LAT: FBI to interview Clinton
Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2016, 10:04 PM - Edit history (1)
As has long been expected.
Clinton email probe enters new phase as FBI interviews loom
Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.
The interviews by FBI agents and prosecutors will play a significant role in helping them better understand whether Clinton or her aides knowingly or negligently discussed classified government secrets over a non-secure email system when she served as secretary of State.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html
And from the WaPo:
"Throughout, Clinton aides paid insufficient attention to laws and regulations governing the handling of classified material and the preservation of government records, interviews and documents show. They also neglected repeated warnings about the security of the BlackBerry while Clinton and her closest aides took obvious security risks in using the basement server."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
If Clinton is indicted, it won't be because justice is being done. It will be because she's run afoul of some other major power player.
Wait............
.......Hillary has a good name?!
When did that happen?!
all kidding aside, I think we're all in agreement with regard to the establishment print media is pretty much all belonging to the same club: the Korporate Party,
n'est-ce pas, mon ami?
who would hold the Bush administration accountable, and so many of us were overjoyed. But he was undermined by powerful forces. Not exactly a hopeful outcome. 
Maybe they can be the moderators.
.
...and not the private server itself, is likely the focus of this FBI investigation. And it is so bad--Clinton okaying arms deals with 20 countries that gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation--it would be enough to drive any candidate for any public office--let alone president of the U.S.--out of the campaign in utter disgrace, in a normal democracy.
Not sure this can be called a normal democracy any more. I mean, look what happened to Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld, et al, for slaughtering a hundred thousand innocent people and stealing billions from government coffers. Nada, Nada, and Nada, et al.
I just don't think the FBI would have 150 agents on a matter that was only about classification errors or potential security/spying risks.
HOWEVER, the question in my mind is this: Is this FBI investigation for real? (If it is, she is in big trouble, in my opinion.) Or is this FBI investigation in truth an effort to protect Clinton from the nutball Right in Congress? And maybe this: Both--that is, the FBI, the AG and maybe Obama and Obama's advisers are divided about it--some want to prosecute, some don't.
A reason for NOT prosecuting (if the evidence warrants an indictment) would be to protect Obama's legacy from ending on a big scandal--and possibly the political motive of not wanting such a serious reformer as Bernie Sanders in the White House. (Remember Obama is pro-TPP and oversaw the Bailout.)
There may be another factor in this complex equation: I suspect that Obama is very ticked off at Clinton for several reasons. One of them was her early sabotage of Obama's intention to improve relations with Latin America. The Honduran coup (June '09--only six months into his first term, with Clinton as Sec of State) stopped those efforts cold. All of LatAm was outraged and everybody knew of the U.S. complicity. (I was following those events closely at the time. The near universal reaction in LatAm was "same old, same old USA--overthrowing our governments"
. It has taken him SEVEN YEARS to overcome that Clinton disaster--with his recent visit to Cuba and Obama/Kerry's support for the Colombia/FARC peace talks.
Another reason for Obama anger at Clinton, recently come to light via the email disclosures, is her use of Sydney Blumenthal as a State Dept. advisor. Obama had stated explicitly that he did NOT want Blumenthal in the State Dept. She sneaked around this Obama order by hiring Blumenthal for big bucks at the Clinton Foundation and then using her private server to communicate with him about foreign policy including Libya. And that is the third reason for likely Obama anger at Clinton. Her advice about overthrowing Gaddaffi was wrong and ill thought out, and has resulted in a huge disaster in Libya, Syria and Iraq (vacuums of power into which IS has moved). ('Ill thought out' unless it was coming from Robert (PNAC) Kagan and Henry Kissinger in which case the GOAL was to destabilize the ME, as prep for more all out war.)
(And I believe Obama and Clinton also differed about Iran--she a hawk; he wanting to give peace a chance. He won that argument after she left the State Dept. I may be underestimating the continuity of U.S. foreign policy on this--i.e., a bad cop/good cop U.S.strategy. But in view of the other Clinton disasters and Clinton/Obama disagreements, these could possibly include strategy on Iran.)
If I'm right about Obama anger at Clinton, then maybe he WON'T intervene to save her from an indictment (if the FBI recommends it). It's hard to guess about these matters, since the investigation, of course, is behind the scenes (and has top secret issues involved), and since Obama is a hard man to read. (It took me years to come to the 99% conclusion that Honduras had been Clinton's doing, not Obama's, and I'm still not entirely sure.)
Clinton's not hard to read, though--in my opinion, anyway. I think she was amassing money for buying endorsements and delegates by using her position as Sec of State to gather in large donations from countries with deals pending before the State Dept. The Clinton Foundation is not a "charity," in my view. It is a money machine for buying the presidency.
If any Clinton supporter is genuinely interested in WHY many of us Sanders supporters are so disgusted with Clinton and so passionate about putting a CLEAN president in the White House, they will give this matter some study. We are NOT rightwing nutballs. We don't care about "Benghazi, Benghazi," or Monica, or Whitewater or any of that lunacy. We loathe that lunacy. THIS is NOT lunacy. We do not want this REAL corruption in our party or in the White House. And we are very worried, indeed, about Clinton's close connection to Kagan and Kissinger.
