CNN and MSNBC confirm Hillary Clinton will not face any charges in email inquiry

[Cryptoad]

Source: Daily News Bin

Hours after Hillary Clinton held her long awaited interview with the FBI in the name of helping its investigation of a Romanian email hacker, which the media has routinely and willfully misreported as being an “investigation of Clinton” for the past year, MSNBC is now finally reporting the obvious: she’ll face no charges of any kind. Chuck Todd made the announcement during his show on the network on Saturday afternoon. CNN went on to report the same thing.

Without offering specific attribution, Todd revealed on-air that he had learned for certain that Clinton will not be charged. This information was obvious enough all along to anyone who followed the story accurately, as the FBI had already publicly told the New York Times that she was not even a target of their email investigation. News outlets knew this all along but decided to play up various misnomers about the story — on cable news in particular — because it seemed to be the only way in which they could get ratings about of Hillary’s otherwise steady and controversy free campaign.

But now that Clinton has completed her interview with the FBI, it means the bureau’s final report will be forthcoming soon, which will make clear once and for all that she was never being investigated for anything. That means the media has a relatively short window of time in which to get out ahead of the story by reporting that she of course won’t be facing any charges. After all, they don’t want to end up having looked wrong on the matter.

Oddly enough, Chuck Todd reported that Hillary Clinton would’t face any charges at the end of an on-air interview he was conducting with her. Clinton replied by saying that he had no knowledge of such matters and she wasn’t sure when the FBI would release its report. Upon hearing the news that Hillary was in the clear, Donald Trump went apoplectic.


Read more: http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/msnbc-confirms-hillary-clinton-will-face-any-charges-in-email-inquiry/25073/

[Cryptoad]

1. Now where did I put my Happy Dance Shoes?

[Grassy Knoll]

83. Yep...

[PJMcK]

101. I think that's Courtney Cox dancing with The Boss! (n/t)

[Grassy Knoll]

104. Yes....

Happy Dance!!

[Tortmaster]

112. That's a cool gif, but ...

... it's also a totally white people dance. WE MUST DO BETTER!
Seriously great but expected news. It also, of course, means the gnashing of teeth about the Bill Clinton and AG Lynch "secret liaision" was complete and utter bullshit. But that's as expected as well.

[Grassy Knoll]

117. .

[MADem]

154. Now that is THE CARLTON!!!

And it's a totally white people dance with a bit of verve!!! LOL!!!

It has -- believe it or not -- withstood the test of time!

[scscholar]

102. This, but how could someone face charges in a security review?

The Republican-controlled media isn't logical.

[former9thward]

152. Those were the words used by the Clinton campaign.

The FBI Director immediately said it was an investigation when he heard that. He said the I in FBI stands for investigation not review.

[7962]

165. It was ALWAYS an investigation. "Security review" doesnt exist.

Made up term to make it sound more palatable

[shenmue]

133. Yay!

[leftofcool]

4. Meaning??????????

[lapucelle]

10. That's a pretty serious charge that you're levelling against AG Lynch

[pnwmom]

75. The biggest clue, which we've had right in front of our faces all along, is that so many RW

sources, such as Rush Limbaugh, have been saying that she won't be indicted.

Of course they're not acknowledging that no one has ever been prosecuted for what she is said to have done, or that -- if a new standard is being set -- then they'd have to prosecute dozens or hundreds of other government employees who had done the same thing.

They're just saying she won't be prosecuted because "the fix is in."

In the end, they'll turn the proof of her innocence into proof of her corruption.

It's what they've been doing for more than 20 years.

[PJMcK]

92. Longer than 20 years

Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

The partisan and corrosive attacks by Republicans on both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton go back more than 25 to 30 years dating to Mr. Clinton's terms as Governor of Arkansas. The constant spewing of lies, spurious charges and garbage by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Newt Gingrich and other Republican hypocrites has never provided the kill shot that they desperately hoped for. Gosh, is it possible that the Clintons aren't guilty of anything?

Those GOP losers hoped that they could destroy the Clintons with innuendo and insinuations and falsehoods. The great irony is that they impeached him for lying about sex but many of them, especially Speaker Gingrich, lost their gigs because they had their own skeletons in their closets. Of course, the Senate didn't convict him so he retained his office and President Clinton had terrific approval ratings when he left office. Was he perfect? Of course not. Neither are you or I. But he was better for our country than the alternatives and Secretary Clinton has the opportunity of the ages ahead of her. She'll get my vote.

Every time the Republicans have gone after the Clintons, (or the Obamas, for that matter), they have failed. How stupid are they?

Well, they're about to nominate Donald Trump for president.

They're stupid.

And Donald Trump is an idiot.

[pnwmom]

96. +1. n/t

[Surya Gayatri]

160. And, this goes for her haters on the left, too, sadly:

In the end, they'll turn the proof of her innocence into proof of her corruption.

[mountain grammy]

15. Seriously, unrelated!

I believe Lynch is beyond reproach. She would never risk the president's good name.

[PJMcK]

11. Please elaborate

Respectfully, phazed0, explain what you're implying because it isn't clear to me.

Thank you, in advance.

[Mz Pip]

12. Cue the conspiracy theories

in 3... 2...1...

[leftofcool]

3. Suck it Trump!

[AngryAmish]

6. It is simply not the place of the government to determine if she did wrong.

She said, for a long time, she did nothing wrong. Then that issue is over.

I don't know wtf is wrong with the FBI.

[philosslayer]

52. Agreed

This whole thing has been a worthless distraction. On to victory!!

[scscholar]

129. This, and Nick Merrill confirmed today that it wasn't an investigation (ntxt)

[Rilgin]

218. You might want to look again what you wrote.

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 12:35 AM - Edit history (1)

It is precisely the FBI, Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies to determine if a citizen does something wrong in a criminal sense. Everyone investigated says they did nothing wrong. You seem to want that to be determinate rather than the evidence.

You might try to switch to the other posts which merely try to predict that the FBI will ultimately say she did not do something wrong rather than say She said she didn't do anything wrong and her word is final.

[TipTok]

231. Who do you think should determine if law and policy were violated?

[Cal33]

234. I don't understand what this big ado is all about. You've had some 228 replies

to your post. Mine is the 234th. The facts: Atty. Gen. Lynch has said that she would take
no part in the decision making in this case (because of her private talk with Bill Clinton), but
she would abide by the findings of the FBI and the recommendations of her career professional
staff - whatever the recommendations might be.

Now, what can be clearer than that? She, herself, doesn't know what the results will be. Just
be a little patient, and soon we will know the results. In the meantime, whatever anyone says
is pure speculation.

Edit: I intended to address this reply to the OP Cryptoad, not to you. Sorry about that.

[AngryAmish]

240. No biggie!🖨🖨🖨🖨🖨🖨

[chillfactor]

7. so....

can we finally put all of this nonsense behind us....emails and Benghazi?

[cstanleytech]

14. Hate to break it to you but the odds are that the nonsense from both the right wing and

some of those who supposedly supported Bernie (I said some because the majority of the Bernie supporters are actually reasonable people) will go on as they will no doubt try to turn this into some sort of coverup now and or work to cast doubt on the findings.

[Squinch]

19. They will see this as proof Hillary has the FBI in her pocket and cameras in their cereal boxes.

[backscatter712]

119. I'll just quote Bernie himself...

I'm sick and tired of hearing about these damned emails!

[PJMcK]

120. Of course, you're right to some extent

You've made an excellent observation, cstanleytech. The important thing to keep in mind is that the diehards are statistically insignificant. They may be loud on any given website but they are diminimous in influencing the presidential election.

[NastyRiffraff]

190. Yes!

The important thing to keep in mind is that the diehards are statistically insignificant. They may be loud on any given website but they are diminimous in influencing the presidential election.

And nothing makes them angrier than pointing that out...that they are not at all important!

Finally, finally the truth about this investigation is slowly emerging!

[Squinch]

16. I'll bet you money that the loons keep harping on this despite this outcome.

[PatSeg]

30. Oh definitely

Look how long they've hung on to Benghazi and there are still "birthers" out there as well. Some people just never let go.

[RKP5637]

88. It's a given. They live in a rut. Trump will likely now say this proves how corrupt the

entire system is, the FBI will be said to be totally corrupt by Trump and his loons, and conspiracy theories will abound. Alex Jones will have a field day as he rakes in more $$$$$'s from his nincompoop followers.

[MADem]

198. What else do those sorry, pathetic, hate-filled wingnuts have?

Bill is a bit long in the tooth to keep accusing of "hard dog to keep on the porch" shenanigans, and Loretta's husband was WITH her when they had that chance meeting, so that avenue is cut off, as well--unless they want to go totally "BATBOY" on the story and just MSU (make shit up) to beat the band!

I'll say this, though--in a backhanded way, the more people gripe, whine, and play the "some people say" game with Clinton, inventing wild conspiracy theories and nefarious intentions, the more we Democrats can understand that they've got absolutely NUTTIN'--because if they did, they wouldn't be wasting time on crazy convoluted "If X/Then Y" stories that they make up on the fly.

They can't get her on the issues--she owns the high road on those. They're reduced to spinning crazed conspiracy theories, and trying to do so with a straight face.

[Squinch]

199. I think in the wider world, beyond Democrats, it is backfiring too. It took decades to get here,

but I don't think anyone takes it seriously when people come up with this crap. No one expects any of it to end up as anything.

[MADem]

207. I think you're right in that observation. nt

[coco77]

202. There will be more

Once she enters the whitehouse. Bill will give them more to bite on.

[tblue37]

222. Bill Maher calls these "zombie lies," because they keep shuffling about even

after being repeatedly killed.

[Squinch]

223. Perfect analogy!

[Boomerproud]

8. CNN has been reporting on it like nothing else is going on today.

I am finished with them. I can't believe it took me so long to rid myself of the stain that is political "reporting" today. That is it. I'm done.

[PJMcK]

13. What took you so long? (wink, n/t)

[lapucelle]

9. I wonder if the FBI has to let subjects know whether they're targets

of an investigation before an interview. If that is the case, maybe the source of the story is Clinton herself via a presently anonymous surrogate.

The press has done a terrible job of explaining exactly what the FBI is investigating. I've never heard that Gucifer is the reason for the FBI server probe. Do you have a link?

[PJMcK]

17. Your second paragraph is the key point

"The press has done a terrible job of explaining exactly what the FBI is investigating."

The corporately-owned news organizations function as profit centers. Accordingly, their job isn't to report events accurately to the public, it's to garner ratings points which converts into advertising dollars for the corporately-owned broadcasters.

But you knew that, didn't you, lapucelle? (wink)

[Wisc Progressive]

25. Funny you should mention the "corporately-owned news organizations" because

Bill Clinton is who made today's near monopoly control by multinational corporate interests possible, picking up where St. Ronnie left off in 1987 by eliminating the Fairness Doctrine. Then Bill signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996.

We will never take the major media back in my lifetime (and I am not old). It is just so ironic to hear some claim that the media, that Clinton enriched beyond avarice, is somehow anti-Clinton.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2016/03/how-do-we-democratize-our-media

[still_one]

35. It is anti-Clinton, and has been for decades. That he signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996

has no bearing on that.

Sorry to disappoint you:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/04/15/media-analysis-shows-hillary-clinton-has-received-most-negative-stories-least-positive-stories-all/209945

[PJMcK]

39. There is another possibility

More and more people get their news from online sources which, in general, don't have to be part of the corporately-owned media. Their independence gives me hope. Outlets like DU, The Young Turks, Ring of Fire and others reach more and more people. We've seen that younger people don't watch traditional media. The result could be that the major media lose even more influence as their audience dies off or moves away.

One other observation is that you mentioned President Clinton's signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Please remember that the bill was passed by both Houses which were controlled by the Republicans. If he had vetoed it, I think he would have been overridden. (I know, principles are important. Sigh.)

Meanwhile, vote for Democrats at every level of government!

[Cryptoad]

31. FBI has stated very clearly all along

what they were doing , but nobody wanted to hear what they were saying,,,,, had to jump in conspiracy shit pot

[PJMcK]

45. Yeah, I'm with you, Cryptoad

Anyone who read the actual statements by the FBI and the DOJ could see pretty much what they were concerned about. But the media wanted a controversy and they knew that anything controversial about the Clintons would grab eyeballs or sell clicks.

The corporately-owned media suck.

And Donald Trump is an idiot.

[dragonfly301]

22. This is confusing

Why did Brian Pagliano get immunity if Guccifer was the reason for the FBI probe?

[Hoyt]

33. Because they might have been investigating if he played any part.

[still_one]

40. Absolutely

[cstanleytech]

63. Yup, of course that didnt stop some from jumping the gun to the conclusion

that it was because the investigation was trying to get Hillary.

[amandabeech]

56. Guccifer, a Romanian hacker, hacked into Sidney Blumenthal's AOL account, allegedly.

Here are further unsubstantiated allegations that have been floating around:

Blumenthal is a long-time Clinton supporter. Hillary wanted him to be a part of her State Department team, but Obama said no because Blumenthal had been extremely critical of Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Blumenthal's AOL account included e-mails back and forth between Hillary (on her private server) and him relating to various Libyan and Middle Eastern issues.

Guccifer put those e-mails up on his website for all to see.

The FBI and DOJ charged him or wanted him as a material witness for putting e-mails that should have remained private out on the internet.

The FBI and DOJ managed to get him extradited from Romania.

He has entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to tell the FBI and DOJ everything he knew about how he found Blumenthal's AOL address, who else may have been involved and any other relevant information. In other words, he turned states evidence in return for a reduced sentence.

He is now in a federal lock up in Alexandria, Virginia.

The US attorneys office covering Alexandria has been involved in the FBI/DOJ investigation of the possibility that Clinton's use of the private server exposed classified information to hackers.

In the unlikely event that the FBI probe of the Clinton e-mail situation should result in an FBI recommendation to the DOJ that the DOJ present a case to a grand jury for indictment, Guccifer would be required to testify to the grand jury as part of the DOJ/FBI case against Clinton.

These are very speculative allegations only, and you should not rely on these allegations as the absolute truth.

Does that answer your question?

[pnwmom]

91. No one should rely on the allegations you repeat here as ANY kind of truth,

much less "absolute truth."

[amandabeech]

100. Suit yourself. n/t

[amandabeech]

72. Pagliano set up or helped set up Hillary's private e-mail server.

Once it became clear that Hillary only used her private server, and used only the e-mail address supported by the private server, the FBI and DOJ wanted to interview him about how he set up that server and why he did it.

When he was interviewed, by the FBI and DOJ, he asserted his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, allegedly.

In order to overcome his reluctance to talk, the FBI/DOJ granted him immunity from prosecution from anything having to do with setting up the e-mail server and how the server was maintained.

He accepted the immunity deal and has now told the FBI/DOJ what he knows. At least that's the allegation.

Guccifer's actions led to suspicion about Hillary's e-mail server and Pagliano allegedly has told the FBI/DOJ how it was set up.

Take it for what it's worth.

[creeksneakers2]

139. Pagliano wasn't granted total immunity

He was only promised that nothing he disclosed during his interview would be used against him. That's a routine demand by lawyers representing clients giving voluntary interviews. Pagliano's deal was confirmed when its contents were demanded in the latest Klayman witch hunt.

[amandabeech]

180. Thank you for expressing this better than I did. n/t

[pnwmom]

89. Because he had a smart lawyer who wanted to make sure that nothing

could possibly be used against him. You never know what they'll try to twist for leverage.

For one example, did he properly report all the side income he earned working for Hillary? The IRS would be interested in that. I have no reason to think he didn't, but there are lots of ways people can make mistakes that would normally be overlooked until you get into this kind of situation.

[pnwmom]

86. CNN says they have "multiple law enforcement sources." n/t

[MFM008]

156. CNN had no one but

republicans on all day.
Republicans debating republicans.........
You couldn't find someone democratic leaning if you had a roll call.
I say their "multiple sources" are crap.

[pnwmom]

159. If they're so dominated by R's, why would they falsely claim

to have multiple law enforcement sources saying Hillary wouldn't be indicted?

That doesn't make sense.

[MFM008]

171. I'm just saying what I saw

Not one opinion from a Democrat while I was watching.
Oh and false claims? Ever watched faux nudes?

[pnwmom]

172. Why does the fact that they interviewed many R's tell you

that they are lying when they say they had multiple law enforcement sources?

What is your logic, if you have any?

[PJMcK]

46. Right on! (n/t)

[bucolic_frolic]

20. I'm not seeing this story at any other links yet

is it true?

[yallerdawg]

21. From CNN:

Within the next two weeks or so, the expectation is there will be an announcement of no charges being brought against Clinton so long as no evidence of wrongdoing emerges from her interview with the FBI, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN. CNN has previously reported no charges were expected to be brought against Clinton because the investigators had not found evidence to warrant charges, according to multiple law enforcement officials. A Democrat close to Clinton said Saturday the campaign believes the FBI will announce its decision before the conventions.

From: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/politics/clinton-meets-with-fbi-as-part-of-email-probe/index.html

[RussBLib]

23. I tuned in to that "other" network for a minute

Just to see if they were running your story. It really is an alternate reality. That horrible "Judge Jeanine" is demanding Lynch's resignation. The bile is just so palpable it turns my stomach. Too bad the old folks seem to eat it up. There is no mention of the OP on that channel, but even if it were, they would be ridiculing it. What horrible people.

[winstars]

98. I looked up at the TV at the gym and they had some "13 Hours of Horror in BENGHAZI" playing....

It appears that Hillary killed the Ambassador, besides Vince Foster I guess...


Faux News = ASSHOLES

[mercuryblues]

99. I know it doesn't matter

to the GOP, but this is coming from the FBI, not Lynch. Lynch has stated she will follow the FBI's recommendations on the matter.

[doc03]

24. But now hasn't Bill Clinton put another damn conspiracy right in their hands

by having his meeting with Loretta Lynch?

[cstanleytech]

26. They would just have found something else and or made up one. nt

[doc03]

34. Bill Clinton is supposed to be a political genius why would he

do something that stupid? Sometimes I think he wants to sabotage Hillary, maybe he is afraid she will do better than him.

[cstanleytech]

42. You could ask the same question over why he would risk his office to get a blowjob and

I would provide the same answer which is people make mistakes and intelligence does not mean a person wont make a mistake.

[George II]

85. Could be that the "connection" between bumping into Lynch in Phoenix and this long long...

..."investigation" never entered his mind they're so remotely distant.

[BlueMTexpat]

161. That sounds entirely possible.

[Chemisse]

111. He's old and he enjoys the game of politics a lot.

It's that combination that makes him bumble about doing bits of damage here and there.

[liberalmuse]

122. I actually think the opposite.

He loses his mind when it comes to her. He probably wanted to ensure Hillary was treated fairly. I really have a hard time blaming him after seeing his wife being put through the same shit he was put through. He probably doesn't want to just stand by and watch and feels compelled to do something against better judgement.

[stopbush]

38. Bingo. Heaven forfend if the Clintons fail to put up enough flags

at their home on the 4th.

[Politicalboi]

194. We don't need to make things up

But if that makes you feel better. LOL! Yes, the FBI told Chuck Toad that they aren't going to indict. They're NOT finished with this investigation. Besides, you guys like things that are made up you prove it every day here.

[cstanleytech]

196. My comment would not apply to you Politicalboi unless of course you are one of the

ones that like to come up with some of the most absurd conspiracy theories in which case I will simply wish you well in life.

[MADem]

66. It was not a "meeting" - it was a chance encounter due to delay at the airport.

If he were going to have an actual "secret" meeting, there are much better ways to do it rather than in front of an entire airport of ramp workers AND Ms. Lynch's husband!

And seeing as this case will now NEVER GET TO LYNCH, since our friends at the FBI have said that there's no "there" there, that angle is shot to hell, too.

[doc03]

107. He could have just called her on the phone if he wanted to do something

in secret I guess. Seems everything the Clintons do sets off the Republicans. I suppose there will be a Congressional investigation on that chance encounter.

[MADem]

153. Well, since the FBI said there's nothing to Clinton's emails, Loretta Lynch doesn't even have to

deal with it. Ain't that grand! She never had to deal with it. I'll bet the wingnuts are disappointed.

Of course, it WILL drive the haters nuts. They'll invent complicated conspiracies and insist that there's all sorts of machinations going on.

But let's be blunt--they aren't going to vote for her ANYWAY...so to heck with 'em.

[floriduck]

191. Has the FBI actually said there's nothing wrong? Why not release the 22 emails they're holding?

[MADem]

195. Someone inside the investigation has given the wave-off to CNN and the NBC franchises.

Obviously that person doesn't want to lose his or her job, so he or she is not speaking for attribution. The target, though, all along, has been the hacker.

You'll have to ask them why they haven't released the 22 emails--perhaps they were magically classified, years later, in an over-abundance of enthusiasm. Perhaps they'll be released when they send along their report.

We need to roll back the classification criteria once again. Cheney did a great job of making everything, from "poop breaks" on his official schedule to how many cookies he had for dessert, a state secret.

So much that doesn't need to be classified IS, nowadays, and we have the Bush regime to "thank" for that. When Clinton's administration made the whole process easier, it made such a difference in our ability (our meaning people in government) to do our jobs. In the Reagan and Bush 1 era, I would CONSTANTLY see things in foreign papers that some asshole would put a (C) in front of--I mean, really, why are we hiding things from the American people that anyone can read in the International Herald Tribune, or the paper of record in any foreign capital?

The bottom line is this: HRC never sent any classified material. Anyone trying to muddy that water with bullshit about "retroactive classification" is doing it for craven, partisan reasons.

[floriduck]

203. Thanks for the reply. The sooner the decision is announced, the better for all.

[thesquanderer]

233. re: "The target, though, all along, has been the hacker. "

Why would they interview HRC's staff in June if it was all about building a case against Guccifer? He already took a plea deal in May, the case is over.

[MADem]

246. You'll have to ask them.

There could be a number of reasons. Two off the top of my head:

Just because a deal is taken doesn't mean the investigation ceases--"HOW" is every bit as important as "Who/what/where/where/when/why" in sorting out these things.

Taking a deal means the guilty party spills the beans--and that means every single bean in every single specific fashion--failing to spill those beans or concealing any aspect of methodology can cause the deal to be rescinded. The investigation serves to ensure that every bean is accounted for.

[thesquanderer]

248. re "Taking a deal means the guilty party spills the beans"

Actually, plea deals generally have nothing to do with spilling beans. You may be mixing it up with immunity? People agree to plea deals all the time... someone pleads guilty to a lesser charge (eliminating the risk of being convicted of something worse), the government benefits because they eliminate the risk of losing the case entirely, plus they free up money and time to spend on other things. That's not to say that, as part of the deal, he may not have agreed to cooperate in some further investigation, but it's not something we know for sure, it's not automatically the case.

In any event, even assuming you're right and he agreed to cooperate in an investigation as part of the plea, it would logically be an investigation of someone else. There's no point in agreeing to "cooperate" in further investigation against yourself. First, you have a right against self-incrimination. Second, by accepting the plea, you've already been convicted and are serving the time for that crime. So there's no point in further trying to prove you're guilty of what you've already pled guilty to, nor can they compel testimony to find you guilty of something else. Honestly, your whole "taking a deal" paragraph sounds like fiction.

Beyond that, it really seems like a stretch to believe the FBI is interviewing all these people on Clinton's staff--and Clinton herself--in order to further incriminate Guccifer. In part because, yes, he has already accepted the plea bargain which should essentially close that case, but also, the thing all these people have in common is not Guccifer, it's Clinton. As far as we know, they haven't called in all the other people Guccifer hacked.

[MADem]

249. Every plea deal I've seen involves bean - spilling.

And plenty of it. Not all people are deserving of immunity, but they cut the deal so they go up the river for, as an example, "accessory" instead of "Murder 1" or what have you. And they're told that if they don't spill the beans--all of them--the "Murder 1" charge goes back on the table.

YMMV but I've never seen a plea deal where the pleader gets to be the decider as to what he feels like coughing up in any way, shape or form.

Immunity is just a continuation of a plea deal to its max degree. The ultimate plea deal, if you will.

[thesquanderer]

251. Many crimes involve no beans to spill. That doesn't mean they don't get plea deals.

There doesn't have to be another person involved to get a plea deal. Courts like to get things off the calendar. Prosecutors like to not risk losing. If you have been accused of a crime, you can often avoid a trial by agreeing to plead guilty to a lesser charge, simple as that, no beans. Heck, you can even do it with a traffic violation.

Immunity is not simply another kind or extension of a plea deal, it is a separate thing. A plea deal means you admit guilt for something and accept some sentence (jail, a fine, probation, whatever). However, you can get immunity without admitting guilt to anything. Bryan Pagliano has received limited immunity, but has not pled guilty for anything, and has not received a sentence. So these are really two completely different things. If you may have knowledge of other crimes, immunity related to those additional crimes can be offered as part of a plea deal, but it is still its own thing. You can have a plea without immunity, immunity without a plea, both, or neither.

[MADem]

259. Well, my mind isn't changed on this matter.

Sometimes, a plea deal involves a change/reduction in the charges based on cooperation; and that deal is withdrawn if the cooperation is deemed insufficient.

Immunity works in the same way. You get the immunity--and you don't get charged with anything--if you spill those beans vociferously. But, if you're found to have lied or held anything back, you can find yourself in jeopardy and facing charges anew.

[thesquanderer]

260. Even from your perspective, i.e. assuming that Guccifer must be spilling beans,

then why would that lead to the FBI questioning Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin, etc. (i.e. if Hillary or others on her staff are not, themselves, subject of an investigation)?

...If they merely wanted to confirm info Guccifer provided about the hack methodology and so forth (which I don't buy, but I'll give it to you for the sake of argument), okay, I could see where they could theoretically want to interview, say, the IT guy, but what could they learn from all these other people?

...Why would they be looking to question these people both before and after Guccifer made his plea deal, with no indication that anyone who they interviewed before was brought back again after (i.e. his new "beans" coincidentally didn't seem to require going back to any of the people they already questioned)?

I'm still just not following the logic in your post #246 ( as a reply to my post #233). If it's all about investigating Guccifer (even after he accepted a plea), what could they learn from Hillary herself? And it was a 3+ hour interview, not merely a question or two. And it was an interview that Hillary offered to have with them and that she expected to have with them since last year, long before Guccifer was extradited or made a plea deal. What did she think they might want to talk to her about all this time? All these people are being questioned, and even Hillary herself has never claimed they are being questioned regarding the case against Guccifer. Hillary herself puts forth the issues being investigated (*ahem* "reviewed) at https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/ -- You're going an awful long way to avoid the occam's razor perspective on all these interviews, to something that, IMO, doesn't even make sense.

ETA: and the IT guy, Pagliano, has himself been given immunity. Unless you think they gave him immunity merely to get info to help prosecute Guccifer (who, at this point, has already accepted a plea regardless), that also indicates they have someone else--someone more important than Pagliano--in their sights.

[thesquanderer]

262. Here's the answer:

Here's a thorough description of the FBI's investigation, what they were looking at and why. There's nothing here about the purpose of the investigation being either to help convict Guccifer before the plea, or to confirm any information he provided after the plea.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

It was not about Guccifer. As to why the OP article says the target of this investigation was the hacker, I haven't a clue. It was nothing I'd ever heard before, either.

There remains an interesting question about what info Pagliano would be able to provide in exchange for immunity, but whatever it was, it apparently was not legally damaging to HRC or her staff, which is good news.

[Hoyt]

27. If true, I hope all those who "indicted" Clinton months ago apologize.

[cstanleytech]

32. I wouldnt hold your breath waiting for that to happen. nt

[still_one]

44. I am not a Smurf

[PJMcK]

48. Don't hold your breathe, Hoyt

Breathe.

[geek tragedy]

59. The cult of the Indictment Fairy self-deported themselves

to their own online insane asylum.

[cstanleytech]

67. I know of some who its going to crush though because they were holding out hope

that it be enough to take her out of the race.

[geek tragedy]

76. Good. I hope those rooting for Clinton to be indicted

continue to suffer soul-crushing disappointment for the rest of the election. Their tears are sweeter than honey.

[PJMcK]

79. Sadly, that's true

I've tried mightily to avoid those discussion on DU where supporters of one Democratic candidate have loudly denounced the other Democratic candidate. It's tiresome and far too often devolves into name calling, which is something I consciously stopped doing in third grade.

Let's make certain that Donald Trump and every other Republican candidate gets defeated.

[pnwmom]

82. And if their wish came true, all her delegates would go to Joe Biden.

Or perhaps Scott O'Malley.

[lapucelle]

206. HA Goodman is still claiming on Twitter today that Clinton will be indicted.

[yallerdawg]

28. From MSNBC phone interview:

Last question by Chuck - "breaking news"!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/hillary-clinton-on-loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meeting-hindsight-is-20-20/ar-AAhWOAN?li=BBnbcA1

[modestybl]

113. "NBC News/WSJ poll shows ...

... Donald Trump leading Clinton 41%-25% on the question of who would be better "being honest and straightforward."

That's a little surprising.

[uponit7771]

150. True, tRump just says what he thinks no matter how vile or ignorant or unaware of himself

... like he knew nothing about Brexit, he's about as clue less as Palin

[Hekate]

29. Well well well

[Iliyah]

36. "The FBI had already publicly told the New York times that she was not even a target

of their email investigation".

Say what? You mean corporate media, the GOP and far left sorta . . . not told the truth?

Oh my.

[christx30]

37. What's the right going to do now that they don't have

the manufactured email scandal hanging over her? Argue her on the issues? HAHA. Na. Probably bring up the time in 1993 when she was clearly seen jaywalking across a street in Little Rock. Then 12 months of hearings and $19 million taxpayer dollars later, Jay-gate will be put to rest and they'll have to come up with something else.

[still_one]

49. What she was doing in the grassy knoll

[Grassy Knoll]

58. I Object...

[still_one]

62. objection sustained. You win

[calimary]

84. Wrong. She's the fiend who faked the moon landing.

AND she actually knows where Jimmy Hoffa is buried.

Plus - did you know Elvis is NOT dead? Hillary's kept him captive, tied up in her basement, and under guard - for all these years. But she did kill Michael Jackson, alright, and she also murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Totally responsible for that!

AND if that's not enough, did you hear she stole her way into Al Capone's vault and emptied out all the valuable and historical contents, before Geraldo Rivera could finish his tabloid TV special about it - just to make him look bad?

I knew it! I knew she was bad! Rotten to the core!

[still_one]

90. you mean we didn't land on the moon?

[PJMcK]

50. The Right is so sad

First, their presidential candidate is a disaster.

Then, their homeboy, Congressman Trey Gowdy, whiffed the Benghazi investigation.

Now, EMAIL-GATE turns out to not be about Secretary Clinton at all.

Stupid idiots.

[calimary]

131. That's quite a trifecta they've got going there, PJMcK!

Or hat trick.

Or triple play.

Or Triple Crown.

These things come in three's, y'know...



I'm sorry. I'm savoring! Times THREE!!! This is just Satisfying As All Hell! It's hard to articulate it as fully and grandly as it deserves just how tickled I am. It's almost excruciating! Hurts SO good! That poor woman has been PERSECUTED for YEARS. Twenty-five years at least, if you only count her prominence on a national scale and not local or regional as First Lady of Arkansas. That's minimum a Quarter-Century. Two-and-a-half Decades! SHEESH. They've investigated her, and Bill, and them as a couple, FOR YEARS. And everything has come up a big nothing-burger and a bigger bill to taxpayers. How much have we all been charged for that never-ending crap by now? Anybody still counting? Ken Starr squandered 70-something million dollars trying to find Something/Anything and all he came up with was a stained blue dress. Trey Gowdy's Wild Goose Chase cost another seven mill. Wonder how high the total is by now?

I once heard Hillary, asked her reaction to the statement "the Clintons are the most investigated political couple in American history..." respond that it meant they were "the most exonerated political couple in American history," because every investigation cleared them of whatever wrongdoing they were accused of wrongly doing. And guess what? She's right, AGAIN.

[PJMcK]

136. We stand together, calimary.

Let's defeat the Republicans.

[charlyvi]

197. Speaking of HAHA

Anyone check on HA Goodman today? He should probably be put on suicide watch!

[onehandle]

41. I knew that months ago. Everybody knew that months ago.

It was just wishful thinking here and elsewhere.

[bhikkhu]

106. Except those that watch the news

...where every little thing becomes a "Hillary may finally be going to jail!" meme. If that's all you hear on the news you watch, and all you see on the internet sites you frequent, and all your circle of friends (with identical sources of "knowledge) talks about, then you would be in a constant state of confusion as to how the leading contender for the presidency is still the leading contender for the presidency.

The internet and certain elements of the news media have become experts at constructing fact-free alternative realities. I still recall how completely mentally crushed the people in my town (who largely listen to hate radio and watch faux-news) were when Obama won re-election in a landslide. Most of them were certain that it would go the other way. The reality check didn't last long, and it was on to the next fantastical narrative.

[George II]

43. That was pretty much accepted by most objective people months ago. Just like the Benghazi fiasco.

[Hoyt]

47. Now that his last way forward appears over, will Sanders do the right thing?

[doc03]

53. You think? n/t

[Matt_R]

219. Such as?

Sanders already stated he is tired of hearing about the emails, what more do you want? His first born child?

[doc03]

51. No mention of this on CNN.com,MSNBC.com or Fox News .com only says she was

interviewed by the FBI.

[Geronimoe]

54. David Brook

Is Daily News Bin one of David Brook's propaganda news feeds? Sure seems to be.

[still_one]

57. Why because you don't like the OP?

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/about/

[Geronimoe]

65. No because no relable sources

are reporting this story and of course it makes no sense. Even the WH said these are criminal investigations of Hillary.

Also neither CNN or MSNBC are reporting this.

[pnwmom]

69. No, this is a RW lie. The WH never said that. n/t

[Geronimoe]

70. Yes they did

I saw it in daily briefing.

[leftofcool]

74. Post the link to anyone at the WH saying this.

[pnwmom]

77. No, you didn't. You can't provide a link because it never happened. n/t

[cstanleytech]

73. I wouldnt be willing to wager on that.

Not that I doubt you but its possible someone from the whitehouse said that since people misspeak all the time or they garble what they are told to someone else and next thing you know there is a story with the headline of "Hillary gives birth to Godzilla's secret love child!!".

[pnwmom]

80. No one can prove a negative. But if it was said the poster should be able

to provide a link.

[leftofcool]

71. No, the WH did not say that and the FBI has said numerous times HRC was not the target.

What is it about that you just don't get?

[geek tragedy]

81. Hillary is not going to be indicted.

The Indictment Fairy is dead.

No matter how much some folks clap.

[Cryptoad]

109. if u had read the OP it provided a link

where chuck todd reports this. near the end of interview abt 7:00

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-loretta-lynch-bill-clinton-meeting-hindsight-20-20-n603041

[geek tragedy]

61. You having a sad? nt

[KalicoKitty]

141. Not propaganda!

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/setting-the-record-straight-about-my-publication-daily-news-bin/24384/

[arikara]

146. For sure

It reads like it was written by a 12 year old. I wouldn't be doing any happy dancing over that ridiculous article.

[MADem]

55. The only people who thought otherwise were Trumpbots, Paulbots and right wing conspiracy theorists,

and assorted Clinton-haters who are unreasonable in their dislike for her for reasons of sexism or other issues completely unrelated to her preparedness for the highest office in the land.

I mean, really--who, in their right mind, thought this would end otherwise, if they really understood the issues, the "rules and regulations" (not LAWS) as they stood while she was SECSTATE, and the prerogatives of department heads?


There will be no "Fitzmas," and "Comey" apparently, DOES play that.

So....our long national nightmare is over, until the wingnuts and haters drum up another fake charge.

It really is true that a woman seeking powerful office DOES have to work three times as hard to get half the credit, and will get ten times the blame even if she doesn't deserve it.

I really thought USA was a bit more ... progressive (to use one definition of the word) in that regard, but apparently I am mistaken. The bitterness from the Trumpbots, it's like they're five year olds being told there will be no dessert...ALL WEEK!

[Hekate]

97. There were (or are) still DUers awaiting the Indictment Fairy. Maybe they will simmer down NOW?

A girl can wish...

[MADem]

155. They're not living up to their agreement if that is the case.

They agreed to the DU rules here, and trying to tear down our presumptive nominee with negative stories about indictment fairies and the Unicorn of Fitzmas is just carrying right wing water. They need to either get on board or stop the bad behavior and stick to the non-political groups until they get over it.

[DrDan]

60. Surprise surprise

[itsrobert]

68. Hi

[Jester Messiah]

78. .

[Geronimoe]

87. Daily News Bin

is a site that publishes political satire.

[still_one]

95. That is not true. Did you even go to the link?

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/about/

[Geronimoe]

116. A unregistered GoDady promoting Hillary

http://scamanalyze.com/check/dailynewsbin.com.html

Yup this looks like another David Brooks fake news feed.

[Grassy Knoll]

126. LOL,.....

[NJCher]

134. no educated person could read that story

And not abandon it because it is so patently a joke. I took one paragraph and analyzed it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=215150

This is just more crap put out as propaganda.

The truth is, no one knows whether she will be indicted or not. We will just have to live with uncertainty for a while.


Cher

[NutmegYankee]

103. *Ahem*

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/daily-news-bin-is-a-real-news-outlet-we-are-absolutely-not-a-satire-or-fake-news-site/23081/

[floriduck]

193. I found this from a previous post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&info=1&address=12511639395

[Grassy Knoll]

105. Oh, OK....

[MADem]

157. No, it isn't. You're confusing it with another site. At any rate the source is NBC. CNN has it,

too.

Here, let me give you a link that will satisfy you:

The meeting signals the investigation is coming to an end, and sources tell CNN the expectation is Clinton will not face charges.
Still, the probe has cast a shadow over Clinton's campaign, and news of FBI agents interviewing the former secretary of state gave Republicans an opportunity to pounce after Clinton has spent weeks at the top of most polls. It has also put the Justice Department in the position of having a major impact on the 2016 race -- a role made even more awkward this week by an unplanned meeting between former President Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch that raised questions about the impartiality of the probe.
The question now becomes how long it will take for the FBI to conclude its probe.
Within the next two weeks or so, the expectation is there will be an announcement of no charges being brought against Clinton so long as no evidence of wrongdoing emerges from her interview with the FBI, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN. CNN has previously reported no charges were expected to be brought against Clinton because the investigators had not found evidence to warrant charges, according to multiple law enforcement officials. A Democrat close to Clinton said Saturday the campaign believes the FBI will announce its decision before the conventions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/politics/clinton-meets-with-fbi-as-part-of-email-probe/

[sangfroid]

110. Well, thank goodness

this information was garnered from absolutely certain sources.

Or something.

[still_one]

123. You do realize the FBI doesn't indict don't you? As far as your implied conspirisy

B.S., that has nothing to do with what the FBI recommends, and it is independent of the AG

FYI, Hillary is the presumptive nominee, and by all analysis it looks like the FBI has not found anything criminal

If you are disappointed with that, then you will just have to deal with it, because Hillary will be the next President of the United States

[okasha]

204. You're still wrong.

The prosecutor presents whatever evidence has been collected to a grand jury. The grand jury then indicts or no-bills.

[PatrickforO]

115. Well, this is a relief.

There's another thread on here talking about how Fox 'news' propagandists are going apoplectic over it.

Good.

[lovuian]

118. Alleluia!

I hope it is all over but now will Congress let it go? I hope so and onto the election

[still_one]

125. It is going to be sad for some I am sure when the republicans lose the Senate

[lovuian]

210. I can't wait for the day the Republicans

loose control of Congress. I hope this is the end of it but the question in the future will Republicans start up their own

[Gothmog]

121. The key issue has been intent from day one and FBI found no evidence of intent

The laws here all require the proof of a culpable mental state or mens rea. This is not an area with the strict liability concept applies and so the attempt by certain laypersons to claim that an indictment was likely always amused me.

[still_one]

127. Gee, you are going to be disappointed when the FBI officially doesn't find any criminal

wrong doing aren't you?

Funny that faux news is spewing the same garbage

[Surya Gayatri]

162. "Funny that faux news is spewing the same garbage..."

Funny ha! ha! or funny strange? IMHO, neither.

Sad, but just par for the course to read RW talking points here on DU now.

At first, I found that reality bizarre, but bizarre has become the new normal around here.

[still_one]

178. It sure seems that way

[Grassy Knoll]

132. BWAAAAAAAAHAAAAA!!!111!!

[liberal N proud]

128. Another Republican attack on the Clinton’s amounts to nothing

Nothing but wasted time and money.

[KingFlorez]

130. Yes!

[KeepItReal]

135. There is no such conclusion on MSNBC. This is fiction not LBN.

MSNBC headline article is here: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-interviewed-fbi-about-private-emails-n602966

They make no mention of any conclusions of innocence or guilt and the investigation timeline is still not known.

[Night Watchman]

137. I checked CNN's site, MSNBC's site, even Politico: Couldn't Find It

I certainly hope it's true, but could somebody give me a link to either network that contains the story?

[creeksneakers2]

142. Not quite

But there is this statement in a CNN story:

"Sources tell CNN the expectation is Clinton will not face charges."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-interview-bill-clinton/index.html

I saw them report about the same thing on air a little while ago. They said they won't decide for certain until they review her interview.

[still_one]

143. The MSNBC was based on a Chuck Todd interview, and CNN was a tweet from a

CNN staffer

http://www.mediaite.com/online/sources-hillary-clinton-not-expected-to-face-charges-in-federal-email-probe/

[KeepItReal]

144. "sources tell CNN the expectation is Clinton will not face charges."

That's the most I can find on CNN website.

This OP is neither accurate nor LBN.

[transatlantica]

158. exactly - sounds like hearsay

"my classmate told me that the girlfriend of his brother has said that..."

[thesquanderer]

221. Yeah, not LBN. Todd's statement may be LBN, the rest is opinion/commentary/interpretation

[Night Watchman]

225. Agreed

In fact, the only news site I could find reporting a similar story was Mediaite, for what that's worth.

[lunamagica]

138. WOO HOO!!! YESSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, I remember all the "tic toe" posts...now it's OVER

[elmac]

140. Been saying that for months

she never did anything illegal, there were no laws in place at that time preventing her from using a personal server. Can't charge her for poor judgment.

[Cha]

145. Mahalo, Cryptotoad~

[jimlup]

147. The sooner we can put this totally behind her the better...

The right is going to have a shit fit though when she isn't indicted. Sooner is better... Do we have to wait 2 weeks for the damn report?

[Tarheel_Dem]

148. "This information was obvious enough all along to anyone who followed the story accurately....."

[k8conant]

149. This article is based upon rumor and misstatements..

for example, Chuck Todd only said he heard a report that she wouldn't face charges.

Also, the FBI telling the NY Times she wasn't a target was back in August 2015.

[JNelson6563]

151. Many broken hearts over this.

I am not surprised at this news.

[BlueMTexpat]

163. I hope that this means that any more

crap being posted on DU about "Emailgate" and "Tarmacgate" can be summarily removed.

Of course, another anti-Clinton "scandal" will likely be manufactured at any moment.

[patricia92243]

164. "Clinton replied by saying that he had no knowledge of such matters "

From DailyNewsBin:

"Oddly enough, Chuck Todd reported that Hillary Clinton would’t face any charges at the end of an on-air interview he was conducting with her. Clinton replied by saying that he had no knowledge of such matters and she wasn’t sure when the FBI would release its report. "

It is not on CNN or MSNBC websites. I think there might be some over-zealousness here.

[youceyec]

166. For everyone living in the real world this was very obvious the outcome.

To all the conspiracy nuts and those good people suckered in by them, HOW DOES REALITY FEEL?

[stonecutter357]

167. K&R!

[Jarqui]

168. Think about it

FBI investigators and others spend a year or more looking into all kinds of issues related to this case.

On this alone, aside from other issues: she had classified information on her computer at home which got CIA director Deutch to cop to a plea bargain. It's flat out criminal - no excuses like Deutch found out.

The FBI speak with her for three and a half hours on Saturday (if that report is accurate).

And suddenly, in a matter of minutes, there are no charges?

Doesn't someone at the FBI have to go through all these things she said and check them against their findings? This was not a five minute discussion. There was a bunch to talk about. They must have gone in with concerns or issues in order to spend that long with her. Don't they have to review the case and the top folks at the FBI get together and discuss it? Doesn't the Department of Justice have a say in all of this no matter how the FBI feels about it? And all this happened in minutes collectively?

No matter how your slice it, her actions were at the very least highly debatable as to whether she should be criminally charged. The debate may go in her favor, particularly given whose administration is calling the shots, but you'd think even politically, they'd want to proceed cautiously because it has to play out in the court of public opinion while an election is going on.

The timing of such a thing after all that effort makes no sense to me. It seems implausible and smells like a planted leak - quickly put out for damage control.

They may well decide not to indict her but to make that decision this fast after talking with her? That seems highly dubious. And this was spun a couple of months ago and obviously didn't take back then.

Hello, David Brock .. again?

[geek tragedy]

174. No, the Fox News fantasies of an indictment were never accurate.

There is no Indictment Fairy, despite what you read in the NY Post and Daily Caller.

The dream of her being indicted and losing the nomination is dead. Those hoping she would get prosecuted, who accused her of criminal conduct, were full of shit and getting high on their own supply.

It will be fun to watch the Hillary Haters who believed in the Indictment Fairy have their hopes utterly crushed. The more bitter the person, the sweeter their tears are.

[Jarqui]

186. Back up your claim

Prove it

[geek tragedy]

188. Lol, please promise to post your take when the announcement is made

so you can 'explain' why the FBI was wrong and Fox News was right, lol

[Jarqui]

229. Thought so. All air - absolutely nothing behind it.nt

[geek tragedy]

230. No, it's just that we've had to make the argument so much

that trying to explain why Clinton didn't commit s crime is pointless when dealing with fanatics who have Trump-style hate towards her.

[Jarqui]

232. Were you a part of the FBI investigating and/or writing up the report?

Last edited Mon Jul 4, 2016, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you one of the DOJ prosecutors working on the case?

No. You are not.

Therefore, like the rest of the media and many in the country, you're naive enough to get sucked in by rumor and conjecture in the media because only those in law enforcement close to the investigation, with a high enough position in their organization and qualified to make such an assessment in criminal law could really know one way or the other. Nobody is quoting them on Clinton getting charged or getting off.

Again, all you're doing is recycling media nonsense, maybe planted by Clinton's buddy David Brock, with absolutely no basis in the real facts and evidence pertaining to this case from the perspective of the criminal law enforcement reviewing it.

You can argue your brains out. It's nothing with anything behind it beyond your own opinion.

[geek tragedy]

235. LMAO. People who pimp the Fox News talking points

would avoid commenting on innuendo if they had any sense of shame.

Then again, if they had any sense of shame they wouldn't be violating the TOS with this garbage.

For example, comparing the email server to what Deutch did is straight out of National Review and other outlets in the Wingnutosphere. You should educate yourself on the distinctions between the two cases before claiming that Clinton broke criminal statutes just because Deutch did.

Please come back for the Indictment Fairy's funeral in a couple of weeks.

[Jarqui]

245. BS

Washington Post 2001: Ex-CIA Head Planned Guilty Plea
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010124/aponline163741_000.htm

Washington Post Fact Checker 2016:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/24/why-the-clinton-email-scandal-and-petraeus-leak-are-not-really-alike/

Clinton’s case may be more comparable to that of another former CIA director, John Deutch, who resigned in 1996 after he was found to have stored classified information on his home computer that he and his family members used to connect to the Internet. Deutch had government-issued computers intended for unclassified materials, took the computers home and processed information classified at top secret levels using hard drives and memory cards.

NY Times 2015: A Claim of No Classified Emails in a Place That Classifies Routinely
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/no-classified-emails-by-clinton-some-experts-are-skeptical.html?_r=0

It is rare but not unheard-of for a government official to be punished for storing classified information on a personal device. John M. Deutch, a former C.I.A. director, was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001, sparing him a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge for keeping classified information on personal, nongovernment computers. Mr. Deutch had already been stripped of his security clearance.

Boston Globe
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/21/how-will-benghazi-hearings-play-out/1Jc4hmznUSHCIges01lC2K/story.html

2. Would President Obama ever pardon Hillary Clinton?

It’s not as if there isn’t precedent. After John Deutch left the CIA directorship in 1996, classified material was discovered on a laptop computer in his home. An investigation was opened, but Bill Clinton pardoned Deutch before charges could be brought.

Right wing FOX News talking points? Like I said, that's pure head in the sand BS.

But once again, you still haven't provided us with shred of proof that Hillary will not be indicted.

Why is that? Why can't you do that? (Rhetorical question because we all know you're just blowing hot air with no substance)

[geek tragedy]

247. .

On this alone, aside from other issues: she had classified information on her computer at home which got CIA director Deutch to cop to a plea bargain. It's flat out criminal - no excuses like Deutch found out.

Only deranged Hillary Hating fanatics have described her behavior as "flat out criminal-no excuses."

What Deutch did--work on top secret military documents on the PC his kids used--was much different.

Clinton is not going to be indicted, and her haters can go to hell.

[Jarqui]

250. It is against the criminal law to have classified material on your home computer

without authorization. It's that simple. There are no viable excuses or allowances for what she did. Just like John Deutch had none. That's not FOX News talking points. It's the law.

Whether they elect to indict her for that is another matter. But what she did broke a criminal law - period.

Marines are under orders to fight until death to protect information like that at embassies. It's pretty serious or the FBI wouldn't have spent a year looking at it. The FBI had to have seen something to keeping pumping more time and resources into it.

I think it's vary naive to get sucked into media reports that occur within hours of their chat with Hillary to declare no indictment. We heard those reports several months ago and months later, they're still going at it.

They have to check out what she told them for 3 1/2 hours - see if it lines up or if she's lying or if it's identified some other things they need to nail down. They have to pull the evidence together and debate the charges and whether they have enough evidence to indict. Then they have to write it up and pass it along to the DOJ. Then the DOJ have to kick it around to see what parts they agree or disagree with. Maybe go back to the FBI for clarifications, etc. Some of that has been ongoing but not the whole thing.

Do all that and one is in a position to say whether there are any indictments or not. You're not going to do all that in a couple of hours after interviewing her - particularly when millions of eyes scrutinizing what you're doing are on you. They're dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

Yet once again, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to back up your assertion.

[geek tragedy]

252. All of the amateur, know-nothing Internet prosecutors

and Fox News pundits are in for a bitter disappointment when they discover that hatred for Hillary Clinton and the ability to access The Drudge Report and Donald Trump's Twitter feed did not provide them with the insight necessary to predict the outcome here.

[Jarqui]

253. I don't follow Drudge or care what they have to say. Trump's weighing in on it:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/749987869452828672

Donald J. TrumpVerified account
?@realDonaldTrump
Crooked Hillary Clinton is "guilty as hell" but the system is totally rigged and corrupt! Where are the 33,000 missing e-mails?

But like you, they don't really know one way or the other.

This is hypocritical:

"All of the amateur, know-nothing Internet prosecutors"

You don't know anything more than they do and you're doing the same thing: playing internet prosecutor who has cleared her of charges without seeing all the evidence.

Only the FBI & DOJ know. And they'll let us know when they're good and ready. And when they do, I just might link this bookmarked thread.

[geek tragedy]

254. Do you promise to comment once the decision is announced? nt

[Jarqui]

258. Absolutely. I'm not the one saying "she's going to be indicted" or

"she's not going to be indicted"

I'm saying I think she broke some laws and she might get indicted but she might not. And anyone not privy to the FBI and DOJ and the evidence saying she will or will not get indicted as a certainty is getting ahead of themselves.

[geek tragedy]

261. .

[amandabeech]

255. The people who set up and service her computer,

and who wiped it, Platte River company, didn't have security clearances, either.

I'm sure that the Clintons have people to clean and cook, and they don't have clearances.

I doubt that even Bill's secret service people or Hillary's FBI people have the security clearances necessary for above top secret documents which were in the computer.

That's really not smart on Hillary's part.

[7962]

213. Of course she WONT be indicted. Doesnt mean she did nothing wrong.

But I've said from day one that NOTHING would come of it. There are set of rules for politicians & another set for us.
I know from 20+ yrs of govt work that the "mistakes" that have already been revealed would have you out of a job for anyone else in a position of authority. But at the worst, an underling will take the hit
Sanders needs to go ahead and "suspend" and let the BIG game begin.

[geek tragedy]

217. She displayed poor judgment, which is not a crime.

Sanders can do what he wants.

[7962]

224. "Poor judgement" regarding security will likely cost you your job

Happens all the time.
But not this time

[stonecutter357]

169. K&R!

[SmittynMo]

170. CNN? MSNBC?

That's too funny. You trust them? It's amazing how people ignore the fact that the corruption in CM exists.

And if you really think about this, there is NO WAY for any channel to know the true outcome. If they did, that too would be considered corruption. Just look at all the misled people on this thread. It's kinda sad.

Wake up people. There is no way for CM to know this information.

[XemaSab]

173. It's on the front page on CNN and MSNBC

except it's not and there's not a mention of it on either site.

WND's reporting it as fact, though!

That's a reputable news source, right?

[Jemmons]

220. There must be a solid source for this. I cant really see everybody starting to celebrate if there

wasnt a rock solid source for this. Just think how upsetting it would be if you then later learned that HRC was indicted after all.

[AntiBank]

176. I see no other major media running with this, until I do, I will wait to hear Comey himself

This entire email thing is so over played by both sides on this forum.

We all should wait for official statements.

[Evergreen Emerald]

182. LOL

You are so funny.

[AntiBank]

187. glad to be of assistance

Btw I have no agenda in this, other than I absolutely think she will not be indicted. I just am sceptical of unconfirmed reports that are not backed up by all major media within 12 hours or so.

But thanks for the concern.

[fasttense]

177. Hillary

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary,

[CanonRay]

181. Another Nonsensegate

just like Whitewater et al, ad nauseum.

[jpak]

183. BENGHAZI!!!!11111

oh wait....

[Cryptoad]

189. Drink!

[ismnotwasm]

184. Well of course not

I haver never understood this crap. She was never in any danger of indictment.

[getagrip_already]

185. nothing to see here citizen....

move along.

Told you so. The laws and regs don't work the way most bro's and reds think they did.

Look at it this way (again). I am a guvie and I send you classified material that is not marked classified and is very similar to other messages you have received from me which were not.

You are under no obligation to report that unless you explicitly knew it was classified. If it is classified at a later time, you are under no responsibility to go back and look for it, primarily because you have no way to know that happened and they can't tell you unless the gov side specifically knows it was sent and is looking for it (very rare).

So there was never anything there from a classified document perspective (unless there is more which is unlikely since gowdy would have leaked it).

It's all just optics and hate. But the frds won't prosecute you based on that prosecute that until Trump is elected.

[MynameisBlarney]

200. Good news!

[coco77]

201. Bill will continue to be a problem..

[upaloopa]

205. He's not been a problem with me.

Not every thing he did when President was great but we had mostly peace and prosperity.

The Clinton foundation is helping with AIDS

[coco77]

208. Maybe not for you..

But for Hillary because he can't shut his damn mouth. If she becomes the President he will try to take the spotlight one way or the other.

[cstanleytech]

211. I doubt it, hes kept mostly out of it since he left office and I have not seen anything

to indicate that would change if Hillary should be elected.

[coco77]

214. They will bait him

Just hope he doesn't take the bait.

[cstanleytech]

215. They can try but he generally has given them the middle finger on taking it in the past. nt

[Cal33]

242. I remember there was a case a few months ago when he barged into a

voting place. Was it in NY?

I was all for him during his Republican-cooked-up phony impeachment case in 1998.
But this is a different story. Is he able to let Hillary do her thing all by herself,
unless she asks for his opinion, which, I feel sure, she will do occasionally.

[amandabeech]

256. Yeah, he had a megaphone.

I think that he's lost it.

[lunamagica]

212. He's not a problem with me, either.

[wolfie001]

209. Stupid silly Repug idiots! Typical

What bothered me was the countless Dems that bought into this BULLSHIT!!!

[coco77]

216. Many Dems have not bought into it

If we are keeping it real stop pretending about what the meaning of IS is. We now what republiCONS do and how they do it.

[Night Watchman]

226. I share the View of Many Posters Above

The only site on which I could find a similar report was Mediaite. I've never even heard of "Daily News Bin."

[DCBob]

239. CNN reported that they have sources..

Within the next two weeks or so, the expectation is there will be an announcement of no charges being brought against Clinton so long as no evidence of wrongdoing emerges from her interview with the FBI, sources familiar with the investigation told CNN. CNN has previously reported no charges were expected to be brought against Clinton because the investigators had not found evidence to warrant charges, according to multiple law enforcement officials. A Democrat close to Clinton said Saturday the campaign believes the FBI will announce its decision before the conventions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/02/politics/clinton-meets-with-fbi-as-part-of-email-probe/

https://twitter.com/TeddyDavisCNN/status/749347441057603588?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Vogon_Glory]

227. Say Bye-Bye, Indictment Fairy!

Say Bye-Bye, Indictment Fairy! No indictment, no prosecution, no pixey dust, no happy thoughts: unlike Tinker Bell, you are dead, dead, dead!

[thesquanderer]

228. Todd's statement is not what the OP said it was.

OP said: "Chuck Todd reported that Hillary Clinton would’t face any charges" -- not true. He actually said, "There are some news reports out there that indicate ... that it looks like no charges will be filed against you, and a final decision in a couple of weeks."

So Todd did not report that she wouldn't face any charges, he said that there were some *other* reports "out there" that said that. He did not indicate having any first-hand knowledge, or say anything about how credible he felt these sources were... he put it out there, not as news, but as part of a question, to get Clinton's reaction

OP headline that this has been "confirmed" is also not true. There was no confirmation of anything. As far as I can see, there was basically a report of rumor (unspecified unsourced "reports out there", and even then, those unconfirmed reports also said that actually they were weeks from a final decision.

So really, no news here at all.

[DCBob]

238. I think this was the main source.. which seems legit to me.

Sources tell CNN's Evan Perez: expectation is that there will be announcement of no charges in Clinton email probe w/in next two weeks or so

https://twitter.com/TeddyDavisCNN/status/749347441057603588?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[thesquanderer]

241. And who are those sources? Are they from DOJ? FBI? Or from Hillary's campaign itself?

This is important and unknown. If sources from the DOJ or FBI told CNN that they expect no charges, that's arguably big news. If sources from within the Hillary campaign said that they expect no charges, well, that's basically what they have been saying for the last year, so that's no news at all.

ETA: p.s. -- why would CNN put a news scoop in a tweet, and yet have no such story on their web site? I think that may say something about how much stock CNN puts in the newsworthiness of this tidbit. Search google news for Clinton FBI or Clinton Email, this story doesn't exist. The closest thing is "Trump claims inside knowledge of email probe, says no charges for Clinton" -- and of course he's not a reliable source for anything. Heck, if he claims something is true, it makes me more likely to believe it's not. (Still waiting for his shocking proof about Obama's birth certificate...)

[DCBob]

244. "sources familiar with the investigation told CNN"

They arent going to reveal much detail about their sources otherwise the sources will stop being sources.

If I had to guess I suspect its someone inside the FBI who is not directly involved in the investigation but has talked to someone who is.

[thesquanderer]

236. re: "Hillary’s otherwise steady and controversy free campaign." This is a serious news source?

How about Bill campaigning in MA polling places? Her interactions with BLM? The long wait for a Keystone pipeline position which she first tried to evade by saying ask her again if it's still an issue when she's president? Being called on and having to reverse positions on taking contributions from the private prison industry? $250k speeches from Wall Street (for which she won't release transcripts)? Her unappealing flash of anger toward someone who asked her a question about fossil fuel industry support? Her waffling on the TPP?

I'm not saying any of these things are so horrible or that there aren't missteps in every campaign, Hillary's being no different in that regard. But to say that her campaign has been controversy free except for the email issue? Seriously?

Also, the article says "Todd revealed on-air that he had learned for certain" -- he certainly did not. He said there were reports to that effect floating around, he did not say he had learned it for certain.

This post wasn't merely not LBN, it wasn't even a properly factual commentary piece.

[Cal33]

237. Please read my reply #234 (about 1/4 of the way down from the top of this

thread). I addressed it by mistake to "Angry Amish".

[humbled_opinion]

243. Up next

Repubs calling for Special Prosecutor as they shout remember Valarie Plame.

[tallahasseedem]

257. Will they focus their resources on Jane Sanders now?

Talk about a racket!