DesMoines Register: Clinton denies FBI investigation into family foundation

[berni_mccoy]

Hillary Clinton disputed a report Monday that the FBI is investigating whether there were illegal connections between her family’s foundation and her service as secretary of state.

Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president, was asked about the Fox News story during a meeting Monday afternoon with the Des Moines Register’s editorial board. “It’s an unsourced, irresponsible claim that has no basis," she responded. "It is something that is really without merit and should not have any influence whatsoever in this nominating process."

Clinton said there is no such FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation. “There is nothing like that happening,” she said.

Fox News cited three unidentified “intelligence sources” as saying foundation officials took improper advantage of Clinton's position as head of the State Department. The network, a favorite of conservatives, said the investigation was an expansion of the review into whether Clinton used her private email account to share classified information. Clinton reiterated to the Register editorial board that she never used the private account to send or receive information marked as classified, though she has said she should not have used the separate account for State Department business.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/11/clinton-denies-fbi-investigation-into-family-foundation/78655054/

[JonLeibowitz]

1. Because I'm sure the FBI shares progress reports about all its investigations with the targets?

For fuck's sake...

I was born one day, but it wasn't yesterday.

[emulatorloo]

3. Because I'm sure Fox News and its 'unidentified' sources would never lie.

[JonLeibowitz]

7. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that FOX news is reliable, only that she wouldn't necessarily know

if the FBI was investigating such a line of inquiry.

By the way, Woodward & Bernstein also relied on unidentified sources. So does Seymour Hersh. That does not make the reporting incorrect.

[emulatorloo]

11. So Fox 'reporters' = Woodward and Bernstein? Seymour Hersh?

I don't share your assessment of Fox's journalistic integrity.

I understood your assertion that HRC would not know if she was under the investigation.

However your only source that says she/CF is under investigation is Fox News.

That means you are accepting Fox News reporting, and appealing to their authority.

And now you are doubling down and smearing ethical reporters.

[JonLeibowitz]

18. I have smeared no one.

I have also made no assessment of Fox's journalistic integrity.

I have not said that she is under investigation.

Let me be clear: I am saying that if the report is true, and we don't know whether it is, there is no reason to suspect that she would be able to know one way or the other and so her blanket denial means nothing.

One does not have to believe the report at all to know that her statement is unbelievable.

[emulatorloo]

20. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me it is raining. Take a hint from Cali below.

13. I believe nothing from Fux News.

[JonLeibowitz]

21. Please indicate where I have said that I believe Faux news.

Thank you in advance.

[emulatorloo]

23. You base all your comments as if the Fox News report is true.

You don't question the 'unnamed' sources from a "news" organization that is most know for lying about Democrats.

I am sure you are a wonderful person, but I am FED UP with the naive promotion of dishonest right-wing sources here on DU so long as they attack HRC.

I say naive because once Bernie wins Iowa and NH, these same lying fuckers are going to dump RAW SEWAGE 24/7 on Senator Sanders.

The enemy of my 'enemy' is NOT my friend.

Have a great night!

[JonLeibowitz]

24. I am not obfuscating at all. And I am not promoting the attack. I am saying her denial means little

either way, when viewed in the proper context. Just like the Faux News report doesn't mean much (due to it being the work of Fox News).

I hope i wasn't misunderstood.

Have a great night.

[emulatorloo]

25. Jon I always enjoy your posts. I apologize for the heavy-handed rhetoric.

Last edited Tue Jan 12, 2016, 01:31 PM - Edit history (1)

I should not have gotten so aggressively hyperbolic about it. It wasn't necessary to making my point, and I'm sorry.

[reddread]

32. Woodward ethical?

not hardly.

[emulatorloo]

34. I'm not the one who brought up Woodward & Berstein.

Have a nice day.

[Punkingal]

2. I hope she's right! What a mess that could be.

Would she know for sure if there is or isn't though? Aren't they sometimes secret?

[berni_mccoy]

5. I guess it depends

On who the sources are and if they have enough probable cause to involve members of the foundation directly. It's possible she doesn't know yet.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. If these unnamed sources actually have anything, it's their move.

The FBI either is or is not investigating the Clinton Foundation. Clinton flatly denies this. If the unnamed sources aren't full of shit, then the onus is on them to produce a little bit of documentation for their claim.

[JonLeibowitz]

8. Why would you expect Hillary to know what the FBI is investigating? n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

15. Whether Hillary knows or not doesn't change my statement, and I don't know what she knows or doesn't

If she is being investigated, and she knows it, and she flatly denied it today, she's going to have some trouble.

If she is being investigated, and she doesn't know it, it probably wasn't advisable for her to flatly deny it.

If she's been told by the FBI that there is no investigation, then her statement was right and properl

But I didn't make a claim depends on the truthfulness of Fox News, Hillary Clinton, or anonymous sources.

[JonLeibowitz]

19. If I was the FBI and a suspect asked me if I was under investigation I would lie.

Law enforcement is under no obligation to tell the truth to suspects. For that reason her denial is meaningless (but not necessarily factually incorrect)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Please bookmark this post.

Please bookmark this post.


I have been following this story closely and the right wing and their allies in the media are trying to set up a scenario that when the Obama Department Of Justice fails to indict Hillary Clinton they can say that the decision wasn't made on the merits but was made on a political calculation.


FOX has been flogging their sources forever.

I have even seen Bill O'Reilly suggest this could result in Loretta Lynch's impeachment, smh.

[Punkingal]

10. By pretending there is an investIgation?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. If you want me to answer your question you will have to elaborate.

Of course there is an investigation.


Thank you in advance.


Respectfully,
DSB

[Punkingal]

16. Sorry, I was confused. She says there is no investigation.

I was thinking you were saying they were floating false rumors of an investigation. But you say there is actually an investigation.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. There is an investigation of her private e-mail server.

There is no evidence that the investigation has expanded, the claims of GOP operatives and their allies in the right wing media notwithstanding.

I guess we will know in the fullness of time.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. I won't actually bookmark, but I'll definitely keep it in mind and see what transpires.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I have heard more than one GOP operative say DOJ will fail to indict regardless of the evidence.

I will even put names to them: Brad Blakeman and Joe DiGenova.

They are promulgating the theory that DOJ won't indict, not for lack of evidence but out of a political calculation.

Back to O'Reilly...He said FBI Chief Comey might resign in some 21st century version of the Saturday Night Massacre,

DSB doesn't sleep on this isht.

[emulatorloo]

35. DSB, that's a damn good analysis.

[cali]

13. I believe nothing from Fux News

[Agschmid]

30. Yup.

[Skwmom]

26. Would explain Biden saying he regretted not running. n/t

[MrChuck]

27. Here's my suspicion

...and it has nothing to do with the veracity of Fux Noose or anything like that.

If any RW puppet masters were planning on rolling out a coffin nail for the Clinton campaign this early they might be rethinking that just now.
Sanders polling higher means that they might have to diversify their targeting soon. If she isn't the nominee then why torch her campaign?

Some things are already being ginned up against Sanders and his wife, if you haven't seen them. They look fairly bogus but we all know that truth is far from the most important criterion toward spin and ultimate belief on the part of the voting public.

All I'm saying is this, the efforts of RW kingmakers aren't going to be wasted on Hillary Clinton when she is on the fade. Those people know that they can't beat Sanders in a fair fight.

[libdem4life]

28. Sorry, I don't save links. But I read recently that they are looking at other servers

of staff that were wiped. Currently Pagliani...who used to work for her and I believe plead the 5th at some time. The email thing is not over. And neither is the Foundation thing.

[DVRacer]

29. She can deny what she wants

But she has no idea what the FBI is looking into. Call me all the names you want but I have a small glimpse into how they investigate and they will be looking at everything. They are and will remain apolitical getting any kind of political opinion out of my brother is impossible. This is not over and somebody's got to go to jail is the philosophy she faces.

[John Poet]

31. Just the fact that this is a plausible line of investigation

sure does not help her in Iowa... or anywhere else.

I think the Democratic Party should have a presidential nominee,
about whom we don't have to argue
what line of investigation
the F.B.I. may or may not be pursuing,
in regards to them.

The fact that we are having this discussion at all
is a huge argument against Clinton's "electability".

[Green Forest]

33. Her State Department lied to the Justice Department for years so why should we believe her now?

State Department gave ‘inaccurate’ answer on Clinton email use, review says:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-clinton-led-state-department-gave-inaccurate-answer-on-email-use/2016/01/06/da01edf8-b4a1-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html