Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

StrictlyRockers

(3,855 posts)
Fri Nov 4, 2016, 12:20 PM Nov 2016

The chilling implications of the FBI’s latest attack on Hillary Clinton

https://thinkprogress.org/the-chilling-implications-of-the-fbis-latest-attack-on-hillary-clinton-b91994c30659#.mxnqpvepa


It appears that the FBI’s anti-Clinton faction is not limiting its leaks to the Wall Street Journal. On Fox News Wednesday night, anchor Bret Baier claimed that “two separate sources with intimate knowledge of what’s going on with these FBI investigations” told him an indictment in the “Clinton Cash” investigation is likely, “barring some obstruction in some way.” It is unclear how such an indictment would be secured without the cooperation of prosecutors who have already decided the Breitbart probe is meritless.

The leaks regarding the FBI’s Breitbart probe, along with Comey’s letter to Republican committee chairs, fit a larger pattern of the FBI spreading incomplete information that is damaging to Secretary Clinton.

An internal FBI office will investigate the FBI’s decision to tweet out documents regarding President Clinton’s controversial Marc Rich pardon — an investigation the FBI closed more than a decade ago. Similarly, on Monday, a series of news stories suggested that there might be a direct connection between Trump and the Russian government. Shortly after these stories were published, unnamed “law enforcement officials” helped contain the damage to Trump by telling the New York Times that they have not “found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government.”

It is difficult, in other words, to escape the impression that a faction within the FBI is actively trying to elect Mr. Trump and to weaken Secretary Clinton. It appears to be doing so, moreover, in violation of Justice Department policy, and in violation of the basic principle that law enforcement should not spread rumors and innuendo in order to damage people they do not like.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The chilling implications of the FBI’s latest attack on Hillary Clinton (Original Post) StrictlyRockers Nov 2016 OP
Looks like one or more russian moles warrprayer Nov 2016 #1
Baier also had to walk back on those bullshit claims still_one Nov 2016 #2
FBI winetourdriver Nov 2016 #3
Thanks Trump! nt. marybourg Nov 2016 #4
CNN's Brian Stelter: "Bret Baier Peddling "Indictment" Nonsense Was "Wrong" CousinIT Nov 2016 #6

still_one

(92,155 posts)
2. Baier also had to walk back on those bullshit claims
Fri Nov 4, 2016, 12:23 PM
Nov 2016

The FBI has definitely been compromised and is in violation of the hatch act

 

winetourdriver

(196 posts)
3. FBI
Fri Nov 4, 2016, 12:26 PM
Nov 2016

Just fucking great, now we have one of the major law enforcement agencies with it's reputation in tatters.

CousinIT

(9,240 posts)
6. CNN's Brian Stelter: "Bret Baier Peddling "Indictment" Nonsense Was "Wrong"
Fri Nov 4, 2016, 01:02 PM
Nov 2016

Brian Stelter: "There Is No Evidence That Any Of The Fox Stuff" About A Clinton Foundation Investigation Or Clinton Indictment "Is True"

LINK: https://mediamatters.org/video/2016/11/04/cnns-stelter-bret-baier-peddling-indictment-nonsense-was-more-just-inartful-language-it-was-wrong/214292

STELTER: ​​This seemed ​more than just inartful ​language to me​. ​CNN's Evan Perez​, NBC, ABC​ ​all have said​ based​ on ​other ​anonymous sources​ that​ ​​there is no evidence ​that any ​of the Fox ​stuff is true. That there is nothing close to an indictment. In fact, it's pretty clear there's a battle inside the FBI. That's the real story here.

ALISYN ​CAMEROTA (CO-HOST): Well, I mean, Bret is a real journalist.​ ​He's not Sean Hannity who as we've discussed is a broadcaster who just fell for a fake news story and printed it out on his radio show.​ Bret is a real journalist. ​So does that clarification go far enough? Was it inartful ​or was it wrong?

​STELTER: ​ It seems like his use of the word indictment and use of the word likely was wrong. And unfortunately, you can't walk back something like that because the damage is already done.
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The chilling implications...