GE polls look great and may they hold and build for Hillary, but FBI investigation precludes comfort

[morningfog]

Things are looking very good for Hillary and the Dems with respect to polling. She is widening her lead over trumpy nationally and in the battleground swing states. She is making in roads in red states and the Dem support is spreading down ticket.

Trump is perpetually flopping. Since the pivot to general election mode, his shuck and jive isn't holding up. He did okay (not really breaking 50% until his competitors dropped) when eliciting the ignorant and hate filled bigots on the right. As predicted, his appeal is limited. This should be a very good year for Democrats.

But for the ongoing criminal investigation, we should all feel very good about how the race is shaping up. I cannot yet take full comfort in the state of the race though. As long as the FBI investigation remains unresolved, we collectively hold our breath. It is my sincere hope that the investigation wraps up soon and that no charges are recommended for anyone. But that is not the obvious outcome, regardless of how much we want it to be.

To be absolutely fucking clear, the last thing I want is for Hillary or any of her staff to face criminal prosecution. That would be devastating to the party and this country. It would undo all of the damage to the republicans nearly in an instant. And the bottom line is, no one but the FBI and the DOJ personnel on the case know the state of the investigation. Anyone who claims to know the outcome is lying. Anyone who predicts the outcome is working without the facts. We know very little, almost nothing, of what the FBI is looking at, what lines they've followed, or even the scope and target of the investigation. This cannot be poo-poo-ed away like the faux scandals form Gowdy. The ginned up Benghazi witch-hunts were nothing but political fishing expeditions. The ongoing FBI investigation is not.

I seriously and sincerely hope that we are not going to get fucked over. I truly hope that the investigation comes back clean, no charges for anyone and as soon as possible. I look forward to being able to support Hillary with no lingering stomach knot.

Until then, fuck trump. Go Hillary and go Dems. (And hurry up Comey).

[itsrobert]

1. Cannot rec this

[revolutionfoundation]

8. Agreed.

[NCTraveler]

12. +1 nt

[RBInMaine]

2. Regurgitation of a non issue. Please move on.

[morningfog]

6. It is not a non issue. The FBI doesn't do "non-issues."

[NCTraveler]

13. You seem to claim it is an issue...

While telling everyone else what they get to claim.

[morningfog]

15. Your post makes no sense whatsoever.

It is an issue. No thinking person would ever say an ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI is a "non-issue." Certainly no one who is not privy to the investigation.

You can claim what you want. It doesn't change the reality.

[tonyt53]

19. But it isn't a "criminal" investigation.

[morningfog]

22. Yes it is. That is the function of the FBI.

[tonyt53]

28. Yes, it is a function - but just one of many. The email investigation is not criminal investigation

Do you honestly think Obama, Warren and many others would be publicly supporting Hillary if this was a criminal investigation or if they though she would be charged with anything?

[morningfog]

32. No one knows what the investigation is, has, or will ultimately uncover.

I think that Obama, Warren, et al., trust Hillary's assurances that she and her staff did nothing wrong and they hope that is true.

The FBI only investigates from criminal activity. They are only looking at whether crimes were committed.

[tonyt53]

55. Different cases, different laws and rules.

[1StrongBlackMan]

135. No ... The FBI serves many other investigative functions, beyond criminal activities.

Just saying what you think (or rather, want to believe) doesn't make it fact.

[morningfog]

137. Judge links Clinton aide's immunity to 'criminal investigation'

A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday.

Bryan Pagliano, a computer expert who worked at the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state and was also paid privately by her, was previously reported to have received immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Clinton's private server set-up.

However, there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation—which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a "security review"—is actually a criminal probe.

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

http://archive.is/2016.06.23-195619/http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314%23ixzz4BZRF3U4r#selection-8443.0-8507.246

Again, I wish that wasn't the case.

[snooper2]

142. You wish it wasn't the case? That is why you have started over 100 OP on the topic

LOL

Let me just remind all the crows, the FBI has an active criminal investigation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251914954


FBI has already interviewed Pagliano under immunity grant; investigation to conclude early May
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403650

What does the nature of "threatening emails" have to be to get the FBI invovled?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021790179


DOJ granted (Clinton IT)Pagliano immunity almost certainly because it knows he did something illegal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1402777


At least 1,340 Clinton emails now known to contain classified material
http://www.democraticunderground.com/index.php

and on and on and on.....

[morningfog]

145. I doubt it is 100 OPs, but YES. I wish it wasn't the case.

Prior to Hillary securing the nomination, I saw her as too much of a risk. That ship has sailed. I still see her candidacy as a risk for Dems. I hope she and her staff come out unscathed.

We are stuck with her. I sincerely hope she hasn't screwed us.

[1StrongBlackMan]

143. And you are certain that the un-named "criminal investigation" is targetting HRC ...

despite your wishing that wasn't the case.

[morningfog]

144. I have never said that Hillary is a target.

The target, as far as we know, is the use of her server. I have repeatedly said I don't expect her to be charged, but am less confident about her staff. Reading comprehension can go a long way, if you drop you strange obsession with me personally. Seriously, dude.

You really should keep the words you want to put in my mouth from where ever you are pulling them - your ass it seems.

[1StrongBlackMan]

146. LOL ... That is such bullshit. But, okay. You stick with that.

[morningfog]

148. Link, quote, or slink on away.

[1StrongBlackMan]

152. Your every damned post says you suspect (are hoping for) an indictment of HRC ...

just own it ... the self-honesty will been refreshing; though, I suspect you've been lying to yourself for so long, it might be terrifying.

How's that for "slinking"?

[morningfog]

154. Now you are just making shit up. Go ahead.

[Old Crow]

160. Really? The FBI disagrees with you.

You wrote:

The FBI serves many other investigative functions, beyond criminal activities.

Let's see what the FBI itself says, shall we? From their webpage "What We Investigate":

The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.” We currently have jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal law, and you can find the major ones below, grouped within our national security and criminal priorities.

When you've got a dozen FBI agents conducting an investigation, it's utter nonsense to claim it isn't a criminal investigation or to call it a "security review."

And don't even try to claim that the investigation is part of the FBI's Intelligence Branch. That branch doesn't conduct investigations.

[morningfog]

129. Judge links Clinton aide's immunity to 'criminal investigation'

A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday.

Bryan Pagliano, a computer expert who worked at the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state and was also paid privately by her, was previously reported to have received immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Clinton's private server set-up.

However, there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation—which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a "security review"—is actually a criminal probe.

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

http://archive.is/2016.06.23-195619/http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314%23ixzz4BZRF3U4r#selection-8443.0-8507.246

[NCTraveler]

37. The reality is I have no concerns... You do.

That is the reality.

Make all the snide "no thinking person" comments you want. Rolls off my back. We will see who is correct in this being an issue or non issue. Hint: It's me. Stay concerned my friend. Stay concerned.

Fuck Trump. Clinton is going to crush him with our help.

[morningfog]

39. YOu have no foundation for your confidence.

I am honest in saying I don't know the outcome. You are not in claiming you do.

[Gothmog]

84. It is an issue on right wing nut job sites not in the real world

No intent has been proven and no indictment in the real world https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/06/hillary-clinton-is-going-to-be-exonerated-on-the-email-controversy-it-wont-matter/

The latest news on the Hillary Clinton email controversy reinforces everything we’ve heard so far on this subject:

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter. And in recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

So far no one has found evidence of intent.

[Adrahil]

51. The FBI does "non-issues" all the time.

Many, even MOST investigations do not end in any indictments.

[morningfog]

52. Let's hope this is one. They've been at it nearly a year.

[PJMcK]

105. Exactly right!

Of course most investigations do not end in indictments. Not every activity is a crime! In fact, sometimes the investigation will turn up some wrong-doing but the prosecutor may choose to not prosecute for any number of legitimate reasons.

Excellent point, Adrahil.

[840high]

151. It's an issue. Huma

was interviewed yesterday.

[metroins]

3. Bad post

🖓

[morningfog]

7. How so?

[metroins]

11. Ask yourself

What type of conversation is to be gained from my OP?

[morningfog]

14. Critical thought and discussion. Recognition and acknowledgement of where we are.

[Blanks]

61. Where 'we' are...

Is some of 'us' have taken in too much right wing propaganda and have completely lost the ability to tell the difference between the propaganda and the facts.

It is a non-issue. It's been explained plenty (around here) why it's a non-issue. Those who still think that it is an issue aren't trying hard enough to understand the explanation.

[morningfog]

64. That doesn't follow.

If this were the repub witch hunt hearings, yes, I would agree.

This is the FBI and DOJ. That is very much my point. This isn't faux scandal territory. This is lingering risk and liability. No one can explain this away as a "non-issue" because no one has the facts in front of them.

[Blanks]

156. The fact that you REFUSE to follow...

Does not 'prove' that it doesn't follow.

The burden is intent. Do you believe that Hillary intended to leak secret information?

Let's say for the sake of argument that the FBI believes that she intentionally leaked sensitive information to the enemy (whoever that is), and as a result of that leak, some of our folks were killed. Then it would be a criminal investigation. Unless you're gonna point to Benghazi as the 'outcome' of her intentional security leaks, and there is some proof within those emails that she intentionally leaked the information that assisted the enemy, there is nothing there.

The administration HAS to investigate. Why do they have to investigate? Because investigating takes the wind out of the sails of any opponent that says "she wasn't investigated".

I don't see republicans on the news saying "The FBI needs to investigate Hillary Clinton on these emails because they would look silly because the FBI is investigating.

It's pretty straightforward really. It prevents congress from creating a special committee (even though they probably still will). The longer the FBI investigates, the less time the 'House Special Committee to investigate Hillary Email' gets on the evening news.

Its political maneuvering, that's all it is.

[leveymg]

38. Only bad if it confounds your set expectations.

The FBI report is most likely to confirm what the Intelligence Community and State Department IGs have already found. The Classified information found on her server was always classified, and it had no place on a private uncertified communications system. Please see post #35 for details.

[randome]

41. Intent is what's missing from this conversation.

Petraeus deliberately gave away national security information. Clinton did not. This is why the investigation is going nowhere. Some administrative rules were broken. Big deal.

[floriduck]

107. Law Enforcement uses a term called willfull blindness or willfull ignorance that may apply here.

Yes Patreaus physically gave classified info to a third party. But by the act of refusal to accept the State Departments recommendations on use of a Blackberry and an unknown private unsecured server, that is likely the willfull ignorance piece that applied.

For whatever the reason, the FBI believed it serious enough to offer immunity to Pagliano and dig deep into this matter.

[randome]

113. There is no evidence that the Pagliano matter is related to Clinton.

He's lied about hacking her server so anything he says is already suspect. Of course the FBI offered him immunity -they want to know everything he knows about hacking and other systems he has broken into. There is nothing to indicate this has anything to do with Clinton.

I swear, the time spent on trying to find connections on this is entirely wasted. Some of you look at one specific detail and make incredible leaps of logic.

Whereas some of us look at the entirety of the subject and can see immediately that there is no evidence data was compromised; there is no evidence that Clinton tried to hide anything; there is no evidence that her server was compromised; there is no evidence of intent -and can reasonably conclude that nothing will come of this.

Nothing has come of this for, what?, seven months now? Of course it's possible that something will come of it but the likelihood is about on par with the California recount changing the outcome of the Democratic Primary. In other words, no.

[floriduck]

115. Maybe not to you but the FBI had its reasons. You nor I know why.

[floriduck]

121. I'm not making anything of it. You originally stated Hillary did nothing wrong. My point was to

at least open the possibility of something. You finally acknowledged that, though unlikely, it is possible. That was exactly my point. So please don't make more out of it than what I said.

[metroins]

49. Lol

[Gothmog]

155. Do you tire of being wrong?

Re-read the material or have some read the materials and explain them to you. Your analysis is simply wrong. Those documents do not support your silly layperson claim

[PJMcK]

4. Your fourth paragraph is wise

Your absolutely correct, morningfog, that no one outside of the FBI and the DOJ knows what is developing in their investigation.

It gets so tiresome to hear people spouting off as if they know something from inside the investigation. All that most people know comes from the media and we both know how reliable (!) they are.

Donald Trump's an idiot. Finish up, Director Comey. Vote for Democrats!

[RKP5637]

101. Well said!!! n/t

[72DejaVu]

5. "I support Hillary, BUT..."

Give it a rest already.

[morningfog]

9. Sorry if you are bothered by the truth.

I do support Hillary. But, I am not confident that she will come out unscathed. I hope she does and she may well. But I don't know and neither do you.

[72DejaVu]

57. You're right, we don't know

So what possible motivation do we have for keeping unsubstantiated negative rumors about our own candidate in circulation?

[morningfog]

59. What unsubstantiated negative rumors? Are you denying that the FBI investigation continues?

[Human101948]

80. There is a substantiated investigation that could bite us in the ass...

The dismissals of it as a possible stumbling block are unsubstantiated.

[Motley13]

106. They will certainly come up in the debates

Just hope its resolved by then.

[NCTraveler]

10. They do look great for us.

We are in a solid position.

The party is very strong.

Good signs at every turn.

[yellerpup]

16. I'l rec it.

I understand what you are saying. Benghazi was/is total crap, but the email investigation is still ongoing. It is wrong to conflate the the FBI investigation of server security with the Congressional investigation of Benghazi. Good morning!

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. Hope springs eternal in the human breast;

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

-Alexander Pope,
An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733

It is a good morning for Alexander Pope...

[morningfog]

21. Indeed. I hope this is resolved favorably for Hillary and her staff quickly.

[randome]

18. It is not a criminal investigation. I believe the FBI has said this.

[morningfog]

20. The FBI has not said that. The FBI only does criminal investigations.

[itsrobert]

23. Not true.

Nt

[randome]

24. To characterize this as a criminal investigation is disingenuous.

The FBI investigates, that's all they do: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate



Not every investigation results in criminal proceedings and they don't get to decide that. This is not a 'criminal investigation', it's an investigation. You keep attaching that word 'criminal' to it as if you think it means something.

[morningfog]

25. LOL. Look at your list and please identify the the non-criminal investigations.

The FBI conducts investigations into potential criminal activity. They only investigate where there is some evidence of criminal activity. Whether the investigation results in criminal charges is a separate question.

[randome]

31. You keep slipping your bias into the equation.

You're subtly implying that there is already "some evidence of criminal activity" when you know absolutely nothing about that.

The FBI investigates. That's what they do. There does not need to be evidence of anything, only for someone in the Administration to direct or request an investigation, and for the FBI to agree to conduct one.

The only thing you have correct is where you say 'potential criminal activity' but then you swing back to the other extreme and are stating there is 'evidence' without any...um, evidence.

[morningfog]

34. You seem to have a lack of understanding of how the FBI operates and what they do.

They would not investigate with no evidence of wrong doing. And there is ample evidence of wrong doing here. Two federal judges have made that finding so far. And the State OIG said laws were violated, albeit administrative laws. The OIG left questions unanswered as to whether any criminal statute were violation. The FBI will answer those questions.

[randome]

36. They investigate people without evidence all the time -background checks and the like.

Granted, this isn't the same thing but they clearly conduct evidence-free investigations. You keep bringing this subject up all you want, most of us know it isn't going anywhere. Your 'concern' is misplaced, imo.

[morningfog]

40. But you do not "know." You hope, for sure. I do too.

I don't "know" and neither do you.

[NCTraveler]

90. "They would not investigate with no evidence of wrong doing."

There goes another completely incorrect statement on your part. Seems intentional at this point.

[randome]

103. Indeed. If there was evidence, there wouldn't be any need for an investigation.

[morningfog]

150. LOL.

[NCTraveler]

89. You have said that multiple times and it is completely wrong.

There is no truth in this statement yet you keep promoting it.

"The FBI only does criminal investigations."

[morningfog]

93. Of course it is true.

They don't do administrative reviews.

[NCTraveler]

97. No, it is not.

I employee the use of the FBI multiple times per year. Never for criminal investigations. You are painfully and repeatedly wrong.

[morningfog]

99. You use the FBI for investigations which aren't criminally related?

Like what?

We're not talking background checks.

[NCTraveler]

100. Have a great day. This is hard to watch.

Yes, I use the FBI for non-criminal investigatory matters. They provide a wide array of services. You repeatedly speak in absolute and incorrect terms.

Be well my friend. Others have explained this to you. You just don't care. At all.

[morningfog]

102. Can you link to such an investigation?

[morningfog]

149. Judge links Clinton aide's immunity to 'criminal investigation'

A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday.

Bryan Pagliano, a computer expert who worked at the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state and was also paid privately by her, was previously reported to have received immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Clinton's private server set-up.

However, there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation—which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a "security review"—is actually a criminal probe.

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

http://archive.is/2016.06.23-195619/http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314%23ixzz4BZRF3U4r#selection-8443.0-8507.246

[morningfog]

118. Judge links Clinton aide's immunity to 'criminal investigation'

A former information technology aide to Hillary Clinton received immunity from the Justice Department in connection with a criminal investigation, a federal judge confirmed Tuesday.

Bryan Pagliano, a computer expert who worked at the State Department while Clinton was secretary of state and was also paid privately by her, was previously reported to have received immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Clinton's private server set-up.

However, there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation—which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a "security review"—is actually a criminal probe.

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

http://archive.is/2016.06.23-195619/http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314%23ixzz4BZRF3U4r#selection-8443.0-8507.246

[riversedge]

26. No Rec for the OP.

[morningfog]

29. Thanks for the kick regardless.

How's the twitterverse?

[gordianot]

27. On this issue I take the Constitutional Lawyer who was elected President at his word.

I also take the Attorney General of the United States at her word. They have not interfered with the investigation and they at this point do not know the outcome. The leaks have been troubling however no one really knows what is going on. I also know real life actual Hillary delegates to the 2016 Democratic convention who are worried. Some worry is healthy.

[morningfog]

30. Fully agreed.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. ...

[morningfog]

44. Your favorite cartoons?

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. I think they apply to these ...

"HRC looks to be winning in the G/E (despite what I previously had been saying); but, look out ... over the horizon ... danger brews" posts, posted for the sole purpose of dampening enthusiasm on this message board and (I suspect), hopefully, beyond.

[morningfog]

47. You are wrong on all counts. To a T.

Really insulting there, Man.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. That is my interpretation of the inference you insinuate.

[morningfog]

58. Yes, and it is dead wrong and insulting.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. Maybe, but the evidence is not hard to produce my conclusions ...

whether they be "wrong" and/or "insulting or not.

[morningfog]

62. Your prejudgment sees what it wants.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Perhaps. But, again, your posts speak for themselves.

[morningfog]

65. They do and I stand by them. Your bias reads a lot of bullshit into them.

That's on you, not me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. Communication is not only what is said; but, also, what is heard ... and that is on you, as well.

[morningfog]

70. No, you don't like what I say. That doesn't mean you are right to make shit up about my intentions.

You should apologize.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Nope. I won't be apologizing for your consistent eeyorism ...

that I think is thinly veiled wishfulness.

[morningfog]

74. Fine. Your character, or lack thereof, is on clear display.

Any respect I had for you is gone.

[NCTraveler]

92. You have made multiple dishonest statements and are questioning 1strongs character?

Well done.

[morningfog]

95. You don't know what you are talking about.

[NCTraveler]

98. I think you should just stick with that. nt.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. It's not my "character, or lack thereof" that is on the line.

[1StrongBlackMan]

123. Only to an anonymous poster on an anonymous message board ...

I think I will survive, as in my real life, my reputation remains sterling.

[R B Garr]

42. This is just a pathetic attempt to type Hillary's name in with some random

incriminating words and hope you get away with it.

There are instructions in a certain group here to keep anything about "investigations" kicked. You obviously have nothing from the media to kick, so you just hobble this together with all kinds of sensationalistic references, but it's obvious claptrap. Total fail.

[randome]

133. Nicely put. This 'issue' isn't weighing on anyone's mind so now's the time to bring it up again!

[bettyellen]

43. Meh. Snowden did a ton more damage and the "concerned" here just love him.....

Were you a fan of Snowden? I'm guessing you were and are missing the irony.

[morningfog]

45. I liked Snowdon, yes.

I have never said Hillary should be investigated or charged. There is no irony. I have consistently said I hope there are no adverse consequences for her. I also have never been bothered by the security aspect of her server. What did give me pause was the self selection and destruction of her personal emails. Which we no know contained state emails as well.

My concern, from the beginning of this, is only the potential liability for Dems.

[Ryano42]

48. Concern is noted and appreciated.

And Bernie is ready if needed, correct?

It's all good...right?

[morningfog]

50. No. This has nothing to do with Bernie.

His ship has sailed and the voters have made their decision.

[Adrahil]

53. What's the point of this post.

What do you hope this post leads to?

[morningfog]

67. Discussion. Is this not a discussion board for political discussion?

Oh, look! It is!

[Adrahil]

88. Discuss what? What to do if the indictment fairy DOES come?

I've seen you post about this topic again and again. I'm sensing a theme.

[TomJulie]

54. The Hillary machine is rolling now

Unstoppable, is the best description. Woo-Hoo!!

[DCBob]

66. Here is the likely summary of the FBI investigation as it pertains to Hillary Clinton..

-- Former SOS Clinton's personal email server was not appropriately secured for classified communications.
-- We found no direct evidence the server was compromised or broken into or hacked.
-- Use of a private server for her SOS communications wouldn't have been approved had she requested guidance.
-- There were numerous emails that contained classified information.
-- All of the emails that contained classified information were not marked as classified at the time.
-- There were messages the SOS should have known contained classified information even though not marked.
-- We found no evidence the SOS deliberately or knowingly sent or requested classified information.
-- The SOS was negligent and broke rules and procedures regarding proper handling of classified information.
-- However we found no evidence there was gross negligence or that she did this knowingly or willingly.
-- Therefore we do not recommend any legal action against former SOS Clinton.

[morningfog]

69. From what is in the public, I agree with your analysis up the last two points.

The reason is, the State OIG is consistent with what you write with respect to what is known.

However, there are two points to consider.

First, what you did not address is the destruction of federal records during an investigation. Lingering are that dozens of federal records have been obtained after Hillary's staff self-selected, apparently in error, as "personal" and then deleted them. Then there are the missing Pagliano emails and his immunity. From what is known publicly, this seems to be the remaining risk. Who deleted federal records during an investigation (a felony), when and why? It may be that the FBI finds it too was not with the intent to conceal or mislead but we don't know that. We don't know how many of the deleted emails were wrongfully identified as personal and what they contained.

Which lead to point two. We don't know what else the FBI may have found while interviewing and gathering evidence. Let's hope there was nothing else.

Regardless, I seriously doubt any recommendation of charges against HIllary will occur. I am less sure about staffers, which would still be very bad. Who knows.

[radical noodle]

119. It's my understanding that

her lawyers went through the emails and decided which were personal and which were not; which could be deleted (which the State Department said a long time ago was proper treatment of her personal emails). If the attorneys went through and got rid of the others, then she didn't do it. It was most likely an oversight on their part, not some big conspiracy. The FOIA does not cover individuals and private correspondence. We don't ask that from anyone else, why from her.... we know the reason they're doing this... because they want to make her once again a suspect even if there's no basis in fact.

[zazen]

124. Wow. I hope so. I wish they'd just get on with it one way or another. The uncertainty is damaging.

Did you write that yourself? You sure are up on this.

I'm no fan of hers and have long felt the real issue here (IMO) is the connection with the Clinton Foundation, but we'll never know and her machinations pale compared to the demonstrably criminal Trump and his Republican compatriots.

So fine. She's our nominee and I'll vote for her. I wish they'd just DECIDE so we can MOVE ON. Our world has ENOUGH uncertainty right now and far worse crimes going on and we don't need more uncertainty and effort spent on this. I sure as hell don't want to have to put up with eight more years of Republican investigations. Please FBI exonerate her now so we can MOVE ON!

[DCBob]

159. Its just mostly common sense based on things that I've read.

Some of it i pulled from the IG report.

I have always thought this was much ado about nothing. She is more likely to be hit by lightning than be indicted... imo.

[morningfog]

72. I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

The last thing I want is for anyone connected to our nominee or or nominee to be indicted. Check yourself.

[MaggieD]

75. I don't need to check myself

I'm well acquainted with your posting history. And your PMs.

[morningfog]

77. Oh yeah! I remember you.

You should review the TOS before you start with the personal shit.

[MaggieD]

79. You remember me because you sent me rude PMs

Have a nice day.

[morningfog]

82. Tsk tsk.

[chillfactor]

76. good grief....

give up on this already...it has been beaten to death...

[morningfog]

78. Uh. No, it is an ongoing risk for us.

I'm not saying Hillary should drop out or that she should be indicted.

[lapucelle]

81. Peddling ridiculous right wing talking points dressed up as concern is a disgusting tactic

that doesn't fool anyone. You should be ashamed.

[morningfog]

83. Facts are not right wing talking points.

Sham on you! The admins reinstated this post on appeal because it is not right wing talking points. The admin has a better understanding than you.

[stopbush]

85. An investigation is not an indictment,

and an indictment is not a conviction...and convictions are overturned.

[morningfog]

86. All true, but I hope to hell the investigation is the only step.

If it goes past that we are well and truly fucked.

[stopbush]

94. I dunno. Nixon won in a landslide in 1972

when Watergate was all over the headlines.

[John Poet]

141. At the time of the 1972 elections, it was NOT KNOWN that Nixon

was involved in a cover-up. It was NOT KNOWN that he was guilty of obstruction of justice, or would be committing it over the following year and a half. Just about all the dirt that came out about Nixon himself wasn't reported until 1973-1974.

About the only thing that was 'known' was
'Peace is at hand in Vietnam' as announced in the last week before the election.

But hey-- nowadays, he might have won even if everybody HAD already known what a criminal he was. People don't seem to care as much about that kind of thing...

[stonecutter357]

91. did we really land on the moon?

[morningfog]

96. Huh? Do you have a point?

[stonecutter357]

108. yes.

[bravenak]

111. I totally got it

<------ This said it all.

[morningfog]

131. Are you suggesting the FBI is not conducting an investigation?

Do you know something no one else does?

[PJMcK]

109. And now from left field...

You know how to shut down this conversation, stonecutter357!

Well done and enjoy your 4th of July.

[bravenak]

110. Things are getting into CT territory.

How often does an FBI investigation turn into an indictment? Have they ever stated they were ready to indict? Is this a way of tearimg down our Democratic candidate? I noticed that during my perusal through the intermets, that the rightwingers over around the web are also VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS ALSO THEN TOO NOW.

Since this shit came from out of the Benghazi investigation bullshit, I try not to allow myself to start knotting up and suffering panic attacks since they are the same folks from back in the day who swore she was going to be arrested back around 1993 when I was a child.

[morningfog]

114. THe FBI and DOJ are not the GOP.

And no, neither has said that charges are forthcoming. We simply have no idea. All we know is the FBI and DOJ have been conducting an investigation for about a year, have gathered a lot of evidence, servers and computers, interviewed witnesses, including one under an immunity grant, and we are not out of the woods.

I can't help but be nervous about this and don't quite get the cognitive dissonance required to just ignore or dismiss the seriousness of it.

[bravenak]

117. The GOP initiated it. That's enough for me to know it is straight up bullshit.

Their Benghazi shit went nowhere and this shit won't go either.

[morningfog]

120. It's already gone to the FBI and the DOJ, the bodies that prosecute crimes.

What evidence is there that the GOP initiated it? The State OIG recommended the FBI investigate it, but the FBI was already on it by then.

[bravenak]

122. It came OUT OF THE BENGHAZI INVESTIGATION. Which is bullshit and they added more shit.

It's like letting Petyr Baelish point out how 'corrupt' Ned Stark was. No contest. They are slimy and this is a fake scandal.

[morningfog]

125. You can't say it is a fake scandal when the FBI and DOJ are taking it seriously.

[bravenak]

126. Yes I can.

Fellatio-gate was a fake ass scandal too but they fucking impeached Bill. They lost then and will lose again. The FBI takes every damn thing seriously and if they did not then they should not be in the FBI.

[morningfog]

127. The impeachment was by the same kind of right winger nuts that did the Benghazi witch hunt.

The FBI is conducting a criminal investigation and the DOJ is involved. This is a whole different ball of wax.

[bravenak]

128. Same shit different day

They used our fucking Congress in their witch hunt, why not the FBI and DOJ?

[morningfog]

130. Because they are Congress. The FBI and DOJ are independent agencies from separate branches

of the government. Comey and Lynch are not Gowdy and Starr.

This is exactly my point and why I will not rest easy unless and until it is behind us.

[bravenak]

134. They use all of our instituitions in their games.

Even calling for FBI investigations and pumping up the rhetoric to trick the unsuspecting into falling for their bullshit. Until the FBI comes out and says they are arresting her? I will continue to see this like another Whitewater.

[morningfog]

136. It is not clear when or on whose request the FBI started its investigation.

The FBI was investigating the server at least by May of 2015, before Congress or State made their referral.

[bravenak]

138. Find that out then before you get us all 'concerned'

Because this shit came out if the Benghazi bullshit and you know damn well it was not a group of Democrats that pushed this crapola.

[morningfog]

139. LOL. It really doesn't matter. The FBI and DOJ do not do the right wingers' bidding.

They are conducting their own independent business. Nothing is being "pushed" by the FBI, they are just doing their job.

[bravenak]

140. And they will end this investigation into rightwing CT with no arrest.

Like always.

[SmittynMo]

161. Ignore it like everyone else.

It seems to be the way to go. At least to win elections.

[zazen]

116. k&r! and I wish the FBI would hurry the hell up with this because we don't need more uncertainty

I'm not happy about Clinton being the nominee and I really really don't want to have to vote for her, but I will because our movement's goals will be more easily achieved under her administration than that maniac Trump's.

Ideally for me, she'd withdraw tomorrow--and if it were because of an investigation I'd hope Obama would pardon her and she and Bill would just retire--and Sanders or O'Malley or any less hawkish economic progressive would step in.

Those are my hopes for my Democratic Party. But the majority of my party didn't agree and even though the DNC probably broke the law early on, and there were some valid concerns about election problems, I still think she won the majority of the votes (since some of the caucuses unfairly skewed to Sanders), and I have to grudgingly respect that.

Barring her sudden withdrawal because of some other reason, I wish the FBI would clear her ASAP of this so we could move on without the uncertainty. We can't risk Trump and we need to move past this primary bickering to building a 50-state democratic socialist strategy.

I wish y'all would stop being so mean to those of us who really are trying to move on in a way that maintains our beliefs and respects yours. I've served on juries and voted down over the top anti-Clinton posts because there is no need to be disrespectful (and certainly not sexist). And I've been calling out sexism against HRC since 2007.

But Morning Fog has a legitimate concern and is making it in good faith, and we're a stronger party when we foster _respectful_ disagreement. Rec. Rec. Rec.

[upaloopa]

153. He has no more ligitimate concern than does anyone on Hillary's team.

For the millionth time, there is no FBI criminal investigation.

I wish you all would keep your conspiracy theories to yourselves.

[Lord Magus]

132. This can in fact "be poo-poo-ed away like the faux scandals form Gowdy."

Now would you kindly stop concern-trolling?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

157. ISIS

Out of all the things that can go wrong I would rate ISIS infinitely higher than an indictment. I would literally wager money there won't be an indictment. I wouldn't wager a nickle there won't be a terrorist attack somewhere.

It is difficult to know how the public will react, especially if there's more than one attack.

I think everything else including the markets and the broader economy will be fine.

[geek tragedy]

158. Agreed. nt

[snooper2]

162. KICK!

LOL

[FSogol]

163. +1 n/t

[Nye Bevan]

164. I'm feeling pretty comfortable at this point.

Hopefully you are too.

[ismnotwasm]

165. We will be fine

This particular political circus will live on in the form of the conspiracy minded and people who hate.

[Nye Bevan]

166. +1