Why is the FBI So Slow on Clinton Email Probe? (Boston Globe)

[CoffeeCat]

Democrats have a special interest in reaching closure before picking their nominee. Even the most loyal Clinton supporters wonder if an indictment is more than right-wing wishful thinking.

But an investigation that drags on past the convention, into the fall, is more than a partisan concern. It’s unfair to the country as a whole.

Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state has come to epitomize her biggest challenge as a presidential candidate — the voters’ lack of trust in her. No matter what the FBI concludes, that political problem, years in the making, won’t go away. If no one committed any crime with the e-mail set-up, Clinton’s judgment can still be questioned. She now acknowledges it was a mistake.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/04/06/why-fbi-slow-clinton-mail-probe/lJmHwLuAfbxSXrrvR0XqwJ/story.html

[yourpaljoey]

1. Too bad Hill will not do the right thing and step down now

She broke the law and got caught.
Nothing to discuss, really; step down.

[Baobab]

7. A need for accuracy?

That's extremely important in any issue where somebody's guilt or innocence of some crime is at stake.

[Hoyt]

2. Because they don't want to tick off GOPers, or send Sanders' supporters into a rabid frenzy/funk,

when they announce Clinton did nothing that violates the law.

[Fawke Em]

3. It's looking more like she did.

But keep clinging to that.

[PJMcK]

32. Your comment seems harsh

Respectfully, Fawke Em, Secretary Clinton has not been indicted. You know very well that how things look in the mass media often doesn't reflect reality.

[Trenzalore]

4. Sanders and Trump supporters rooting for the same thing. nt.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. ...

[CoffeeCat]

6. How do you know that Hillary Clinton didn't violate the law?

Are you an attorney on an investigator who specializes in Federal law as it relates to storing classified information on a private email server?

I'm asking because I am interested in knowing what the truth is.

If you have expertise in this area, I would be interested in how you know that "Clinton did nothing that violates the law" as you said.

Thank you.

[Hoyt]

9. How do you know she did? Your buddies have posted the law. Read it, then decide.

We'll know soon enough. If it turns out DOJ says she did nothing wrong, Sanders' supporters will regurgitate their standard meme -- "the system is rigged," even if she did nothing wrong.

[CoffeeCat]

15. I'm not an attorney or an investigator

I've read quite a bit, and it's clear to me that she violated several laws, including the following the Executive Order that Obama issued:

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email.

Executive order was issued by President Obama on Dec 29, 2009.

[Desert805]

22. ***mic drop***

How do they spin that one?

[Hoyt]

31. Maybe, you should cite the relevant sections of the Executive Order you think she violated.

I've already read the statute and, IMO, cleared her. We'll know soon enough who is right.

[frylock]

38. Yeah, I don't know how you spin a delay as favorable to Mrs. Clinton.

If this thing were as cut and dried as Hillary Supporter would like everyone to believe, the feds would move this along, exonerate her, and shut the whole thing down. That clearly is not happening, and not because Comey feels a need to appease Bernie bro.

[Hoyt]

40. If felt the same when Fitzpatrick was investigating bush admin. I was disappointed.

Sometimes FBI investigations go on for years without charges. Good luck.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. I doubt very much that she will be indicted, but,

speaking theoretically only, let's say she gets the nomination and a month or so later she does get indicted. What happens next? Obviously an indictment of its nominee would look terrible for the party, but it can't continue to run a candidate who's under that kind of cloud. They can't hold primaries all over again. How is a replacement, non-indicted nominee selected? Do the delegate just re-vote? Or what? I suppose there has to be some kind of procedure on the books for the eventuality that a nominated candidate couldn't run for any reason (disability, death, etc.), but what is it?

[yourpaljoey]

8. good question

[CoffeeCat]

14. There are so many unanswered questions

At this point, all we can do is wait for the FBI to wrap up its investigation.

Comey said the following Wednesday, during a speech, "Speaking to an audience of law enforcement officials in New York on Monday, Comey said the timing of the upcoming Democratic convention in July would have no impact on the probe, although he said he wanted the investigation concluded "promptly."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/04/comey-pledges-no-outside-influence-on-clinton-email-case-221665

[pdsimdars]

10. Their fundamental operating principle is that old saying

It's easier to ask for forgiveness than asking for permission.

Do whatever you want. . . . and then just say, "Sorry"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing.

In this case, the perception and reality may be the same.

[Gwhittey]

12. Comey is a Republican

And it is in his best interest to hold off and not harm Clinton's chance at nomination. Then about Sept or Oct we are going to see this instigation come out. And even if not a indictment for her it is going to turn off many (I).

[CoffeeCat]

16. Why do you come up with "Sept or Oct" as the timeframe?

What is your basis for thinking that a Sept/Oct timeframe?

Everything I've read indicates that he has been interviewing Clinton's aids now, and that she is next. And that this is the final stage of the investigation. I do not have a specific date, but I imagine that the FBI would conclude its investigation and make recommendations (either way) to the Justice Department sometimes in May...or at the latest, June.

But of course, I have no way to knowing when exact dates will be. I only know that I have read that these interviews are the very last part of the investigation and that they are not expected to drag out.

-------
A week ago, Al Jazeera America reported that the investigation has now reached a 'critical stage,' in that the bureau has finished examining her emails and homebrew server and will now be interviewing top aides, along with Clinton herself.

Among those to be interviewed: Clinton's State Department chief of staff Cheryl Mills and senior advisor Philippe Reines, Al Jazeera America said.

'Soon after those interviews – in the next few days and weeks – officials expect director Comey to make his recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch about potential criminal charges,' network anchor David Shuster said.

The Justice Department and the FBI opened up their investigation in July upon receiving a security referral from the inspector general of the intelligence community, who concluded at the time that Clinton had sent emails deemed 'secret,' the highest level of classification, through her personal email system.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3528779/Hillary-email-probe-independent-says-FBI-chief-says-staying-close-investigation.html

[riderinthestorm]

23. It would inflict maximum damage on Hillary’s candidacy

Dems would literally have no time to nominate another while Hillary would twist in the political wind for 6-8 weeks before the election.

That said, by all accounts Comey isn't that kind of operator. He's a remarkably straight shooter.

[Gwhittey]

36. Oh I just think he is saying it for GE.

If uses it now it kinda only helps Sanders, if waits it helps the GOP

[winter is coming]

33. Comey is registered as a Republican, but seems like a straight arrow.

I don't think he's holding off for political advantage. I think he wants to be sure he's presenting an airtight case. And given Obama's appearance on Fox News, I'd say we're close to some sort of major revelation.

[sadoldgirl]

13. Let's say she does not get indicted, but

the FBI comes out with "Insufficient Evidence".

What then? Would that not leave a large smear?

[CoffeeCat]

17. An indictment is a formal

accusation that a serious crime has happened, based on an investigation.

I don't think the FBI would recommend an indictment, if the FBI found "insufficient evidence" as you said.

The FBI can only make recommendations to the Justice Department. They cannot indict her. Only the Justice Department can do that. The FBI conducts the formal investigation, makes a recommendation and the Justice Department is handed the baton.

[aspirant]

18. If the FBI conclusion is nothing was illegal

than all the documents and the unrevealed e-mails should be released to the people immediately for our inspection. They are legal after all.

This is our country and we're fed up with being outsiders.

[onecaliberal]

26. Some are classified. At least 21 deemed super secret.

[BillZBubb]

29. The republicans in congress will demand that they get everything the FBI has.

The FBI knows that. They have to do a thorough job and not leave either side an opening to criticize them for partisanship or a cover up.

Whatever they decide is probably as close to the truth as we are going to get.

[NWCorona]

19. They are wanting for Bernie to drop out

[highprincipleswork]

20. This needs to be wrapped up!

[Ferd Berfel]

21. Because the WH is intervening behind the curtain?

Or perhaps someone more powerful?

[CoffeeCat]

25. Obama has been VERY insistent that this is not the case

and frankly, I believe him. I don't think that Obama would interfere with an FBI investigation.
---------
"Obama also says in the interview that he doesn't talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. He says "we have a strict line, and always have maintained it" concerning investigations.

"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?"

Very strong words from the President.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-obama-says-evidence-not-politics-dictates-fbi-s-review-n553701

[awake]

27. Ys I agree Obama knows if he got involved it could not stay hidden

And Obama would be blamed.

[Ferd Berfel]

28. Don't llike dissagreeing with you CoffeeCat

Love your posts

But......... After putting Social Security on the chopping block, and ramming TPP down our throats, I don't trust him any more.

[winter is coming]

35. It has nothing to with whether or not you can trust him.

Obama's best move in this mess is more or less what he's done: express confidence in Clinton while making it clear he hasn't been involved in the investigation. That way, he can't be accused of throwing her under the bus and he also has enough distance from the details to make it possible to plead ignorance to what was actually going on.

[Android3.14]

24. The lack of trust comes from the lying, lack of consistency and deadly mistakes

Throw in the changing stances on everything, and what we have here is the wrong person to be the first woman president.

[sofa king]

30. D. o' Justice does not indict Presidential candidates.

This is a thing that has been around forever.

Presidential candidates are NEVER indicted while they are running for President, and even those that drop out are rarely indicted before November of the election year.

That's one of the reasons why you had Rick Perry and Chris Christie staying in the race for far longer than they should have, so that they can remain beyond criminal charges until this November.

They were (successfully, so far) running to escape indictment.

The DOJ took two years to prosecute John Edwards, then sped things up at the end to hit him before he could try to "run" away from charges in 2011.

The DOJ even waited until a day or so after the 2012 election to drop the hammer on Gen. Petraeus, who was in charge of the damned CIA, about as sensitive a position for a criminal to have, lest they be accused of the impropriety of influencing a general election.

Think about that for a moment. It was deemed safer to permit a criminal to stay in charge of the CIA than to influence a general election.

Justice patiently waited for Richard Nixon to successfully steal an election he didn't need to steal before closing in on him. They delayed something like eleven Iran-Contra cases to give Bush a clear shot at the White House in 1988.

One notable exception to all of this was Caspar Weinberger, who so successfully ran out the clock by delaying his case that DOJ felt they had no choice but to bring charges against him in the late spring of 1992. Weinberger eventually beat the rap thanks to a statute of limitations technicality, but it hung in the air all summer and fall, and DOJ was privately blamed as a contributor to the loss of GHW Bush that year (Bush pardoned Weinberger after he lost).

That is never going to happen again. So you can wish all you want, and unwisely add your voices to the conservative echo chamber, but Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted this year.

If some Bush holdout does proffer charges against Mrs. Clinton, a pissed-off President Obama will pardon her the next day, just to put the issue to rest. But that also will never happen because the DOJ knows better than to fuck up an election with pissant charges such as these. It's just not going to happen.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297

[riderinthestorm]

41. Nobody expects an indictment. The Damocles sword falls if Comey says to indict

Then she's running as a severely damaged candidate with Comey's recommendation hanging over her head - literally while Obama and Lynch stall.

[sofa king]

42. Now, that is quite possible!

This part is just my personal opinion, but letting those allegations hang above Mrs. Clinton's head is the most damaging way to use the information against her.

As I've said before, there are only two reasons why this issue is an issue at all. One is that there really isn't anything else one can use to smear Mrs. Clinton over her ten years of public service in this century--that fool wannabe majority leader tipped the GOP hand on Benghazi and pursuing that venue could open Republicans to their own charges and public chastising, so the emails are all they've got now.

The other issue is that Mrs. Clinton's "mistake" is about 0.01% of the Bush administration's conspiratorial years-long effort to violate the Presidential Records Act and prevent millions of emails from ever entering the public record. Those are felony charges that can be dropped on a thousand Bush subordinates, so we can safely assume that the RNC43 email scandal conceals monstrously large crimes. Precedent requires the next President, not this one, to prosecute those violations.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1614952

So from the GOP perspective, the last thing they want is for this issue to become an actual case, which will be unceremoniously dismissed within weeks. They need this forever hanging over Mrs. Clinton's head--for their own protection.

(It's also worth remembering that the Russians are on the warpath now, and the Republican email system wasn't properly protected, so the Republican email scandal may soon become a major issue in this election no matter what the two parties tacitly agree on between themselves. )

Edit: Also, it looks like some Politico editor was watching this thread, though they ran aground on the Espionage Act as everyone new to the issue does: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-prosecution-past-cases-221744

[JudyM]

37. "A key aspect of any potential criminal investigation would hinge on Clinton’s intent in setting up

the private e-mail server. Only she can speak to that."

She isn't the only person who can speak to her intent in using it - her IT guy can do that... the one who's been granted immunity.

Also, didn't the server setup pre-date her swearing in? Wasn't she already using it and asked for a secure Blackberry and was denied that request? It seems the relevant inquiry would be her intention in using it for official business, which is a slightly less incriminating line of inquiry

[JoePhilly]

39. To make you pull your hair out.