Clinton E-Mail Probe Would Be Hurt by a Deadline, Lynch Says

[antigop]

Source: bloomberg.com

The Justice Department hasn’t set a deadline for the investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of private e-mail because doing so would undercut the probe, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said.

Investigators will do "a full, thorough and independent review" of whether classified information was mishandled through the use of Clinton’s private e-mail system when she served in President Barack Obama’s administration, Lynch said Thursday when asked whether voters were owed a resolution of the issue as Clinton moves toward securing the Democratic nomination for president.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-04-28/clinton-e-mail-probe-would-be-undercut-by-a-deadline-lynch-says

---

Note to mods:

Article is timestamped:

April 28, 2016 — 5:36 PM CDT
Updated on April 29, 2016 — 9:15 AM CDT

[astrophuss42]

1. Too bad it's a rock and hard place situation

As surely not having results until the end of the primaries could have ill effects. And they had to recover so much deleted info....

[dchill]

2. What she means is: Clinton Would Be Hurt by a Deadline.

[sharp_stick]

3. Yes, it's all a conspiracy

Everyone except you is in on it...It's that big...Oh oh, I just told you, please ignore the quiet black helicopter circling your house.

[dchill]

6. Wow - that's some critical thinking right there!

You're low on koolaid!

[sharp_stick]

11. FYI It's not critical thinking

it's just plain old mocking. You're welcome.

[libdem4life]

78. So write something worthwhile...if possible. n/t

[magical thyme]

51. not a conspiracy. just business as usual. Obama gave Lynch

her marching orders when he publicly categorized Clinton's behavior as "a kind of carelessness" (as opposed to, say, gross or willful negligence) that didn't harm national security (really? based on what?).

Just more "we tortured some folks" and "we need to move forward."

[RoccoR5955]

4. Absolutely

It would not look good for Her Highness's image if she was under indictment for her coronation.

[Beacool]

9. It's not a coronation when someone is winning by a country mile.

Only the losing side would call it thus.

[840high]

33. Agree.

[yallerdawg]

5. Because it is a political persecution...

created by the rightwing, the Republican Benghazi committee, the FOIA rightwing petitioners, the Republican Congress and their cabinet oversight and investigative capacities - all this requires "a full, thorough and independent review" which will be immediately followed by a rightwing "full, thorough and independent review."

I wish everyone understood exactly what this is - bullshit of epic proportions - but that will never happen.

It's Hillary.

[dchill]

8. I hope you're aware that there really was...

a non-secure email server in her basement...

[Vinca]

12. They really don't get the seriousness of it all.

Come October we could be in for one hell of a bad surprise.

[grasswire]

39. denial, denial, denial

it's all they've got.

[yallerdawg]

53. Yeah, right.

Since it's Hillary she is convicted without trial before any kind of crime is even identified.

Conjecture, speculation, innuendo.

That's all you ever have. Thanks for drinking the rightwing smear Kool-Aid. Your telling them, "It works!"

[gordianot]

61. Considering Clinton history for magnetic political hits they let their guard down.

So unnecessary and sloppy no matter the outcome be prepared to listen to incessant moans from Donald Trump and Right Wing hacks (I am not sure what category to place Trump). At best this is fuel for distraction, what drives Republicans and other political maniacs.

[yallerdawg]

65. Hillary beats Trump. Period.

But if you all want to give credence to rightwing hack jobs (Benghazi Committee) then explain to me the difference between you, Trump and Right Wing hacks.

'Cause I don't see any difference.

Most Democrats dismissed this email BS when they saw how silly it was.

A year later - here we are again.

[gordianot]

69. Then explain the difference between ideologues who do automatic RW hits and those who deny facts.

Given that DOJ is not exactly run by RW hacks it appears to be me facts are the purpose of this investigation. On the opposite end are ideologues who assume the investigations sole purpose is to build a case for guilt. Go get the facts, intent may be harder to prove attorneys and politicians are experts as parsing words. No matter the outcome this is going to feed the RW hacks with a continual cloud over Clinton and all Democrats. Those Right Wing conspiracies are vast and the M$M will tell you both sides do it. Right, Left or center hacks are what they are, brainless incurious ideologues.

Oh if I did not make my self clear Trump is an obscene aberration unique in American history.

[AgerolanAmerican]

77. the evidence is pretty damning

The one email directing the stripping of classified markings to send it insecure is a smoking gun.

The only question is how broad is the investigation into her activities - including the Clinton Foundation - going to be. The broader it is, the more trouble she's in, and the later it's likely to come out - which means the more trouble we'll be in riding that horse in a general.

[tex-wyo-dem]

28. And I hope you're aware that the FBI doesn't...

Investigate, and allocate considerable resources for over a year, to propagate "right wing political persecution".

[yallerdawg]

54. They are doing a thorough investigation to leave no stone unturned.

They know it won't end when you don't get the answer you seek.

It must be "Guilty, guilty, guilty." Nine years from now - at the end of her second term - you will still be spouting, "They are bringing the handcuffs!" You know it's true!

You also know you could stop provoking us anytime now.

[The Second Stone]

79. They won't stop gossiping and rumor-mongering ever

because it is the only thing they know how to do and it makes them feel important. The Republicans I mean.

The Sanders supporters don't seem to understand (or want to understand) that the FBI investigates what it is told to, and doesn't have the power to indict anybody. The DOJ has the power to bring to a grand jury (in D.C. in this case) in a secret proceeding, the secrecy of which cannot be broken in any way by the government, but by an accused only, and to ask the grand jury (of 24 local citizens serving for a year) to follow the recommendation of the prosecutor (the US Attorney for D.C.) as to whether they believe they have enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty such that the accused should be put to a trial. There is no target person of this FBI investigation. Neither Hillary Clinton, nor any of her assistants. There is no evidence they sought to mishandle information, nor that any information fell into the wrong hands, nor that there was such intent, when intent is critical. Hillary Clinton asked that an adequate server be set up and relied on experts to do so. Perhaps one of those experts over-represented his/her qualifications, even so, it would be stretching it to call it fraud.

For Fox and some of Sanders irresponsible supporters (not all of them) to insist that this is criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt that 24 citizens of DC would be led by the US Attorney to return an indictment on is, in the case of legal and political experts, a fraud on the public. No one with any expertise sincerely thinks this is going to happen, particularly in view of how the Benghazi committee had its ass seriously kicked by Hillary Clinton when she was under oath and not entitled to formally fight back on this issue. The non-expert might be forgiven for not knowing all these things and buying the propagandist lies because they haven't thought it through.

An indictment would require proving for 24 DC residents, by the US Attorney, that Hillary Clinton acted in bad faith in setting up a server similar to her predecessors for the same purpose and charging Colin Powell and Condi Rice too. This DOJ has preserved the long American tradition of not crapping all over public servants acting in good faith in doing their jobs. The only exceptions made have been people who deliberately compromised intelligence operations (Scooter Libby with the Plame affair) and whistleblowers who went to the press rather than through channels.

In short, people who think that Loretta Lynch is going to indict Hillary Clinton are completely out of their fucking stupid and ignorant minds because (1) the evidence isn't there; (2) we don't do that in this country (see the ancient Greeks for why not; (3) it is politically unlikely by the US Attorney and the DC residents.

If a lot of people ignore the facts and abuse their power (like Trey Gowdy and Fox News), it could happen in the same way that I could win the Powerball if I bought a ticket.

Now, if the Attorney General were a Republican, I could see it happening for political reasons. But she isn't.

[lindysalsagal]

80. I'm no expert, but your argument hits the money points, imho. No indictment.

Just continuous harassment from a completely incompetent GOP.

It's all they can do. They have no candidates, no policies, no backbone, only greed and hate.

[The Second Stone]

81. They have been dong this to Hillary Clinton since 1992

so she has been very careful. They did this to her with Whitewater at public expense for years and got nothing, and now the same thing.

[Press Virginia]

76. Why would the President persecute HRC?

And since when is the FOIA not a good thing to have?

[CoffeeCat]

7. I think what the DOJ does and says is almost irrelevant in this case

If the FBI closes out their investigation and informs the DOJ that they have enough evidence to recommend that the DOJ indict--it really won't matter what the DOJ does.

I agree that the investigation itself, should not hinge on any timetable. We all want the FBI to finish. However, as Comey has repeatedly said--it's more important that this investigation is done right, and not on any political timetable.

If however, if the FBI concludes their investigation and recommends indictment--and the DOJ sits on it--that is political and that is wrong.

If the FBI comes out recommending indictment, it doesn't matter what the DOJ does--it is all over for Clinton.

I'm not saying that is what is going to happen. But if the FBI recommends indictment then her campaign is done.

[dchill]

10. Agreed.

An FBI report that recommends indictment would sure move some poll numbers. And some goal posts. And some delegates, which would be super, IMO.

[red dog 1]

13. What if an FBI indictment comes AFTER she becomes the Democratic nominee?

If that happens, it wouldn't be "super" at all.
it would mean that the next POTUS will be Donald J. Trump

I don't like this at all, and I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter.

I just want a Democrat as the next President.

I hope the FBI gets off it's ass & acts sooner rather than later.

[dchill]

14. So do I. Regardless of Director Comey's claims,

I think he knows the FBI's credibility is on the line, and not issuing a report before the nomination actually occurs would more than seem to be a political move of epic proportion.

[red dog 1]

17. + 1

[Reter]

15. What would happen if it's September and she steps down?

Who gets the the Democratic nomination? Her running mate? Bernie? Someone entirely new to the race like Biden?

[red dog 1]

18. Good questions!

[leveymg]

29. That would be a disaster for the Democratic Party. Better to initiate a transition now.

That would require her cooperation. I have the feeling, though, she won't release her delegates until she is forced to. The other possibility is that the outcome was known as early as March 2015, and this whole campaign and investigation has been political Kabuki Theater of the vastest sort. The most logical thing would be for the transitioning of delegates to occur at the Convention.

[grasswire]

44. will she release her delegates? or assign them to someone?

It would seem to me that once her future is compromised by adjudication of her actions, she should lose any right to participate at all. (Having betrayed the American people and the Democratic Party.)

[leveymg]

50. That's up to the Convention Rules Committee. They can change rules as they want, and

the courts will not interfere in the political process.

[grasswire]

41. maybe we need a vice nominee. LOL nt

[NWCorona]

20. That's when Biden will suit up. nt

[tex-wyo-dem]

32. You really think so?

It would seem to me to be political suicide for the party. Biden is well known, but he has spent zero days campaigning, no campaign aparatus, etc. it would seem to me to be certain defeat, even if it is Trump.

[CoffeeCat]

36. If she is indicted

This is one reason why I am incredibly dismayed that people are so uninformed about this.

Clinton's people bully us into shutting up about this. They accuse us of "praying" for an indictment. Any discussion is beaten down and mocked as right-wing attacks. It's incredibly childish and foolish.

If the FBI recommends to indict, she's done. And this will be a horrendous, traumatic upheaval within our party. There will be so much pain for all of us. If the worst-case scenario happens, I don't think Bernie is the nominee. This is not some windfall for Bernie (which is why HRC supporters need to chill out with their bullying in this issue). Bernie won't have earned the delegates and HRC won't release the delegates to Bernie. It will be someone else.

All of this affects ALL DEMOCRATS. This is a Democratic messageboard and we are knee deep in a primary with the FBI getting close to telling us whether or not our frontrunner is going to be recommended for indictment. We all need to be informed! No one should be burying their head in the sand. No one should be bullying people for asking questions or discussing this issue.

I actually think that a DU group should be started on this topic. This is not a right-wing smear! It is a critical, pressing situation that could turn our primary and our party upside down.

[tex-wyo-dem]

43. I agree with you 100%, CoffeeCat...

This is bad (perhaps epically bad) for the Democratic Party, and that is my main concern.

I too don't understand what seems to be organized squelching by Clinton supporters of even discussing the issue. Ignoring is the worse thing we could do.

[grasswire]

46. why would it be proper for someone with NO delegates...

...to supercede Bernie with 1500 likely delegates by then???

It would NOT be a windfall for Bernie. It would only be logical. Runner-up always wins if the winner drops out.

[CoffeeCat]

55. I am guessing that she would release

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:07 PM - Edit history (2)

her delegates to a candidate of her choosing. Her pledged delegates would not automatically go to Bernie. She earned those votes, not him. Those are her delegates.

The Superdelegates could decide to throw their support to Bernie, or to a candidate that Hillary identifies as her replacement.

This is such a moving target because pledged delegates are technically unbound. They are fiercely loyal supporters, but they can switch. Most likely, her pledged delegates would follow her wishes--especially if Obama stepped in to unify and guide the party through a mind-blowing crisis.

This is why I think Bernie would be selected as VP--to help unify and bring in the Sanders supporters.

[red dog 1]

58. Well stated!

Perhaps it's time for us all to send e-mails to Attorney General Lynch asking her to get this investigation over with ASAP!



"Messages to the Department of Justice, including the Attorney General, may be submitted via this form"
http://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice

[NWCorona]

37. That's just my honest guess.

If Hillary had to drop out I'd expect the DNC to place somebody in the ring. They won't let Bernie win by default.

Every time Hillary has a major stumble Biden drops little hints here and there. Last time was "I regret not running everyday " or something like that. A part of me really believes that he wants to ride off into the sunset. The other part knows he still has that drive in him. He's also the only person who I think could step in, other than Bernie, that wouldn't cause pandemonium in the party.

That's just my two cents

[CoffeeCat]

38. And Biden has been publicly

praising Bernie and has even dissed Clinton a bit. He had to walk back his "This income inequality thing is new for Hillary" comment.

It could be Biden who would pick Bernie as VP.

I have gone down that road and wondered about our party's response, because it is not looking good for Clinton at all. The media has done such a piss-poor job of informing us about this very complicated, confusing, complex legal matter. However, when you start reading articles from the WSJ, New York Times, AP and WaPo, it becomes clear that there is a strong case.

In my opinion, I think it's highly probable that the FBI recommends indictment.

[NWCorona]

42. The fact that it's still ongoing tells me that something is there

We are just gonna have to wait and see what happens.

[tex-wyo-dem]

48. I guess that's conceivable, but would be very risky...

Imagine the perception of the electorate of the party if the runner up, who is not that far behind in reality, were shoved to the side for someone who hasn't spent a minute campaigning. It would certainly play into Sanders' (and Trump's, for that matter) claims that the system is rigged.

It's possible it may come down to the SDs, assuming that Hillary is disqualified before the convention.

[winter is coming]

70. I expect the Party to try it. I'm not sure whether it will succeed at the

convention. I'm pretty sure that if it does, it will cost us dearly in the fall.

[trudyco]

75. Yes I think there would be a revolt

It's bad enough that the party has the superdelegate system which has party insiders and lobbyists as it's members. It can literally take away the majority's voice in the party. But to use that and then to let the indicted frontrunner appoint where her delegates go .. to somebody who not a single person has voted for... I think you will have a revolt.

[CoffeeCat]

35. The FBI has concluded the groundwork investigation

into Clinton's emails and server. The FBI announced at end of March that they needed to interview her AIDS and Clinton herself, and then they were finished.

Of course I do not have a crystal ball. However, I would bet $100 that we will know what the FBI recommends before the Convention.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was mid-May-early June.

The FBI has been investigating her use of the server since July 2015. They have an electronic record of everything they need. This isn't a situation where they will be interviewing Clinton and her aids to gain foundational facts. These interviews aren't going to drag on for days.

[HooptieWagon]

56. Clintons interview will be short, she's going to plead the 5th.

There is no way she'll talk to the FBI, as they're not gonna buy her "it wasn't classified when I sent it" bullshit.
The interviews with her aides, OTOH, may drag out. I doubt they'll talk either, and it's likely a few may be shown evidence against them and offered immunity in order to get their testimony.

[CoffeeCat]

66. "It wasn't classified when I sent it"

isn't going to fly.

There are two sets of emails. The 30,000 that she turned over to the FBI. The 30,000 that she deleted.

In the 30,000 that she turned over to the FBI, 22 of those have been deemed Top Secret. That category of classification means that releasing the information in that email could pose "a grave danger to the United States."

She was the Secretary of State. She knows the difference between classified and non-classified information.

Furthermore, she signed an NDA when she was hired. In that NDA she agreed that if she was unsure if information was classified, that she would consult with selective government officials who can clear up any questions and give her the green light.

She never did that.

She conducted ALL of her State business using this private email server. Are we really to believe that in the four-year course of her SOS tenure, that she NEVER sent any emails or dealt with information that was classified? That is ridiculous.

[Yupster]

82. I agree on no timetable

As soon as you put a deadline, you give people a reason to delay and run out the clock.

[NWCorona]

19. Unfortunately I'm not sure just a recommendation would stop Hillary and some diehard supporters

When this news broke last year. People dismissed it to the point that the mere idea of Hillary having to sit down with the FBI would be a disqualifier. Regardless of what the detractors say, the goalposts have been moved a few times.

That's just my two cents.

[1monster]

22. On call in show that was posted on DU a couple of nights ago

(and I can't find it now), a former federal prosecutor said that by judging what has been done thus far (immunity for the person who set up the server, and other things), a federal grand jury has already been impaneled on the e-mail brouhaha.

If this is so, and the grand jury votes for indictment, does the DOJ have the power to decide not to go on with an indictment. Or is a grand jury in this sort of case act only in an advisory capacity?

I have vague memories of the Saturday night massacre when Nixon fired his special prosecutor for getting to close and all that ensued from that.

Who has the power to decide on indictments here?

[leveymg]

31. The decision to convene a GJ or to unseal an indictment is made by the Atty General. That's a

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

matter of prosecutorial discretion. So is any decision to empanel a Grand Jury, if that has not already happened. So is the decision to close a grand jury to the public (see, 9-5.150 - Authorization to Close Judicial Proceedings to Members of the Press and Public, https://www.justice.gov/usam/usam-9-5000-issues-related-trials-and-other-court-proceedings#9-5.150). At each step in a case like this, its all political.

If history is a guide, what will likely happen is that the AG will sit on the FBI referral and run out the clock without seeking an indictment until the President issues a pardon. That's exactly what happened after Bill Clinton's CIA Director John Deutch took home classified laptops and plugged them into his home internet. The difference here is that Hillary is now the presumed candidate. So, the politics and process are a bit more complicated.

Either a deal has already been reached or it's going to be one hell of a chaotic Convention with a catastrophic outcome. The worst thing would be she's nominated and a delayed FBI report later confirms she violated her security agreement. Please see my post below thread.

[winter is coming]

23. Would we know if the FBI recommends indictment?

There have been rumors (okay, articles alluding to unnamed sources), that some FBI agents would resign and leak details if the DOJ doesn't move for an indictment. That suggests that the contents of the FBI report would not otherwise be common knowledge.


on edit: Looks like the FBI's recommendations would eventually be accessible via FOIA, but we all know how slow that process is.

[leveymg]

27. The issue isn't indictment. If FBI finds she violated her signed security oath, HRC is finished.

It looks like she did, and if one reads the agreement, the excuses floated by her campaign don't wash.

1) Hillary signed this document on 01/22/09:

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-05069 Doc No. C05833708 Date: 11/05/2015
! I RELEASE IN PART I
B7(C),B6
---------------------------------1REVIEW AUTHORITY:
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Barbara Nielsen, Senior
Reviewer
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN Hillary Rodham Clinton AND THE UNITED STATES
1. lntending to be legally bound. I hereby accept the obligations contained In this Agreement In consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards or Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits unauthorized disclosure of lnformation in the Interest of national security; and unclassified Information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided In Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1A(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified lnformation special confidence and trust have been placed in me by the United States Government .
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security lndoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this Information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified Information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will not divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it, or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) 1'9SJ) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that lf I am uncertain about the classification status of Information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the Information is unclassified before I may disclose It, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this may result In the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation by me may constitute a violation, or violations. of Untied States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641. 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50,
United Slates code. and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing In the Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation..
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations. and emoluments that have resulted, wiII result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation of classified Information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement
6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement Including, but not but not limited to application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of Information In breach of this Agreement.
1. I understand that all classlfled information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classffled materials which have or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or- that provided me access ID classifled Information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Sections 793 and/or 1924, § 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.
8. Unless and until I am released In writing by an authorized representative or the United States Government.. I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified lnformation, and at all times thereafter.
9. Each provision of this Agreement is severable. If a court should find provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain In full force and effect.

Sec 793 (e) and (f) linked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[winter is coming]

30. When would such a finding be made public? n/t

[leveymg]

34. That's the $64 trillion question.

Depends upon if a deal has already been reached with HRC for her to release her delegates so that they can be realigned in an orderly fashion at the Convention. Of course, the timing of any such deal would require the brokerage of the White House and the cooperation of the FBI.

Personally, I think that deal is likely already in place. The chargeable acts have been publicly known since March, 2015, so this process would already be in advanced stages. Likely, they will wait until just before the Convention to release the FBI report and the accompanying reports from the Inspector Generals of the IC and CIA who have also issued referrals. There is also a DOS IG investigation and several civil law suits in the works.

The reason for this is complicated, and has to do with a rationale that its best for the country not to know that an asteroid is headed in and nobody can do anything about it. Do you tell the public before it's visible in the night sky? Probably not. That would just panic HRC supporters and lead the Bernie wing to rebellion, or worse in the view of some, empower his outsider campaign.

In any case, this colossal fiasco is really going to hurt the Democrats in 2016.

[winter is coming]

62. Trying to shift Hillary's delegates to Biden would kill our chances in the GE.

It would alienate a large number of Sanders supporters and pretty much kill our chances of getting the Indies to vote Dem in the fall.

[leveymg]

67. I agree. There will be a steep cost anyway this turns out.

Thanks Hill. You brought this down on all the rest of us.

[tex-wyo-dem]

71. If what you say comes to pass...

I will never forgive her or the DNC.

[leveymg]

73. You won't be alone in that.

[cstanleytech]

25. You forgot the possability that it could also be political if they were to

deliberately withhold releasing a report that finds no criminal wrong doing by Clinton in order to try and taint her before the election.
True the odds of that happening are probably on the order of my being the sole winner for a powerball lottery within my lifetime but it wouldnt be the first time the FBI did something for political reasons.

[red dog 1]

16. K&R...Thanks for posting

IMO, HRC should not have used a private e-mail server for ANY State Department messages.

From the OP:
"During her tenure at the State Department, Clinton used a private e-mail address to send personal and work correspondence...She said she took the step as a matter of convenience and exchanged more than 60,000 such messages from 2009 to 2013, about half of which she said were of a personal nature...She eventually handed over to the .State Department the ones that her staff deemed work-related and has said that the others were purged.
Following a review, State Department officials said 22 of the messages that were handed over included top-secret information..None were labeled as being classified when they were sent...Clinton and her aides say that shows she didn't do anything wrong."

She "handed over to the State department the ones that HER STAFF deemed work-related and has said that the others were purged"??

I don't like it.

It shows poor judgment on her part, IMO.

Come on, FBI investigators, DO YOUR JOB and FINISH this damn investigation!

[CoffeeCat]

47. And it's important to remember

that the FBI requested her to turn over her server. She deleted 30,000 emails that she said we're work related. However, there were several emails, dealing with sensitive information--that she did not turn over.

These were the emails between Hillary and Sid Blumenthal. Remember the hacker Guccifer who was extradited to the US? He hacked into Blumenthal's email and his illegal activity revealed that Clinton had not handed over some of those emails. Some of those emails discussed Libya. Some of them contained such sensitive information that the entire email was redacted, including the subject header.

Also, the FBI has recovered all of the 30,000 emails that she failed to turn over to the FBI. If any of those emails were work related, that's evidence tampering and obstruction.

Given what we know about the Blumenthal emails and about Hillary in general--How likely is it that the 30,000 deleted emails were all personal?

[Kingofalldems]

21. Has she been told she is a target?

[winter is coming]

24. Clinton said in early March that she had not been told she's a target.

That was before we heard that the FBI was going to interview her and some of her top staffers.

[Kingofalldems]

57. So if she is not a target, she is not being indicted anytime soon.

So far there is no crime and I doubt there will be since other SCs used private email.

Whitewater II pushed by right wing extremists.

[winter is coming]

63. Her statement was made in early March. Since then, the FBI has requested

(and likely conducted) an interview. Things may well have changed recently, and you're kidding yourself if you imagine this is a trumped-up scandal.

[Kingofalldems]

64. Whenever I see Judicial Watch involved I see

a trumped up scandal.

I think you are kidding yourself.

[IdaBriggs]

72. "Target" doesn't work that way. If the FBI investigates you,

they don't knock on the door and explain it. They investigate the crimes, gather the evidence, and do interviews. Telling a criminal you are investigating so they have time to hide evidence is stupid.

A "TARGET LETTER" is only sent if you are being asked to testify in front of a grand jury. Prosecutors are not required to offer that opportunity when seeking an indictment.

[leveymg]

26. The DOJ stated in court filing 2 days ago: FBI "is working on a referral Inspectors General in

“connection with former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a private email server."

The DOJ says in its filing:

Records responsive to Plaintiff’s request that are subject to FOIA relate to a pending investigation. The FBI has stated publicly that it received and “is working on a referral Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a private email server. The FBI therefore submitted a classified in camera, ex parte declaration to provide the Court with additional details to demonstrate that responsive information was properly withheld, and explained on the public record that this was the purpose of the in camera declaration.

Read more:
http://lawnewz.com/important/doj-claims-unsealing-fbi-declaration-could-jeopardize-clinton-email-investigation/

[SunSeeker]

40. That means they are working on the existing referral to the Inspectors General.

They are referencing that referral to explain to the court in that FOIA case why certain douments have been withheld. That referral they are referencing in that court filing was made months ago, and was made to the FBI Office of Inspector General, not by it. That quote you cite does not mean the Inspectors General are preparing a referral of their own to someone else to do a different investigation.

[leveymg]

45. The IG of the Intel Com. referred the matter to the FBI after CIA/NSA findings that classified

materials of those agency's own origination had been found on HRC's server. The agencies conducted their own investigations first, and will also submit their own IG reports to the Attorney General when Comey transmits the Bureau investigative findings.

It's somewhat confusing because the term referral is used in several contexts by DOJ. The relevant term is used here, for instance, in the US Attorney's Manual. https://www.justice.gov/usam/organization-and-functions-manual-27-parallel-proceedings

Intake: Early evaluation of all matters for criminal, civil, regulatory, or administrative action. A case referral from any source, including an agency referral, a self-disclosure, or a qui tam action, to any component of the Department or to a United States Attorney's Office, is a referral for all purposes. From the moment of case intake, attorneys should consider and communicate regarding potential civil, administrative, regulatory, and criminal remedies, and explore those remedies with the investigative agents and other government personnel.

[SunSeeker]

60. There are no new referrals; it is the same old referral that they are working on.

And Hillary is not the target.

[leveymg]

68. Her use of the server is the target. Plain-language interpretation beats wishful thinking

There are enough referrals to put her in Leavenworth, if that's what they wanted to do.

But, I agree, I am not convinced there is already a Grand Jury convened, or ever will be. But, a mere finding she violated her security agreement is enough to kill her nomination. This is a contingency they planned for a long time ago. We are just the last to be told what has already been decided.

[SunSeeker]

74. Hillary is not the target, no matter how much you wish she were.

[grasswire]

49. kick for excellent information nt

[Mike Nelson]

52. Translation...

...let's drag this out for as long as we can.

[gordianot]

59. Now that I am line with all my reservations I would like to know.

Considering the sources extraordinary candor.