Clinton Chief Attacks State Dept. Watchdog

[Purveyor]

Source: The Hill

By Amie Parnes - 03/01/16 06:00 AM EST

John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, says there are “serious questions” about the integrity of the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG).

The OIG is locked in an increasingly contentious fight with Clinton’s campaign on a host of issues, including her use of a private email account during her time as secretary of State.

It has also reportedly subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation for documents related to charity projects and is investigating close Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s work as a “special government consultant” while she worked at State.

A source within the OIG contacted The Hill claiming that the office has grown increasingly partisan, accusing it of having an “anti-Clinton” bias.





Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/271238-clinton-chief-attacks-state-dept-watchdog

[november3rd]

1. Ha ha ha ha ha!

[MisterP]

2. her fellow Dems aren't the only ones Clinton wants on the lamppost after her victory

[yourpaljoey]

3. Clinton words is upside down world

[Press Virginia]

4. Poor HRC, always a victim

[PatrynXX]

18. thats what worries me

if she can get away with this and people expect this she can cause some serious damage to our countries cred (like Bush but much worse)

[hollysmom]

76. but but it isn't fair, she is fully vetted

isn't that the end of all questions?

[Darb]

84. Wow, that is rich,

coming from a Bernie. You are a Bernie right?

[Press Virginia]

85. What's "rich" about it?

And Bernie is the only true choice for a principled liberal.

[Darb]

86. Seems to me,

that the Bernies are playing the victim a lot. Didn't a bunch of you guys just say Bill Clinton just interfered with Bernies voting in Mass? For example. From today.

[Press Virginia]

87. What does Bill Clinton have to do with the OP?

Someone else's complaints about what BC did have nothing to do with my post

[Darb]

88. You mentioned "victim", I countered.

Jussayin'.

[Press Virginia]

89. one need only look at her responses to

the investigations into her dealings.

She plays the victim of a mass conspiracy that now includes the Obama administration

[Darb]

90. Whatever you say.

Like she has never been attacked by lunatic, right-wing, partisan, delusional kooks. Right?

[Press Virginia]

91. Are the IG or FBI director right wing partisans?

[Darb]

92. As institutions? No.

Are some individuals inside those institutions? Yes, without doubt.

[Press Virginia]

94. When did the State Dept become the home of RW

Partisan kooks? Was it while HRC was in charge or is it John Kerry's doing?x

[Darb]

95. Who said "State Department"?

Quit putting words into my mouth to try to defend your bullshit, anti-Hillary point. I say there are probably partisans in the IOG at State. You say there are not. Haha, good one.

[Press Virginia]

96. I said Hillary plays the victim as a default position

She's gone so far as to characterize investigations into her behavior, by the FBI and the IG, as a RW smear.

Now, either Obama appointed RW kooks to run these orgs or she's trying to portray herself as just an innocent victim who is the target of the largest conspiracy since the Jews decided to take over the world from behind the scenes.

[Darb]

99. I don't see that at all.

Did Obama appoint them all? I tried to find out who they were but I couldn't find it. It comes out of a law from 1978 and I doubt the President appoints the watchdog for his admin. and yes I believe that partisans can be on those committees, for sure. If you do not then great.

There are many, many right wing kook moles in the government, bank on it.

And quite frankly, she has been the victim of right-wing smears and witch hunts for decades. Stop helping them.

[Press Virginia]

101. Yes, they are both Obama appointees.

There are a number of watchdogs for the various agencies all are appointed by the President.
The State Department was without an IG during Clinton's tenure. Had there been one, at the time, she might not be in the situation she currently finds herself.

You keep trying to equate the FBI and the IG with the GOP Kooks. If you have evidence of a conspiracy within the FBI or the OIG to smear HRC, I'm sure the world would like to see it.
This isn't the Benghazi hearings where it was a clear attempt to take her down before she could win the nomination.

[Darb]

102. Oh, it's two guys now. Total. Just two guys doing the investigation.

Grow up. DC is an ugly, complicated, and clandestine shit hole with a whole bunch at stake. Everything is suspect.

Quit siding with the Baggers on a with hunt.

[Press Virginia]

103. Ahhhh so when the FBI refers the matter to the DOJ recommending criminal charges

Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 05:28 PM - Edit history (1)

it's because DC is an ugly, complicated and clandestine shit hole that is out to get HRC? Not because they found evidence of criminal acts.

oooookay then

[Darb]

104. They recommended criminal charges? What crime?

Show me where they recommended criminal charges.

Also, quit putting words into my mouth to justify your siding with baggers and cheering this witch hunt.

[Press Virginia]

105. I said WHEN they do, not that they did

And I didn't put words in your mouth. I asked you a question about what you said.

If only there weren't those pesky e-mails you might be able to dismiss it as a partisan witch hunt, being overseen by Obama appointees who are just out to get poor Hillary.....maybe if she could get her story straight instead of constantly changing it based on what is made public the whole RW smear meme might work.

[Darb]

106. What pesky emails?

Obama put the FBI on it to clear it up, and they will and I cannot wait.

You are in league with the Baggers, you know that right? Not pretty.

As for putting words into my mouth, I wrote:

DC is an ugly, complicated, and clandestine shit hole with a whole bunch at stake

About what I wrote, you wrote

DC is an ugly, complicated and clandestine shit hole that is out to get HRC

See how that conveniently twists into your convoluted Hillary hating meme?

[Press Virginia]

107. ahhhhhh. So now Obama is part of the witch hunt. I wonder if he was paid off by the Stone Masons or

maybe Skull and Bones to be part of the RW smear machine.

And there were mulitiple e-mails that were TS/SCI....and yes, they were TS/SCI at the time they were sent, received and then ultimately stored on that unsecured server.

You might want to take notice of the "?" at the end of what I wrote. It signifies something.....you know, like a question about what you're saying. It's far different than putting words in your mouth.

[Darb]

108. Again with this?

Are you being purposely obtuse to get some sort of satisfaction? Obama did what needed to be done to end it. Without the FBI being involved, it would just be a Bagger meme, ongoing ad infinatum, haunting the Democratic candidate. He did it to clear it up, and they will, soon. Wait and see. Officially dismissed by the FBI, NO CHARGES WILL BE FILED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You will never be satisfied. And curiously, neither will the Baggers.

Want to beat the Benghazi horse now?

[Press Virginia]

109. You mean like HRC Claiming the whole investigation is a RW smear?

That would mean the FBI and, by extension, President Obama are part of this conspiracy to smear poor HRC.

We already know she broke the law by sending and receiving classified information over her private server.
We already know she broke the law by retaining said information on her private server even after leaving her position at DOS.

But you cling to the hope that she's not treated like some GS-4 who, if they did the same thing, would be facing jail time.

[haikugal]

5. They are shameless and disgusting. Hillary the victim..such a feminist!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

6. I half expect a claim that Obama is out to get her for '08.

[Liberty Sage]

7. SMH

Another reason we don't need career politicians. The political class (all establishment from both parties) need to be removed ASAP.
How is the richest nation in the world almost 20 Trillion in debt? The fix has been in for a long time. They keep us divided by hot button issues, all the while milking us dry with a wink and a nod. If we don't wake up soon, we are all going over the edge.

[BernieforPres2016]

8. That reminds me of another story in the news

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hispanic-judge-trump-university-lawsuit-2016-2

<The judge, identified by the Daily News as US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, is overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University.

"I think the judge has been extremely hostile to me. I think it has to do with, perhaps with I'm very, very strong on the border — very, very strong on the border," Trump told Wallace.

"We have a very hostile judge. Now, he is Hispanic, I believe," he added. "And he is a very hostile judge to me.">


Trump and Hillary haven't done anything wrong. It's just overzealous investigators and prosecutors!

[blackspade]

9. I hate statements like this:

"....the office has grown increasingly partisan, accusing it of having an “anti-Clinton” bias."

WTF does that even mean? In what way? What examples of partisanship and bias?
Terrible reporting.

[Cordy]

44. Not Partisan huh?

Well, that is all good. A non-partisan stance is to drop this investigation while Hillary is running for office, to remove the notion of suspicion from voters minds. Instead, start investigating someone not running for office like Bush Inc., the RNC, Karl Rove and Jeb Bush, over the 22 million emails that were deleted, that surely allowed secret information to be leaked to public citizens, and to the enemy. How many lives did it cost us in the ME.

Sounds like the SD OIG has lost focus, and Grassley has lost his mind. Not partisan at all you say? Sen. Grassley (R) says you are wrong, “inspectors general work hard to stay out of politics." Indeed, the OIG is off to partisan land in his unrelated investigation of "scrutinized Abedin’s time sheets, concerned she was possibly overpaid while on maternity leave."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a phone call with Grassley accused him of getting help on his investigation from a former aide in the OIG office.

At the same time, Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) has also questioned the office’s impartiality.

“That office should be independent and trustworthy, but the more we find out, the more I question its ability to conduct an impartial investigation,” Israel said in a statement to The Hill.

WHAT IS THIS? I usually find that people who are willing to lose their jobs for no political gain or monetary reward are telling the truth.

“Our work is becoming overtly anti-State Department, pro-Republican, and anti-Clinton,” the OIG source said, charging that DiSanto is working with an “active partisan mandate to undermine both the State Department as a federal agency and Secretary Clinton as a presidential candidate.”

[TipTok]

47. This all could have been avoided if she had chosen to play by the rules she agreed to...

... when she took office.

She has no one to blame but herself.

[MBS]

68. exactly.

That's what I keep coming back to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. In soccer we call this an own goal

[blackspade]

57. No facts are included in your post.

All it contains is opinions about the impartiality.
I seriously doubt that Obama would allow a partisan attack on his former SoS.
He is the head of the Executive after all.

[vdogg]

10. Sounds like a legitimate complaint from a whistleblower

The source charges that State Inspector General Steve Linick is “excessively deferential” to Emilia DiSanto, the OIG deputy director and a former aide to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Grassley is at the center of several investigations about Clinton, including whether Abedin was overpaid by the government while working for the State Department. He’s been aided in his probe by what he says is a “confidential source” at the OIG — Democrats charge this is DiSanto.

“Our work is becoming overtly anti-State Department, pro-Republican, and anti-Clinton,”

Oh that's right, whistleblower isn't named Snowden so it must not be true.

[okaawhatever]

24. Thank you for enlightening all of us. Some here only pretend to be Dems, they're actually right

wingers who pretend to liberal/progressive and attack the individual from the left. You'll see the same people doing it over and over again.

[hopemountain]

81. your statement reminds me of

of the type of "loyalty" exhibited by families who stand by and defend a familial criminal - just because they are "blood".

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

98. LOL!!

[datguy_6]

11. Classic Clinton; attack the accuser in order to undermine their credibility...

It worked on all of the sexual assault accusers, why not this?

[TipTok]

48. She's the real victim here...

... again...and again... and again.. and again...

[AzDar]

12. Jesus H Christ On A Barrel Of Pesticide...

[jalan48]

13. Must be some serious stuff going on that we don't know about yet.

[BernieforPres2016]

16. Good point.

This could be Podesta attempting to get ahead of bad news for Hillary.

[seaotter]

31. Yup!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. If you have not read on Watergate,

find a good time and read it. The parallels are astouiding

[BernieforPres2016]

36. I was around for Watergate

Just short of voting age, but I remember it well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. I was not quite that old

or for that matter in this country. and it still dominated the news cycle out of it. I was way too young, But I look at this and a good timeline and I am thinking we are close to the conversation moment At the very least the saturday night massacre. I wonder who among her loyal staff will give out the crown jewels for leniency?

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

97. Yeah, Mr. Integrity himself!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

14. This reminds me of a strange place ...

[Lurks Often]

15. Really, so President Obama's choice for State OIG is "partisan" now?

Let's see, either President appointed a "partisan" to the position of OIG or Podesta is becoming concerned that the investigation(s) are starting to get too close for comfort.

Since I strongly doubt that President Obama appointed a "partisan" to the position of OIG, I'll have to go with the Clinton campaign is getting nervous.

[okaawhatever]

27. Perhaps you should read the article. The individual they're referring to isn't PBO's appointment. It

is the deputy directory. Who was an aide to Chuck Grassley. Hello!!!

The source charges that State Inspector General Steve Linick is “excessively deferential” to Emilia DiSanto, the OIG deputy director and a former aide to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

[BernieforPres2016]

37. Who should investigate, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?

[840high]

78. Snort. Good one.

[mmonk]

83. .

[Lurks Often]

42. "Inspector General Steve Linick is “excessively deferential” to Emilia DiSanto"

Linick is the one in charge over there, if he is “excessively deferential” to a subordinate, then the President should have a talk with Linick. So as long as President Obama is ok with Linick's work, I am not going to give Podesta or an alleged, unnamed "whistleblower" very much credibility.

[vdogg]

53. Senate approved OIG's are independent

President can appoint, but they are not subordinate to him. Sort of like a Supreme Court appointment.

[Lurks Often]

66. Wrong

If the President appointed the IG, then he can also remove them from the position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspector_general#United_States

[sufrommich]

17. Good. And the so called progressives playing

along with this manufactured GOP "scandal" can go pound sand.Shameless useful idiots.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

100. And the moderate-right neo-liberals can go pound Mt. Rushmore.

[Trust Buster]

19. To all those Democrats not behaving like Republicans, here's part of the article NOT highlighted

"The source charges that State Inspector General Steve Linick is “excessively deferential” to Emilia DiSanto, the OIG deputy director and a former aide to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa).

Grassley is at the center of several investigations about Clinton, including whether Abedin was overpaid by the government while working for the State Department. He’s been aided in his probe by what he says is a “confidential source” at the OIG — Democrats charge this is DiSanto.

“Our work is becoming overtly anti-State Department, pro-Republican, and anti-Clinton,” the OIG source said, charging that DiSanto is working with an “active partisan mandate to undermine both the State Department as a federal agency and Secretary Clinton as a presidential candidate.”"

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. And here is the other part furhter down you did not highlight

The OIG spokesman noted that Linick, a two-time appointee of President Obama, was asked by Secretary of State John Kerry last year to investigate how the department handles records management, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and the archiving of emails. The request was made on the heels of questions about Clinton’s use of a private email server.

[Trust Buster]

22. Grassley's plant has a political agenda.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Of course they do

why would POTUS appoint that plant?

Same shit happened during Watergate. We might be getting to the point that party elders might have to go have that talk, in this case with the candidate. I don't expect that to go gently with partisans.

[Trust Buster]

32. You misread the article. Grassley's plant and the Obama appointee are two different people.

Re-read the article and take close note of what the whistleblower claims.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Nope I did not,

but nice try.

Anyway. I will repeat what I said above, this has so many parallels to watergate.

Oh and by the way... chew on this, the most guarded information in the US government are the nuclear codes, the second are sources and methods, Since those servers were hacked, real people have died.

[Trust Buster]

50. Which servers were hacked and who has died ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. The clinton servers

and I would have to kill you if I knew even who died. (This is an old intelligence joke that has even made it to hollywood scripts)

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=215420

[Trust Buster]

52. Are you joking ? I thought you saw this as a serious issue ?

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Do you think I am jocking about the hack

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546

Go correct politico among many. And who died. IS FUCKING CLASSIFIED!

[Trust Buster]

60. The article said "attempted attack".

On the other hand government servers from the Defense Dept., State Dept. and IRS Dept. have been actually SUCCESSFULLY attacked. And I have never seen any source that claimed that people died as a result of UNSUCCESSFUL attacks on her server.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. There are actual hacks

The contractor, SECNAP Network Security, identified the attacks, but according to internal emails cited and briefly quoted in the Johnson letter, Clinton's sever may have lacked a threat-detection program for three months, Johnson says.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546#ixzz41gv72WmL

The last batch of Clinton's emails released by the State Department under a court order in a Freedom of Information Act suit showed that Clinton received at least five emails from hackers linked to Russia. If Clinton opened attachments in the emails, her account and server could have been vulnerable to hacking, although it is unclear if she did so.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-email-server-hacked-china-south-korea-germany-214546#ixzz41gvFUMqj


And here form the AP

Clinton's server, which handled her personal and State Department correspondence, appeared to allow users to connect openly over the Internet to control it remotely, according to detailed records compiled in 2012. Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.

Records show that Clinton additionally operated two more devices on her home network in Chappaqua, New York, that also were directly accessible from the Internet. One contained similar remote-control software that also has suffered from security vulnerabilities, known as Virtual Network Computing, and the other appeared to be configured to run websites.

The new details provide the first clues about how Clinton's computer, running Microsoft's server software, was set up and protected when she used it exclusively over four years as secretary of state for all work messages. Clinton's privately paid technology adviser, Bryan Pagliano, has declined to answer questions about his work from congressional investigators, citing the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/467ff78858bf4dde8db21677deeff101/only-ap-clinton-server-ran-software-risked-hacking

Do you even have a clue about computer security? There is a reason why I would never set up a home based server... and her IT person has pled the fifth for multiple good reasons.

You really need to keep up with this story. This is not going away.

[Trust Buster]

65. I still see no evidence of a successful attack or murdered people.

And, as I said, government networks are being successfully hacked every day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. I know you do not,

but here are some of the dangers she faces

* Hillary Clinton deliberately set up a private email server for herself and her top State Department aides. She used it to store over 1,800 documents now deemed classified, some highly classified. The sheer bulk of the security violations is extraordinary. Intelligence professionals agree the server was almost certainly hacked by foreign agencies—probably by several.

* Secretary Clinton specifically instructed aides to send her classified materials on that insecure network. We know of at least one such instruction. We don’t know how many others were redacted by the State Department.

* Because her server was private, the State Department’s records did not include its contents when responding to Freedom of Information Act requests. The department wrongly told FOIA applicants that no such materials existed. Not only did the materials exist (on Clinton’s server), senior officials knew it and allowed false denials to be made.

* Some documents on the Clinton server contained the intelligence-gathering methods, the names of undercover agents, and real-time disclosures of top officials’ movements. Aside from the nuclear launch codes, these are the most closely guarded secrets in the U.S. government. That material is “classified at birth,” as Clinton, Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan certainly knew. To avoid any misunderstanding, they had all taken mandatory training in the proper treatment of sensitive and classified materials.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/29/hillarys_victories_mean_painful_legal_choices_for_doj_wh.html

Cannot post the full list due to copyright issues. You are wrong if you think this is going away. Many of these issues have been pointed here by posters, who actually have a clue. Let's assume for a second she is sworn in. I expect the GOP controlled house to start impeachment procedures within hours, if not days. This is not over a BJ, this is actually criminal.

Yes, they have a hell of a faustian choice. Indict now and push her out. Or not indict, look like a coverup and throw the country into Watergate II. Those are the choices.

You can keep your head in the sand. And yes, there was a hack, or two, or three.

[Trust Buster]

69. Sure there was a hack or two or three. You just can't substantiate it. Good debate. Let's move on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. I have and I also gave you the rest of the issues

head in sand... have fun. By the way Nixon fans did the same. They held on until well, it was unsustainable. Then you could not find a Nixon fan anywhere. To be fair, I found one in Hawaii in the early 2000s... but really, I expect many of you to feel very betrayed, go though a lot of pain and I hope it is before the convention for the sake of the country.

I am not looking forwards to watergate II

[Trust Buster]

71. So dramatic.....LOL...only time will tell. Enjoyed the debate just the same.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. I guess those of us who know history

Can be dramatic. That was also a tactic used by Nixon fans to dismiss the critics

[jillan]

25. It doesn't matter how it started. The question is how it will end.

[Trust Buster]

28. You mean, how you and your crossed fingers hope it will end.

I personally will never forget the election where Democrats joined Republicans in their serial attacks on the Clintons. NEVER

[jillan]

30. I do not want a President Trump - get it?! My biggest fear is that Hillary will get the nom &

then the shit will hit the fan.

Hide your head in the sand if you want, but we are electing a new President & I want to see a Democrat in the White House on Jan 20th, 2017.

[Trust Buster]

34. Be honest. If you had never heard of Hillay's emails, you'd still be attacking her on all fronts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. To be honest when I read one of the emails from the FOIA room

and well READ IT, I knew it was a real scandal, There are another three in my HD that were in the FOIA room, and if I can tell they were born classified... why did the SOS not know that? They do go through mandatory training.

By the way, since those emails were classified.

[CoffeeCat]

43. Damn straight I'd be attacking her

Hillary Clinton is a neocon. The founder of PNAC and the entire neocon movement endorsed Hillary last week. That's right, Robert Kagan, the guy who hatched the entire psychopathic plan to blow up the Middle East, murder millions and use our soldiers in his war-for-profit scheme--endorsed Hillary over any of the Republicans.

That's so revolting...it's barely tolerable.

Our democracy is also eroding to dust. Because corrupt and powerful corporations, including Wall Street, have purchased our politicians. So now, our politicians work for the millionaire, billionaires and bullies in these corporations. Hillary Clinton is participating in this farce. She takes millions from them. We don't have a democracy with this happening!

I will attack her on these two basic principles because the Democratic party was never this corrupt!!

On DU, we used to fight the neocons and the PNAC scum. We called them scum and we all suffered together and Bush lied us into the Iraq war. NOW, the neocons are ENDORSING Hillary. The worst neocons!!

How can you justify ANY of this?

[Ikonoklast]

46. If Hillary gets elected POTUS, she will be impeached. Bet on it.

The evidence for wrongdoing is mounting, and the Republicans will be able to completely hamstring a Clinton administration too busy to govern because it has to defend itself against possibly criminal indictments.


There is way too much smoke.

A fire is burning somewhere, and no amount of attempting to do character assassination or poisoning the well by Clinton surrogates will be able to put it out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. I think they are looking at an indinctment BEFORE the convension

personally There are political reasons for that.

Why Podesta is throwing dirt

[grasswire]

58. yes, I would wager the draft for the impeachment papers is already drawn.

It will be filed on Inauguration Day.

That's why Hillary need to step aside now, for the good of the country. She is simply too flawed to represent Democrats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. The political window is far shorter than that

they are shooting for before the convention, IMO

[jillan]

45. Keep your head in the sand all you want. That is not going to make this go away.

[TipTok]

49. It's her fault for having such a laundry list of issues...

... and not ours for daring to bring it up.

She could have avoided 99.9% of this if she had just been ethical and consistent during the course of her career.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. There is only one way I can read this

the damn is close to breaking... same shit (charges, they are partisan, cry me a fucking river) happened during watergate.

[grasswire]

59. I just want it to break sooner rather than later. nt

[jillan]

23. "the office has grown increasingly partisan , accusing it of having an “anti-Clinton" bias"

I totally get this.

They have done the same thing to me.

[seaotter]

29. The set up begins.

[CoffeeCat]

39. Such hubris...and the problem is everyone but HER

and she doesn't hesitate to attack publicly or smear those who are not cheerleaders for her.

Let's just hope that all of her chickens come home to roost real soon.

I find this very encouraging to see her on the defensive. If Clinton mouthpieces are attempting to smear people within the OIG, then maybe they're fending off possible bad news emerging form the OIG.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. I think they are

and why Podesta started the attack, Same shit happened during Watergate...

[revbones]

56. Woe is her... conspiracies all around.

Oh noes someone looked into her illegalities. Thanks republicans!

Oh noes, a bird pooped on her car! Thanks republicans!

The great right-wing smear machine is well at work huh?

[leveymg]

63. Two federal judges, the IC AG, the FBI, and the DOS IG all agree. HRC is in trouble.

Or are they all just part of a vast Rightwing conspiracy, right Mr. Podesta?

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Well on the bright side

now the story will have to be explained in a way a fifth grader can get it. Yes I am looking at you NYT

[Angel Martin]

74. Clinton didn't have any problems with the OIG

until that office started finding adverse things.

The Clintons do this to themselves, over and over and over again.

They run right up to, or over, the legal/ethical line. Then they have to divert all their resources to full attack mode to survive.

Whatever they were supposed to gain by pushing the legal envelope, is always swamped by the cost of the survival defence when their dubious actions become public.

Nixon said: "I gave them a sword. And they stuck it in, and they twisted it with relish."

sounds like the Clintons.

[840high]

79. Clinton is worse than Nixon.

[SoapBox]

75. Podesta? SLIME bag!

Fuck this creep.

[840high]

80. Hope he's messing his pants.

[dchill]

77. One does not get far...

Attacking a watchdog!

[HereSince1628]

82. So Podesta lashes out at perceived threat.

There's no news at all in someone lashing out at a threat, and often the lashing out is proportional to the threat.

So the story would seem to be Podesta sees State's OIG as a threat to big to dismiss with a "there's no there there", rather the approach is to discredit the OIG. When going down that road, you're defense is not about what truths the OIG won't be able to reveal, it's about the OIG being a meanie. Meanies lie you know? And they have membership cards in the the partisan conspiracy industry.

[Darb]

93. Witch Hunt.

Again.