Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Hillary FBI Date Night: Dems should be worried

Hillary FBI Date Night: Dems should be worried

It will not require an indictment to take Hillary down

The Hillary Clinton email scandal has been kicking around since March 2015.

There has been a drip, drip, drip of inconsistencies in her story and justifications for creating a shadow electronic government controlled by Hillary and her operatives.  The slow flow of identification of classified information on emails, including those sent by her, now has become a flood.

The FBI probe, so frequently dismissed by Hillary as a non-event and nothing to worry about, now has become worrisome.

The FBI appears to be rolling up her underlings, including her key technical consultant who was hired by the State Department as a political appointee. And interviews are underway or soon to be underway with key Hillary associates.

Now David Shuster, formerly of MSNBC now with al-Jazeera America (please hold off on the “what’s the difference” jokes), reports that Hillary will be interviewed.

Contrary to some reports, Shuster does not claim that FBI Director Comey himself will conduct the interview.

(Transcript via Mediaite)

While Hillary Clinton fights for the Democratic presidential nomination, law enforcement officials tell Al Jazeera America the Federal Investigation into her personal email system while she was Secretary of State has reached a critical stage.

The FBI, led by Director James Comey, has now finished examining Clinton’s private emails and home server. And the sources add that Comey’s FBI team has been joined by the Justice Department prosecutors. Together, they are now examining the evidence, analyzing relevant laws, and attempting to arrange interviews with key figures in the investigation.

Those interviews, according to attorneys, will include former State Department aides Philippe Reines, Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton herself.

Soon after those interviews — in the next few days and weeks — officials expect Director Comey to make his recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch about potential criminal charges.

NBC News reports that 12 FBI agents are on the case, though I’ve seen higher estimates elsewhere:

Sources close to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email are knocking down suggestions that 147 federal agents are working on the case, a figure first reported — and now revised — by the Washington Post, citing a lawmaker.

The Post updated the figure on Tuesday, stating that while the “FBI will not provide an exact figure,” there are “fewer than 50” FBI personnel involved in the case.

But a former federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Clinton investigation tells MSNBC an estimate anywhere near 50 agents is also off base.

“There are currently about 12 FBI agents working full-time on the case,” says the source, who would only speak anonymously about an open investigation.

The popular wisdom is that only an indictment of Hillary could take her candidacy down. I’ve long argued that an FBI criminal referral would be enough.

Will Democrats really run a candidate who is facing indictment, or has an indictment quashed by DOJ which will appear to be a political choice? I don’t think so, because of the logic of an author expressed in HuffPo by a Bernie supporter (and also Salon):

When federal prosecutors are interviewing your candidate for president, even Donald Trump has a good chance at the White House….

It’s time for Democrats to deal with reality, not just allegiance to a political icon, and rally around the only candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, and other controversies.

Hillary is on the edge of a political cliff – the only issue is whether the FBI will push her over it.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I’m not sure an indictment would be enough. Too many powerful people owe her too much.

Perhaps she could wear an orange pantsuit while campaigning as part of a plea bargain?

One of her favorite tactics, going back 25+ years, is to claim she does not recall some fact or action. That has been frustratingly hard to deal with. At some point, somebody will have to ask her if she is pleading diminished mental capacity, and insist she undergo a medical examination.

    f2000 in reply to Tregonsee. | March 31, 2016 at 6:49 pm

    The advantage of the particular crime they are investigating is that she doesn’t have to remember a single thing about it. She doesn’t have to have had an illicit motive. She doesn’t even have to have had an intent. Other than in this case, the best you can possibly do in responding to questions is offer a reason why it wasn’t really your fault that classified documents ended up in you possession. And for that you better remember some details, like whose fault it was.

    “I don’t know” is the equivalent of “might as well hang this on me”.

    Except Hillary. Maybe.

“I’m not sure an indictment would be enough. Too many powerful people owe her too much.”

I disagree, there is a reason that Bernie is doing so well. Despite Hillary and Media Matters spending the last year spinning themselves dizzy calling this a Nothing Burger and a GOP conspiracy, there are a lot of Democrats who are worried.

If it gets to an indictment then yeas its all over for Hillary. The rats will abandon the ship in droves. An indictment means that Obama’s FBI and DoJ feel she did something criminal.

That said there are still a lot of powerful people that can keep it from becoming an indictment.

One of them is Director Comey. If he doesn’t recommend an indictment then Hillary will ride that all the way into the White House, and the Republicans will be Charlie Brown flat on his back after Lucy pulled away the football again.

Now if Comey does recommend an indictment, then I think not indicting is harder than it sounds. The problem is that this isn’t some back room deal, quashing the indictment would have to be done in broad daylight. Claiming prosecutorial discretion won’t cut it. That just drips of cover-up politics. They would need to have a bulletproof reason for NOT indicting.

    gospace in reply to Ironman. | March 31, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    The FBI and DOJ already know she did something criminal. The illegal server to conduct official business all by itself is illegal, and everyone knows it. A convenient overlooked FACT. The FBI is going after more serious crimes of mishandling sensitive classified material. Again, something everyone with a lick of common sense knows occurred, and is illegal. When/if the DOJ makes a decision to indict, it will be because she has become a political liability threatening to bring down other Democrats.

    The DOJ’s decision to indict will be a simple political calculation on which hurts Democrats more, indicting or not indicting Monica Lewinsky’s ex-boyfriend’s wife.

      redc1c4 in reply to gospace. | March 31, 2016 at 4:59 pm

      each and every classified e-mail, and there are over 1000 of them last time i looked, is multiple violations, not just one.

      hell, the 23 or so that were to classified to release, even redacted would be enough to put any normal user in prison for decades, and that’s without all the other charges for public records violations, etc.

      of course, since we’re not really a nation of laws any more, i won’t be surprised if nothing is done.

      not happy, mind you, because she belongs in prison, but not surprised.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to gospace. | March 31, 2016 at 5:57 pm

      I kinda agree that it will be political, but I think the question is going to be whether or not Obama gets involved. My guess is that AG Lynch, left to her own, would do nothing. Not chose not to indict, but just sit on her hands for the rest of the election. She has no legal obligation to do anything here. She can indict, not indict, or do nothing. Nothing anyone but Obama can do anything about. But, one thing to keep in mind is that she was first appointed a US Attorney by Bill Clinton, and then Obama reappointed her. Which means that she is likely decently close to Hillary, and I suspect that her retaining the AG slot in a Hillary Administration has already been offered. We shall see.

        Bruce Hayden in reply to Bruce Hayden. | March 31, 2016 at 6:05 pm

        Why would Lynch do nothing? Because the other two alternatives are bad. If she allowed Hillary to be indicted, she would never get another appointed office in her life. Not even dog catcher. But, if she declines to indict, both the FBI and the Intelligence community have essentially promised to leak the referral to the press, along with much of the supporting evidence, and the reality that the political fix was in would be obvious. And, that could and would be used by the Republican nominee (etc) against her. Imagine a debate, or ads, that essentially said that despite all this information, the AG, who used to work for her husband as a USA declined to indict. Not good. The only way then, I see, for Hillary to survive an FBI referral, or equivalent, then is for AG Lynch not to do anything.

    RITaxpayer in reply to Ironman. | March 31, 2016 at 5:12 pm

    ” They would need to have a bulletproof reason for NOT indicting.”

    Channeling Vince Foster…maybe they’d be afraid for their lives.

My personal opinion is that Hillary is the single most corrupt politician ever to disgrace the American political scene. And that’s saying something. But that’s what you get for selling governmental policy decisions for cash donations to your foundation. To say nothing of the e-mail issues.

However, even if the FBI recommends an indictment, nothing will happen. DOJ will “take it under advisement,” and not act until after the election.

And the democrats’ media enablers will sweep it all under the rug, in favor of more substantive stories focusing what’s really important to the American people, such as whether Corey Lewandowski actually touched a reporter, or whether Ted Cruz really was once unfaithful to his wife.

Its rather funny though as far as I know the official stance of clinton is she is not under investigation by the FBI…. While her lawyers are engaged in talks to set up interview WITH Clinton and the FBI

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Aggie95. | March 31, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    Clinton typically calls the FBI investigation a ‘security review’.

      The FBI (like other government agencies) has very specific definitions that apply very specifically to very specific things when other specified conditions are met. Whatever the FBI definition for “under criminal investigation” is, they haven’t met those conditions.

      In laymen’s terms and in every meaningful sense of “criminal investigation” it is certainly happening, but Clinton can say what she said and technically not be wrong.

        DaveGinOly in reply to f2000. | March 31, 2016 at 9:05 pm

        The Democrat/media (or is that “Democrat media”?) spin, as well as Hillary’s, has been “the FBI is investigating the server.” This is nonsense. The FBI investigates people, who then become, when sufficient evidence of law-breaking is discovered, suspects. The FBI only investigates “things” in so far as they are related to people who may have misused the “things” criminally. “Things” don’t commit crimes, people do.

HuffPo:
It’s time for Democrats to deal with reality, not just allegiance to a political icon, and rally around the only candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, and other controversies.

Do they even have anyone that would fit this criteria?

So is Comey doing the interview because none of his underlings wanted to end up in Ft. Marcy Park?

ugottabekiddinme | March 31, 2016 at 6:47 pm

Recent reports indicated that the FBI was also investigating influence peddling through the Clinton Foundation, so there may be more than one fire beneath all the smoke.

Good old-fashioned corruption, if provable, may be even more difficult for AG Lynch to duck.

Remember VP Spiro Agnew? He had both to resign the vice presidency and to plead guilty to felony charges for taking illegal payments while in office in Md and continuing in the VP slot.

Comey may have some convincing to do on the emails, but with the corruption stuff, he can make it that much harder for the AG and the President to ignore. To brush it all under the carpet would require a rug bigger than the one on The Donald’s head.

    DaveGinOly in reply to ugottabekiddinme. | March 31, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    Although we know that there’s no need to show “intent” with respect to the mishandling and exposure of classified information, she will likely skate on the matter for lack of same. The influence peddling and her end-run around the FOIA and other laws were committed with intent, and that’s why Hillary’s political career will be over.

This would be a great oportunity for the GOP either way. Too bad the GOPe cares more about screwing over Trump then beating Hillary.

    Cybrludite in reply to RodFC. | April 1, 2016 at 5:34 am

    Trump loses to either Hillary or Bernie by even worse margins than Cruz is currently beating him in Wisconsin, and drags down control of both the House & the Senate with his coattails.

I am hopeful that the FBI is building a case that either forces an indictment or forces Hillary to step out of the race. There are at least three angles of attack right now. 1) Violation of public records laws. While a somewhat minor point, all considered, setting up your own email server in your basement is unprecedented for just about anyone, public or private sector, in a position of significance. That shows some intent. Problem is, looks like lots of people (SECDEF and prior SECSTATE) like using personal email. However, in their cases, it wasn’t routine and used commercial services, not a homebrew in the basement. 2) Violation of all sorts of classified information statutes and directives. This one will be harder to set aside. Much harder. 3) The, er, trump card, may well be influence peddling for and by the Clinton Foundation. If the FBI can draw some nice clean lines between donations to the Foundation and actions taken by Hillary in her official position, she and Bill (and maybe Chelsea) might end up wearing orange. That might be the lever — put pressure on her that if she doesn’t drop out they will go after Chelsea and further disgrace Bill. I’m not sure that Hillary has enough heart to care about either, but the more people under the microscope, the more likely someone starts singing — and with little love lost between Bill and Hillary, he might sing to protect his own legacy.

I still believe that none of this will drop until she has the nomination sewn up. Then the Dems can trot out Uncle Joe and Elizabeth Warren.

With regard to Lynch sitting on an indictment until after the election, that’s certainly a possibility, but I would put money down that the leaks will become a flood before votes are cast — the Dems / Uniparty can’t risk a Trump presidency, so they have to get Hillary out of the way if the tide shifts.

“I still believe that none of this will drop until she has the nomination sewn up. Then the Dems can trot out Uncle Joe and Elizabeth Warren.”

it would be ideal for her indictment to come after the convention. Republican, libertarians, any minor party candidates on the ballot in any state, all would have standing to sue state by state to keep her on the ballot and her replacements off. Of course, in NJ, it’s a foregone conclusion that the ballot switch would occur. The courts there have a previous ruling on the subject, when they allowed Lautenberg to replace Torricelli on the ballot. Because, quoting from memory, “The people must have a choice.” There were 4 minor party candidates on the ballot, so the people DID have a choice. Democrats could have coalesced around the Green Party candidate. Or the Socialist or Libertarian. (Or conservative, ha-ha.) But nope, despite what NJ law said about deadlines for candidates, the voters had to have a choice. Which they did, so the ruling was non-sensical. That, and the fact that the primary voters in NJ KNEW he was being investigated when they voted for him. Hmmm…. sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

Henry Hawkins | March 31, 2016 at 8:11 pm

No matter who wins the presidency in 2016, they’re going to want to name their own AG, Dems or GOP – Lynch is out no matter what. I suspect that Lynch was named precisely because of the potential for a Clinton indictment, her agreed role being to sit on it, to squash it. Then, come 2016, she’s off to join several lucrative executive boards, the big money speech circuit, the cable TV talk show circuit, all while pushing her new book deal. Having been AG sets her up for a possible Senate run if she desires. Not bad for a couple years doing nothing.

If the FBI recommends charges and the DOJ declines, whether it sinks Clinton will depend on whether the media sticks with their support of her. I certainly don’t see Clinton simply quitting. The Queen’s sense of entitlement would not allow that indignity. If she is forced out, it will be with bloody fingernails across the pavement. If the media doesn’t abandon her, that is, spikes the non-indictment, she’s the nominee. If it does abandon her, the media will park mics and cameras in Warren’s face right up to their convention, looking to save the democratic socialism and ‘first woman’ memes. If anything is clear, actual primary voting has little to do with choosing nominees in the Democrat Party. Nothing so important can be left to the peasants.

“Will Democrats really run a candidate who is facing indictment, or has an indictment quashed by DOJ which will appear to be a political choice?”

Yes. They are Democrats.

The more interesting question is whether President Slick Clinton’s wife will be the first President that Amendment XXV, Sec. 4 is used on.

May the FBI f*** her on the first date.

One always has to parse a statement by or about a Clinton. One typical ploy is the use of current, past or future tenses.

The number of FBI agents investigating her, her family, her foundation, her fundraisers, her minions, and her associates VARY over time.

As these involve many interlocking pieces over a wide geographic area, it would not be surprising for each part of the investigation to call on other field offices to track down small bits of information to funnel to existing investigations.

As they find information for or against the hypothesis, that leads to other things that they have to track down. Thus the number of agents involve goes up and down over a length of time.

For a Democrat an indictment is an advantage and its just plain sexist to jail Hillary while Jon Corzine walks free. If the impossible happens, will America rally to elect Hillary from a cell or will we just wimp out and insist on the rule of law.
Bear in mind, there are NO excuses in handling secret information. If you have watched the video, passed the quiz, and are on the job, you are accountable for ANY exceptions. What would YOUR employer say if you set up a hidden email system to conduct company business, employed an “off-the-books” person to administer it, and after the “secret” was discovered, walked into the office and demanded a promotion to President of the company? What would they say?

Why is Huma never mentioned as being questioned , Has Obama already granted her Muslim immunity?

Well..
What I see is that everyone in any e-mail chain that was generated is equally culpable if they received confidential information from the private source.
So, plainly, hundreds or more may well be ripe for prosecution.

It appears to me that the FBI has the 22 e-mails at this point.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend