FBI to Interview Hillary Clinton in the Coming Days About Email Scandal, Source Says
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by In_The_Wind (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).
Source: ABC News
Hillary Clinton could be interviewed by the FBI in the coming days as part of an investigation into the former secretary of state and her staff's use of private email to conduct official U.S. State Department business, according to a source familiar with the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation.
The Justice Department's goal is to complete the investigation and make recommendations on whether charges should be filed before the two major party conventions take place toward the latter half of July, the source said.
Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-interview-hillary-clinton-coming-days-email-scandal/story?id=40291561
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
nest
(23 posts)There will be no interview. Hillary did nothing wrong.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)An interview means that there is an interview.
There are multiple sources reporting the same thing.
Again, and interview does not imply wrongdoing. An interview is a process by which a person is interviewed to obtain facts and information.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)
WhiteTara
(31,257 posts)
Sounds like there is just a need to keep this story alive.
Night Watchman
(743 posts)What the hell is going on here??? Shit or get off the pot, FBI!
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)As it seems more likely than Sunday or the 4th but who knows as I'm not a fan of the original source.
Uncle Joe
(65,069 posts)Thanks for the thread, CoffeeCat.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)RWNJ bullshit, day after day. hardlly LBN..... same story on twice yesterday,,,,,
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)My cat is in my lap and I am having coffee even as we speak
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Emails that were always going to be public record - and we can read every banal, mundane one of them now!
FBI will be reporting "We looked and looked, but couldn't find a damn crime anywhere!"
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)So sensitive that they will never be released. Even in redacted from.
awake
(3,226 posts)I have no idea what the outcome will be maybe a staff member will go down or maybe Hillary will be indicted or not but I hope it is over soon for the longer it take the worst it is for everyone
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)For public record. It wouldn't matter what was deleted on her end.
There are no secrets, this is all BS.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
karynnj
(60,949 posts)So, even if all .gov emails were retained and resorted by the sender, neither of which happens, not all of her email would be captured.
Some of those lost could be historically inportant. All emails to people in other departments and the White House would not be captured. Several of her top aides had their own accounts on the private server and at least some of HRC's messages to them were on those accounts.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)There is no difference between her use of a State Department email address, and then having another email account anywhere else. Her intent was never to circumvent her public emails for public record.
Your bizarre standard is no one has a private email? No one could pick up a phone and do nefarious acts? Or in person in quiet conversation?
This is beyond ridiculous. And you would apply this to only Hillary Clinton - or every government employee?
karynnj
(60,949 posts)If on some frequent basis she had archived her SD emails or even did so upon leaving the SD, no one would be making anything an issue. Secretary Kerry, who primarily uses .gov, has any email sent to a private account archived on a regular basis.
She handed over NO email and "negotiated" with the SD in 2014 when they demanded it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Or you are paying attention to the wrong sources (most likely).
Hilary sent her State business to archived accounts. The government had this archived.
The "misunderstanding" is that the government really doesn't have a way to pull them altogether - which is now the foundation of Hillary's regret for not using the State Department email account.
Her private emails are not a public record - just like for the rest of us!
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Hook, line and sinker?
Democrats who have seen the "controversial" emails say it's a load of crap.
What you're repeating comes straight from Fox News!
All FOIA requests reviewed through multiple agencies have redactions - the great thing about "secrets" is all the speculation and innuendo you get to stir up - you know, part of the Clinton cottage industry! There's a method to the madness of what the Republicans are up to!
Do we have to swallow it?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)The FBI can read Hillary's e-mail except for the 30,000 "personal" e-mails she had wiped from her private server but the public can't.
If the State Dept. has their way the public won't have access to 14,000 e-mails from Clinton aids to the Clinton Foundation for 27 months..
How they came up with 27 months is anyone's guess.. But I'm sure they're just keeping the public safe from a lot of meaningless information that might just confuse them...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Neither does the public.
And no matter what "server" you use, personal vs. business is discretionary to the "employee."
And it doesn't matter what you delete - everybody you sent/copied that message has it also!
Nothing is secret!
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Hillary's right to privacy in regards to what was stored on her server was lost when she sent work related emails. Case law has been settled for a while now.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)
Judicial Watch had requested a court order from the judge to ensure that Clinton's emails were being preserved. But the Justice Department said there was no need for such an order given that Clinton had the right to delete personal emails and that those messages are not subject to the public records law.
The government said Judicial Watch had presented no evidence to suggest Clinton had mistakenly or intentionally deleted government records instead of personal emails, and said "government agencies are not required to take steps to recover deleted material based on unfounded speculation that responsive information had been deleted."
The Justice Department brief argues that "there is no legal basis in the (Freedom of Information Act) for requesters to obtain employees' personal records and, therefore, there is no legal basis for the court to order the State Department to preserve, or to take steps to preserve, the personal records of the former secretary or any other current or former federal employee."
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillary-clinton-was-allowed-delete-personal-emails-private-server-justice-n426376
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)That's evident by the fact that the FBI now has both of Hillary's servers and by all accounts has restored the drives.
Also, note away.
Response to yallerdawg (Reply #25)
Post removed
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Apparently, Hillary bashing remains in vogue.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)secured government e-mail and surrendered all e-mail dealing with government business before leaving office. Which according to Obama's State Dept she did not. So I guess the State Dept. was bashing Hillary as well?
Just curious I keep hearing the phrase Hillary bashing.. Was Hillary public bashing when she spent months lying about being authorized to use a private server, turning over all business e-mail and her system was never hacked?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You have got to find another channel - Fox News is nothing but garbage! 
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Saw much the same thing from Republicans blindly defending George W. Bush...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)who think Hillary Clinton is an evil Bond villain and never, ever give her the benefit of the doubt when rightwing agencies and entities drum up endless crazy crap about her!
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)dreamed up this particular rightwing smear.
I am also referring to 25 years of endless BS.
And if you think every individual that works in the Obama executive branch is a loyal Democrat, you've been watching too much Fox News.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)and their dealings with HSBC bank.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/174942/more-questions-james-comey#axzz2WlPuTg00
So now comes James Comey, the Republican former deputy attorney general almost certain to be confirmed as Obama’s next FBI chief. Some liberals are apparently poised to celebrate. Isn’t Comney the hero who stood up to President Bush and his attorney general and insisted they stop warrantless wiretapping?
Not so simple. As my colleague George Zornick documented three weeks ago, “warrantless surveillance didn’t stop because of that episode. Bush just agreed to make an as-yet-unknown modification to warrantless surveillance, which continued.” And as Glenn Greenwald explains, NSA’s warrantless spying wouldn’t have happened in the first place but for Comey—who as deputy attorney general “approved a legal memorandum in 2004 endorsing radical executive power theories and warped statutory interpretations, concluding that the Bush NSA warrantless eavesdropping program was legal.”
George Z. affixes a plea: “Comey’s nomination hearings are a great venue to press the administration on its failure to hold big financial firms accountable for demonstrable misconduct leading up to the 2008 collapse.” He quotes Senator Chuck Grassley, who offered some refreshingly un-Republican concern about Comey’s stint in the banking biz: “The administration’s efforts to criminally prosecute Wall Street for its part in the economic downturn have been abysmal, and his agency would have to help build the case against some of his colleagues in this lucrative industry.” (Funny how they finally find a conscience on this stuff when the administration is Democratic).
But senators shouldn’t just ask Comey about hedge funds (he went to work for one, Bridgewater Associates, in 2010). They should also ask him about revolving doors. Barely three months ago Comey joined the board of megabank HSBC, shortly after it agreed to pay a record $1.92 billion fine for serving as a conduit for laundered drug money from Mexico, among other sins. The company announced that Comey would be helping “oversee efforts to combat financial crime.” Another Bush administration official, Juan Zarate, a former deputy national security advisor, joined HSBC to help them clean house. And before Bridgewater, he served as general counsel for Lockheed Martin. He was general counsel when Lockheed was busy building Coast Guard vessels that weren’t waterproof and whose hulls buckled in high seas, ignoring the whistleblower who pointed all of that out. Senators, please ask James Comey this: What did you know about the the “Deepwater” scandal and when did you know it? Were you involved in the false claims settlement against whistleblower Michael DeKort? And more generally, how can federal law enforcement officials make independent judgements about prosecutions against companies that once employed them?
Read more: More Questions for James Comey | The Nation http://www.thenation.com/blog/174942/more-questions-james-comey#ixzz2XE73q6SD
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank
They include Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate and one of the foundation’s biggest financial backers, and Richard Caring, the British retail magnate who, the bank’s internal records show, used his tax-free Geneva account to transfer $1m into the New York-based foundation.
Caring was legitimately permitted to keep his assets offshore by a hereditary quirk of UK tax law, under which he is registered as “non-domiciled”, courtesy of his Italian-American father. The HSBC records suggest Caring’s $1m donation was paid in return for former president Bill Clinton’s attendance at a lavish costume charity ball organised by Caring in St Petersburg, Russia.
Another Clinton foundation donor who had a HSBC account in the tax haven is Jeffrey Epstein, the hedge fund manager and convicted sex offender who once flew the former president on his private jet for charity events in Africa.
The identities of Clinton supporters who banked with HSBC in Geneva are contained in internal bank data leaked by a HSBC computer expert turned whistleblower, Hervé Falciani.
That's the kind of stuff one would deem "private" and "personal."
jalan48
(14,914 posts)
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Bill Clinton of course complicated matters by approaching the attorney general so it's unlikely to go away as quickly as one would hope assuming that the finding is that there was no wrongdoing on her part.
mountain grammy
(29,005 posts)and I say this as a member of the Sanders wing. This isn't and never has been a scandal and the media should stop calling it that. Maybe it's not the best idea, but it was pretty much standard operating procedure, neither legally nor morally wrong.
If the media would even begin to address the real scandals in America, maybe we could make some progress here.
senz
(11,945 posts)"Scandal" is all about reaction, talk, social phenomena of an unpleasant and often unfair nature. It's cheap and cheesy. Many people have strong unconscious reactions to the very word "scandal."
Honorable news agencies should just report the news straight without trying to elicit reactions.
stopbush
(24,801 posts)when this faux-scandal peters out?
Tarmacgate didn't get much traction. But I'm sure the RWNM has something new sitting in the hopper, ready to go.
awake
(3,226 posts)I hope whom ever advised her that this was a good idea to use only her home server is no longer around. There is more than enough BS being thrown at Hillary no need to make bad choices like this one or letting Bill to drop in on the AGs plane for a "chat". The most painful wounds are the self inflicted ones.
stopbush
(24,801 posts)learn that security on State Dept servers was so bad that Clinton, Powell, Rice and others were encouraged by the IT types to set up their own servers.
I've floated this idea on DU a number of times, and DUers who have worked in the gov always chime in and confirm that the gov servers were slow and not secure.
Hillary may well be taking one for the team by not coming out and exposing a serious fault that our gov is loath to have our enemies learn.
RussBLib
(10,618 posts)Perhaps the FBI will finally release its findings. They'd better do it before the convention. Any later than that and it will look political.
EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton Scheduled To Meet With FBI On Saturday
Former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to meet Saturday with the FBI, a source close to the investigation into her private email server tells The Daily Caller.
The source went on to suggest the interview may take place at her Washington, D.C. home.
The bureau’s interview with the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is believed to be the final step in its investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information on Clinton’s private email server.
Hundreds of now-classified documents — some of them “Top Secret” — were sent and received through Clinton’s private server, which she housed at her New York residence during her tenure at the State Department.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/01/exclusive-hillary-clinton-scheduled-to-meet-with-fbi-on-saturday/
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)The story of this alleged interview with the FBI is a perfect example of the "vast right wing conspiracy" in action; some nut job site/news outlet reports it and the MSM reports it as fact.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)IMHO the reasoning for going with Saturday is that it's doubtful that it would happen on Sunday or the 4th.
That said I'm skeptical but it doesn't seem implausible.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)I just found this:
FBI Will Finally Interview Hillary Clinton on Saturday
http://thebernreport.com/fbi-will-finally-interview-hillary-clinton/#comment-6578
And they use the Daily Caller article as their source.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,678 posts)Where were the media, and the FBI when the Bush Whitehouse "lost" 5 million emails.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820
FLASHBACK: When Millions Of Lost Bush White House Emails (From Private Accounts) Triggered A Media Shrug
"Even for a Republican White House that was badly stumbling through George W. Bush's sixth year in office, the revelation on April 12, 2007 was shocking. Responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.
The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications.
As the Washington Post reported, "Under federal law, the White House is required to maintain records, including e-mails, involving presidential decision- making and deliberations." But suddenly millions of the private RNC emails had gone missing; emails that were seen as potentially crucial evidence by Congressional investigators.
The White House email story broke on a Wednesday. Yet on that Sunday's Meet The Press, Face The Nation, and Fox News Sunday, the topic of millions of missing White House emails did not come up. At all. (The story did get covered on ABC's This Week.)
By comparison, not only did every network Sunday news show this week cover the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emails, but they were drowning in commentary. Between Meet the Press, Face The Nation, This Week, and Fox News Sunday, Clinton's "email" or "emails" were referenced more than 100 times on the programs, according to Nexis transcripts. Talk about saturation coverage."
I agree - shit or get off the pot! Not only are they focusing much more on this email scandal, but they are dragging this out as long as they possibly can.
RussBLib
(10,618 posts)The Democrats, for about as long as I have been conscious, have not wanted to pursue wrongdoing on the part of Republicans. It's maddening. The GOP has no compunction whatsoever to leveling false charges and insisting on investigations when any suggestion of anything untoward on the part of the Dems is revealed.
And then, when the shoe is on the other foot, the Dems say crap like, "We don't want to look backward; we want to look forward."
Time and again, Dems turn the other cheek, while Republicans slap the fuck out of the Dems.
Sure, the Dems want to be "better than" the GOP; they don't want to sink to the level of the GOP; even if monumental wrongdoing gets pushed under the rug.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,678 posts)And by sitting on their hands, the side effect is that it gives the impression "nothing to see here folks". The media already is so skewed to the right that they for sure will not go out of their way to demonize Republicans if even the Democrats are yawning over some incident.
Maybe in the past Dems could simply rely on the public's (and media's) common sense of decency to see the obvious malfeasance. And that it would be 'beneath them' to sully their hands with pushing the narrative.
But these are different times. Shock journalism, infotainment, 24 hours news, mostly owned by the right. If they don't play the game they will be simply ignored.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)Get it out of the way, let the cards play as they are revealed and let us move on.
L. Coyote
(51,134 posts)You'd think this was election season.
You'd also think this BS would not be posted on DU! Oh wait, it is still primary season
senz
(11,945 posts)It concerns an actual event and is relevant to the purpose of this website.
Thank you, CoffeeCat, for posting it. I have missed your contributions and hope all has been well with you.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Nice to "see" you too. Thanks for the kind words. I hope that your summer is going well. 
RussBLib
(10,618 posts)according to MSNBC just now