2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumUS Government Officials tell CNN: NO evidence against HRC so far as top aides interviewed.
Last edited Thu May 5, 2016, 05:53 PM - Edit history (4)
Great news!
CNN)Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)until after the election in order to cause even more problems. They are so political. So political.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)(CNN) Some of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, including her longtime adviser Huma Abedin, have provided interviews to federal investigators, as the FBI probe into the security of her private email server nears completion, U.S. officials briefed on the investigation tell CNN. The investigation is still ongoing, but so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say.
In recent weeks, multiple aides have been interviewed -- some more than once, the officials said. A date for an FBI interview of Clinton has not been set, these officials said, but is expected in the coming weeks. Abedin has cooperated with the probe, the officials said. Lawyers for Abedin declined to comment. The officials say the interviews of Clinton and her aides would be a routine part of an investigation like this.
The probe remains focused on the security of the server and the handling of classified information and hasn't expanded to other matters, the officials said. Spokesmen for the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment. The Clinton campaign has not yet responded to CNN's request for comment. David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, had no comment. (more at link)
So, no FBI or DOJ leaks, and no one else can be briefed at this stage. Also, multiple FBI interviews.
I would NOT want to be Hillary Clinton at the moment.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Even your best efforts a bolding, doesn't seem to back up anything though.
Multiple FBI interviews is nothing for anyone to be worried about, since they keep telling you that there is no criminal violations here, or even security ones.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)And if you think being called back multiple time is nothing then you might be in for a surprise. There's only a few reasons to do that and none of them are good.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Multiple interviews are quite common - usually to corroborate testimony adduced later or to clarify statements on the record.
Fascinating!
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Interviews. It's not like the FBI is going in blind.
Also just because they are common doesn't mean they are good.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)It's very common to recall an interviewee to corroborate or clarify testimony. This isn't Perry Mason, where a new witness drops a bombshell implicating someone. It's likely nothing more than filling in gaps.
To jump to the conclusion that routine recalls represent something "bad" is nothing more than an attempt to satisfy your desire for a negative outcome. To state, as you did, that it's always bad is cringeworthy.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Being repeatedly brought into the FBI is a good thing. The fact is any good lawyer will tell their client to not even think about sitting down to give an interview.
So can you tell me how being asked to give an interview with the FBI is a good thing?
That's not to say I'm not putting an emphasis on the negative. I admit my biases freely but it's not like I'm making up lies. I also don't want Hillary to go to jail or praising her down fall. I just seen how wrong this was from jump.
Response to synergie (Reply #18)
nolawarlock This message was self-deleted by its author.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)with people getting multiple interviews. I do hope they are correct that the investigation is wrapping up and that we might finally hear from the FBI sooner rather than later.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)pretty upset about being accused of violating a non-existent law after the fact. But it's okay, we don't expect that you'd hold Hillary to the standards you'd hold for yourself or any other human being in existence.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)Committed revolutionaries, especially keyboard ones, dismiss such things as more bourgeois claptrap.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)the law has been broken.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Different rules for them.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Greewald did a whole piece on this:
https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/
NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJs claims that he mishandled classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials despite no evidence he intended to distribute them. Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.
In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)§1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term classified information of the United States means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
(Added Pub. L. 103359, title VIII, §808(a), Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3453; amended Pub. L. 107273, div. B, title IV, §4002(d)(1)(C)(i), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1809.)
Amendments
2002Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 107273 substituted under this title for not more than $1,000,.
Petrushka
(3,709 posts)The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)and whether charges can be brought. Intent matters.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)This scandal far, it will not happen. Bernie Sanders probably said it best, "I am sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails".
Joob
(1,065 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)Stuckinthebush
(10,847 posts)It amazes me how many here at DU seem to get excited about the possibility of Clinton willfully violating the law - against all evidence.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)Don't worry, just keep on digging. Whatever it takes. Need a blank check? No problem! If you need an extra hand we can see if our man Ken Starr is available.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)The source isn't coming from the FBI and to think that they would give that info out before the investigation is over is foolish. It seems to me that this is coming from the campaign.
I think it's odd that they keep on mentioning these officials but fail to name any. Regardless if true. This will be a big relief for team Clinton.
And then there's this.
"Spokesmen for the FBI and Justice Department declined to comment"
The timing of this is suspect considering the Guccifer story.
mcar
(42,373 posts)mooseprime
(474 posts)if we all just forgot clinton's every mistake and lapse of judgment...especially because there are already too many to remember. so far my favorites have been:
--voting for use of cluster bombs in civilian areas (waaaaay abuela of her)
--IWR "birth defects from depleted uranium and burn pits until the end of time!"
--1:1 relationship between foundation donations and unprecedented arms sales to the ME
--selling fracking all over the world - poisoned ground water galore!
--evolving so quickly on issues she has a new position every other day (where are we on coal today?)
--the "gold standard" of trade agreements!
i used to have a job where we handled classified materials. getting everything back in the safe was no joking matter. i can only imagine what my boss's reaction would have been to my asking whether it would be OK to keep that stuff on a server at home.
getting away with murder is not the same thing as not being guilty of it
the way we know clinton has become a full-on republican is that nothing, absolutely nothing, can possibly disqualify her from whatever she wants to do
sickening. supporting this kind of stuff is not only un-Democratic, it's unpatriotic. shame.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)I am so very sorry, Silvershadow. The last thing that I wanted to do was confuse a fellow DUer comrade in arms. It was a breaking story so no article appeared originally. I tried to update with a link but again I am so sorry that it didn't work for you. I didn't mean to upset you. My sincerest apologies again for the confusion and it will never ever happen again. Again, I am so sorry
P.S: Also updated OP.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/fbi-interviews-huma-abedin-clinton-aide/index.html
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Progressive dog
(6,918 posts)nt
Justice
(7,188 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)The fact that they have to focus on the word "Willfully", means they are finding violations and now just seeing if this is another one of her classic "Oopsies"
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If unmarked classified data was sent to her, she might be in possession of classified data without her knowledge. Happens more than you might think.
basselope
(2,565 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Of the person receiving it? That's silly. No one is obligated to review the classification guides for every incoming email. That would be ridiculous.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)interviewed or contacted by the FBI and she said no?
Maybe they all happened this week but the reports say that some of her aides have been interviewed multiple times.
BootinUp
(47,187 posts)It will be her second term and you'll still be saying lock her up, lol.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I the mean time care to answer my original question as it appears that she did lie.
BootinUp
(47,187 posts)you express a desire to see her found guilty of a federal crime. As far as whether she lied recently about this investigation, it doesn't seem likely to me, no. But I am sure you will keep us updated.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)BootinUp
(47,187 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The default legal status is "not guilty" not "innocent".
At least that is what I learned in my civics class.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Make no mistake, they've decided already. Now it's just about shaping the narrative to fit their predetermined conclusions. Expect no apologies.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)The FBI hasn't said anything.
NewsCenter28
(1,835 posts)Again, I apologize and updated. My apologies for confusing you! I just assumed that senior U.S officials must be D.O.J or FBI.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)Ash_F
(5,861 posts)If not DoJ or FBI how would they have access to that info? Is this an anonymous leak?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)would prematurely reveal evidence gathered in a LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION, we get a story from CNN that's its just a security review and there's no evidence of law breaking.....
frylock
(34,825 posts)Serial wtf? Which "US Government Officials", and how would they know?
FourScore
(9,704 posts)CNN just did a live breaking news story on this!! Impressive!
Except it doesn't mean diddly-squat.