Hillary Clinton’s E-mail PROBLEMS Might Get Way Worse

[Segami]

"..The scandal could see new life as a more rigorous F.B.I. investigation is reportedly underway..."

The indestructible cockroach of a scandal hasn’t died yet, no matter how many times Hillary Clinton stomps it with a sensible black pump: a new report indicates that the F.B.I. has possibly expanded their inquiry—perhaps a “full-blown investigation”—into her potentially improper use of a private e-mail server during her time as secretary of state. Politico reports that the F.B.I. has seemingly moved past a preliminary inquiry stage and started conducting more interviews, a move that implies a “full-blown investigation,” according to F.B.I. former assistant director Tom Fuentes. “When you have this amount of resources going into it . . . I think it’s at the investigative level,” he told Politico.

Whereas the F.B.I. had only received a referral for investigation earlier this year (leading to a blowup between the Clinton campaign and The New York Times after the paper reported that she was being fully investigated), this time, according to Politico, the inquiry has expanded to the point that the F.B.I. is interviewing several tech people involved in the server’s setup: Platte River Networks, the company hosting the server; Tania Neild, a “technology broker” who connected Clinton with Platte River; a cloud-storage company called Datto; and several members of Clinton’s staff (though exactly which and how many staffers they’re speaking to is currently “unclear”). They’re also reportedly weighing an immunity deal for Bryan Pagliano, the man who oversaw the server but pled the Fifth during a September Benghazi committee hearing.

The F.B.I. did not comment to Politico on whether it had moved into a more rigorous investigation, but considering how explosive this situation is, they probably won’t comment until they either choose or decline to prosecute. VF.com has reached out to Clinton’s campaign, and will update this post if we receive word.


http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/clinton-email-fbi-investigation

[OilemFirchen]

1. Your posts make my eyes bleed.

Is there content within?

[earthside]

4. There is news.

FBI steps up interviews in Clinton email probe
Questions focus on whether State officials improperly sent classified material.
By Rachael Bade - 11/10/15 05:14 AM EST


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-email-fbi-probe-215630

[OilemFirchen]

7. Thanks. That's a bit of a salve.

I see a run-of-the-mill Politico story with their typical anonymous sources stating nothing, and an editorialist speculating a bit wildly on said nothingness.

Dog bites man. One person's "news", I guess.

Much appreciated.

[okasha]

29. She's been cleared by multiple agencies,

including the Fibbies.

Deal with it.

[earthside]

31. Still under investigation.

Deal with it.

[morningfog]

2. Pagliano invoking the fifth was a turning point.

It's a millstone around her neck. One of many. It's not too late! We don't have to end up stuck with the liability nominee.

[winter is coming]

3. Yeah, that was the first time I thought she might actually be in trouble. n/t

[Segami]

5. If or when they (fbi) pull the trigger

on a immunity deal with Pagliano, you'll know that something substantial is coming down the pipe.

[Major Hogwash]

22. Pagliano is just a patsy.

All he was concerned with was the technical side, not the content of the emails.

[jeff47]

27. Well, he actually broke the law.

There's three ways you break our (civilian) laws against espionage:
1) Give secrets to a foreign government
2) Sell secrets
3) Be negligent in protecting secrets.

The security on Clinton's server was utterly abysmal. There was no encryption on the communication for months, the default VPN keys were left installed, and a host of other massive technical errors. Heck, even the domain name chosen was terrible and there's a typosquatter enabled by the domain name choice. They would have been much more secure using gmail.

So he's actually in legal jeopardy for his negligence.

Clinton probably can't be charged. She can argue she wasn't negligent because she relied on this dude to prevent #3, and she did not sell secrets or give them directly to a foreign government.

That doesn't mean it isn't a scandal, it just means she is very unlikely to be charged with a crime over it.

[demwing]

6. I want Bernie to win on the issues

this would hurt everyone...

[George II]

8. Don't you wish

[artislife]

23. Thank you for your sig line

I now have a good reason to say--buh bye!

[Autumn]

9. Interesting that this is coming up now.

[onehandle]

10. Opinion formatted to look real isn't news.

Vanity Fair. LOL!

[font size="5"]#45[/font]

[img][/img]

[leveymg]

26. Here's a fact: Hillary violated a felony statute. The only question is, how to charge her.

See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

The greatest difficulty is political - how to charge the Democratic Presidential front-runner in the midst of the campaign without throwing the process into chaos?

Thanks, Hillary! You've done so much for your fellow Democrats.

BTW: Don't scoff at Vanity Fair. Along with The New Yorker, it carried some of the best coverage of the NSA Scandal.

[pa28]

11. Imagine the prospect of having our nominee trying to campaign while under indictment.

That would certainly give an effective avenue for the hundreds of millions in super-pac attack dollars that will be used to attack her honesty and character.

[Segami]

12. The SuperPAC attacks would run 24/7/non-stop!

FOX & Morning Joe would be headlining with it daily.

[pa28]

14. Whatever the case I hope the FBI wraps it up quickly.

If they drag it and out and recommend indictment once she's (probably) nominated the political motivation angle is going to be totally buried by the screaming headlines.

[Codeine]

13. You seem concerned. nt

[pa28]

16. Yeah.

Given the choice I'd rather have a nominee not at risk of running a national campaign while under indictment.

[TwilightGardener]

19. She'll skate. An underling or two will plead guilty to some minor charge

at most, probably pay a fine, and the Obama DOJ will point and say "someone was held accountable! Isn't that good enough?"

[lovemydog]

15. or they may not

'reportedly'

'probably'

[SidDithers]

17. BENGHAZI!!...

Benghazi

Sid

[jberryhill]

18. Benghazi?

[cui bono]

20. You really shouldn't bring up Benghazi. There's no there there.

Bringing up Benghazi is as silly and nonsensical as saying Bernie is not a Democrat.

[Midnight Writer]

21. Tom Fuentes is the source for this article

The same Tom Fuentes who is defending police violence across the country. He is the guy screaming at Baltimore protesters and calling out elected city officials as cowards. You can catch him on right wing media whenever they need an ex high ranking law enforcement official to defend police violence.

Please note the "weasel words"; "could see", "possibly expanded", "perhaps a full-blown investigation", "reportedly weighing an immunity deal".

Wait for more facts before taking this too seriously.

[mmonk]

24. While the investigation should continue due to being outside of protocol,

this article isn't saying anything really new nor has added facts otherwise not known.

[NCTraveler]

25. They still don't get it.

She will become even more popular. They have been trying to bring her down for decades and she is the unchallenged front runner in the dem primary. If the righties keep this up the country might become in favor of ending term limits after she is elected. Vanity op from Vanity Fair.

[randome]

28. Because when I think 'in-depth political analysis', I think 'Vanity Fair'.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[olddots]

30. Vanity Fair is a very conflicted sourse of info

N.T.

[Fearless]

32. Someone is looking to pull the switch on her campaign