BREAKING: 1 Day Before NH Primary, FBI Confirms Something About Hillary That’ll Have Her Sweating Bullets

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Judicial Watch, the FBI has released a statement confirming it is investigating Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s electronic communication of sensitive information during her stint at the helm of the U.S. Department of State.

Clinton’s second White House bid has been dominated by speculation regarding her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state through which top secret information was reportedly sent and received.

Thus far, however, the FBI has been cagey regarding the scope of the investigation — or even whether an investigation had begun.

Earlier this month, the agency at least “acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

FBI Formally Confirms Investigation Into Clinton’s Secret ServerBREAKING NEWS: FBI Formally Confirms Investigation Into Clinton’s Secret Server

Posted by Republican National Committee on Monday, February 8, 2016

Beyond that, however, FBI general counsel James Baker offered few details. The bureau has not “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings,” Baker’s letter concluded.

Providing further information, the letter suggested, could adversely affect “on-going law enforcement efforts.”

The FBI confirmation came just days after Clinton dismissed any ongoing federal investigation on the matter, declaring during the most recent Democrat presidential debate that she was “100 percent confident nothing will come from the review of my email account.”

Penalty For Disobeying Federal ‘Commands’ Should NOT Be Death

There he stood at a press conference. Big man. Federal employee. FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing looked into the camera and said, “Actions have consequences.” As if that justified the killing of LaVoy Finicum at the hands of the Oregon State Police in a confrontation which the FBI orchestrated and could reasonably foresee would end the way it did.

If LaVoy Finicum had been a black teen in a hoodie, the media would be all over it.

Instead, he was a mature white Arizona rancher who—like many of us in the West—was tired of federal hegemony over our land and was willing to risk his life, his treasure and his sacred honor to do something about it.

You know, like those 56 angry white guys in 1776.

Maybe he was misguided. Maybe he wasn’t.

But, apparently, white rancher lives matter a lot less to the FBI and the Department of Justice than do black lives belonging to looters—or the Al Sharptons of the world.

Agent Bretzing appears to have no idea of the consequences the actions of his little band of shooters will have.

Causes need martyrs.

LaVoy Finicum just became one. In fact, he may well have become the perfect martyr. He told NBC on video before it happened that he had a good life and was unafraid to die for his cause.

He also was the father of 11, a foster father over the years to 50 troubled boys…in general not what you think of when you think of an “armed militia member.” Or, for that matter, someone who came to Ferguson, Missouri, to riot and loot.

He was just a tough old coot who believed that the Federal Government had vastly overreached in the West and needed to have its pervasive influence reduced. And, unlike Cliven Bundy—who was not a media poster boy for land rights—he had the appeal of someone with the ability to charm the media.

The truth about law enforcement is that much of it sees things in black and white.

If a person is violating a law—any law—then they are subject to the wrath of government-sanctioned guns at the complete discretion—or lack of it—of those wielding those guns.

Now, to some extent, law enforcement is important. Within reason, it is one of the few things we all agree that government is and actually should be responsible for.

We expect it to be there when mobsters are stealing us blind in New York and Chicago. We expect it to be there when gang-bangers are shooting up the streets of East Los Angeles or the Strip in Las Vegas.

We also expect there to be a proportionate response to, say, a traffic stop. Or an act of civil disobedience. We sort of learned proportionate response in Birmingham, Al., in the 60s from black and white films of Sheriff Bull Connor’s dogs attacking demonstrators.

Unfortunately, many times we get neither—but we do get a lot of rage from some quarters in law enforcement when they are criticized.

I’ll grant you that it is a difficult job, made more so by an “us vs. them” attitude cultivated by much of law enforcement over the years.

Actions do indeed have consequences. So do attitudes.

This nation does not—and cannot—depend solely on law enforcement to keep us safe. You cannot put a cop on every corner—or every Federal wildlife preserve. It takes voluntary compliance from a citizenry which has a basic respect for the law.

And, the occasional burst of civil disobedience to help put a bad law away.

That respect for the system has to be earned BY the system.

FBI Special Agent in Charge Greg Bretzing may well have set that respect back 30 years with his flip recital of what we all know to be true, which was clearly intended to minimize the consequences resulting from a complete mishandling of peaceful civil disobedience.

The idea that a government employee can shoot you dead because you do not follow his “commands” doesn’t sit well with us in the West, where we, also, carry guns.

It’s not like Finicum was knocking over a liquor store in East LA with a gun, or selling drugs in Chicago for the Sinaloa cartel.

He was protesting Federal hegemony over Western land.

And the sentence for that should probably not be death.

Uh-Oh: The Obama Admin Just Enraged The FBI And Justice Dept. By Doing This

Even as the Obama administration tries to claim it is not interfering in the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server and its contents, its actions are causing a backlash of resentment from federal agencies involved in the probe.

On Friday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest proclaimed the White House’s innocence in connection with the investigation.

“I can tell you with full confidence that there has been no political interference in this process” of releasing Clinton’s emails, he said.

When Earnest was asked whether Clinton would be indicted in this case, Earnest responded, “I know that some officials over there have said that she is not a target of the investigation, so that does not seem to be the direction it’s trending.”

Speaking on the On the Record with Greta Van Susteren show Friday, Chief Intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge said Earnest’s statements have FBI and Justice departments “super pissed off.”

 “Because number one, they say Josh Earnest has absolutely no clearance or visibility into the FBI investigation. Number two, they say it really seems part of a troubling pattern from the White House because the president earlier said he did not see any national security implications to the Clinton emails, and then we found out he had never been briefed,” Herridge said.

“And the whole idea is to not make this even more political than absolutely necessary, but the White House is weighing in and certainly leaving the public with the impression that is not backed up by the evidence in the case,” Herridge said.

Herridge’s comments came as Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch raised the issue of Clinton’s emails in tweets sent out Saturday and Sunday.

h/t: TheBlaze

Ahead Of Iowa Caucus, FBI Tightens Noose On Hillary, Obama Promises Dem. Successor

Video Transcript:

With the Iowa caucus just days away, MSNBC’s Morning Joe said the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton is much more serious than people think.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: All of our sources high up are telling us – and Nicolle is hearing the same thing – that this investigation is far more advanced than we the public know.

MARK HALPERIN: There are a lot of chatter amongst FBI agents – many of whom have never been big fans of the Clintons – but a lot of FBI agents seem to be saying something’s happening here. From a legal point of view … it’s hard to see now how the Justice Department, the FBI doesn’t want to interview Secretary Clinton. And that interview alone – short of an indictment, short of anything else – that would be a huge political development. It would undermine confidence in some Democrats in the notion of going forward with Secretary Clinton.

ABC’s Cokie Roberts said she doesn’t think an indictment will happen, but if it does, it’s game over for Hillary Clinton.

ROBERTS: I think that if an indictment were going to come down, that it would have happened sooner. Look, if there’s an indictment, it’s over. She’s out. And then they go find the, you know, the break glass, emergency box and I suppose what happens then is you see Joe Biden.

Despite Hillary’s legal troubles, President Obama is confident a Republican won’t succeed him.

OBAMA: Tonight I have an announcement to make about the presidential race. Democrats will win in November and we will have a Democratic president succeeding me. Just in case there is any confusion about that.

Will the FBI move forward with an indictment? Will a Democrat take the White House next year? Share and comment below.

Officials Are REFUSING To Release These Hillary Emails- The Reason Why Could Doom Her

Intelligence officials are now stating some of the emails obtained from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private, unsecured email server will not be released because they contain such high security information that it could damage national security.

“We continue to process the next set of former Secretary Clinton’s emails for release under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) process and will have more to say about it later,” according to an unidentified State Department official to Fox News. “As always, we take seriously our responsibility to protect sensitive information.”

More emails were scheduled to hit the public on Friday, but the government asked a D.C. court for more time before issuing a release.

The government deems these emails so sensitive will not even release portions of them to the media under FOIA. The concern is there are likely other copies somewhere and the fragmented information could lead others to figure out information in the original document and that could reveal factors involved in intelligence gathered in “special access programs.” Such programs are “top secret.”

The claim that some of the emails were highly sensitive is at odds with Clinton’s responses to the allegations. However, senior committee leaders were told by Inspector General Charles McCullough II that “several dozen emails containing classified information” were classified “at the CONFIDENTIAL, SECRET AND TOP SEDCRET/SAP levels.”

According to reports from Fox News, at least one document could be classified with a code indicating information was gathered from spies.

Investigators and government officials are now looking at the emails in reflection of specific criminal charges including “gross negligence” and “public corruption.”

“The documents alone in and of themselves set forth a set of compelling, articulable facts that statutes relating to espionage have been violated,” a former senior federal law enforcement officer said.