Hillary State Department Official Tried to BRIBE the FBI. OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT KNOWS THIS BUT LOOKS THE OTHER WAY!
THIS IS THE CROOKED STATE DEPARTMENT LACKEY OF HILLARY CLINTON..
PATRICK KENNEDY
Thanks to the whistleblowers at WikiLeaks and fighters in the Republican Congress, we’re beginning to know the true extent of Hillary Clinton’s corruption.
The media can ignore the revelations and try to protect Hillary, but
Americans are learning the truth: Undersecretary of State Patrick
Kennedy made a series of attempts to bribe the FBI in an effort to
protect Hillary Clinton.
Kennedy offered a ‘quid pro quo’ to an FBI agent, in which he promised to open up overseas slots for FBI agents in exchange for the FBI retroactively declassifying an email marked SECRET that was found on Clinton’s unsecured illegal private email server.
This revelation comes from summaries of FBI interviews, called 302s, from their criminal investigation of Clinton.
The State Department’s official response has been: “Pat Kennedy is going to stay at his job, and he has the full confidence of the Secretary of State.” The FBI has denied the existence of a quid pro quo. The State Department admits no wrongdoing. But we have the evidence! What can we do about it?
Right now citizens are petitioning Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Kennedy. We already know that if enough people make their voice heard, the politicians are forced to listen.
The Republican Congress should absolutely investigate Obama’s State Department for criminal wrongdoing.
Donald Trump called Kennedy’s duplicity “one of the great miscarriages of justice in the history of our country.” Newt Gingrich and Marco Rubio have both called for Kennedy to be suspended and investigated.
Republican Congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Devin Nunes have called on President Obama to suspend Kennedy and convene an investigation.
America needs real leadership. We can no longer sit silently while the political establishment breaks any law they feel like!
Congress MUST appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this bribery claim? He is also the same State Department Lackey who headed the Benghazi Investigation..
The same Patrick Kennedy who appointed the Clinton pals who then chose not to question Hillary the secretary of state.
Kennedy knows the urgency of destroying this particular email as opposed to thousands of others, so he engages in what some say is an attempt to bribe and others say is a quid pro quo discussion offering the fbi long sought positions overseas in exchange for getting rid of top secret emails.
Curious that our ambassador personally and his staff requested security more than 600 times to protect their lives ..yet Kennedy can come up with positions to cover Hillary's¦ career.
Fbi agents summaries known as 302's say Kennedy actually offered a quid pro quo. FBI positions to declassify and then mark with code 9, which would archive the email in the basement of the department of state-never to be seen again. The agent -- although he felt pressured-- refused the offer. Kennedy then makes the same offer to the FBI head of counter intelligence. And when this offer is refused, Kennedy knowing the criminal investigation is already underway asks- will the FBI make a public statement about this? When told they will not, he knows the coast is clear. They'll deal with the FBI and the DOJ later,but for now Hillary can publicly lie to all of us.
So now Kennedy - one of the darkest characters in the Clinton playbook - and that's saying something folks-skates. But then the 302's are released. Congress says wait a minute-that sounds like bribery, obstruction of justice, contempt of congress. Is it?
The state department-the one that wouldn't allow the inspector general oversight and had no Hillary Clinton information available to the press -suggests that the FBI is lying. Really? Both agents lying? - maybe they misunderstood. By the way, since the state department is willing to say that the FBI got it wrong, do the whole mounty. How about the FBI director got it wrong when he said she shouldn't be charged?
Others say quid pro quo's, horse trading is what they do in Washington. We're just not used to watching them make sausage. Come on. But not declassifying and destroying top-secret information on benghazi which is under federal subpoena to be retained and preserved of a pathological liar who is running to be commander in chief.
Others say this is just what they do in dc : no crime
Since when in the history of American criminal justice does one have to announce: 'here ye here ye it is my intent to now commit this crime' before he can be held to account.
And if there was no intent to prevent congress from knowing, answer this: why did no one tell congress? Of at least the attempt to bribe federal officials or quid pro quo. The FBI didn't (which makes me think they knew there would be no charges before they even started¦) Kennedy sure as hell didn't. And I spoke with one: Trey Gowdy, the chair of the select committee on benghazi who told me no one reached out to tell him that there was an attempt to prevent him and congress from getting the information he had subpoenaed."
WHAT PATRICK KENNEDY DID WAS A FELONY AND IT WAS DONE ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTONS.. BECAUSE HUSSEIN OBAMA IS INVOLVED. HE USED A FAKE NAME ON AN UNSECURE SERVER TO COMMUNICATE WITH HILLARY ABOUT SHARING SOME OF THE LOOT IN THE CLINTON FOUNDATION SCAM.
PATRICK KENNEDY
Thanks to the whistleblowers at WikiLeaks and fighters in the Republican Congress, we’re beginning to know the true extent of Hillary Clinton’s corruption.
Kennedy offered a ‘quid pro quo’ to an FBI agent, in which he promised to open up overseas slots for FBI agents in exchange for the FBI retroactively declassifying an email marked SECRET that was found on Clinton’s unsecured illegal private email server.
This revelation comes from summaries of FBI interviews, called 302s, from their criminal investigation of Clinton.
In an exchange that included redacted names, the interview notes state that “[REDACTED] received a call from [REDACTED] of the International Operations Division (IOD) of the FBI, who ‘pressured’ him to change the classified email to unclassified. [REDACTED] indicated he had been contacted by PATRICK KENNEDY, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a ‘quid pro quo.’”Attempted bribery of a government official is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. But as we’ve seen over and over again in the corrupt Obama administration, they will use their power to commit crimes and then protect themselves from any responsibility.
The State Department’s official response has been: “Pat Kennedy is going to stay at his job, and he has the full confidence of the Secretary of State.” The FBI has denied the existence of a quid pro quo. The State Department admits no wrongdoing. But we have the evidence! What can we do about it?
Right now citizens are petitioning Congress to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Kennedy. We already know that if enough people make their voice heard, the politicians are forced to listen.
The Republican Congress should absolutely investigate Obama’s State Department for criminal wrongdoing.
Donald Trump called Kennedy’s duplicity “one of the great miscarriages of justice in the history of our country.” Newt Gingrich and Marco Rubio have both called for Kennedy to be suspended and investigated.
Republican Congressmen Jason Chaffetz and Devin Nunes have called on President Obama to suspend Kennedy and convene an investigation.
America needs real leadership. We can no longer sit silently while the political establishment breaks any law they feel like!
Congress MUST appoint a special prosecutor to investigate this bribery claim? He is also the same State Department Lackey who headed the Benghazi Investigation..
The Bureaucrat at the Center of Hillary’s Scandals
Patrick Kennedy has been linked to Benghazi and Hillary
Clinton’s private email server. Here's how he survived years of GOP and
FBI investigations.
From Justice Jeanine Pierro
"This is the same Patrick Kennedy that Hillary put in charge of her blue ribbon accountability review board for lessons learned from Benghazi. By the way, already learned from the Khobar towers review board, lessons never implemented by Hillary.
"This is the same Patrick Kennedy that Hillary put in charge of her blue ribbon accountability review board for lessons learned from Benghazi. By the way, already learned from the Khobar towers review board, lessons never implemented by Hillary.
Kennedy knows the urgency of destroying this particular email as opposed to thousands of others, so he engages in what some say is an attempt to bribe and others say is a quid pro quo discussion offering the fbi long sought positions overseas in exchange for getting rid of top secret emails.
Curious that our ambassador personally and his staff requested security more than 600 times to protect their lives ..yet Kennedy can come up with positions to cover Hillary's¦ career.
Fbi agents summaries known as 302's say Kennedy actually offered a quid pro quo. FBI positions to declassify and then mark with code 9, which would archive the email in the basement of the department of state-never to be seen again. The agent -- although he felt pressured-- refused the offer. Kennedy then makes the same offer to the FBI head of counter intelligence. And when this offer is refused, Kennedy knowing the criminal investigation is already underway asks- will the FBI make a public statement about this? When told they will not, he knows the coast is clear. They'll deal with the FBI and the DOJ later,but for now Hillary can publicly lie to all of us.
So now Kennedy - one of the darkest characters in the Clinton playbook - and that's saying something folks-skates. But then the 302's are released. Congress says wait a minute-that sounds like bribery, obstruction of justice, contempt of congress. Is it?
The state department-the one that wouldn't allow the inspector general oversight and had no Hillary Clinton information available to the press -suggests that the FBI is lying. Really? Both agents lying? - maybe they misunderstood. By the way, since the state department is willing to say that the FBI got it wrong, do the whole mounty. How about the FBI director got it wrong when he said she shouldn't be charged?
Others say quid pro quo's, horse trading is what they do in Washington. We're just not used to watching them make sausage. Come on. But not declassifying and destroying top-secret information on benghazi which is under federal subpoena to be retained and preserved of a pathological liar who is running to be commander in chief.
Others say this is just what they do in dc : no crime
Since when in the history of American criminal justice does one have to announce: 'here ye here ye it is my intent to now commit this crime' before he can be held to account.
And if there was no intent to prevent congress from knowing, answer this: why did no one tell congress? Of at least the attempt to bribe federal officials or quid pro quo. The FBI didn't (which makes me think they knew there would be no charges before they even started¦) Kennedy sure as hell didn't. And I spoke with one: Trey Gowdy, the chair of the select committee on benghazi who told me no one reached out to tell him that there was an attempt to prevent him and congress from getting the information he had subpoenaed."
WHAT PATRICK KENNEDY DID WAS A FELONY AND IT WAS DONE ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTONS.. BECAUSE HUSSEIN OBAMA IS INVOLVED. HE USED A FAKE NAME ON AN UNSECURE SERVER TO COMMUNICATE WITH HILLARY ABOUT SHARING SOME OF THE LOOT IN THE CLINTON FOUNDATION SCAM.
FELONY UNDER... 18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(a) For the purpose of this section—
(1)
the term “public official”
means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either
before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee
or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any
department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the
District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of
any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2)
the term “person who has
been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been
nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially
informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3)
the term “official act”
means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit,
proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which
may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s
official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever—
(1)
directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of
value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a
public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person
who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value
to any other person or entity, with intent—
(2)
being a public official or person selected to be a public official,
directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or
agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any
other person or entity, in return for:
(3)
directly or indirectly,
corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or
offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other
person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or
affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial,
hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either
House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer
authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take
testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself
therefrom;
(4)
directly or indirectly,
corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or
accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in
return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a
witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return
for absenting himself therefrom;shall be fined under this title or
not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value,
whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or
both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust,
or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever—
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—
(A)
directly or indirectly
gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official,
former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for
or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such
public official, former public official, or person selected to be a
public official; or
(B)
being a public
official, former public official, or person selected to be a public
official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of
official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts,
or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or
because of any official act performed or to be performed by such
official or person;
(2)
directly or indirectly,
gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or
because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given
by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding,
before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of
Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws
of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or
because of such person’s absence therefrom;
(3)
directly or indirectly,
demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept
anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath
or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any
such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such
person’s absence therefrom;shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d)
Paragraphs (3) and (4) of
subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be
construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided
by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is
called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and
subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance
at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert
witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such
opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
