Obama Puts His Guarantee On It. Full stop. Period.
A very interesting clip of someone appearing to definitively state a verdict in something they are guaranteeing they have no knowledge of, so take it as you will.
= new reply since forum marked as read
I think Obama is trying just a little bit TOO hard to publicly demonstrate that he is on Hillary Clinton's side, at a time when the FBI has just interviewed HRC's aids and is about to interview HRC.
I am sure that the entire Clinton camp (as well as Obama) are quite aware now of where the FBI stands, in terms of their case against Clinton and the direction in which they are going--based on the interviews with her aids.
What happened during the interviews with her aids, is pure speculation. Who knows.
However, I think Obama is being asked to shore up support for Clinton in any way he can. I think he is acquiescing. I think Obama knows in the long run that what he says about Clinton will have absolutely no bearing on the FBI investigation.
I also think it's possible that if (and that's a big "if"
the FBI concludes that crimes happened and recommends indictment--that Obama's DOJ will issue that indictment. Many speculate that the DOJ will opt not to indict her, and it will be a political decision. I don't think that will happen. In my opinion, if the FBI recommends indictment that this goes all the way. And I think Obama knows this (further solidifying that he understands that what he says will make no difference, in the end). If she is indicted by the DOJ, that proves that Obama's administration was not political and that they were fair--which would exonerate him from any words he spoke about Clinton. By that time, all hell will have broken lose and the media firestorm will neutralize any words that Obama spoke during this interview (and the indictment of HRC would exonerate him of having a corrupt DOJ).
We honestly do not know what is going on behind the scenes. We just have to accept that there is a lot that we don't know. However, Comey has said that they will interview her people, then HRC. And that is the end of the investigation. These interviews are merely a formality, it seems. The FBI knows exactly what went down, because they've got an electronic record of everything. Plus, they've got Pagliano testifying with immunity. These interviews aren't to glean facts. They all ready know everything. Imagine if in Patreaus's situation, they had email correspondence of every move that was made. In cases like this, you don't question people to ask them what happened. You have electronic evidence of what happened. These interviews are mainly to tell these people the case laid out against them. And possibly provide an opportunity for them to perjure themselves.
I imagine that we will know the FBI's final determinations before the end of May. That day can't come soon enough. Either way, we just need to know and move on from there.
