In May, Mrs. Clinton’s five closest State Department advisers (four of whom have important positions in her presidential campaign) were interrogated by the FBI.
Voluntary interrogations.
Not under oath.
Lawyers were present (curiously, all the advisers use the same lawyers).
Hillary's former State Department Chief of Staff, Cheryl Mills, walked out of an interview temporarily, when the FBI asked about a topic she considered off-limits, to have a conference with her lawyers.
That topic was how Clinton's emails were given to the State Department to be distributed to the public (Hillary curiously gave State only hard copies of about 30,000 e-Mails, and deleted 32,000 e-Mails she didn't feel like showing anyone).
The FBI asks questions to decide if the advisers should be targets charged with committing a crime, or witnesses to help prosecute another target charged with committing a crime (Hillary).
A federal judge also ordered the five advisers to give videotaped testimony in a civil lawsuit against the State Department to determine if there was a “conspiracy” (the judge's word) in Mrs. Clinton’s office to evade federal transparency (Freedom of Information Act) laws, and commit espionage (moving state secrets from a secure place to a non-secure place).
The crooked State Department now claims emails of Bryan Pagliano -- Hillary's information technology expert -- except for one brief birthday e-mail greeting he sent to her -- can't be found.
Pagliano was paid $5,000 to migrate Hillary's regular State Department email account, and her secret State Department email account, from their secure State Department servers to her personal, non-secure server in her home in New York.
He was personally employed by Mrs. Clinton to do this.
That work was a criminal act … and Pagliano is now the government’s chief witness against Mrs. Clinton to avoid prosecution for his work.
There are rumors of a debate in the Russian Intelligence Services -- they are supposedly determining if the Russian government should release Clinton’s emails obtained either by hacking her, or her confidante, Sid Blumenthal. I don't know if those rumors are true.
The convicted international hacker, who calls himself Guccifer, claims he knows how the Russians got Clinton’s emails (obviously easy to hack because she stored, received, and sent them from her personal, non-secure server).
In white collar criminal cases, the FBI often gives targets of its investigations an opportunity to come in and explain why they should not be indicted.
If the target comes in and tries to lie themselves out of prosecution, any lie or materially misleading statement made to the FBI could lead to a new criminal charge against them.
That's how Martha Stewart was sent to prison.
Good lawyers won't let their clients talk voluntarily to the FBI.
When asked if the FBI has contacted her for an interview, Hillary said she hadn't heard from the FBI (a lie) , and claimed they were just doing some sort of security review at the State Department (another lie).
These "Clinton Lies" annoyed the FBI Director so much he went on TV to say the FBI does "investigations", not security reviews.
The FBI certainly contacted Clinton's lawyers requesting an interview -- they do not contact targets directly -- and they now know Hillary was misleading the public about that too.
Clinton’s campaign staff, or her lawyers, leaked to the press the claim that the feds have found no intent to commit espionage.
Another "Clinton Lie".
The crime of lying to federal agents, and the crime of espionage, do NOT require intent.
The left-biased mainstream press keeps saying: "investigators have no evidence tying Clinton to criminal wrongdoing" when, in fact, investigators have made no public statements at all.
The left-biased mainstream press keeps saying: "There is no indication a grand jury has been convened in the case" when, in fact, grand juries work in secret to avoid slamming the reputations of people who are ultimately not charged with a crime.
