Below is my post from another thread. However, with Condie's multiple repeats, I see no reason for re-inventing the wheel.
Now, as to the 12 agents and a couple of interns. statement. The investigation grew from not just the email and sever, but the Clinton Foundation, as well. The first involves over 3,000 emails to review, dozens of persons to interview, the hard disk of the server to download and investigate for hacking and coverups of hacking. The Clinton Foundation investigation would require forensic accountants to look for fraud, trace funds contributed and distributed.
One person was offered and, supposedly given amnesty for his testimony. True amnesty requires a grand jury and a judicial ruling. The hacker, Guccifer, was brought to the US from a Bulgarian prison, with a promise of a shorter sentence for his testimony. in short, if only 12 agents and a couple of interns are the only persons involved, then there is a whole new scandal -- cover up of the investigation of a crime.
____
The first "wheel" you "invented" was the perpetuation of the bogus information on the alleged 147 agents. Your two posts that blandly accepted that information post date by a week the published retraction of that figure.
As usual, you are smoke-screening instead of manfully acknowledging your mistake.
No smoke screen, I'm extremely familiar with the manpower required by law enforcement agencies to investigate this type of fraud. A minor fraud case at the state level requires several personnel -- investigators, IT types and lawyers. To investigate the two complex ongoing cases that span three continents would require much more than 12 personnel, and a couple of interns. Unless, the FBI and DoJ were specifically handicapped in their efforts. No mistake, at all.
_____
Then you should have been familiar enough with such things not to have gobbled up that "147 agents" bogus figure at first opportunity.
No, I was not. You assumed that the figure was using 147 agents full time. Most likely, no. Agents taking depositions and questioning persons, probably are working several cases and charge their time to a number of cases. For IT experts, forensics accounts, lawyers etc. again, probably the same. FBI agents stationed in African nations probably charge time to the Foundation cases amongst others. FBI agents in Europe, probably charged time to the email case when interviewing Guccifer in the Bulgarian prison. Gufficer's Dell computer would have to be inspected -- either in place or shipped to the US to keep the chain of evidence intact.
Reporters and you took the ridiculous number of 12 agents at face value. Most likely Ben Rhodes or another WH aide gave them the number and the reporters took it as true. The caliber of reporters has decreased. I posted on Rhodes and his disdain for reporters in another thread.
____
I made no comment or assumptions as to full-time or part-time agents. I merely cited the number, 147, which was, as I reported, a bogus number and apparently wildly out of line with reality. As usual, you distort my response, alleging that I took the number 12 at face value. The link I provided was for the purpose of confirming the chronology of the "147 agents" report and the correction, showing that contributors to this forum could have fact-checked the erroneous report, but did not, before they robtically parroted it.
But I understand why you chose to emphasize the "12" and avoid conceding that your embrace of the "147" was hasty and intemperate. Typical DIRE tactics.
The 12 agents is considerable below the minimum required to support such a massive investigation. The 147 figure may well be the number who've charged time to the two cases. Condie's reporting of 147 as a bogus number, doesn't make it so, anymore than all the lies Obama told about Obamacare made it so.
On the topic of lies and erroneous reports, just what would the administration lies to pass the Iraq deal spun by Ben Rhodes with the help of the sycophant press be called .
An extraordinary profile of senior White House adviser Ben Rhodes, published in the New York Times on Thursday, was very revealing about President Obama. It told a complicated story of how an administration that the president promised would be the most transparent in history prides itself on successful manipulation of journalists.
The critical insight of the story is about the Obama administration's dishonesty in selling the Iran nuclear deal to the public. It turns out, for example, that the story carried by the press about the Iran deal being possible because of the election of a more moderate government in Tehran, was made up. It was a fiction, as various actual experts on the subject warned at the time. That is, in real terms, it was a lie. The deal was in fact already in the works in 2012, a year earlier than anyone knew.
And the whole idea that Iran's government was split over this deal between moderates and hard-liners was a fiction spun in order to create excuses for Iran's persistence in belligerent behavior later on. Rhodes and others worked to suppress inconvenient news at inopportune moments, such as when Iran captured ten U.S. servicemen on the day of the State of the Union address.
How does someone like Rhodes manipulate the press? It's like taking candy from a baby.
http://www.washingtonexaminer....ress/article/2590686
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05...ign-policy-guru.html