawmakers who had asked Comey and Lynch for more details. In particular, the lawmakers had pressed for details about the investigative steps being taken by the FBI, the number of emails involved and the steps being taken to determine how many of the emails duplicate those already reviewed by the FBI.

“We assure you that the Department will continue to work closely with the FBI and together, dedicate all necessary resources and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible,” Kadzik wrote, adding no new details about the investigation. “We hope this information is helpful.”

It was not, according to several lawmakers and their staffs.

“We are not satisfied with the FBI response,” said a staffer for Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), who was one of the congressmen who received the letter, along with Democratic Sens. Thomas R. Carper (Del.), Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.), and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote Comey Monday saying that the disclosure provided to Congress last week “did not go far enough” and was unfair to Congress, the American people and Clinton.

“In the absence of additional, authoritative information from the FBI in the wake of your vague disclosure, Congress and the American people are left to sift through anonymous leaks from Justice Department officials to the press of varying levels of detail, reliability, and consistency,” Grassley wrote. “The American people deserve better than that.”

The senator asked Comey to answer by Nov. 4 a series of questions about the discovery of the emails and what the FBI has learned about their contents.

Grassley’s request adds to the increasing pressure on Comey to release more details and clarify his letter to Congress. A bipartisan group of about 100 former federal prosecutors and senior Justice Department officials have also called on Comey to release more information.

“We do not question Director Comey’s motives,” wrote the group, which included President Obama’s former attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson, who served under President George W. Bush.

“However, the fact remains that the Director’s disclosure has invited considerable, uninformed public speculation about the significance of newly-discovered material just days before a national election,” the group wrote. “For this reason, we believe the American people deserve all the facts, and fairness dictates releasing information that provides a full and complete picture regarding the material at issue.”

Comey set off a firestorm Friday by telling the chairmen of eight congressional committees that the FBI would take “appropriate investigative steps” to determine whether newly discovered emails found in an unrelated investigation contain classified information and to assess whether they are relevant to the investigation involving Clinton’s private email server. The unrelated case was an investigation of Weiner, who is accused of having explicit exchanges with a 15-year-old girl. Weiner is the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

Justice officials have said that before Comey notified Congress,they warned him that doing so would go against long-standing practices of the department not to comment on ongoing investigations and not to take steps that could be viewed as influencing an election.

However, officials familiar with Comey’s decision said that he felt a sense of obligation to lawmakers to “supplement” his testimony under oath in July that the Clinton investigation was complete and there would be no charges. Comey was also concerned that word of the new email discovery would leak to the media and raise questions of a coverup, the officials said.

Comey’s disclosure about the Clinton probe is particularly striking, some U.S. officials said, because he had advised against the administration publicly accusing Russia of trying to meddle in the 2016 election because it would seem too political too close to Election Day. Comey eventually supported the administration’s Oct. 7 denunciation, which alluded to hacks of Democratic Party organizations, as long as it did not have the FBI’s name on it, officials said. His desire to keep the FBI out of the announcement stemmed from several concerns, including a wish not to appear biased as the bureau conducted a probe into Russian hacking, they said. Comey’s position was first reported by CNBC.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest praised Comey on Monday as “a man of principle . . . integrity and talent” and said that Obama, who nominated Comey three years ago to serve a 10-year term, does not believe that he is trying to influence the presidential election.

Earnest said that the president believes it is important for the “norms, traditions and guidelines” surrounding FBI investigations to be followed. But Earnest said repeatedly that he would “neither defend nor criticize” Comey’s decision, saying he lacked the independent knowledge to weigh in.

One official said the total number of emails recovered in the investigation into Weiner is close to 650,000, although that reflects many emails that are not related to the Clinton investigation. But officials familiar with the case said that the messages include a significant amount of correspondence associated with Clinton and Abedin.

It should not take long for the FBI to determine if there are emails that are duplicates of ones already collected in the probe, bureau experts said.

But if the bureau finds emails that contain potentially classified information, getting those analyzed could take weeks because the agencies whose information was being discussed would need to review them, officials said.

Greg Jaffe contributed to this report.


(The Washington Post)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/2/2016 2:12:52 PM


SHUTTERSTOCK

WikiLeaks Reveals Team Hillary’s Libya Spin: It Would Be Syria Without Clinton’s War

New emails from John Podesta show talking points circulated during her marathon Benghazi testimony to defend the war and blame the victims for not embracing the U.S. more.

BETSY WOODRUFF, NANCY A. YOUSSEF 11.01.16 10:56 AM ET

In the lead-up to Hillary Clinton’s marathon testimony before Congress on Benghazi in October 2015, her presidential campaign prepared to make some eye-popping claims—including that Libya would have turned into Syria without U.S. intervention.

That’s according to an internal talking-point memo released in Tuesday’s dump of WikiLeaks emails. WikiLeaks says those emails were hacked from the inbox of Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. The Clinton campaign is not commenting on whether or not the emails are doctored, andblames the Russian government for the hack.

The memo was sent to Podesta by his assistant, Milia Fisher, on Oct. 21, 2015. That was one day before Clinton’s testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

“Had we opted for inaction, we would have been rebuffing our allies and turning our back on the Libyan people in the face of a murderous dictator,” read one talking point in the document that Fisher sent Podesta. “The truth is that if we hadn’t acted, Libya would look something like what Syria looks like today. So is the unrest in Libya concerning? Of course. Is it better than the alternative? Absolutely.”

In part through Western intervention, the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi regime collapsed. On Oct. 20, 2011, rebels found Gaddafi hiding near in a culvert in his hometown of Sirte, Libya, and killed him shortly afterward. Elections followed a brief period of stability before jihadi groups, including the self-proclaimed Islamic State, claimed Libyan territory.

The current, United Nations-backed government is in a statemate, struggling to expand its influence past the capital, Tripoli.

The Clinton campaign knew the Libya intervention was a political liability to her, so it urged its backers to say that not intervening would have made things much worse—and to blame the violence in part on the Libyan people’s lack of openness to greater U.S. military involvement.

“Attached are the five final TPs docs that comms has right now,” Fisher wrote, indicating the talking points came from the Clinton campaign’s communications team.

Despite the memo’s claim that Libya would have devolved much like Syria had the West not intervened, Libya and Syria are in fact two very different countries. Where Syria is a myriad of ethnicities and sects of Islam, Libya in 2011 was far more monolithic. Libya’s roughly 6 million people were nearly all Sunni Muslims, followers of a certain school of Islam called Maliki. Libya was divided by tribes and three regions that formed the artificially created state. Syria, meanwhile, is home to Russia’s biggest naval presence in the region, and its geography makes it valuable to the West and Iran as well.

Had the West not intervened in Libya, no one can say for sure what would have happened. Gaddafi might have put down the uprising or a years-long civil war could have erupted. But unlike Syria, where war could easily turn into a direct proxy war between various states, the conflict in Libya would likely not have spread far beyond its borders.

The talking points are right on one key point. NATO allies, led by the French, were pushing for U.S. intervention in Libya. But even as Gaddafi’s tanks lined up outside the city of Benghazi, the birthplace of the Libyan uprising, there were concerns within the administration about the consequences of intervening.

The administration believed the French and Italians would lead efforts to stabilize Libya after Gaddafi’s eventual fall. In a March 2011 speech before the National Defense University, President Obama said the U.S. would play a “supporting role” in the assault on Gaddafi’s forces. But as then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates later told The Daily Beast, no one inside the administration knew what the French plan for post-Gaddafi Libya was.

“We were playing it by ear,” Gates explained with resignation.

The French feared that had the West not interfered, Libya would have devolved and refugees would have begun fleeing north toward Europe. As it turns out, the intervention, and lack of post-war plan from both the West and the Libyans who lead the uprisings, contributed to the greatest refugee crisis of the past 100 years. In the past year, thousands of refugees from around the Middle East and northern Africa have left in overfilled boats from Libya’s porous, unprotected shores.

There were lots of reasons for the U.S. to not intervene. Then-Libyan leader Gaddafi had abandoned his nuclear program and, in 2003, turned over the name of Pakistani physicist AQ Khan, whose nuclear-proliferation network had helped North Korea develop its program. And Gaddafi was keeping close tabs on Libyan nationals released from Guantanamo Bay. Gaddafi had been contained, critics of the intervention argued.

To secure the legal means to attack Libya, the U.S. pushed for a United Nations vote that authorized a no-fly zone to stop Gaddafi from killing civilians in Benghazi, where tanks had lined up outside the city in what appeared to be an approaching violent attack on Gaddafi opponents. But the humanitarian campaign to save the lives of Libyans turned into into a push to rid Libya of Gaddafi. U.S. aircraft, which began in May 2011 by bombing sites around Benghazi, slowly moved hundreds of miles west to Tripoli, targeting Gaddafi’s regime and contributing to his October 2011 demise.

In another talking point, the Clinton communications team directed supporters to divert responsibility for the violence away from Clinton.

“Our efforts were complicated by the Libyans’ resistance to outsized foreign influence on their rebuilding process,” one of the talking points said. “Certainly, they never would have accepted an outside peacekeeping force, nor was anyone eager to put boots on the ground.”

Libyans were indeed eager to rid themselves of Gaddafi’s 42-year rule without outside help. But even in the early days of the uprising, it was clear that the opposition had neither the organization nor resources to govern an oil-rich state, filled with pockets of Islamists on their own. As Gates explained, there was a high risk of unintended consequences associated with even limited intervention.

This memo gives a valuable window into how the Clinton campaign put together its communications strategy on the Benghazi attacks and subsequent violence in Libya: When facing criticism, claim anything other than your decision would have been apocalyptic. And if your decision had a bloody fallout, blame the victims.

(The Daily Beast)

"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1
Luis Miguel Goitizolo

1162
61587 Posts
61587
Invite Me as a Friend
Top 25 Poster
Person Of The Week
RE: ARE WE NOW IN THE END TIMES?
11/2/2016 2:35:36 PM

FBI releases Bill Clinton closed case files days before vote

AFP


Then-President Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, once one of the FBI's most wanted fugitives on charges of tax evasion, on the last day of his presidency in January 2000 (AFP Photo/Bryan R.Smith)

Washington (AFP) - The FBI has unexpectedly released documents concerning ex-president Bill Clinton's pardon of the husband of a wealthy Democratic donor, in a surprise move just days before the election in which his wife is seeking to become America's first female president.

The release of the heavily redacted 129-page report over the pardon of trader Marc Rich -- an investigation that closed in 2005 without charges -- triggered questions from Democrats already angered by the FBI's probe into hundreds of thousands of newly uncovered emails possibly linked to Hillary Clinton.

While the Rich documents were published online Monday, they received little notice until they were posted on Tuesday on a Twitter account for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's division managing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that had had no posts since a year ago, except for a small handful released simultaneously on Sunday.

"Absent a FOIA litigation deadline, this is odd," said Hillary Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon.

"Will FBI be posting docs on Trump's housing discrimination in '70s?" he added, referring to Clinton's Republican rival Donald Trump, a billionaire real estate magnate.

The FBI said the documents were posted shortly after they were processed, as with FOIA materials requested three or more times.

"Per the standard procedure for FOIA, these materials became available for release and were posted automatically and electronically to the FBI's public reading room in accordance with the law and established procedures," the statement said.

The FBI indicated that this was only a "preliminary" release that could therefore be followed by more.

Rich was indicted on federal charges of tax evasion in the United States. He was a fugitive from the Department of Justice -- at a time one of the FBI's most wanted -- living in exile in Switzerland at the time of his indictment. He died there in 2013.

In a controversial move, Bill Clinton pardoned him on his last day in office on January 20, 2001. The FBI opened its investigation into the pardon later that year.

Rich's ex-wife Denise Eisenberg Rich, whose name was redacted from the FBI files, "has been a major political donor to the Democratic Party, and these donations may have been intended to influence the fugitive's pardon," reads a bureau note requesting that a preliminary investigation be opened.

Some of the donations went to the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation, the predecessor to the Clinton Foundation, according to the document.

"It appears that the required pardon standards and procedures were not followed," reads the FBI document dated February 15, 2001.

The Rich case fell under the watch of current FBI Director James Comey, then a younger prosecutor.

The FBI document dump comes as Comey is under fire, from both Democrats and some Republicans, for effectively reopening in recent days the bureau's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server.


(Yahoo News)


"Choose a job you love and you will not have to work a day in your life" (Confucius)

+1