Investigation Sought Into Clinton Emails

[mylye2222]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigation-sought-into-hillary-clintons-emails-1437714369

Govt wants to probe whenever firmer SoS Clinton might have sent potential classified informations.

[JustAnotherGen]

1. This is going nowhere

Just more Republican lead investigations to try and take out the Democratic Party - because they don't have a single candidate without their head up their ass running for President.

[Lurks Often]

2. Newsflash, President Obama appointed the IG recommending the investigation

President Obama appointed the current IG for the State Department, Steve Linick assumed the position 6/27/13, not quite 6 months after Hillary Clinton stepped down as Sec of State.

So if it is a hit job, it would seem to be a Democratic hit job.

Or maybe, just maybe, it is a legitimate investigation.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Still don't think it is going anywhere

On the one hand you have people saying Obama is carrying water for Clinton and on the other hand you have people saying he's out to get her.

Don't believe either one - and between Vince Foster and Birth Certificate nonsense until it is absolutely proven and beyond a shadow of a doubt I won't believe anything reported in the MSM about Democratic Party members that is negative.

[Lurks Often]

4. Time will tell if it goes anywhere or not and there is nothing wrong with wanting proof

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Nothing wrong with that at all

Just remember -

Obama is a muslim facist socialist communist un-American

Clinton is a murdering wimp who lets her husband walk all over her and who pals around with Saudis and Hollyweird.

Sanders is North East socialist who only eats maple syrup.

O'Malley taxes toilets and rain and hates white people

Chafee and Webb deserve any nonsense thrown their way.


If this is a 'take out' of Clinton we want her in for as long as possible so they don't time to refine the hit job on O'Malley - or Sanders.

[freshwest]

12. It's a paperwork thing, not a criminal thing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027006178

[JustAnotherGen]

14. Ahhh - so you mean

It's not like - like - she's going to jail? Like - who knew FW? Now about O'Malley hating white people because he apologized for adding anything else onto black lives matter . .. is that criminal? Procedural? Paper work - because Jeb Bush is about to bust a you know what over him doing and saying the right thing.

[freshwest]

15. Hey. JAG, about this and O'Malley:

Last edited Sun Aug 2, 2015, 02:44 PM - Edit history (1)

The narrative pushed by the OP, et al, is falling apart quickly:

UPDATE: Clinton NOT under "criminal investigation" for emails

@JohnJHarwood: Justice Dept official says "referral" related to Hillary Clinton's email is NOT for a criminal investigation - contradicting earlier reports

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027006178

New York Times Adds A 64-Word Correction To Its Clinton Email Story

Correction: July 24, 2015

An earlier version of this article and an earlier headline, ​using information from senior government officials, misstated the nature of the referral to the Justice Department regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email account while she was secretary of state. The referral addressed the potential compromise of classified information in connection with that personal email account. It did not specifically request an investigation into Mrs. Clinton.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nyt-correction-hillary-clinton-emails

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141156547

DOJ: No, We Weren't Asked To Launch A Criminal Probe Into Clinton's Emails

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/doj-no-hillary-clinton-criminal-inquiry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141156399

The Evil Clinton drooling should be over by now, but it's been hardwired since Rush began it back in the 1990s to give Newt that Republican majority. Yes, I remember all of that. Wait, let me offer them a virtual hanky to wipe it off their chin... See, much better. I might even take them seriously now... NOT.

As far as O'Malley, I think he handled it all very well. After his gaffe, he kept on listening. He didn't lose his cool at BLM, he was taking in a new reality, not hiding from it all. And he seems to have his principles down and not running from them. I can see and hear a bit of the hope and faith of Obama in him, and that is heartening to me. Still, he's not beating the lecturn with a shoe, and that appears to be all that satisfies some people. I am a little surprised O'Malley's not doing well in the polls. And if he calls Clinton out, fine by me. But this other stuff... Not buying it.

If learning is called hating white people, sorry to say, they're just hating themselves. Getting along with others is Survival 101. The white people doing this kind of talk are shooting themselves, and the aware white people in the foot. Heck, they may kneecap of the white people if they keep on hanging onto that.

BLM is merely reporting a 'crime in process' that needs some very hard action. The only thing I think makes it hard for O'Malley or Clinton, is they speak in terms of experience in getting things done, which is harder not to let infuse one's dialogue.

I'm going to let what bravenak posted show the urgency of the crime in process, from BLM:

252. Maybe delete and apologize for your 'race nagging' comment. We are dying and in jail.

It is not nagging. We are fighting for our lives and our childrens lives. How is that nagging? It is a demand to be treated fairly and equally and to be seen. Look at me. Notice my race. It affect me everyday. Why not just join our call and not feel nagged, but instead feel called to action?

Black Lives Matter:

This is a CALL TO ACTION TO PROGRESSIVES!!!SOS!!!!SOS!!! MAYDAY MAYDAY, WE'RE SCARED TO LEAVE OUR
HOMES AND THE COPS CAN JUST COME IN AND KILL US, HELP HELP HELP!! OUR HUSBANDS ARE IN JAIL AND OUR KIDS ARE POOR, WE'RE SCARED!!

To that you say: Race naggers!!! I think that was a terribly unfeeling and mean response. It saddens me.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251467790#post252

Format edited by me. Probably the most poweful call to action for 'progressives' and 'liberals' I have ever seen. That is what the Democratic Party is supposed to be about, not what is going on here. Anti-Democratic Party?

And no, HRC isn't going to jail!

[JustAnotherGen]

18. I'm all in for O'Malley but I've learned

As all Liberals and Progressives should have learned - wait on Clinton. Seriously - never ever take the headline at face value - because it's always someone ginning up controversy for clicks and ad dollars.

[clarice]

10. +1.nt

[randome]

13. Really? You want proof of a negative?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[karynnj]

16. From other posts, it is not the State IG, but the Intelligence IG -- and only the Intelligence IG

The NYT absolutely botched the story - saying criminal investigation (not criminal) and suggesting HRC as target (apparently it is for how the email is to be handled.) From this Politico summary of all the reporting errors, the DOJ is partly to blame for initial errors. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/07/in-clinton-email-inquiry-a-changing-story-211211.html

The NYT story does two opposite things:

- For most on left, their errors, will likely discredit the entire story.
- For the right, the NYT story is the best gift ever - they will use the first story everywhere and all the time. Then months from now, wonder how come no indictment.

So, we will mostly have two completely separate narratives - On the left, it reinforces those who believe the media hates HRC and lies about her -- and there is absolutely no story here. On the right, it is a new smoking gun that they can't believe the entire world does not see.

I could read only the beginning of this WSJ story - and won't give them money by subscribing, but their lead in paragraphs seems to focus on the issue of whether any of HRC's emails had material that should have been classified when sent. From the visible part they do not speak of "criminal".

Reading everything:
1) It is clear there is no criminal investigation.
2) The State IG did not refer this, the Intelligence IG did --- another NYT error.
3) There is an investigation, but it is either a) to find procedures to avoid any accidental exposure of classified info as the SD scrubs HRC's emails. (Some accounts say that there was at least one put out that should not have been) or b) an investigation of whether anything was classified at the point HRC sent it.

I suspect that, while the worst parts of the story turned out to be in error, every time the issue of Clinton's private server is raised - it is bad for HRC. In this case, it brings in the idea of whether or not classified info was sent from her server.

[tavernier]

5. ...

💤💤💤💤💤

[SidDithers]

7. Benghazi!...nt

Sid

[sufrommich]

8. +1. nt

[freshwest]

11. AFAIK, this is part of the permanent Benghazi commmittee's works. nt

[karynnj]

17. Actually not -- it is an inspector general, who works for the administration and is independent of

the department that is monitored. This was the Intelligence one.

[freshwest]

19. It began as a scam from the GOP Benghazi committee. Do you think Kerry was wrong?

This entire thread has you going after minutia to make HRC look dishonest and criminal:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11094456

That's your right to do so. I don't see it the same way, I look at who benefits from this. Our conversation is at an end.

[SidDithers]

9. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027006178

Sid

[zappaman]

20. Vince Foster!