I'm seeing more and more news about the FBI investigating and possibly indicting Hillary Clinton.

[boomer55]

I'm looking for a more centered view on the story rather than the frothing idiot sites. can you recommend a good neutral place to read up on this?

thanks

[Xipe Totec]

1. Where are you seeing this? Links? nt

[pinebox]

4. Was on Yahoo and MSN yesterday

Here http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268688-fbi-confirms-probe-clinton-probe-is-ongoing

I'll start a new topic

[boomer55]

10. thanks!

[boomer55]

5. msnbc and fox

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/08/fbi-says-clinton-email-investigation-remains-ongoing.html

[Xipe Totec]

24. The only place I see the word indictment is Faux News (surprise, surprise).

The rest is already out there in other stories here at DU.

[Purveyor]

7. FBI Formally Confirms Its Investigation Of Hillary Clinton’s Email Server

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141341753

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. High School Civics

The FBI investigates; the DOJ prosecutes.

[Purveyor]

8. Yep and she is in a world of shit if the GOP controlls the DOJ come 2017. eom

[HooptieWagon]

9. FWIW, some 'unnamed' FBI sources...

...have said they'll go public if there's evidence to indict Clinton and Atty Gen Lynch refuses to do so. Could get ugly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. So what?

Winston Churchill said politics is worse than war because in war you only die one.

[CoffeeCat]

27. Truer words have never been spoken

And sometimes what they do to you, is almost worse than death. Lying about you, destroying your reputation on the world's stage, losing your career, livelihood and family--living with the knowledge that you've been f'd over and there's not a damn thing that you can do about it.

You're basically dead, but alive.

[morningfog]

15. FBI investigates and recommends to the DOJ whether to prosecute.

You are correct with that caveat.

[Kip Humphrey]

3. this is Votageddon 2016... there is no neutral place right now.

if you find a real investigative story, please let the rest of us know.

[boomer55]

6. msnbc and fox.

looking for more in depth but you're right its the season....

[Press Virginia]

11. She won't be indicted

If they find anything, it will be pleaded down to a misdemeanor or a fine.
Her underlings, however, will probably be the ones who face the more serious charges

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. There can't/won't be a plea or fine without an indictment. eom.

[Press Virginia]

17. I don't think Petreaus was indicted

I think he copped a plea based on the evidence to avoid one

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. He plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

There can not be a conviction without an indictment.

There are cases of deferred prosecution where there is no admission of guilt and consequently no criminal record but that's an entirely different discussion.

[Press Virginia]

22. I get that but

I've not found anything that says he was actually indicted.

Democracy Now

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/17/a_double_standard_on_leaks_as

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. He has a criminal record.

On April 23, 2015, Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified materials. He was given a two year probationary period and a fine of $100,000.[6]

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

There has to be an indictment (charges) for one to plead guilty to.

[Press Virginia]

26. Yeah but he wasn't actually indicted first

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/17/a_double_standard_on_leaks_as

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I read it. He might have got a slap on the wrist but you can not plead guilty to a crime...

I read it. He might have got a slap on the wrist but you can not plead guilty to a crime without being charged.

[Press Virginia]

30. You're probably right...I'm not one of them Law Talkin' guys

D

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I understand where you are coming from.

But David Petraeus is a criminal by virtue of his plea though he did get a slap on the wrist.

I can explain why his case is different from Hillary Clinton if you want.

[Press Virginia]

34. I get the differences between the two

I just was thinking any charges, if there actually are any, would be handled similarly to how Petreaus' case was handled

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. She is not going to be indicted...

Petreauus downloaded information that was marked classified, gave it to his mistress to use in a book she was writing about him, and then lied about it to the FBI. It was the lying to the FBI that did him in. It pissed them off.

[NCTraveler]

12. Good job doing the dirty work and seeing what the freepers are up to.

They are a bunch of morons frothing at the mouth over emails. They are scared shitless of Clinton. All good. Keep the dim bulbs distracted with emailgate.

[oasis]

35. Hill's brushing this off like a fleck on her shoulder.

She's got much bigger fish to fry. Anti-Hill Nation is about to come up with another blank.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. There is this site named DemocraticUnderground ... LOL! eom.

[Squinch]

37. !!!!!Bahahahahaha!!!!!!

[ViseGrip]

16. Important, the FBI only investigates criminal conduct/activity

[magical thyme]

25. also important are 3 levels of activity: target, suspect and witness

She won't be indicted, but some aide or other may go down.

The questions are did any of her aides (Abedin, Mills, Sullivan) copy data from the official, secure server and re-type it without headings into her unsecure server? And, for Bryan Pagliano, was her server set up properly?

[NCTraveler]

19. This was posted almost word for word by someone in November.

It's time people get a clue and start standing up against the right wing spin machine.

It's sad how awful our news media is.


I'm trying to stay informed about the FBI's investigation into the server and the only place I can find any news is on right-wing sites, which are suspect.

This is a real and legitimate investigation - not the witch hunt of the Benghazi nonsense with Gowdy's Goobers. It's like the mainstream doesn't want to touch it for fear she might not get the nomination.

That is from November. Why are people so desperate to see republicans win on this? The theme is the same. Posters looking very hard to back up the frothing at the mouth of the right. That is strange to say the least.

[CoffeeCat]

29. I think people (including Democrats) are wondering what exactly is happening...

And they don't trust right-wing sites for accurate news.

I never once paid attention to Benghazi or the email scandal. I skipped those stories. I knew they were products of right-wing hatchet jobs.

The email scandal has taken on some new twists, with the FBI investigation. I don't think there's anything wrong with poking around and assessing what exactly is happening. I've wondered myself.

Benghazi is ridiculous, but the FBI isn't investigating Clinton in relation to that situation.

I think people are just wondering what real story is.

The problem is--the right wingers exaggerate and so want her indicted, that they dream up fiction and make it sound like news. The MSM isn't touching it. So, there's an information void there.

[NCTraveler]

31. "So, there's an information void there."

The void can be recognized in the mental shortcomings of right wingers.

[Squinch]

38. Why would they stand up against the right wing spin machine

if they ARE the right wing spin machine??

[randome]

20. I expect the 'chatter' about this to ramp up again around, oh, the day before the next Primary.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. And DUers will post it to DU with great concern ... Just like the last 3 times ...

and Benghazi before that ... or, was it the Clinton Foundation?

[DCBob]

33. Where??

Perhaps Fox news, Breitbart, Drudge, etc..