FBI Expands Hillary Clinton E-mail Probe to Investigate Corruption

HotAir.com:

The FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s secret e-mail server has expanded, Fox News’ Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne exclusively report, into a new and more personal direction. While continuing to press on the question of whether Hillary violated the Espionage Act on more than 1300 occasions, they also now have reason to look into whether the former Secretary of State used her office to enrich the family through the Clinton Foundation:

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed,” one source said.

The source told Herridge that this expansion took place relatively early in the investigation — in April 2015. Over 100 agents have now been assigned to the probe, 50 of whom have been “TDYed” — temporarily assigned as the probe has expanded. That’s a rather significant commitment to the Clinton probe, and suggests that the FBI sees a need to do more than just read some redacted e-mails surrendered by Hillary after a long battle. 

This development suggests something else, too. Hillary refused to turn over the server for even longer, finally surrendering the hardware last August. Originally, after being forced to give up her e-mails, she and her team went through the system and printed out about half of the 60,000+ messages it held. Hillary claimed the rest were personal and non-work-related, about her daughter Chelsea’s wedding plans and quick communications with Bill. That explanation is absurd on its face; that would amount to more than 20 personal e-mails a day for four years. At the time, many suspected that Hillary and her team deleted anything having to do with the Clinton Foundation, and then wiped the server so that the software could not be accessed.

RELATED:  Hillary Clinton Continues Pandering to Millennials, Talks Selfies and Game Apps with Ellen

Ted Cruz Quote of the Day!

“The substance of the issue is clear and straightforward. As a legal matter, the Constitution and federal law are clear that the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad is a natural-born citizen. Three weeks ago, almost every Republican candidate was attacking Donald Trump. Today, almost every Republican candidate is attacking me. That kind of suggests maybe something has changed in the race.”

- Republican Senator and candidate  for GOP nomination for President Ted Cruz

Ain't The Devil Happy: In The News 1/10/16

CBS’ Dickerson Asks Hillary If Going After Bill for Sex Scandals Is Fair Game

In ‘El Chapo Interview,’ Sean Penn Opens Himself Up to Some Legal Problems

Archer Had Traveled to Middle East Twice in Recent Years

Kim Davis: ‘I’m Just First of What’s Going to be Very Many’ Attacks on Christians

Art Laffer: GOP May See 47-State Landslide Over Hillary

‘Merkel Out!’: German Far-right Vents Fury After Cologne Attacks

Texas Governor Introduces Groundbreaking Plan to Override Obama’s Tyranny

Bad Kids Can Now 'Get Away With Anything'

Bernie Sanders Gains on Hillary Clinton As She Loses White Democratic Voters

Ann Coulter Schools Hannity and Defends Donald Trump from Petulant Critics

RELATED: Three Theories Of Donald Trump’s Rise

Chris Kyle's Widow Asks Barack Obama Why More Gun Control is Answer When Violent Crime is at Decade Lows

RELATED: Obama to Dems: Back my gun-control play or I won’t campaign for you

Chris Christie Lays Into 'Self-Righteous' Marco Rubio

AOL.com:

Gov. Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) isn't letting up in his criticism of presidential rival US Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida).

During a talk with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach at the World Values Network's headquarters in New York City, the governor said that recent attacks on his record from a super PAC allied with Rubio were surprising, since the governor has been nice to his presidential rival.

"Marco has been critical of me and I've been very nice to Marco, so I'm confused," Christie said.

Christie then mocked Rubio's campaign, implying that the senator was being coached into going after Christie.

"He was very self-righteous on the stage in the debate a few months ago when Jeb criticized him. He said, 'Just because we're running for the same office, someone has convinced you that being critical of me helps you.' And now all of a sudden he's being very critical of me, so I guess the same person who was talking to Jeb has been talking to Marco," Christie said.

The governor also repeatedly compared Rubio to US President Barack Obama, saying that like Obama, Rubio's short tenure in the Senate has left him unprepared to take office.

"I don't think he's naive, I just think he's inexperienced," Christie said. "Listen, we've already seen what happens when a first-term United States senator becomes president of the United States."

He continued: We don't need a replay of the last seven years. And a first-term United States senator, that's not the preparation to be commander in chief of the largest military in the world, and executive in chief of the most complex government the world has ever known.

RELATED: Christie’s Rise Is a Triumph of Style over Conservative Principle

The Right is Failing in the Emotional War Over Guns

HotAir.com:

The Right isn’t doing its job when it comes to convincing people guns are okay. Yes, open carry is legal in 46 states and groups like Institute for Justice have won important court battles over Chicago and Washington D.C.’s draconian gun laws. The problem is these wins are really only temporary because the U.S. Supreme Court can change its mind, and laws can be changed. The Right has got to get better at messaging on why it’s okay for people to own guns or the Left will keep winning the emotional battle year after year and tragedy after tragedy.

What’s the narrative from yesterday’s speech on gun executive action? It isn’t just President Barack Obama’s announcement (which AP already explained won’t do anything and Ed analyzed), but the fact he cried while talking about children dying in a mass shooting. It doesn’t matter whether the tears were real or not (as some on the Right are stupidly focusing on), but that he choked up while mentioning dead children. 

That’s what going to be remembered from all of this. It’s why pictures of families crying at funerals or outside the scene of a mass shooting are so effective in the Left’s strategy on guns. They pull at the heart strings and cause people to react in ways which make it harder for logic to reign supreme. It’s something right out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. He suggested, “the threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” This means the threat of a child getting killed in a school or someone being shot in a movie theater becomes something people start fearing and wanting protection from. Even my mom told me to “be careful” when I went to see Star Wars last month because she was worried about Aurora happening all over again. It’s why Obama brought up what happened at Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine during yesterday’s speech. The threat is, “it can happen to you, your kids, or your friends and we’ve got to do something NOW!” It’s effective whether we like it or not.

The Right’s reaction to gun violence or new laws is just predictable and tiresome. Some start screaming words like “unconstitutional” or “Bill of Rights” when talking about gun laws, while others use cold, hard logic when explaining why Obama’s “executive action” is meaningless and ridiculous. It’s an easy trap to fall into because that strategy has pretty much been engrained into our thoughts and action. If something is unconstitutional, we’ll say so or just outright mock of the “facts” the Left spews out when trying to work the court of public opinion on guns (or any other hot button issue). Facts are important, but the Right is doing things backwards when it comes to explaining WHY guns are okay and how they actually can protect us from criminals. Even the NRA’s “a good guy with a gun” message falls flat because, with respect to Wayne LaPierre, he isn’t best messenger and the narrative isn’t that exciting. LaPierre is telling the truth, but the message isn’t working.

What the Right should do is point out stories where the “good guy with a gun” actually stopped a bad guy with a gun. It’s why Kristina Ribali’s Hot Air piece on how a gun saved her from a neighborhood stalker is so awesome because it personalizes the situation. A mom defending herself and two kids from a bad guy. That’s something which can resonate with more than just the fire-breathing conservatives and libertarians. The same goes for the Chicago grandfather who was arrested in 2012 for owning an unlicensed gun after shooting a burglar. The Chicago Tribune helped set the narrative right after the arrest (emphasis mine).

An 80-year-old tavern owner in Englewood believes it’s “unjust” that he is facing charges after shooting a burglar, but believes he will prevail in court.

“It’s wrong,” Homer “Tank” Wright said as he walked into his bar after being released from jail this afternoon. “Unjust that I can’t protect me.”

Wright eventually had the charges dropped because the court of public opinion was against police and prosecutors. Look at the young Kentucky woman who took the gun away from a robber and shot him or the ten-year-old New York boy who scared off two intruders by firing a shot at them. These situations may be rare, but so are mass shootings (even if the Left wants to pretend they happen every day). The Right needs to point out more stories like this because it personalizes the issue. The “this could happen to you” narrative is turned upside down because it shows the benefit of what owning a guns can do and how they can be used for personal protection. There are plenty of times guns in the hands of civilians have actually saved lives, but for whatever reason those stories don’t get publicized. It’s probably because they’re not “sexy news” but that’s why the Right has to find them and be willing to use them!

I totally agree with this piece. Even if Barry's tears were fake, you're not gonna win that war esp. when they have the parents of dead kids in the background. Like it or not, no one plays on feelings better than the Left does and conservatives like Andrea Tantaros should know that by now.

RELATED: Fox host: President Obama put a ‘raw onion’ in his podium so he could cry fake tears for kids killed by guns

Former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenovas Says Hillary Clinton Could Face Criminal Charges in 60 Days

Mediaite.com:

If former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova’s prediction is true, Hillary Clinton will most likely no longer be a contender for the 2016 presidential race. He told Fox News’ Gretchen Carlson that he thinks Hillary Clinton and some of her staff may be indicted within the next 60 to 90 days.

“They (the FBI) are going to make a recommendation that there is going to be charges against a series of people, ” DiGenova said on the program..

“What I know is that the FBI has been building a compelling — an unassailable case against Hillary and her surrounding group inside the State department,” he said.

Mr. DiGenova must have some inside knowledge about the investigation because so far FBI director has refused to answer questions about the ongoing investigation into whether the private emails were mishandled.

Interestingly, this comes at the heels of the U.S. State Department’s Inspector General Office findings that the department gave “inaccurate and incomplete” answers to those who were trying to seek then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s records. For example, the report says the State Department mistakenly told a group they had no information regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account.

RELATED: Planned Parenthood, In Its First Primary Endorsement, Backs Hillary Clinton

A Tale of Two Bills: Cosby, Clinton and Predatory Men

USAToday.com:

Much has changed since Bill and Hillary Clinton were swept into the White House amidst sordid tales about the Arkansas governor’s extra-marital sex life.

Back then, a senior campaign aide (Betsey Wright) on a Democratic campaign could utter the phrase “bimbo eruptions” to demean women claiming to have had an affair with Bill Clinton. Today, such utterances would be rightly deemed unequivocally sexist.

It was a time when a top Democratic loyalist (James Carville) unabashedly sneered at Paula Jones’ allegations of unwanted sexual advances by then-Gov. Clinton with the infamous quip, “If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." Most famously, there was a young intern named Monica Lewinsky smeared by a senior White House aide (Sidney Blumenthal) as a “stalker.” Blumenthal reportedly also told journalists that the 49-year-old president of the United States had been “the victim of a predatory and unstable sexually demanding young woman,” age 22. The president went on to become one of the most respected men in the world. Lewinsky’s life was destroyed.

Until fairly recently, this kind of treatment was par for the course, especially if a woman had the particular misfortune of being victimized by a powerful man. Complaining women were far too often cast as the cause of their own sexual harassment and even sexual assault. They would be caricatured as voracious sex monsters, mentally unstable bimbos or gold diggers. Or all of the above.

Just ask the other Bill.

Bill Cosby clearly understood the world in which he lived. He operated like a man who knew that the decks were stacked in his favor in the court of public opinion, if not the actual courts. His targets likely understood this too. One alleged victim, Barbara Bowman, has accused Cosby of drugging and raping her in 1985 when she was a 17-year-old aspiring actress. She told her agent, who did nothing. She went to a lawyer, who accused her of making the story up. She wrote in The Washington Post, “Their dismissive responses crushed any hope I had of getting help; I was convinced no one would listen to me. That feeling of futility is what ultimately kept me from going to the police.”

Thirty years later, people are finally taking her story seriously.

The pendulum has swung, and we are moving toward a presumption that women are telling the truth regarding claims of unwanted sexual advances. So much so, that Hillary Clinton recently tweeted, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported."

If true, then presumably that would apply to Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, who have accused her husband of sexual assault and perhaps even Paula Jones who claims Bill Clinton touched her without her consent. Notably, in today’s paradigm, feminists argue that accusers should be believed even if they have been discredited. Most recently, in the wake of Rolling Stone’s retraction of its University of Virginia rape story, feminists rallied to the defense of the discredited accuser, “Jackie.” Feminist writer Jessica Valenti insisted, “I choose to believe Jackie. I lose nothing by doing so, even if I’m later proven wrong — but at least I will still be able to sleep at night.” Liberal commentator Zerlina Maxwell argued in The Washington Post that,“We should believe, as a matter of default, what an accuser says. Ultimately, the costs of wrongly disbelieving a survivor far outweigh the costs of calling someone a rapist.”

This is the backdrop for Donald Trump’s recent broadside against Clinton, in which he chided her for her husband’s “terrible record of women abuse.” Whatever Trump’s failings, he understands cultural shifts. We are a society that has a blessedly lower tolerance for sexual assault and harassment than in prior years. This is good news for America, but bad news for the Clintons. History has caught up with them at the worst possible moment.

RELATED:  Hillary Clinton’s support for assault victims clashes with her statements about Bill Clinton

Liberal Newsweek Senior Writer Alexander Nazaryan Compares Ted Cruz Supporters to Nazis; No Suspension Coming

Mediaite.com:

Is it ego or just plain stupidity?

That’s the question for anyone and everyone in the media business right now … especially upon witnessing what feels like the 794th time a reporter, host, anchor, guest, writer, producer, PR exec feels the need to Tweet out a thought, an image (or both in this case) that he or she absolutely, positively KNOWS (and I never use CAPS to make a point) that it’s ill-advised, wrong and potentially career ending act. 

Today’s latest example comes courtesy of Newsweek senior writer Alexander Nazaryan. His crime? Tweeting out an old image of people marching with Nazi flags and sporting swastikas to illustrate what he calls “Ted Cruz’s ground game.” In other words, if you support Cruz, you advocate the genocide of Jews with fascism being your particular political flavor. 

Take ideology or whom you’re rooting for in the presidential race out of this for a moment (if humanly possible): If you’re a reporter — traditional, impartial, editorial … doesn’t matter — how can you be so dense, so reckless, to characterize a presidential candidate’s supporters as Nazis? Alcohol is always a possibility — and this Tweet was sent in the early morning, so there’s a 51 percent chance he wasn’t sober — but what exactly — lucid or not — compels someone like Nazaryan to come to the conclusion that sending that out to his thousands of followers would end well? Because the Nazi comparison in American politics never, ever has a happy ending for the messenger. 

As I write this, I realize what the answer to my original question: Is this is an act of stupidity or ego? Answer: The latter. Because know this: Nazaryan is a Dartmouth graduate. He’s not a kid in his 20s new to the business. He was even once on the editorial board of the New York Daily News before moving to Newsweek. So he’s clearly not an idiot or remotely close to it (on paper, anyway). 

OK … So stupidity is out. Instead, this is all about unabashed ego. It’s also about Nazaryan already knowing he’s above the law — or in this case, his editor — because it appears no suspension is coming. Instead, this is the limp statement that comes from Newsweek Editor Jim Impoco on the matter:

“He has since deleted the tweet and I would like to express on behalf of Newsweek our disappointment that this occurred and reiterate that this does not align with our editorial values. I apologize for any doubt that this might have cast on Newsweek’s editorial integrity or credibility. We’ve addressed the situation with Alexander and the rest of the staff and will be reviewing and reiterating our social media policy in coming days.”

Yup … deleting the Tweet is extremely helpful, because a screen shot wasn’t taken by dozens of others already to help it live forever. Mr. Impoco also offers no apology to Cruz or his supporters … only showing remorse for “doubt that this might have cast on Newsweek’s editorial integrity or credibility.” Gimme a break. Seriously. That statement from Impoco is about as limp and lame as it gets when it comes to illustrating zero backbone in terms of true accountability (he should have announced Impoco’s suspension or termination right there instead). 

This is not too long after another far-Left cartoonist did a smear job on Ted Cruz's kids. Why people remain shocked at the lengths Godless, liberal journalists will go to in order to malign social conservatives is beyond me.

RELATED:  Trump says Cruz’s Canadian birth could be ‘very precarious’ for GOP