Why should help her? (or anyone else)

Talk about slippery slopes..................

If Clinton is indicted, she's obviously in deep trouble electorally.

If Clinton is not indicted, someone will leak any "not pretty" things found by the investigation as an October surprise.

Whether or not Obama intervenes does not matter when it comes to the election.

I believe it was the great philosopher Barreta that said "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".

...really shady if he did.

That's probably why he hasn't.

as Ford to Clinton's Nixon.

but professionals can resign and cause a stink if they feel they are being misused. Google "perversion of justice" it was a big meme during Watergate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre

Now, there are huge differences - Nixon himself was threatened and there was a special prosecutor, but the gist was that Nixon wanted to stop the investigation. Both his AG and a deputy AG refused to fire the special prosecutor and each in turn resigned. Then the solicitor general, Robert Bork, wrote the letter firing him -- though later he spoke of considering resigning.

Obama would be in the position Nixon was in -- and it is pretty likely that AG Lynch will act on the merits of the recoommendation of the FBI ... and Comey will let the facts dictate. What you are suggesting is that Obama destroy his own reputation and legacy and put the people he placed in these positions in a position of acting as partisan hacks. (Note that Nixon had more motivation as the invesigation was directed at him and he knew what had been done.)

What I haven't seen is any action by Clinton or her closest aides to resolve this quickly. In fact, they have dragged their feet through the entire investigation. What I resent is that Obama, the FBI, the Justice Department and the State Department have all had to deal with the mess that Clinton created -- and she says it was because it was too inconvenient to carry two phones! I resent that this will be something that will be part of Obama's legacy.

Which makes her supporters' claims about her political astuteness baffling and without merit. She is the sole reason this is all coming to a head leading up to the GE.

a clear overstepping of his authority, and would only serve to make Clinton look guilty.

"I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case," Obama said. "Nobody is above the law. How many times do I have to say it?"

Wow-- I must have missed the news about the instigators of the Iraq War all being thrown in jail.

But, you know, all the Dems said we gotta look forward. In that case why do
we even have a criminal justice system in this country? Why focus on negative
stuff, tomorrow will certainly be better.

Look terrible, and it wouldn't stop information about the case from leaking to the public.

Obama is in a tough spot, honestly. If the FBI recommends indictment of Hillary and/or her top aides, and Obama requests the DoJ not pursue, there will be massive protests in the FBI and DoJ and it will severely damage his legacy. If he allows the DoJ to go forward with indictment, then he effectively destroys the Clinton campaign (honestly, just the recommendation from the FBI will pretty much end her campaign).

Everything hinges on what the FBI comes up with and presents to Justice.

Her legal problems are made by her, for her, all consequences are hers. Fucking own them. Or get the fuck out of public life. That's how it works for crooks.

... that the whole system was corrupt, this would be it.

It would convince us of her guilt, and his being complicit in it. This would be the end of the Democratic Party for many years to come.

You'd better go read up.

The Obama administration isn't going to let an indictment of Clinton be it's final text.

If it comes to her being indicted she'll be protected from that in due course. We'll find out on a late Saturday afternoon, after the Sunday shows are set.

Can't they arrive at some conclusion, already? What else could they be waiting for?

Does anyone think the GOP wants to do this after Bernie concedes? Is it possible the GOP can use this between now and November? Can the GOP manipulate this?

I guess I'm wondering how much longer this can drag on.

So as to avoid charges she will make some sort of deal- such as withdrawing from the Presidential race in order to avoid spending the rest of her life in prison.

Maybe I wouldn't count on a President Cruz pardoning her. Trump I think would though.

and interference in a Department of Justice investigation... and according to some, might be construed as a felony.

they started investigating this, oh 12 months ago. We are in court right now in a preliminary hearing for essentially determining whether law enforcement used excessive force, JUST NOW we got to the prelim... been 11 months. I will link to one of the stories, it has the links to the rest.

https://reportingsandiego.com/2016/04/20/state-of-mind-during-the-confrontation-between-branch-and-detective-ward/

Compared to the email server, this one is simple as can be.

A law enforcement investigation can take a long time, So far they have delayed it twice. Which tells me they are dotting eyes and crossing Ts... I hope this is released before the convention, but would not surprise me if this goes all the way to Oct or nov, They are, or should be on a political calendar, but DoJ is not on one for the most part.

Yes, it can be maddeningly slow...

Unimaginable.

quite honestly.

Myself, the popcorn will be great,

they first delayed the report in December, they hinted that May not be the time frame, more like July.

Yes, the system can be maddeningly slow.

Wouldn't that rot Frump's socks!!!

if she gets indicted before the convention and Sanders has not conceded and she does not decide to run for the good of the country, Sanders becomes the nominee... it is quite automatic at that point. He is the only other candidate running, If he concedes, we go into a brokered convention.

If she is indicted after the convention and stands down, the party might put in a second person that might or might not lose the election, conceivably the VEEP who will have to recruit somebody else. If she decides to run... she will lose and destroy the party in the process, The Rs are having their issues, but both parties will leave the nomination process so wounded it is not even funny.

If she should somehow win the presidency, she will try to stop the process and assuming the Rs still have the House and the Senate, there will be impeachment hearings. All those FBI agents will be compelled to testify.

As a reporter I have to play with all the scenarios This of course includes, a final report clearing her of all wrong doing.

There are a few other permutations in this, including her never taking over the Presidency, in exchange for a pardon for her veep... and the whoever the Rs nominate winning and ordering a new DOJ to continue. She is not even close to the time she could no longer be prosecuted on this.

If there was any merit to these claims, Biden would be in the race. If Clinton withdrew, then her delegates could vote for anyone they felt like which would be someone like Biden or Kerry. Sanders would kill down ballot candidates

There will be no indictment except in the minds of the fox news viewers

I know you hate him, but them rules you love to quote are there for a reason.

And under two scenarios they would have no choice. My view is that one reason they are desperate to get him to concede is precise becuase of that. By the way, Biden is not running. He meant that when he talked with Colbert, So think of somebody else.

And I doubt it will be Elizabeth Warren either... but it has to be somebody with SOME name recognition.

Under GOP rules, currently only a candidate that has won 8 states may be nominated. That rule (40A) was only adopted in 2012 to mess with Ron Paul and may or may not be in this year's convention rules for the GOP. Each convention sets its own rules. The rules committees for each party start meeting the week before the convention to have a final set of rules available for the start of the convention.

Here is the link to the Texas Democratic Party Delegation Selection Plan which appears to be similar to the plans that I reviewed for other states
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://texasdemocraticconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/A1-2016-Delegate-Selection-Plan-2.8.2016.pdf The members of the three standing committees for the Democratic Convention are allocated based on the primary results. Texas for example gets 9 members for each of the Rules committee, the Platform Committee and the Credentials committee which means that Clinton will get 6 or 7 members coming from Texas for each committee. These Rules committee is where the rules for the actual convention will be determined and Clinton delegates will like control each of these committees. The credential committee may be important for example if the Sanders people try to change the allocation of delegates.

There is rule for Democrats that it equivalent of rule 40A. Anyone may nominate anyone from the floor subject to certain limitations and even pledged delegates are free to vote for anyone who is nominated. That is why under Democratic rules, the candidates have absolute approval rights over their pledged delegates and I know that the Clinton campaign is vetting the people running to be national delegates. The people who pass the vetting process will be strong party types who will do what is best for the party.

The Democratic Party and the Republican Party each have very different rules and just because there is a chance that the GOP may continue Rule 40A for this convention does not mean that such rule applies to the Democratic National Convention.

Go read the rules. I have but I am both applying to be a delegate and I am helping to vet Clinton delegates.

by the way, Biden prefers Sanders...

I thought you should know.

And also if he is the ONLY FUCKING NOMINEE they have no choice under the rules. I know you hate him, I absolutely know this. But if she stands down for whatever reason before the nomination and the party nominates anybody but the remaining candidate, you will have hell to pay.

Oh the other hand, I like riots, they are entertaining. And not that Sanders is asking for them. but Chicago 1968 comes to mind. And they are entertaining as long as I do not have to cover them physically.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/joe-biden-clinton-criticism-bernie-sanders-222264#ixzz46VeZJ4x0
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Read the Democratic Party rules. There is no equivalent to the GOP rule 40A. Democratic delegates including pledged delegates can vote for anyone they want which would include Biden, Warren or Kerry.

Again, the Clinton delegates will be in control of the Rules Committee unless Sanders can win a majority of the pledged delegates and therefore can set the rules for the convention to allow delegates to nominate anyone they want.

Again, read the Democratic Party rules and ignore the GOP rules

go correct the VEEP by the way.

And that is what it is. If he is the remaining one standing and the democratic party pulls a 1968... you will lose, and I will enjoy the popcorn

Do you really believe this? Thank you for the laughs

Read the party rules. Your claims are wrong. The Democratic National Convention Rules committee could adopt any rules they want as to who can be nominated from the floor and the Clinton delegates will be in control of that committee

go watch the interview with Colbert, and perhaps you will understand why he will not run. I do, and I empathize with him, FULLY. By the way I will enjoy the riots in Philadelphia. They will be a hoot, especially at distance. They are best watched on a stream, less dangerous that way.

By the way, the arguments being made by people like you surprise me in the least.

Oh and one more thing. I don't give a shit if you nominate the man on the moon. It's your party, the damage you do it it is your fucking business.

I will truly enjoy the popcorn

Historians should have a hoot, assuming the species survives... climate change you know.

By the way, you do not understand fully what happens when a candidate steps down and ENDORSES the other candidate. Thanks for playing, For an endorsement from the floor you need a fucking open convention.

If Trump is the nominee, then the Democrats are likely to retake control of the Senate and have an improving chance of taking over the House. Sanders would kill down ballot candidate which is why Pelosi will not let congressional candidates run on Sanders platform http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/politics/nancy-pelosi-bernie-sanders-taxes/

There will be no indictment and so this is moot. However, I would not assume that Sanders will be the nominee in the event of an indictment. Sanders would kill too many down ballot candidates.

I put my country before YOUR party. Democrats might have to make that choice soon. Will be a hoot.

Last edited Thu Apr 21, 2016, 08:16 PM - Edit history (1)

In mid-late March it was widely reported that the FBI had wrapped up their investigation of the evidence, and would be starting on interviews. First, Clinton's aids next Clinton herself.

From everything I've read, these interviews were not to gather evidence, but to put the evidence into context. In other words, they're not interviewing to gather facts or a narrative, the emails/electronic evidence provided that. In a nutshell, these interviews weren't expected to take long. end of May timeframe for all interviews doesn't seem outrageous.

I haven't heard July. I would never question the FBI, obviously, but July is far off. This could upend our party and throw this election into a tailspin.

I am deeply concerned because, based on what I've read, I don't see how the FBI could avoid recommending indictment. I find the basic lack of knowledge and awareness about the laws and what Clinton did--disturbing. If Sanders had the same FBI investigation hanging over his head, I'd be pouring over every article I could find.

I think our party is in for a shock for which most are unprepared.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-timeline-221565

And when Comey said that I was surprised becuase I thought they were going to try to work within the political calendar. OTOH that at least to me means they found more. I covered a few court cases. Delays are usually not good for the defendant, in this case potential.

I a m amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

avoiding the Freedom of Information Act though I don't know who would be responsible for this.

Many groups wanted and was entitled to info that was not turned over because it was on the private server. It seems someone should be held responsible for that, but I don't know if that would be Hillary or someone in the State Department.

laws which require the finding of intent to harm national security and knowledge that the material was confidential. These laws do not apply but Fox News is still pushing for an indictment and some here are now praying for an indictment

The FBI's credibility is on the line as well.

They have had it since March of 2015. They still haven't indicted him.

Federal Investigations move very slow to clear or indict someone.

If the president does it it's okay???!!

was innocent if that happened. It would be seen as a cover up. This is one more of those things she is going to have to let run its course because right or wrong the public is going to consider her guilty until proven innocent.

And I am NOT saying she IS guilty - the problem is the perception of the public.

The theory that Clinton will be indicted are silly and have no substance. Most of these claims have been floating around the Free Republic for many months and now have migrated to DU.

There is simply no need for President Obama to do anything here

as shadows as they are from their previous years... if there was nothing, the DOJ would have already told us so.

The advantage of NOT falling in love with any politician is a clear eyed view of events.

It takes a long time to build an airtight case, especially when you're dealing with a
pathological serial liar and obfuscator.

and NONE of them are good.

1) improper handling of government records, including those classified (keeping them in your personal basement is basically "criminally stupid&quot ;

2) FOIA issues and possible perjury/attempted destruction of government records (she deleted half of them claiming they were "personal" but turned out they were backed up "on the cloud"/the FBI has them and shockingly she didn't just delete personal stuff); and

3) the CONTENT which includes not reporting lobbying by a foreign interest (Blumentha), not reporting security issues by Blumenthal and communication between Clinton Foundation "donors" that looks like "pay to play" for some of their clients -- which is probably where the "public corruption" stuff is coming from.

But I am *totally* willing to wait for the FBI summary of their YEAR LONG INVESTIGATION, because we all know they like to spend that much investigating "things that aren't crimes", right?



It can be inferred that a Grand Jury has already been convened (immunity for the IT guy) and the hacker being extradited is probably more evidence.

They need to pull the trigger so we can move on the next stage of Hillary Denial Land: "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and "the FBI Director hates her because Whitewater stuff" and of course "indictment doesn't mean she's guilty!"

Predictable, actually. Sigh.

may have had some things in her e-mails that were later classified. But wasn't the government servers compromised
and thousands and thousands of classified documents made public? It seems to me that as it turns out they were actually safer on her
private server.

Supposedly over 2000 emails on her private server, contained classified data.

There are also questions of FOIA violations...for her and the State Dept.

Classified emails released to the public have classified data retracted.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-email-probe-20160327-story.html (among many)

"Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server...
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.

The bigger question is whether she or her aides distributed classified material in email systems that fell outside of the department’s secure classified system. But even if prosecutors determine that she did, chances she will be found criminally liable are low. U.S. law makes it a crime for someone to knowingly or willfully retain classified information, handle it in a grossly negligent manner or to pass it to someone not entitled to see it."

Sure seems she negligently, and knowingly, handled emails/memos/info in a questionable manner.


Secretary Hillary Clinton's statements regarding her emails:
1. "I fully complied with every rule I was governed by."
2. "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material."
3. "I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two," she said. "Looking back, it would have been better if I'd simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn't seem like an issue."

were made public by Snowden? Seems that server was not as safe as hers. Snowden was considered some kind of hero by many
on DU. But you want her prosecuted when no harm was done. Kind of a double standard.

Not my call whether she be prosecuted for being a dumb ass.

But she knowingly and negligently and recklessly did so.

...to read the continuing association of Hillary Clinton to Richard Nixon. People honestly feel Hillary, like Nixon, premeditated an act - in this case, of "passing classified email"? - to put the USA in danger? What was her motivation? Why did she want to put the US in danger? Is she working for another government?

The questions are endlessly fascinating...

PS - I believe this is just another wild Hillary witch hunt. The most investigated woman on Earth! Too bad we can't go after real crooks and/or use the money to help people in need.

Bottom line is she can take down other government officials for doing the exact same thing if they try to indict, so the GOP won't actually pull the trigger. They're just letting it all sit there unresolved in order to hurt her chances.

It's staggering, how far the GOP is willing to go to try to stop her. It's like an evil dark fairy tale of never-ending magical campaigns, curses, potions, poisoned apples, imposters, and Castle intrigue. They will do anything for control of the power and money. This will continue until her influence wanes, at least another 10 years.

There's nothing here that would capture the regular American on the street, like money or arms changing hands. Nothing sexy enough to engage the American low-information voter. She probably did violate some protocols, but no one really cares.

She's right to ignore it, because it's never going to stop.

The appearance of wrongdoing is already bad enough, without adding an actual cover-up on top.