Is the Clinton Foundation currently under investigation?
Marc Lotter, former special assistant to President Trump, just said this to CNN's Erin Burnett in the course of defending President Trump from the fact that the Trump foundation is shutting down after being investigated by the state of New York:
We've all got a bunch of investigations going on right now, I mean, the Clinton foundation is still under investigation for improper reporting and for commingling of funds. These large foundations have a lot of [cut off by host].
My question is, is Lotter right that the Clinton foundation is currently under investigation?
united-states politics law hillary-clinton
edited Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
DenisS
12.2k44861
asked Dec 19 '18 at 0:34
Keshav Srinivasan
1,7133922
add a comment |
Marc Lotter, former special assistant to President Trump, just said this to CNN's Erin Burnett in the course of defending President Trump from the fact that the Trump foundation is shutting down after being investigated by the state of New York:
We've all got a bunch of investigations going on right now, I mean, the Clinton foundation is still under investigation for improper reporting and for commingling of funds. These large foundations have a lot of [cut off by host].
My question is, is Lotter right that the Clinton foundation is currently under investigation?
united-states politics law hillary-clinton
edited Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
DenisS
12.2k44861
asked Dec 19 '18 at 0:34
Keshav Srinivasan
1,7133922
6
Do you have a video link to the interview? We'd like to have it available in order to verify what they're saying.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
2
@DenisS I just saw it on TV half an hour ago, and the program is still going on. If video or a transcript of it is posted later I can add it to my question.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 1:05
2
CNN will probably have it on their home page later since they post a lot of their interviews, especially if there's a claim like this.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:35
6
Also I've removed the Trump tag since this question is about the Clinton Foundation, not Donald Trump. The fact that the Trump Foundation to compare the two isn't pertinent to the question.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:36
add a comment |
Marc Lotter, former special assistant to President Trump, just said this to CNN's Erin Burnett in the course of defending President Trump from the fact that the Trump foundation is shutting down after being investigated by the state of New York:
We've all got a bunch of investigations going on right now, I mean, the Clinton foundation is still under investigation for improper reporting and for commingling of funds. These large foundations have a lot of [cut off by host].
My question is, is Lotter right that the Clinton foundation is currently under investigation?
united-states politics law hillary-clinton
edited Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
DenisS
12.2k44861
asked Dec 19 '18 at 0:34
Keshav Srinivasan
1,7133922
Marc Lotter, former special assistant to President Trump, just said this to CNN's Erin Burnett in the course of defending President Trump from the fact that the Trump foundation is shutting down after being investigated by the state of New York:
We've all got a bunch of investigations going on right now, I mean, the Clinton foundation is still under investigation for improper reporting and for commingling of funds. These large foundations have a lot of [cut off by host].
My question is, is Lotter right that the Clinton foundation is currently under investigation?
united-states politics law hillary-clinton
united-states politics law hillary-clinton
edited Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
DenisS
12.2k44861
asked Dec 19 '18 at 0:34
Keshav Srinivasan
1,7133922
edited Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
DenisS
12.2k44861
asked Dec 19 '18 at 0:34
Keshav Srinivasan
1,7133922
edited Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
DenisS
12.2k44861
edited Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
DenisS
12.2k44861
edited Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
DenisS
12.2k44861
12.2k44861
asked Dec 19 '18 at 0:34
Keshav Srinivasan
1,7133922
asked Dec 19 '18 at 0:34
Keshav Srinivasan
1,7133922
asked Dec 19 '18 at 0:34
Keshav Srinivasan
1,7133922
1,7133922
6
Do you have a video link to the interview? We'd like to have it available in order to verify what they're saying.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
2
@DenisS I just saw it on TV half an hour ago, and the program is still going on. If video or a transcript of it is posted later I can add it to my question.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 1:05
2
CNN will probably have it on their home page later since they post a lot of their interviews, especially if there's a claim like this.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:35
6
Also I've removed the Trump tag since this question is about the Clinton Foundation, not Donald Trump. The fact that the Trump Foundation to compare the two isn't pertinent to the question.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:36
add a comment |
6
Do you have a video link to the interview? We'd like to have it available in order to verify what they're saying.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
2
@DenisS I just saw it on TV half an hour ago, and the program is still going on. If video or a transcript of it is posted later I can add it to my question.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 1:05
2
CNN will probably have it on their home page later since they post a lot of their interviews, especially if there's a claim like this.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:35
6
Also I've removed the Trump tag since this question is about the Clinton Foundation, not Donald Trump. The fact that the Trump Foundation to compare the two isn't pertinent to the question.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:36
6
6
Do you have a video link to the interview? We'd like to have it available in order to verify what they're saying.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
Do you have a video link to the interview? We'd like to have it available in order to verify what they're saying.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
2
2
@DenisS I just saw it on TV half an hour ago, and the program is still going on. If video or a transcript of it is posted later I can add it to my question.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 1:05
@DenisS I just saw it on TV half an hour ago, and the program is still going on. If video or a transcript of it is posted later I can add it to my question.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 1:05
2
2
CNN will probably have it on their home page later since they post a lot of their interviews, especially if there's a claim like this.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:35
CNN will probably have it on their home page later since they post a lot of their interviews, especially if there's a claim like this.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:35
6
6
Also I've removed the Trump tag since this question is about the Clinton Foundation, not Donald Trump. The fact that the Trump Foundation to compare the two isn't pertinent to the question.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:36
Also I've removed the Trump tag since this question is about the Clinton Foundation, not Donald Trump. The fact that the Trump Foundation to compare the two isn't pertinent to the question.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:36
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The claim is a little disingenuous, because it introduces a false equivalence between
- the existence of an open investigation without conclusions, and
- an investigation by authorities that led to a lawsuit that led to the Donald J. Trump Foundation dissolving.
After all, anyone can conduct an investigation (below you will see mention of "bounty hunters" running their own); investigations might not be publicly disclosed; the existence of an investigation is not an indication of wrong-doing, especially when they are politically motivated.
Nonetheless, it is true that the Clinton Foundation has been the subject of some investigations instigated by Republicans.
John W. Huber is the US Attorney for the District of Utah. He has been leading an investigation involving the Clinton Foundation since November 2017. The Salt Lake Tribune reports
Huber had been assigned by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate several controversies Republicans have raised about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, many of them stoked by right-wing activists who believe she should be prosecuted.
In addition, the House Oversight Committee, lead by Rep. Mark Meadow has recently held hearings.
Hillary Clinton haters were all a-flutter about the prospect of “explosive” information being revealed at Thursday’s hearing on the Clinton Foundation as the last hurrah from Rep. Mark Meadow’s (R-NC) chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee. The first blow to their expectations came when U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was tasked by former Attorney General Sessions to investigate all of the anti-FBI conspiracy theories germinated by right wingers, announced that he would be a no-show.
However, Meadows proceeded with the hearing anyway after having lined up witnesses like Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, and two men who have been described as both “whistleblowers” and “bounty hunters.” Fitton performed as expected, given his organization’s ongoing attacks on everything related to the Clintons. The real anticipation was over the testimony of the bounty hunters who claim to have spent three years doing forensic financial analysis of the Clinton Foundation.
edited Dec 20 '18 at 0:01
mskfisher
1033
answered Dec 19 '18 at 1:52
Oddthinking♦
99.7k31414524
14
The Salt Lake City Tribune isn’t accurately characterizing things. There is no evidence that John Huber is investigating the Clinton Foundation. Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber to conduct a review of “whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.” assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/…
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:48
12
Now it is true that the Clinton Foundation is one of the topics that Huber has been tasked to review to find out whether any new investigations needs to be opened or new special counsels need to be appointed (see this earlier letter). But there’s no evidence that Huber has concluded that the Clinton Foundation needs to be investigated, let alone that any investigation into the Clinton Foundation has actually been opened pursuant to any recommendation made by Huber.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:53
4
"The Clinton Foundation probe dates to 2015, when FBI agents in Los Angeles, New York, Little Rock and Washington began looking ..." washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/…?
– daniel
Dec 19 '18 at 9:51
2
@HarryJohnston Well, before the Justice Department decides to open an investigation into something, it first looks into whether it’s worth investigating in the first place. Jeff Sessions tasked Huber with looking into whether it’s worth investigating and asked him to make recommendations as to whether it’s worth investigating or not. I think the distinction is a matter of whether you’re actually spending time and money and personnel to find out the truth about something, or whether you’re just casually looking at it to see whether there’s even any leads worth pursuing or anything.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 21:35
10
@Oddthinking Agreed that the FBI doesn't own the term, but at least to me saying that someone is "under investigation," especially in the context of the Trump Foundation being shut down following a legal investigation, implies that the investigation is at least legal in nature (whether that be violating criminal laws or some regulation.) The word 'investigation' certainly can be used to refer to private investigations, but that's not how I would understand the term being used in the context of the claim's quote.
– reirab
Dec 20 '18 at 3:32
|
show 3 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The claim is a little disingenuous, because it introduces a false equivalence between
- the existence of an open investigation without conclusions, and
- an investigation by authorities that led to a lawsuit that led to the Donald J. Trump Foundation dissolving.
After all, anyone can conduct an investigation (below you will see mention of "bounty hunters" running their own); investigations might not be publicly disclosed; the existence of an investigation is not an indication of wrong-doing, especially when they are politically motivated.
Nonetheless, it is true that the Clinton Foundation has been the subject of some investigations instigated by Republicans.
John W. Huber is the US Attorney for the District of Utah. He has been leading an investigation involving the Clinton Foundation since November 2017. The Salt Lake Tribune reports
Huber had been assigned by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate several controversies Republicans have raised about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, many of them stoked by right-wing activists who believe she should be prosecuted.
In addition, the House Oversight Committee, lead by Rep. Mark Meadow has recently held hearings.
Hillary Clinton haters were all a-flutter about the prospect of “explosive” information being revealed at Thursday’s hearing on the Clinton Foundation as the last hurrah from Rep. Mark Meadow’s (R-NC) chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee. The first blow to their expectations came when U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was tasked by former Attorney General Sessions to investigate all of the anti-FBI conspiracy theories germinated by right wingers, announced that he would be a no-show.
However, Meadows proceeded with the hearing anyway after having lined up witnesses like Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, and two men who have been described as both “whistleblowers” and “bounty hunters.” Fitton performed as expected, given his organization’s ongoing attacks on everything related to the Clintons. The real anticipation was over the testimony of the bounty hunters who claim to have spent three years doing forensic financial analysis of the Clinton Foundation.
edited Dec 20 '18 at 0:01
mskfisher
1033
answered Dec 19 '18 at 1:52
Oddthinking♦
99.7k31414524
14
The Salt Lake City Tribune isn’t accurately characterizing things. There is no evidence that John Huber is investigating the Clinton Foundation. Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber to conduct a review of “whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.” assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/…
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:48
12
Now it is true that the Clinton Foundation is one of the topics that Huber has been tasked to review to find out whether any new investigations needs to be opened or new special counsels need to be appointed (see this earlier letter). But there’s no evidence that Huber has concluded that the Clinton Foundation needs to be investigated, let alone that any investigation into the Clinton Foundation has actually been opened pursuant to any recommendation made by Huber.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:53
4
"The Clinton Foundation probe dates to 2015, when FBI agents in Los Angeles, New York, Little Rock and Washington began looking ..." washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/…?
– daniel
Dec 19 '18 at 9:51
2
@HarryJohnston Well, before the Justice Department decides to open an investigation into something, it first looks into whether it’s worth investigating in the first place. Jeff Sessions tasked Huber with looking into whether it’s worth investigating and asked him to make recommendations as to whether it’s worth investigating or not. I think the distinction is a matter of whether you’re actually spending time and money and personnel to find out the truth about something, or whether you’re just casually looking at it to see whether there’s even any leads worth pursuing or anything.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 21:35
10
@Oddthinking Agreed that the FBI doesn't own the term, but at least to me saying that someone is "under investigation," especially in the context of the Trump Foundation being shut down following a legal investigation, implies that the investigation is at least legal in nature (whether that be violating criminal laws or some regulation.) The word 'investigation' certainly can be used to refer to private investigations, but that's not how I would understand the term being used in the context of the claim's quote.
– reirab
Dec 20 '18 at 3:32
|
show 3 more comments
The claim is a little disingenuous, because it introduces a false equivalence between
- the existence of an open investigation without conclusions, and
- an investigation by authorities that led to a lawsuit that led to the Donald J. Trump Foundation dissolving.
After all, anyone can conduct an investigation (below you will see mention of "bounty hunters" running their own); investigations might not be publicly disclosed; the existence of an investigation is not an indication of wrong-doing, especially when they are politically motivated.
Nonetheless, it is true that the Clinton Foundation has been the subject of some investigations instigated by Republicans.
John W. Huber is the US Attorney for the District of Utah. He has been leading an investigation involving the Clinton Foundation since November 2017. The Salt Lake Tribune reports
Huber had been assigned by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate several controversies Republicans have raised about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, many of them stoked by right-wing activists who believe she should be prosecuted.
In addition, the House Oversight Committee, lead by Rep. Mark Meadow has recently held hearings.
Hillary Clinton haters were all a-flutter about the prospect of “explosive” information being revealed at Thursday’s hearing on the Clinton Foundation as the last hurrah from Rep. Mark Meadow’s (R-NC) chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee. The first blow to their expectations came when U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was tasked by former Attorney General Sessions to investigate all of the anti-FBI conspiracy theories germinated by right wingers, announced that he would be a no-show.
However, Meadows proceeded with the hearing anyway after having lined up witnesses like Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, and two men who have been described as both “whistleblowers” and “bounty hunters.” Fitton performed as expected, given his organization’s ongoing attacks on everything related to the Clintons. The real anticipation was over the testimony of the bounty hunters who claim to have spent three years doing forensic financial analysis of the Clinton Foundation.
edited Dec 20 '18 at 0:01
mskfisher
1033
answered Dec 19 '18 at 1:52
Oddthinking♦
99.7k31414524
14
The Salt Lake City Tribune isn’t accurately characterizing things. There is no evidence that John Huber is investigating the Clinton Foundation. Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber to conduct a review of “whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.” assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/…
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:48
12
Now it is true that the Clinton Foundation is one of the topics that Huber has been tasked to review to find out whether any new investigations needs to be opened or new special counsels need to be appointed (see this earlier letter). But there’s no evidence that Huber has concluded that the Clinton Foundation needs to be investigated, let alone that any investigation into the Clinton Foundation has actually been opened pursuant to any recommendation made by Huber.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:53
4
"The Clinton Foundation probe dates to 2015, when FBI agents in Los Angeles, New York, Little Rock and Washington began looking ..." washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/…?
– daniel
Dec 19 '18 at 9:51
2
@HarryJohnston Well, before the Justice Department decides to open an investigation into something, it first looks into whether it’s worth investigating in the first place. Jeff Sessions tasked Huber with looking into whether it’s worth investigating and asked him to make recommendations as to whether it’s worth investigating or not. I think the distinction is a matter of whether you’re actually spending time and money and personnel to find out the truth about something, or whether you’re just casually looking at it to see whether there’s even any leads worth pursuing or anything.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 21:35
10
@Oddthinking Agreed that the FBI doesn't own the term, but at least to me saying that someone is "under investigation," especially in the context of the Trump Foundation being shut down following a legal investigation, implies that the investigation is at least legal in nature (whether that be violating criminal laws or some regulation.) The word 'investigation' certainly can be used to refer to private investigations, but that's not how I would understand the term being used in the context of the claim's quote.
– reirab
Dec 20 '18 at 3:32
|
show 3 more comments
The claim is a little disingenuous, because it introduces a false equivalence between
- the existence of an open investigation without conclusions, and
- an investigation by authorities that led to a lawsuit that led to the Donald J. Trump Foundation dissolving.
After all, anyone can conduct an investigation (below you will see mention of "bounty hunters" running their own); investigations might not be publicly disclosed; the existence of an investigation is not an indication of wrong-doing, especially when they are politically motivated.
Nonetheless, it is true that the Clinton Foundation has been the subject of some investigations instigated by Republicans.
John W. Huber is the US Attorney for the District of Utah. He has been leading an investigation involving the Clinton Foundation since November 2017. The Salt Lake Tribune reports
Huber had been assigned by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate several controversies Republicans have raised about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, many of them stoked by right-wing activists who believe she should be prosecuted.
In addition, the House Oversight Committee, lead by Rep. Mark Meadow has recently held hearings.
Hillary Clinton haters were all a-flutter about the prospect of “explosive” information being revealed at Thursday’s hearing on the Clinton Foundation as the last hurrah from Rep. Mark Meadow’s (R-NC) chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee. The first blow to their expectations came when U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was tasked by former Attorney General Sessions to investigate all of the anti-FBI conspiracy theories germinated by right wingers, announced that he would be a no-show.
However, Meadows proceeded with the hearing anyway after having lined up witnesses like Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, and two men who have been described as both “whistleblowers” and “bounty hunters.” Fitton performed as expected, given his organization’s ongoing attacks on everything related to the Clintons. The real anticipation was over the testimony of the bounty hunters who claim to have spent three years doing forensic financial analysis of the Clinton Foundation.
edited Dec 20 '18 at 0:01
mskfisher
1033
answered Dec 19 '18 at 1:52
Oddthinking♦
99.7k31414524
The claim is a little disingenuous, because it introduces a false equivalence between
- the existence of an open investigation without conclusions, and
- an investigation by authorities that led to a lawsuit that led to the Donald J. Trump Foundation dissolving.
After all, anyone can conduct an investigation (below you will see mention of "bounty hunters" running their own); investigations might not be publicly disclosed; the existence of an investigation is not an indication of wrong-doing, especially when they are politically motivated.
Nonetheless, it is true that the Clinton Foundation has been the subject of some investigations instigated by Republicans.
John W. Huber is the US Attorney for the District of Utah. He has been leading an investigation involving the Clinton Foundation since November 2017. The Salt Lake Tribune reports
Huber had been assigned by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate several controversies Republicans have raised about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, many of them stoked by right-wing activists who believe she should be prosecuted.
In addition, the House Oversight Committee, lead by Rep. Mark Meadow has recently held hearings.
Hillary Clinton haters were all a-flutter about the prospect of “explosive” information being revealed at Thursday’s hearing on the Clinton Foundation as the last hurrah from Rep. Mark Meadow’s (R-NC) chairmanship of the House Oversight Committee. The first blow to their expectations came when U.S. Attorney John Huber, who was tasked by former Attorney General Sessions to investigate all of the anti-FBI conspiracy theories germinated by right wingers, announced that he would be a no-show.
However, Meadows proceeded with the hearing anyway after having lined up witnesses like Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, and two men who have been described as both “whistleblowers” and “bounty hunters.” Fitton performed as expected, given his organization’s ongoing attacks on everything related to the Clintons. The real anticipation was over the testimony of the bounty hunters who claim to have spent three years doing forensic financial analysis of the Clinton Foundation.
edited Dec 20 '18 at 0:01
mskfisher
1033
answered Dec 19 '18 at 1:52
Oddthinking♦
99.7k31414524
edited Dec 20 '18 at 0:01
mskfisher
1033
edited Dec 20 '18 at 0:01
mskfisher
1033
edited Dec 20 '18 at 0:01
mskfisher
1033
1033
answered Dec 19 '18 at 1:52
Oddthinking♦
99.7k31414524
answered Dec 19 '18 at 1:52
Oddthinking♦
99.7k31414524
answered Dec 19 '18 at 1:52
Oddthinking♦
99.7k31414524
99.7k31414524
14
The Salt Lake City Tribune isn’t accurately characterizing things. There is no evidence that John Huber is investigating the Clinton Foundation. Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber to conduct a review of “whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.” assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/…
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:48
12
Now it is true that the Clinton Foundation is one of the topics that Huber has been tasked to review to find out whether any new investigations needs to be opened or new special counsels need to be appointed (see this earlier letter). But there’s no evidence that Huber has concluded that the Clinton Foundation needs to be investigated, let alone that any investigation into the Clinton Foundation has actually been opened pursuant to any recommendation made by Huber.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:53
4
"The Clinton Foundation probe dates to 2015, when FBI agents in Los Angeles, New York, Little Rock and Washington began looking ..." washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/…?
– daniel
Dec 19 '18 at 9:51
2
@HarryJohnston Well, before the Justice Department decides to open an investigation into something, it first looks into whether it’s worth investigating in the first place. Jeff Sessions tasked Huber with looking into whether it’s worth investigating and asked him to make recommendations as to whether it’s worth investigating or not. I think the distinction is a matter of whether you’re actually spending time and money and personnel to find out the truth about something, or whether you’re just casually looking at it to see whether there’s even any leads worth pursuing or anything.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 21:35
10
@Oddthinking Agreed that the FBI doesn't own the term, but at least to me saying that someone is "under investigation," especially in the context of the Trump Foundation being shut down following a legal investigation, implies that the investigation is at least legal in nature (whether that be violating criminal laws or some regulation.) The word 'investigation' certainly can be used to refer to private investigations, but that's not how I would understand the term being used in the context of the claim's quote.
– reirab
Dec 20 '18 at 3:32
|
show 3 more comments
14
The Salt Lake City Tribune isn’t accurately characterizing things. There is no evidence that John Huber is investigating the Clinton Foundation. Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber to conduct a review of “whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.” assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/…
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:48
12
Now it is true that the Clinton Foundation is one of the topics that Huber has been tasked to review to find out whether any new investigations needs to be opened or new special counsels need to be appointed (see this earlier letter). But there’s no evidence that Huber has concluded that the Clinton Foundation needs to be investigated, let alone that any investigation into the Clinton Foundation has actually been opened pursuant to any recommendation made by Huber.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:53
4
"The Clinton Foundation probe dates to 2015, when FBI agents in Los Angeles, New York, Little Rock and Washington began looking ..." washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/…?
– daniel
Dec 19 '18 at 9:51
2
@HarryJohnston Well, before the Justice Department decides to open an investigation into something, it first looks into whether it’s worth investigating in the first place. Jeff Sessions tasked Huber with looking into whether it’s worth investigating and asked him to make recommendations as to whether it’s worth investigating or not. I think the distinction is a matter of whether you’re actually spending time and money and personnel to find out the truth about something, or whether you’re just casually looking at it to see whether there’s even any leads worth pursuing or anything.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 21:35
10
@Oddthinking Agreed that the FBI doesn't own the term, but at least to me saying that someone is "under investigation," especially in the context of the Trump Foundation being shut down following a legal investigation, implies that the investigation is at least legal in nature (whether that be violating criminal laws or some regulation.) The word 'investigation' certainly can be used to refer to private investigations, but that's not how I would understand the term being used in the context of the claim's quote.
– reirab
Dec 20 '18 at 3:32
14
14
The Salt Lake City Tribune isn’t accurately characterizing things. There is no evidence that John Huber is investigating the Clinton Foundation. Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber to conduct a review of “whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.” assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/…
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:48
The Salt Lake City Tribune isn’t accurately characterizing things. There is no evidence that John Huber is investigating the Clinton Foundation. Jeff Sessions appointed John Huber to conduct a review of “whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, whether any matters currently under investigation require further resources, or whether any matters merit the appointment of a Special Counsel.” assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4426661/…
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:48
12
12
Now it is true that the Clinton Foundation is one of the topics that Huber has been tasked to review to find out whether any new investigations needs to be opened or new special counsels need to be appointed (see this earlier letter). But there’s no evidence that Huber has concluded that the Clinton Foundation needs to be investigated, let alone that any investigation into the Clinton Foundation has actually been opened pursuant to any recommendation made by Huber.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:53
Now it is true that the Clinton Foundation is one of the topics that Huber has been tasked to review to find out whether any new investigations needs to be opened or new special counsels need to be appointed (see this earlier letter). But there’s no evidence that Huber has concluded that the Clinton Foundation needs to be investigated, let alone that any investigation into the Clinton Foundation has actually been opened pursuant to any recommendation made by Huber.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 2:53
4
4
"The Clinton Foundation probe dates to 2015, when FBI agents in Los Angeles, New York, Little Rock and Washington began looking ..." washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/…?
– daniel
Dec 19 '18 at 9:51
"The Clinton Foundation probe dates to 2015, when FBI agents in Los Angeles, New York, Little Rock and Washington began looking ..." washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/…?
– daniel
Dec 19 '18 at 9:51
2
2
@HarryJohnston Well, before the Justice Department decides to open an investigation into something, it first looks into whether it’s worth investigating in the first place. Jeff Sessions tasked Huber with looking into whether it’s worth investigating and asked him to make recommendations as to whether it’s worth investigating or not. I think the distinction is a matter of whether you’re actually spending time and money and personnel to find out the truth about something, or whether you’re just casually looking at it to see whether there’s even any leads worth pursuing or anything.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 21:35
@HarryJohnston Well, before the Justice Department decides to open an investigation into something, it first looks into whether it’s worth investigating in the first place. Jeff Sessions tasked Huber with looking into whether it’s worth investigating and asked him to make recommendations as to whether it’s worth investigating or not. I think the distinction is a matter of whether you’re actually spending time and money and personnel to find out the truth about something, or whether you’re just casually looking at it to see whether there’s even any leads worth pursuing or anything.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 21:35
10
10
@Oddthinking Agreed that the FBI doesn't own the term, but at least to me saying that someone is "under investigation," especially in the context of the Trump Foundation being shut down following a legal investigation, implies that the investigation is at least legal in nature (whether that be violating criminal laws or some regulation.) The word 'investigation' certainly can be used to refer to private investigations, but that's not how I would understand the term being used in the context of the claim's quote.
– reirab
Dec 20 '18 at 3:32
@Oddthinking Agreed that the FBI doesn't own the term, but at least to me saying that someone is "under investigation," especially in the context of the Trump Foundation being shut down following a legal investigation, implies that the investigation is at least legal in nature (whether that be violating criminal laws or some regulation.) The word 'investigation' certainly can be used to refer to private investigations, but that's not how I would understand the term being used in the context of the claim's quote.
– reirab
Dec 20 '18 at 3:32
|
show 3 more comments
6
Do you have a video link to the interview? We'd like to have it available in order to verify what they're saying.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 0:55
2
@DenisS I just saw it on TV half an hour ago, and the program is still going on. If video or a transcript of it is posted later I can add it to my question.
– Keshav Srinivasan
Dec 19 '18 at 1:05
2
CNN will probably have it on their home page later since they post a lot of their interviews, especially if there's a claim like this.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:35
6
Also I've removed the Trump tag since this question is about the Clinton Foundation, not Donald Trump. The fact that the Trump Foundation to compare the two isn't pertinent to the question.
– DenisS
Dec 19 '18 at 1:36