Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
The chilling implications of the FBI’s latest attack on Hillary Clinton
https://thinkprogress.org/the-chilling-implications-of-the-fbis-latest-attack-on-hillary-clinton-b91994c30659#.mxnqpvepaIt appears that the FBIs anti-Clinton faction is not limiting its leaks to the Wall Street Journal. On Fox News Wednesday night, anchor Bret Baier claimed that two separate sources with intimate knowledge of whats going on with these FBI investigations told him an indictment in the Clinton Cash investigation is likely, barring some obstruction in some way. It is unclear how such an indictment would be secured without the cooperation of prosecutors who have already decided the Breitbart probe is meritless.
The leaks regarding the FBIs Breitbart probe, along with Comeys letter to Republican committee chairs, fit a larger pattern of the FBI spreading incomplete information that is damaging to Secretary Clinton.
An internal FBI office will investigate the FBIs decision to tweet out documents regarding President Clintons controversial Marc Rich pardon an investigation the FBI closed more than a decade ago. Similarly, on Monday, a series of news stories suggested that there might be a direct connection between Trump and the Russian government. Shortly after these stories were published, unnamed law enforcement officials helped contain the damage to Trump by telling the New York Times that they have not found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.
It is difficult, in other words, to escape the impression that a faction within the FBI is actively trying to elect Mr. Trump and to weaken Secretary Clinton. It appears to be doing so, moreover, in violation of Justice Department policy, and in violation of the basic principle that law enforcement should not spread rumors and innuendo in order to damage people they do not like.
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The chilling implications of the FBI’s latest attack on Hillary Clinton (Original Post)
StrictlyRockers
Nov 2016
OP
warrprayer
(4,734 posts)1. Looks like one or more russian moles
Operating in the F.B.I..
still_one
(98,883 posts)2. Baier also had to walk back on those bullshit claims
The FBI has definitely been compromised and is in violation of the hatch act
Just fucking great, now we have one of the major law enforcement agencies with it's reputation in tatters.
marybourg
(13,640 posts)4. Thanks Trump! nt.
CousinIT
(12,535 posts)6. CNN's Brian Stelter: "Bret Baier Peddling "Indictment" Nonsense Was "Wrong"
Brian Stelter: "There Is No Evidence That Any Of The Fox Stuff" About A Clinton Foundation Investigation Or Clinton Indictment "Is True"
LINK: https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/11/04/cnns-stelter-bret-baier-peddling-indictment-nonsense-was-more-just-inartful-language-it-was-wrong/214292
STELTER: This seemed more than just inartful language to me. CNN's Evan Perez, NBC, ABC all have said based on other anonymous sources that there is no evidence that any of the Fox stuff is true. That there is nothing close to an indictment. In fact, it's pretty clear there's a battle inside the FBI. That's the real story here.
ALISYN CAMEROTA (CO-HOST): Well, I mean, Bret is a real journalist. He's not Sean Hannity who as we've discussed is a broadcaster who just fell for a fake news story and printed it out on his radio show. Bret is a real journalist. So does that clarification go far enough? Was it inartful or was it wrong?
STELTER: It seems like his use of the word indictment and use of the word likely was wrong. And unfortunately, you can't walk back something like that because the damage is already done.
ALISYN CAMEROTA (CO-HOST): Well, I mean, Bret is a real journalist. He's not Sean Hannity who as we've discussed is a broadcaster who just fell for a fake news story and printed it out on his radio show. Bret is a real journalist. So does that clarification go far enough? Was it inartful or was it wrong?
STELTER: It seems like his use of the word indictment and use of the word likely was wrong. And unfortunately, you can't walk back something like that because the damage is already done.