By clicking on the "Accept & Close" button, you provide your explicit consent to the processing of your data to achieve the above goal.
Some of the newly discovered messages indicate that the decision not to charge Hillary Clinton over the misuse of her private email server was made by the FBI well before the case was properly investigated and before she was ever interviewed.
Radio Sputnik has asked Charles Ortel, Wall Street analyst, philanthropy law expert and a vocal critic of the Clinton Foundation to share his thoughts about the current release of information regarding this story.
Sputnik: Why did the FBI open a fresh inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s private emails in November 2016 after closing it a few months before?
Charles Ortel: We don’t really know exactly why, but if we go back to the FBI and punch in “Abedin,” “Laptop” and “Affidavits” you’ll get an actual request for a search warrant because Abedin, a close friend and associate of the Clintons’ who was at the time still married to the disgraced pervert Anthony Weiner and basically handles a lot of delicate matters involving Hillary Clinton. The NYPD apparently recovered a laptop which appeared to contain all sorts of suspicious emails. The New York branch of the FBI sat on that laptop. The New York cops were apparently serious about doing something about it. I believe [James] Comey and the FBI were pressured to get that laptop. They got the laptop on the 27th of October, less than two weeks before the election, and miraculously managed to conclude in a short period of time that there was nothing incriminating on that laptop. We’ve seen that with our own eyes. Go to the FBI files and you will see what I’m talking about. So we had a situation leading up to the election where a line of people in the FBI and in the government didn’t really like what they were seeing, whereas others who had seen how the Clintons operated when Bill was president and had seen how the Clintons had managed to escape justice for abuses of power that came to light after he had left and imagine just how aggressive Hillary might be had she won.
Sputnik: Do you believe this is a case where the ongoing “Russiagate” scandal was used to overshadow the clear case of misappropriation carried out by Hillary Clinton?
Charles Ortel: It’s a case when you accuse your enemy of doing exactly what you are doing to get them off the scent. […] Here we have a situation where elements inside this country, either good or bad, just as there are good and bad elements inside every country, including Russia. We don’t know yet who was conspiring to help the Clintons, and help the Obamas inside Russia and who may be happy inside Russia with the Trump administration. We don’t know that yet. But from the records out there we do know that John Podesta, the campaign chairman for Clinton, a former chief of staff during the crucial ten years of the Clinton presidency when so much crime and corruption was covered up, we know that that man was part of a sweetheart deal with something called “Jewel Unlimited,” and they failed to disclose the true economic [details] of that deal during the 2016 campaign. We also know that the Clintons were very much involved with a project outside Moscow, something like Skolkovo, and we know that all kinds of deals happened in the first term of the Obama administration. We need to unscramble all those deals to figure out who was giving money to Clinton’s campaign […] and that the people who broke American laws need to be investigated, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced.
The fact of registration and authorization of users on Sputnik websites via users’ account or accounts on social networks indicates acceptance of these rules.
Users are obliged abide by national and international laws. Users are obliged to speak respectfully to the other participants in the discussion, readers and individuals referenced in the posts.
The websites’ administration has the right to delete comments made in languages other than the language of the majority of the websites’ content.
In all language versions of the sputniknews.com websites any comments posted can be edited.
A user comment will be deleted if it:
does not correspond with the subject of the post;
promotes hatred and discrimination on racial, ethnic, sexual, religious or social basis or violates the rights of minorities;
violates the rights of minors, causing them harm in any form, including moral damage;
contains ideas of extremist nature or calls for other illegal activities;
contains insults, threats to other users, individuals or specific organizations, denigrates dignity or undermines business reputations;
contains insults or messages expressing disrespect to Sputnik;
violates privacy, distributes personal data of third parties without their consent or violates privacy of correspondence;
describes or references scenes of violence, cruelty to animals;
contains information about methods of suicide, incites to commit suicide;
pursues commercial objectives, contains improper advertising, unlawful political advertisement or links to other online resources containing such information;
promotes products or services of third parties without proper authorization;
contains offensive language or profanity and its derivatives, as well as hints of the use of lexical items falling within this definition;
contains spam, advertises spamming, mass mailing services and promotes get-rich-quick schemes;
promotes the use of narcotic / psychotropic substances, provides information on their production and use;
contains links to viruses and malicious software;
is part of an organized action involving large volumes of comments with identical or similar content ("flash mob");
“floods” the discussion thread with a large number of incoherent or irrelevant messages;
violates etiquette, exhibiting any form of aggressive, humiliating or abusive behavior ("trolling");
doesn’t follow standard rules of the English language, for example, is typed fully or mostly in capital letters or isn’t broken down into sentences.
The administration has the right to block a user’s access to the page or delete a user’s account without notice if the user is in violation of these rules or if behavior indicating said violation is detected.