2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFBI confirms Clinton probe
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268688-fbi-confirms-probe-clinton-probe-is-ongoing
The letter from FBI general counsel James Baker comes one day before the New Hampshire primary.
The message does not offer new details about the probe, which the bureau has been reluctant to discuss. However, it represents the FBIs formal notification to the State Department that it is investigating the issue.
Since last September, in public statements and testimony, the Bureau has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clintons use of a private e-mail server, Baker wrote to the State Department.
The FBI has not, however, publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such proceedings.
Thus we remain unable [to] provide [details about the case] without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts, he concluded.
The letter was sent on Feb. 2 but released on Monday as part of an ongoing lawsuit related to the disclosure of Clintons emails from conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.
?itok=zVy3RhIH
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)We were assured it was only a security review.....by a law enforcement agency
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)NOW they have. THAT is the story.
MSNBC is not a recognized organ for conservative propaganda, so that's kind of a ridiculous assertion.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That's right-wing propaganda?
On edit: the first place I saw it today was on MSNBC, not the Hill. Apologies.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Which also employs Tweety, who does corporate water carrying SO WELL!
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)casperthegm
(643 posts)But what if it is? And what if it happens after Clinton has received the nomination?
I can't believe that when you look at this ongoing concern and all of the other negatives surrounding Clinton (Wall Street, Iraq, Keystone, gay rights, Glass Steagall, etc) and contrast that with Bernie's authenticity why anyone would consider her a better option.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)No matter HOW the corporate media tries to down-play it.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Run to be the most powerful person in the world.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Impeachment doesn't require the same legal standards as a criminal indictment. It's pretty much a political affair. Got the votes? You got the ability to impeach over pretty much anything. There's no rules requiring discovery or the right to cross examine accusers or any standard such as "guilty beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt." An up or down vote after some perfunctory arguing is all that is entailed in an impeachment proceeding. Under such considerations a trial in a court of law would be less imperiling even if it were to prove politi
I'm pretty sure Secretary Clinton knows this as well.
I can't help but think that the urgency to not be impeached immediately upon assuming the presidency would weigh heavily upon anyone seeking the office. It would probably drive them to distraction. It might even drive them to try and mollify those who hold the keys to the impeachment process, to try and persuade them by appeasing their political objectives. They might even try sacrificing things that have formerly been near and dear to the party's heart; things like -- oh, say -- universal healthcare.
How much would it cost to make this go away?