HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Game Changer? "FBI Confi...

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:23 PM

 

Game Changer? "FBI Confirms They Will Question Hillary Clinton"

FBI Confirms They Will Question Hillary Clinton
by Tom Cahill * May 5, 2016 * US Uncut

FBI officials have confirmed that Hillary Clinton will be interviewed about her use of a private email server, possibly before the California primary.

CNN reported Thursday evening that the Federal Bureau of Investigation interviewed top Clinton aide Huma Abedin over the server, along with other senior aides, some more than once. While investigators confirmed that Clinton herself would be interviewed, no official date has been announced.

Bryan Pagliano, who originally built Clinton’s private server, has agreed to provide testimony to the Department of Justice in exchange for legal immunity. FBI officials stated they had yet to procure sufficient evidence that any laws were willfully broken, though the investigation is still ongoing.

As of May 5, the investigation is still limited to Clinton’s handling of classified information on her private email server, and the security of the server itself. While the former Secretary of State has cooperated with federal authorities in making thousands of emails public, 22 of the emails in her private server were classified as “top secret” and deemed too sensitive to national security to release to the general public.

http://usuncut.com/politics/fbi-question-hillary-clinton-email/

79 replies, 3476 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 79 replies Author Time Post
Reply Game Changer? "FBI Confirms They Will Question Hillary Clinton" (Original post)
99th_Monkey May 2016 OP
complain jane May 2016 #1
Wilms May 2016 #3
complain jane May 2016 #6
Wilms May 2016 #15
ZombieHorde May 2016 #16
tex-wyo-dem May 2016 #76
Press Virginia May 2016 #7
Stallion May 2016 #8
Wilms May 2016 #17
ebayfool May 2016 #56
99th_Monkey May 2016 #10
Joob May 2016 #11
JudyM May 2016 #26
COLGATE4 May 2016 #66
BillZBubb May 2016 #12
Stallion May 2016 #18
JudyM May 2016 #27
Stallion May 2016 #30
HooptieWagon May 2016 #37
JudyM May 2016 #52
COLGATE4 May 2016 #68
COLGATE4 May 2016 #67
JudyM May 2016 #50
Stallion May 2016 #61
JudyM May 2016 #62
COLGATE4 May 2016 #70
COLGATE4 May 2016 #69
complain jane May 2016 #19
Seeinghope May 2016 #23
COLGATE4 May 2016 #71
Seeinghope May 2016 #2
BillZBubb May 2016 #4
99th_Monkey May 2016 #14
mindwalker_i May 2016 #41
IdaBriggs May 2016 #48
2banon May 2016 #72
99th_Monkey May 2016 #74
2banon May 2016 #75
99th_Monkey May 2016 #78
2banon May 2016 #79
JudyM May 2016 #28
Press Virginia May 2016 #5
NWCorona May 2016 #21
Barack_America May 2016 #57
winter is coming May 2016 #64
Press Virginia May 2016 #65
scscholar May 2016 #9
grasswire May 2016 #20
scscholar May 2016 #34
HooptieWagon May 2016 #39
scscholar May 2016 #43
HooptieWagon May 2016 #45
99th_Monkey May 2016 #47
HooptieWagon May 2016 #49
bobbobbins01 May 2016 #55
bobbobbins01 May 2016 #54
tularetom May 2016 #13
Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #22
jwirr May 2016 #35
Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #38
jwirr May 2016 #40
The Second Stone May 2016 #24
casperthegm May 2016 #25
99th_Monkey May 2016 #42
notadmblnd May 2016 #29
angrychair May 2016 #31
EndElectoral May 2016 #32
angrychair May 2016 #46
99th_Monkey May 2016 #44
TM99 May 2016 #33
Tarc May 2016 #36
ucrdem May 2016 #51
catnhatnh May 2016 #53
ViseGrip May 2016 #58
Demsrule86 May 2016 #63
obamanut2012 May 2016 #59
Sheepshank May 2016 #60
Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #73
BlueStateLib May 2016 #77

Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:25 PM

1. They also said

that they've found no evidence that she broke any laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to complain jane (Reply #1)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:26 PM

3. Who is "they"?

 

Please provide link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to complain jane (Reply #6)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:32 PM

15. Thanks.

 

That says, "US officials who have been briefed on the investigation...".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to complain jane (Reply #6)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:34 PM

16. This is good news. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to complain jane (Reply #6)

Fri May 6, 2016, 02:56 AM

76. It's a smokescreen..,

It's not a coincidence that this story came out immediately after the hacker stories. Pure damage control by the Hillary camp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #3)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:29 PM

7. The unnamed US...errr FBI officials who

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #3)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:29 PM

8. Its in the Original Story Linked

"FBI officials stated they had yet to procure sufficient evidence that any laws were willfully broken, though the investigation is still ongoing"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #8)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:34 PM

17. Thanks.

 

And that one specifies a little more. "FBI officials stated they had yet to procure sufficient evidence that any laws were willfully broken, though the investigation is still ongoing."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wilms (Reply #17)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:06 PM

56. Sufficient. Sufficient. That's a word that holds it's little hand up! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to complain jane (Reply #1)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:29 PM

10. Well, they haven't questioned Hillary yet either. Who knows how that will go. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to complain jane (Reply #1)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:30 PM

11. "Willfully"

Not all crimes commited happen "Willfully" by the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Joob (Reply #11)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:44 PM

26. Zactly. Gross negligence isn't willful and that's what the statute has as its standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #26)

Fri May 6, 2016, 12:03 AM

66. Gross negligence is often defined as wanton and wilful misconduct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to complain jane (Reply #1)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:30 PM

12. Reading comprehension is not your strength apparently.

They quote was they haven't found "sufficient" evidence to prove willful crimes. Evidence exists that indicates crime might have been committed. Getting sufficient evidence to allow a conviction is a much higher bar. That's what the FBI is trying to find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #12)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:34 PM

18. Again There Is No Crime if Prosecutor Can't Prove Required Statutory Intent

nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #18)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:45 PM

27. Wrong. Gross negligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #27)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:51 PM

30. Gross Neligence is a Type of Intent/Mens Rea-Rarely Applied Because it Requires Extreme, Outrageous

conduct not mere negligence. Its one of the most incorrectly applied concepts by layman. There is no evidence of extreme or outrageous conduct either-there might be evidence of negligence which based on the several statutes I've reviewed is not sufficient to establish a criminal violation of any of these statutes

"Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #30)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:09 PM

37. I think deliberately conducting State business on an insecure server is willfull and gross negligeng

 

She was provided a secure account to use, which she refused to use. She didn't inform State Dept she was using her own server, thus they didn't inspect the security measures in place. The security in place on the server appears amateurish at best...for a period of time in 2013 there was no security at all. During that period of time, classified emails were stored on the server, after she signed a statement that she had turned over emails to the State Dept. She then ordered a partial deletion of emails in deliberate violation of the Records Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #37)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:56 PM

52. Yeah, it seems pretty plain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #52)

Fri May 6, 2016, 12:06 AM

68. No, it doesn't. For there to have been gross negligence

there was to have been a wanton and wilful violation. That's what the government would have to prove. And proving it is a bitch. Which is why they're now signalling that they haven't got the evidence to prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #37)

Fri May 6, 2016, 12:04 AM

67. You think that. And you'd be wrong. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #30)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:55 PM

50. If you think she used reasonable care I have nothing else to say!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #50)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:28 PM

61. No-Negligence is the LACK of Reasonable Care

so that flew right over your head. Lack of reasonable care is not Gross Negligence which is a much higher standard. Its often pled and very rarely established because it doesn't mean what you think it means

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #61)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:30 PM

62. Voluntary disregard...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #61)

Fri May 6, 2016, 12:08 AM

70. You know what they say about arguing legal issues

with a person who's not a lawyer...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JudyM (Reply #50)

Fri May 6, 2016, 12:07 AM

69. Reasonable care has nothing to do with gross negligence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #12)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:35 PM

19. Oh, insults! Yay!

I'm much more inclined to want to hear what you have to say now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to complain jane (Reply #1)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:38 PM

23. Actually they Saif "sufficient evidence" and " laws were wilfully broken"

 

"FBI officials stated they had yet to procure sufficient evidence that any laws were willfully broken, though the investigation is still ongoing".

In other words they have evidence but not enough. And Laws were broken but cannot prove wilfully... Technicalities so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Seeinghope (Reply #23)

Fri May 6, 2016, 12:09 AM

71. No, that's wishful thinking on your part. It can just as easily mean

that they have not procured ANY evidence, but they're still going to keep looking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:25 PM

2. Well now. Let's see how this plays out.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:27 PM

4. It doesn't change anything. That happens only if the FBI recommends indictment.

If that occurs, things get really ugly, really fast. And the Democratic party will be in deep shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #4)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:31 PM

14. I've been hearing for awhile that it was unclear whether Hillary would be questioned

 

personally, and I assume, under oath.

So this IS different, is it not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #14)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:15 PM

41. I'm sure s get Cheney to go with her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #14)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:32 PM

48. It was announced in February she was going to get questioned.

 

Made my ears perk up a little at the time. They are not gentle with those who attempt to play word games....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #14)

Fri May 6, 2016, 12:43 AM

72. to my layman thinking, the only game changer might be is if indictment

 

occurred but only then if convictions followed.

But I remember Fitzmas. The powerful have their game plan in place, I really don't believe there will be an indictment regardless of findings.

No, the only potential game changer might be if there is anything connected to the Clinton Foundation as related to all of this during her tenure as SoS. That might be a game changer, but I doubt anything will see the light of day, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #72)

Fri May 6, 2016, 01:30 AM

74. still, it's unbelievable to me

 

that our Dem "presumptive nominee" is running while under investigation by the FBI.

Has this EVER happened before?

I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #74)

Fri May 6, 2016, 02:19 AM

75. If memory serves, (that's a big IF) I believe Nixon was the first..

 

difference in his case, it was just before his second election campaign.

In other words, the Pentagon Papers, and Watergate stories were in place I believe roughly 2 years before his 2nd election.

It was widely reported on, widely discussed and certainly controversial but apparently the Repukes didn't give it much concern.

And some Democratic Voters who helped give Nixon his "landslide" victory were outraged that this was stuff was even being reported on at all. I kid you not. (My ex-husbands parents among others)

Logic and common sense seem to have very little to do with our "electorate" concerns or choices, it appears.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2banon (Reply #75)

Fri May 6, 2016, 10:55 AM

78. Thanks for the reply. Assuming that was the case with Nixon (which does sound plausible),

 

we saw how well that turned out for the country i.e. not so well.

During the Nixon years I was in an apolitical phase of my life, so my memory
is sketchy re: him being under investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #78)

Fri May 6, 2016, 11:36 AM

79. I suspect the Repukes pounced on Bill and Hill back in the '90s BECAUSE of Watergate

 

investigations which led to his ultimate resignation.

I observed their hatred and contempt for the Democratic Party went through the roof, They couldn't get Carter on moral grounds but the Clintons served it up on a silver platter.

And now we're going to go through that it again, just so we can have the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BillZBubb (Reply #4)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:46 PM

28. DOJ said last week a referral is being prepared against her. That's a case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:27 PM

5. Now we've gone from US officials being the source

 

to FBI officials....no names

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #5)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:37 PM

21. Exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #5)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:07 PM

57. This is beginning to feel like watching Pong.

Back and forth between "unnamed FBI sources" and "unnamed US officials".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #5)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:40 PM

64. But referring back to the CNN article, as if that were their source

for "FBI officials". Does anyone else think it's odd that the FBI would comment on an ongoing investigation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to winter is coming (Reply #64)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:42 PM

65. It's most likely a secretary or the mail room guy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:29 PM

9. Which they proved is not true...

 

by never asking a single damn question of her aides. If they were going to question her, they would have talked to them first. They have admitted this to be a lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #9)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:35 PM

20. they did

they already questioned the aides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #20)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:59 PM

34. But the FBI recently confirmed they didn't...

 

or are you calling the FBI liars?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #34)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:13 PM

39. It was reported her aides had been questioned.

 

Some more than once. They may be recalled for more questions. It appears Clinton is the only subject not questioned, though FBI can always add to list if need be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #39)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:16 PM

43. So Faux Knews lied.

 

Got a real source? Of course not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #43)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:22 PM

45. LA Times real enough for you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #45)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:31 PM

47. The level of denial on this is absolutely breathtaking. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #47)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:36 PM

49. Denial is strong in fanclub atmosphere.

 

Now Hillary is veering right and courting JEB's donor list. Tomorrows Hillarian talking point is to be how wonderful the Bush family is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to scscholar (Reply #34)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:59 PM

54. Jesus H Christ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:30 PM

13. I want to hear that from the FBI themselves

I don't believe for a second that "FBI officials" would state "they had yet to procure sufficient evidence that any laws were willfully broken".

That's just bullshit. Somebody is doing some real wishful thinking and if I were the FBI director I'd be pissed. Thats just not how the operate.














i

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:37 PM

22. The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing. Drip, drip, drip.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #22)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:03 PM

35. That is what I was thinking. For those who are taking comfort

in the fact that she has not been indicted you need to remember that many people think that anyone who is being investigated - especially by the FBI - has done something wrong or they would not be investigated. So unless they come right out and say that they found nothing she is going to appear guilty to a lot of voters.

It is not fair. We are supposed to assume innocence until proven guilty but that is not the way it works or would work for voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jwirr (Reply #35)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:11 PM

38. Of course those courteous and kindly Republicans won't say anything about an FBI investigation.

 

Just like they didn't say a peep about Edward Kennedy and Chappaquiddick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #38)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:15 PM

40. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:41 PM

24. Yes and no

 

There are ways that Clinton's legal counsel can require the FBI to disclose whether she is a target/suspect/person of interest/witness. From everything I've seen, she is a witness, and not an FBI target, the only people who would be targets would have wilful intent to evade the law's security purpose. That said, I would expect the FBI to have better questioning than former prosecutor Trey Gowdy, Congressman Extradinbullshit, who did not look like a law school grad in his questioning, much less a prosecutor, he looked like an unhinged idiot pretending to know what he was doing, which appeared to be trying to "get her" in the most inept way possible.

So yes, it is meaningful in that it will bring a conclusion sooner, no in that it will not likely result in an indictment unless she is willing to say her testimony before Congress was untrue and that she had wilful intent to evade the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:41 PM

25. Silly question, I'm sure...

But if HRC were to be charged(not found guilty, just charged), would you expect her to drop out?

Yes, yes, I know- it will never happen. But if it did, would you want her to drop out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to casperthegm (Reply #25)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:15 PM

42. Yes.

 

I would expect her to drop-out. What I "want" is not important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:50 PM

29. But,- it was just reported here officially that it was all over and there was nothing more to see

Hillary had no malevolent intentions when she had a private server set up in her home. It was just more of that bad judgement she employs so often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:54 PM

31. But but but

I just read the "unknown source" ironclad 'nothing to see here' story that HRC supporters are crowing about, if there is nothing to see, why interview her?

How about a couple of weeks after the interview, no charges are not filled but HRC drops out "to spend more time with my family".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #31)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:57 PM

32. It was not just an "unknown source", it was an unknown "US official"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EndElectoral (Reply #32)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:22 PM

46. Oh

It's even more ironclad now. "Unknown U.S. Official briefed on the investigation" sounds a lot more official-ish. that is code for "shit I thought I overheard in the elevator."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angrychair (Reply #31)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:19 PM

44. Great question. Why indeed.

 

If the investigation is over and there's 'nothing to see', the why question Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 08:58 PM

33. I have seen numerous posts from the usual

 

suspects claiming Clinton has been exonerated all late afternoon here.

It has morphed from an 'unknown official' to an actual FBI investigator.

I guarantee there is going to be a negative news report on Clinton in the Friday afternoon news dump.

I guarantee that Trump and the GOP will attack her campaign hard on this.

I guarantee that this is a pre-emptive attempt to fight back on this by mudding the waters and sewing doubt. This is an information war and zombie Americans are being manipulated.

I heard a local ASU professor with a Ph.D. claim today on local talk radio that Clinton did nothing wrong and she doesn't care about the emails. She would have used her personal email herself in the same situation. This is how stupid the American populace is. Personal email is NOT the same as a home-brew server that violates security protocols and skirts FOIA laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #33)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:05 PM

36. Please, tell us more about your long, deep-seated interest in Cabinet official's e-mail practices

before the political opponent of your preferred candidate became involved in the matter.

I'll do my best Jon Stewart;


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:56 PM

51. . . . or not. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 09:56 PM

53. How much bullshit is packed in this?

Who gave a briefing on the facts of an ongoing FBI investigation? That's right-absolutely no one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:10 PM

58. Just announced it's hardly over, just getting started.

 

The game changer is the Wall Street transcripts.
Ban on fracking
Breaking up the big banks
Single Payer Healthcare
Expand Soc. Sec.


Then we'll talk. The war mongering will be a tough one for me. But the others are a must have for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ViseGrip (Reply #58)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:36 PM

63. It's over

Turn out the lights Bern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:12 PM

59. usuncut



Any poster is using a source saying the same thing who also says Bill Clinton has secret police kill his enemies' dogs.

Y'all just

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu May 5, 2016, 10:17 PM

60. Golly gee, that must mean the FBI will issue a citation?

 

Is that what you are implying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 12:46 AM

73. This was said before except it's definite now that Hillary WILL be interviewed.

Before it was possibly. The expected schedule before has happened and is now moving forward to the next step. So... I think the celebration is premature. But then, they know that. This "it's over" thing is all theater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 03:05 AM

77. It all depends on her intent

Officials: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails

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,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread