2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumABC: Clinton Email Probe in Late Stage, FBI May Question Her
Clinton Email Probe in Late Stage, FBI May Question Her, By MICHAEL BIESECKER, ASSOCIATED PRESS, May 24, 2016, 3:19 AM ET
FBI agents probing whether Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server imperiled government secrets appear close to completing their work, a process experts say will probably culminate in a sit-down with the former secretary of state.
The FBI has already spoken with Huma Abedin, a Clinton confidant who was among the Democratic presidential front runner's closest aides at the State Department. Former chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills is also cooperating with the investigation, according to her lawyer.
This signals that agents will probably seek to interview Clinton soon, if they haven't already, former Justice Department officials told The Associated Press. The FBI's standard practice is to save questioning the person at the center of an investigation for last, once it has gathered available facts from others.
"With a person like Secretary Clinton, the FBI probably assumes they are going to get one chance to interview her, not only because she is a prominent person but because she is very busy right now with the presidential campaign," said David Deitch, a former Justice Department prosecutor. "It makes sense they would defer interviewing her until late in their investigation."
(snip)
Republicans want to keep the issue alive through the November presidential election, alleging that she put national security at risk.
(more at link)
Nothing to see here -- just a standard FBI investigation with Hillary Clinton at the center of it.
I hope they wrap this up this week - I have $5 to DU and a pizza riding on this!
Priorities....
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)And they will accept that?
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)Some of us are more equal than others.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Are you obscenely wealthy? The answer to that question is the answer to your question.
danimich1
(175 posts)People with money can do pretty much anything.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts). . How can THEY be rooting for her? Someone who gets away with everything THEY can't and SHE would prosecute them to the full extent of the law.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)I just wonder how many people supporting Clinton have any idea what Bernie's life-long struggle, and especially this campaign, is really about.
danimich1
(175 posts)People are stuck on the first female president. They're not looking any further. I understand that the average person doesn't really pay too much attention. But one assumes that people on DU are familiar with the issues and the candidates. So why do so many support Clinton? I have no idea.
Demsrule86
(68,715 posts)sure...we told you it was right wing bull shit but you are so desperate for Bernie to win and it is his only path....
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)I GET A VOTE! As do millions upon millions of Californians!
Secondly, there IS "something there," or the FBI would not have spent a year investigating it, and as is blatantly obvious if you are literate on this investigation--i.e., have reviewed the parts of it that are in the public venue. Clinton broke a number of laws. That is plainly true. And she very likely put national security in danger, by using an insecure, private server in her house, and put a U.S. agent's life in danger (by mentioning the name), among other things. What we don't know is WHY she took these risks with national security and with her own reputation. It looks utterly stupid and incompetent on the face of it. But the reasons she did it, which may lurk in those tens of thousands of emails, and in revelations about the Clinton Foundation (in the public venue) likely spell even more trouble for her, whether internal (distrust of her by the intelligence community and others) or external (corruption items usable by Trump and by the RW morons in Congress). Further, the attempt at a coverup ("wiping" the server but failing to do so) was both incompetent and a violation of yet another set of laws, including obstruction.
Whether she will be held accountable for all this is another question. There could well be "nothing there" as to accountability for the rich and powerful. There wasn't anything "there" for Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, for example. However, she is not "there" yet in the seat of power where issues of accountability are decided. So, it's true that we just don't know what will happen with this. And I would much rather it be settled by Bernie winning big in California, than by Clinton being hauled before a grand jury in the middle of a campaign against Trump. Jesus Magillicutty, the Clinton's create the goddamnedest messes!
I WANT OUT OF THIS! I don't want this to go on for four years! And it is going to, no matter what the FBI does. Clinton is so compromised and so dirty that we're going to have four years of Articles of Impeachment, starting the day after she's inaugurated, if she ever gets there. PLEASE GOD--and California!--GIVES US A CLEAN CANDIDATE!
Oh, right, we HAVE one!
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)If the FBI clears Hillary the Berners will simply move the goalposts. There is no threshold that could be met that would satisfy them.
creeksneakers2
(7,476 posts)You could say you are busy. There is no requirement that you cooperate with them. If you are willing to cooperate I'm sure they'd be willing to schedule an interview at your convenience.
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)Kall
(615 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)Please answer this question: if you knew there was serious reason to believe the Democratic front-runner had violated her security clearance and federal felony statutes, and if you were a ranking Democrat, would you wait until the very end to formulate contingency planning and a succession plan? Let's assume Comey finds she violated her Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement, but leaves it to the Justice Department whether or not to indict. Would you let her continue her run under those circumstances?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Right wing fantasy doesn't appeal to me.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)We will find out soon who has been living out a fantasy.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)but not exonerated. The grown ups in the Party won't let her run under that cloud. It would be suicidal politically.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)It could happen, but it would not be a legitimate finding, considering the evidence as we have seen it to be.
Which means there will be rebellion in the FBI ranks, and likely leaks, and -- as the Intel pros say -- the possibility of domestic or foreign blackmail and compromise will be a matter of national security.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)to quit.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)Last edited Tue May 24, 2016, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)
But the actual timing could prove interesting. California votes on June 7 and not getting the debate they were looking forward to could raise questions about there being a connection.
Edit: I corrected the date of the primary election in California.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)The indexing at wikipedia made my hasty glance an incorrect one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Schedule_and_results
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)I wonder who that points to as the target?
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)batten down the hatches.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)If you lie, toast.
This article even spelled that out: "The FBI's standard practice is to save questioning the person at the center of an investigation for last, once it has gathered available facts from others."
scscholar
(2,902 posts)All I see in the media are assumptions, no facts.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Bob41213
(491 posts)It made her do it.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Must be... Jeff Weaver!
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,730 posts)winter is coming
(11,785 posts)interview Hillary, I'm thinking it's already happened.
reddread
(6,896 posts)She sent Bill here yesterday.
antigop
(12,778 posts)JudyM
(29,294 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)okieinpain
(9,397 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)okieinpain
(9,397 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)so the exact crimes she committed (if any) need to be taken into consideration, and she will probably cut some kind of deal.
I am not a lawyer or a member of law enforcement, but destroying/altering government records, failure to comply with FOIA and not turning Blumenthal in when he was sharing leaked classified information from the NSA and CIA were enough to piss me off, and that was before my IT professional hat went on....
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Reading is fundamental.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)drop out I would break into a happy dance.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Legal experts have said it appears unlikely Clinton would be charged with committing a crime. The relatively few U.S. laws that govern the handling of classified materials were generally written to cover spies and leakers. Lawyers who specialize in national security say it would be a stretch to apply these statutes to a former cabinet secretary whose communication of sensitive materials was with aides not a national enemy.
The Justice Department also does not appear to have convened a grand jury to examine Clinton's email use, a likely step if prosecutors were weighing felony criminal charges.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-email-probe-late-stage-fbi-question-39326590
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Revolutions are messy affairs.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)CIA Director John Deutch - CIA IG recommended felony prosecution under Sec 793 of the Espionage Act, AG declined, pardoned.
Nat'l Security Advisor Sandy Berger - Pled down to misdemeanor records destruction after stealing and destroying classified sections of the 9/11 investigation from the National Archives.
CIA Director David Petraeus - Pled down to Sec. 1924 after being charged with Sec. 793.
The spin, the spin is upon us.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)...and that alone will be enough to cost us the election if she is our nominee. If not, then she will be impeached, which will cost us in the midterm elections, even if she survives.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The GOP are salivating to run against her under these circumstances. One way or the other, she'll be pardoned, like CIA Director John Deutch.
emulatorloo
(44,211 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)emulatorloo
(44,211 posts)FBI's the only organization that knows what this investigation is about and where the investigation is going.
Ida's headline really highlights how speculative the reporting and op-eds are:
"FBI 'May' Question Her". That boils down to this:
"So they may question HRC, they may not, they may already have, we don't really know, so all we can do speculate about it because the FBI aren't leaking."
Thanks for the reply and have a great night. Sounds like we'll know pretty soon now.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)On her server hundreds of which she sent herself along with Top Secret materials from other agencies. She violated her security agreement.
emulatorloo
(44,211 posts)emulatorloo
(44,211 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Hmmm...
trudyco
(1,258 posts)He wasn't a spy or leaker, was he?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Because Petraeus deliberately shared classified information with his paramour and lied about it to the FBI when it was discovered.
Actually he did:
Petraeus deliberately shared classified information with his paramour.
As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clintons email retention practices from Petraeus sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.
...
Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as top secret and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither.
Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Classified information with someone she knew did not have a clearance (Blumenthal). She even encouraged him to "keep it coming".
Little to no difference with what Patraeus did.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)...
Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as top secret and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither.
Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242
Boo:
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)mistress. She didn't have the clearance to read them. That's why Petraeus was treated differently than Clinton.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)He didn't have clearance.
rusty fender
(3,428 posts)Determine what happens to Hillary
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)"appears unlikely that..."?
Her "legal experts" always make the same canned statement soft-peddaling this, and have always been wrong. It isn't hard to find a "legal expert" to say damn near anything.
It's called "spin". And the anonymous way it's stated is a tip-off.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Save your " "...
I find nothing remotely humorous about you, your posts and and your cohorts. You and them have earned my eternal enmity. If I expressed the depths of it and elaborated on it my post would be hidden.
Have a day.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)"I welcome their hatred".
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Have a day.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Jack Bone
(2,023 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)Hillary is indicted I leave DU forever. Hillary isn't indicted you leave DU forever.
" "
Response to IdaBriggs (Original post)
Actor This message was self-deleted by its author.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Tarc
(10,478 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)The email server is, of course, an egregious flouting of U.S. national security, FOIA, and the administration for which she was ostensibly working, but the shady activities and people centered around the Clinton Foundation frighten the heck out of me. It is that, more than anything -- more, even, then her complete lack of ethics -- that makes the prospect of her in the presidency a "must not happen" scenario.
But perhaps the email investigation will enable a deeper probe into the Foundation.
democrattotheend
(11,607 posts)Question her or don't, and let us know whether she's going to be indicted/remain under investigation before we nominate her. If the FBI finds she didn't do anything wrong, great. We can go ahead and nominate her, assuming she ends up with more votes after the last primary, without having to worry about an investigation or indictment derailing her campaign. And if she is in trouble, release that before the convention. To do anything else is inappropriately interfering in the election, IMO.
Out of curiosity, is there a protocol in place to replace a nominee who dies, becomes incapacitated, or is forced to resign after being nominated? I can't think of an instance in modern history when this has happened (Robert Kennedy had not yet been formally nominated when he was shot). What is the procedure to nominate a replacement?
Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)If the nominee were to die before the election, the Democratic Party's charter and bylaws state that responsibility for filling that vacancy would fall to the Democratic National Committee, but the rules do not specify how exactly the DNC would go about doing that. (Congress could also pass a special statute and push back Election Day, giving the dead candidate's party time to regroup.)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/09/dead_by_election_day.html