Former U.S. attorney: Clinton could face criminal indictment

[lovuian]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Sissyk (a host of the General Discussion forum).

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-u.s.-attorney-clinton-could-face-criminal-indictment/article/2579620

A former U.S. attorney thinks Hillary Clinton could face a criminal indictment from the FBI within the next 60 days.

Joe DiGenova, a Republican U.S. attorney appointed by President Reagan, said Clinton's "biggest problem right now" is the open FBI investigation into the contents of her private emails.


I have to say I feel for Hillary
this is such a political pain

[Rider3]

1. Oh, Yeah?

First, you need to have George W. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld indicted on criminal charges. Then, we'll talk Hillary. F'ing idiots. I'm so sick of these people.

[lovuian]

2. You are so right on and what about

Wall Street...we let them walk away but worry about Hillary

[TipTok]

29. That's not how the system works...

[Laurian]

3. Old Joe DiGenova (married to Victoria Toensing) is an asshole.

His opinion means less than nothing to me.

[hlthe2b]

11. ^^This^^ They are committed Clinton haters for decades, so take all of this with that in mind.

[gratuitous]

19. Sounds like they're getting the band back together

Time to relive the glory days of Whitewater, Mena airport, Vince Foster and a thousand other maggots that glommed onto that $100 bill dragged through the trailer park.

Let's see if anything has changed in the last 20 years. I'm guessing that Mr. DiGenova is going to have to get used to disappointment that he doesn't command the wide open field he did last time around.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. +1. They're dragging out all the oldies to trash HRC.

[randys1]

28. This isnt even a legitimate source let alone topic

I expect to see threads like this ONLY at far rightwing nutter boards

[lovuian]

34. I bet he's Trump source

I remember Trump talking about this

How does he get away with this ??? The FBI gagged Sibel Edmonds but can't gag him?

[jehop61]

4. This guy

has been a right wing shill for years, appearing whenever he sees a camera light focused on him. A non story. Give it up Joe.

[hlthe2b]

13. Yup.... he's sworn for years that Bill Clinton would go to jail... He just hates them.

[cali]

5. Oh bullshit. This is just wingnuttery

[FBaggins]

6. So Fitzmas hopes and dreams come to Republicans this year?

Good to know.

[Johonny]

7. According to RW land she's faced criminal inductment in the next 60 days for 10 years now

so meh.

[morningfog]

8. I doubt it and I wouldn't trust DiGenova for anything. BUT, the FBI investigation does continue and

I would not be surprised to see charges to come out of it against someone. I just don't think it will be Hillary. It is still a liability to her campaign and the Democrats if she becomes our nominee.

[busterbrown]

10. Oh Please...

Just like Benghazi? Is that what you are saying?

[morningfog]

23. Not at all. Did the FBI get involved with Benghazi?

What do you think the FBI is doing here? We know what the FBI does, they investigate federal crimes.

[busterbrown]

30. Investigation is not an Indictment ..

And you know that..and so do voters...

[morningfog]

33. Of course. As I said, I don't expect Hillary to be indicted.

But I wouldn't be surprised if someone is indicted as a result of this ongoing criminal investigation. FBI has been at it for months now.

[busterbrown]

35. The email thing was shut down during..

the republican Benghazi catastrophe!! FBI just cleaning up republican crap..

[morningfog]

39. Right, the FBI often investigates non-criminal activity just to clear things up.

[busterbrown]

46. No I am making a general assumption..

The same as you did with your original post..

[morningfog]

51. Which assumption is better founded?

That an FBI investigation is into suspected criminal activity and is likely to result in charges against someone?

OR

That the FBI is just out to shut the republicans up without suspecting any criminal activity?

[busterbrown]

57. Bad sarcasm/analogy on my part.

Republicans opened up thousands of possibilities..FBI covering their backs, investigating hundreds of bullshit republican accusations..

Your original post stated evidence uncovered by FBI might hurt Hillary’s bid.. “suspected criminal activity

Sounds like your hoping..

[morningfog]

59. The FBI only investigates suspected criminal activity.

Plus, Hillary's IT has already invoked his 5th amendment right to not incriminate himself criminally.

My hope, as I said in this thread is that either there is no crime and no charges, or that of there are they come before the primary ends.

[hlthe2b]

14. There are a whole litany of others who have used private email before it was policy NOT to.

I hear nothing but wishful thinking on the part of anti-Hillary RWers.

[morningfog]

24. I would not think that the FBI investigation is based on the use of a private email.

[hlthe2b]

38. they (DOJ and State Dept have already stated there were no classified materials)--this is politics

and while I fully understand DUers supporting another Dem candidate over HRC, it does feel like some are actually propagating this in hopes to drum up controversy--thereby doing the work of the RW. Perhaps not, but it sure feels like it.

Myths And Facts On Hillary Clinton's Email And Reports Of "Top Secret" Materials
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913
Media are exploiting news that two emails Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state may be retroactively classified as "top secret" to push myths about Clinton's handling of government information and scandalize her email use. Here are the facts.

FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret"

FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton's Server Use

FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton's Email Use And David Petraeus' Crimes

FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn't Targeting Clinton Herself

[morningfog]

41. We don't know what the FBI is investigating or why. We don't know what criminal activity they

suspect here. I take State and DOJ at their word, which means the subject of the FBI investigation is likely not classified materials on a private server, but something else. Time will tell. My hope is that it either (1) results in nothing and all are absolved, or (2) if anyone is criminally liable, it is made known publicly before the primary contests concludes.

[hlthe2b]

42. Umm hmmm. Based on these kind of RW sources, I'd guess pretty soon we'll have Obama indicted too.

Sadly, some here seem to hope that occurs as well.

[morningfog]

48. Nothing I have said relies one iota on RW sources.

The FBI is investigating some kind of suspected criminal activity for which they are looking at HIllary's servers. That is a fact. And that is about all we know.

[hlthe2b]

45. You really ought to read up on Joe DiGiveva and his wife before taking his word for anything.

[morningfog]

47. You should try not making assumptions and practice reading comprehension.

I have not said I believe anything that RWer says. In fact, I've said the opposite.

[TipTok]

36. I think they would have let it slide if it had just been the private server...

It was the repeated transmission of classified info on that server that is causing her problems.

I still don't think they will prosecute. If they do, an aide or something will take the hit.

[L. Coyote]

9. Ignore him and that rag.

[Sam_Fields]

12. He has no knowledge of the investigation. The FBI doesn't indict anyone.

So who is paying Joe to say this BS?

[lovuian]

17. Can't he get fired for

discussing an FBI investigation?

[Sam_Fields]

54. Not if is unaware of the real facts. He is just BSing now.

Otherwise he could face indictmnet by the US Attorney.

[Octafish]

15. Hey, Joe! When're Bush and Cheney getting indicted?

All they did was lie America into an illegal, immoral, unnecessary and disastrous war a couple of times.

[hlthe2b]

16. You all do know this is a hard core RW partisan, who has never been right about anything.

Further... this is coming from the RW rag, Washington Examiner

[DefenseLawyer]

18. I'm surprised he had the strength to speak

I'm sure it took a lot of effort to crawl out from under his rock.

[spanone]

20. bullshit from a right winger

[Kingofalldems]

21. Extreme right wing source.

Fail.

[sufrommich]

22. How many business hours are we talking?

[lovuian]

25. What's wrong with the FBI?

Why can't they just get this thing OVER with!!!
Sheesh

[randys1]

27. Rightwing source, rightwing opinion, where are we again?

[lovuian]

31. still ongoing FBI investigation

that's where we are meanwhile we are going into the primaries

for the election of the next President

why is the timing ....dragging this along

[randys1]

32. Nice try...I am not an alerter, but this thread should be locked, your OP should be hidden

[Scuba]

43. Yes. Ignorance is the key to our victory!!!!!

[Kingofalldems]

58. Do you agree with these extremist GOP Clinton haters?

[11 Bravo]

37. FoxNews Channel's favorite legal beagle.

Forgive me if I am less than convinced.

[leftynyc]

40. LOL - this is the same clown

that appeared on tv all through the CLlinton impeachment. I see he hasn't given up his wishful thinking.

[pintobean]

44. Jury results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Wed Jan 6, 2016, 03:29 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Former U.S. attorney: Clinton could face criminal indictment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027505198

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Posting right wing sources about right wingers fantasies over a hrc indictment should be hidden. Please hide this.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jan 6, 2016, 03:38 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: A 'former U.S. attorney' 'thinks'? This is shit-stirring, nothing more.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The issues you raise are being addressed in the thread. Fun reading.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The story is probably bullshit, but it is sourced and I think there should be a debate over the source's credibility or lack thereof rather than hiding.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: IMO we should not hide news, even like this. So, I vote to let it stay.


Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: no
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Pure right wing bull. It's from a right wing site that pushes right wing crap. If I want to read this shit I'll go over to freeperville. This stinks like desperation. Hide it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: People can know this is extant. I'm sure the source will be highlighted.

[MerryBlooms]

49. Will never happen. It's bullshit rw nuttery.

[pnwmom]

50. As a FORMER US attorney, the only way he can know anything about this

is illegally.

Maybe he should be indicted, unless he gives up his sources.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

52. Any port in a storm for the

anybody but Hillary party.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Okay ... I read the article, and still ask ...

What information the former U.S. Attorney is basing his conclusion on? Is he privy to the FBI investigation?

His "conclusion" seems to be based on the same thing as the conclusions reached by DUers that have stated the same thing ... nothing but speculation and/or wishful thinking.

[Yavin4]

55. Cops can kill a 12 year old boy with a toy gun and not face indictment

But Hillary can be indicted because of her emails. Wow. Just wow.

[Lil Missy]

56. *yawn*

[Sissyk]

60. Locking.

Threads about our Democratic Candidates are not allowed in General Discussion.