Mark Hallperin: White House is Buzzing about Clinton FBI Investigation

[Fawke Em]

Realizing Hallperin is a hack, but this narrative is out there today:

"And the last thing is, there are some people in the White House are starting to talk about this. It's not clear whether they know what's happening or it's just their intuition but the body language among some Obama administration officials is, this is more serious and something is going to happen."

[hrmjustin]

1. I call bullshit!

These people hate Hillary and want her to lose!

[bigdarryl]

5. The FBI is not investigating Clinton for crimes there investigating the e-mails that were sent to

Her

[morningfog]

40. Wrong. The FBI is investigating the server and all of its contents.

And the investigation has been ongoing for six months. And Hillary's IT guy invoked his 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself criminally.

[Human101948]

83. Well, that sews it up! Guilty as charged!

By pleading the 5th, he has incriminated himself criminally and convicted the boss. Now, let's string up Hillary!

[libdem4life]

92. There is an explanation for "work arounds" that briefly came out. It's looking at Abedin, Pagliani

one other staffer and how they were instructed to get certain emails to her private server. Of course, all their servers are wiped "clean" too. Why?

It wasn't just one or two accidental goofs, apparently, it was a well-thought out process and that during this process, just about anyone, anywhere could have had access. That's the problem. Pretty sure that's what's circulating amongst the Washington group.

[morningfog]

93. That is not a logical conclusion.

All that means is that he was exposed to criminal liability.

THe FBI is investigating potential criminal activity. I seriously doubt HIllary will be charged or even interviewed by the FBI. But, I would not be surprised if some of her lower level staff were.

[jfern]

145. The FBI is also looking the Clinton Foundation, so it does personally concern her

[still_one]

52. You got that right

[Hekate]

85. I call bullshit as well.

[KingCharlemagne]

91. These people??? The FBI? Obama staff? The media? - nt

[certainot]

99. when the talk radio gods aren't hyping trump and cruz they're

attacking hillary- it's their job. they're the ones that created the whole benghazi hoax in the first place.

like trump and cruz and most of the modern republican politicians and media hacks, halperin is making a career of feeding on the daily smorgasbord of prechewed talking points put out every day by 1200 coordinated talk radio stations. GOP establishment may have lost some control of who the talk radio gods like limbaugh should support but for 25 years they have all been on the same page when it comes to national and local swiftboating of dems and liberals and their ideals.

a few weeks ago limbaugh launched the latest attack saying insiders (from the usual think tanks) were telling him the investigation was going to explode soon. that all coincides with the release of the benghazi propaganda movie, which is not doing well at the box office.

it is common now to hear the talk radio gods, local and national, add to "if hillary wins" "and she is not indicted or end up in jail" etc.,

[thereismore]

2. A lot of chatter, nothing substantial yet. However, I don't think you can be SOS and not have

classified information come through your email. Did she have a separate email for classified info? I don't know that she had. If she didn't, then an indictment or at a minimum Petraeus-style slap on the hand is in order. But is there a will in Obama's DOJ to do this? I doubt it.

[peacebird]

6. Classified is supposed to remain on the Classified Network, accessed only in secure vaults.

It should never go thru email.

[thereismore]

13. No think there is a separate secure network for classified info, like email but obviously separate

hardware.

[peacebird]

142. There IS a seperate network, but you can't access it except in secure facilities. Vaults.

[thereismore]

144. Gotcha. Thanks. That's kind of... inconvenient, right? nt

[peacebird]

147. Classified data is too important to worry about convenience.

[thereismore]

148. Yet that is her justification: convenience. I think it looks like

knowing and purposeful disregard and circumvention of the law.

[Fawke Em]

9. "Did she have a separate email for classified info?"

No - and that's the issue. She had everything sent to her personal email. It's been alleged that her staff copied information off the "classified" servers and email it to her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

109. Let's wait for the facts to come out. If that's what happened under Hillary's direction, she'll be indicted and entitled to her day in court...

Hillary should get a fair hearing

[TwilightGardener]

10. Classified stuff is on entirely separate systems, difficult to access, no chance of things

being mistakenly sent on the wrong email system. They think her staff was cutting/pasting from the classified networks and emailing it around.

[thereismore]

17. So... the buck stops where. We all know, don't we. nt

[TwilightGardener]

24. It'll stop with the designated peon. The worker bees don't let anyone take down the queen.

[jonno99]

45. ^^ THIS ^^

[peacebird]

146. Nope. It was on her watch. If she had top secret data in her email -especially compartmentalized

data ....

That is a huge no no.

Notice how she ALWAYS carefully states "no data marked classified"? Insteqd of "no classified data"?

Parsing to avoid perjury, perhaps?

[peacebird]

143. You cannot cut & paste, they could copy down and transcribe however.

[karynnj]

62. There were other ways to get the classified stuff, including secure fax

One thing that has been said is that even if she had a .gov UNSECURED account, it would still have been wrong to send classified information on it - because it too was not secure. However, if she had used a .gov account AND via FOIA it became clear that there were classified documents sent to her, it would have been far less damning.

The one fact that most bothers me is that she did not have separate emails for personal and business - or even a system that put them in separate folders. This suggests she never intended to give the SD a dump of the work emails. An early explanation was that all work emails were sent to people on their work accounts - and should have been caught on that side. This ignores that many of her very top aides had their own accounts on her server. These - for historical purposes - might be among the most significant and they would not have been captured.

She initially claimed that she did this just for convenience, but if that were the sole reason wouldn't you think that she would have brought in people to help set up a process to regularly move her email to the SD. There were 2 main issues here:
1) security - and she should have set the tone and not had her aides emailing her classified stuff

2) preserving government work products - she opted for a unique arrangement and she should have from day one worked to insure that her using her own server did not mean the government would not have ALL the emails they should.

Whether any of this will lead to indictments of anyone is all speculation - and most speculation has been that it is her subordinates at the most risk. IF that is true and IF a top Clinton aide were indicted due to this mess, what do you think it does in teh GE if HRC is the nominee?

To me, the most annoying thing is THIS WAS SO UNNECESSARY as were the speaking fees and her failure to abide by the agreement she had with the Obama administration AND WHICH THE SENATE CONSIDERED when they confirmed her. That agreement - if followed - would have protected not just the Obama administration, but HRC. She knew in 2009 that she would be the heir apparent. She had a job, where because she represents the US internationally, she was likely to be seen mostly in events that gave her gravitas and that she was shown respect. (This easily outweighs the cost of things like Benghazi, which few who are not rabid right wingers really blame on the SoS.) Four years of this, followed by another slightly less than 4 years defining her run for the Presidency - with very little negatives - would be a gift.

[thereismore]

73. True. I don't blame Benghazi on her. Mixing her private emails with State is just unprofessional

at that level. Her convenience is now our headache.

I don't believe she could have processed all classified info using faxes. I can't be sure but I don't think so.

[A Simple Game]

123. I would find it hard to believe that if she wanted only one phone for all communications thatq

she would want to mess around with faxes for very many communications. This, like everything else wasn't about security, it was about convenience for herself.

[thereismore]

127. I didn't know that about the phone. nt

[peacebird]

3. Let it happen SOON, and let us have a primary between O'Malley & Sanders.

We will be absolutely destroyed if Hillary gets the nom & the FBI files for indictment

[MissDeeds]

41. +1000

The party will take a massive hit if we nominate a candidate who winds up being indicted; the fallout will last for years. Why even run a candidate with so much impropriety swirling around her?

[restorefreedom]

46. yes, this. let this play out in legal channels

meanwhile, lets have bernie and martin and the voters figure this out to best the republicans

[jonno99]

48. I don't know; if she goes down, methinks there will be massive pressure for Joe

to jump in...

my two cents...

[karynnj]

75. It's already too late for him to get on enough ballots to win by the normal process

The optics of someone just parachuting in and winning in a deadlocked convention are pretty bad -- but the Republicans could be in the same boat. If HRC does not opt out graciously, her people will resent this and the Sanders and O'Malley delegates especially if whoever had the greater number of delegates would resent it as well.

Then you have Biden having to go all out to both heal the party AND beat the Republicans - starting basically cold. That is a huge burden to put on anyone.

[jonno99]

82. I think you've put your finger on it with the caveat: "normal process"; it seems that the

current climate is anything but, and as such, I expect that anything that could happen - will happen.

Joe "parachuting in" wouldn't surprise me in the least, and his doing so would immediately fill the vacuum left by those disillusioned with HRC's "issues", as well as those not yet comfortable with Sander's brand of social politics. Not to mention that I think he is by nature more of a "uniter" than both Hillary and Bernie.

We'll see though...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

115. The elites will change the rules for Biden to be sure... but, we're not goin down easy, I'll tell you that.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Rosa Luxemburg]

69. Well Republicans aren't going to let her off the hook

no matter if it is true or not. Therefore it would be better if she hadn't run.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

118. True dat!

[SammyWinstonJack]

104. We will absolutely be destroyed if Hillary the nom & the FBI

files for indictment.

Think she cares.....I don't.



She's the worst of the worst.

[840high]

126. I don't think she cares.

[grasswire]

105. this, yes

She ought to step down. Some people think she's running simply to shield herself from prosecution. It's harder to bring charges against a POTUS candidate than against a former official.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

119. Never thought of that... good point.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

113. That would be the fair thing if Hillary knows the facts do not favor her... but I don't expect her to withdraw yet...

not as long as there's a chance she'll be let off the hook.

[jeff47]

129. Given her responses to "travelgate", law firm files and other scandals

I don't think she believes the investigators will actually find enough, fast enough.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

132. Well, Hillary might be correct in thinking so if she and/or her aides have hidden evidence well enough...

If somehow Hillary survives Bernie's challenge and is nominated, Obama could always pardon her in the hope she's elected President.

Would be so much easier on everybody, however, if Hillary would just withdraw now.

[jeff47]

134. If there's a pardon, she loses the general election.

If the pardon happens after the GE, she's immediately impeached. Remember, you don't actually have to commit a crime to be impeached and "convicted".

If the Dems in the Senate cover for her and block a conviction, we get 2 years of nothing, a Republican wave in 2018 and they try again - and probably succeed.

It also ensures we do really awful in the 2020 elections, helping to anchor GOP gerrymandering for another decade.

[DaGimpster]

133. I would very much welcome...

A race between MOM and O'Malley vs. constantly talking about HRC's baggage.

[LittleBlue]

139. +1000. The party is risking self-immolation here

This would be one of the worst nightmares in Democratic party history. We would lose senators, congressmen, governors, you name it.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary herself will face any sort of charges?

No, one of her aides will fall on his/her sword, plead guilty to a minor offense, pay a fine, and that will be that. I don't have faith that Obama's DOJ will do its job--this administration makes everything political, for better and for worse.

[yallerdawg]

15. You must have watched the Republican debates last night.

They said the exact same thing!

[tularetom]

28. That doesn't matter if she gets the nomination before it happens

Guilt by association. The republicans will hang this around her neck and the question will be what did she know and when did she know it. On top of her already shady reputation it will be the final nail in her campaign and the Dems will be dead for this election cycle.

If she's dead wood we have to get rid of her before she becomes the general election candidate and drags the entire party into obscurity with her. If she had any honor, she'd pull out right now before things go too far, but I'm not holding my breath on that.

[BigBearJohn]

90. I couldnt agree more

[grasswire]

107. agreed

...and well said, Tom

[Oilwellian]

80. I'm not so sure

There's that gnawing story about one of her aides claiming she ordered him to cut and paste classified information to her private email account. That indicates direct involvement and knowledge of the crime.

Even with that, I would be stunned if she was indicted. That would send shock waves around the world.

[KingCharlemagne]

96. "It's not the crime that gets you. It's the cover-up." Said by one who

would know (Tricky Dick).

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

121. First I've heard of this... where did you see that?

[Autumn]

7. I don't care if it is true or not that it's advanced. It's there and that's a fucking problem.

A big fucking problem.

[NCTraveler]

8. Glad you realize he is a complete hack. Nt

[hrmjustin]

11. Of course they do.

They will post anything to take Hillary down.

[Fawke Em]

16. I'm posting the buzz and I - a Bernie supporter - said in my OP

that I realize Hallperin is a hack.

That said: there is a buzz. See my comment below.

[Fawke Em]

12. I do, but I hope you realize I work with FBI agents

and cyber security experts every day.

I was watching for news on this issue because I've been hearing similar buzz around my office.

[MineralMan]

18. Why would we realize that?

This is the first mention of it in your thread.

[hrmjustin]

21. We are supposed to be mind readers.

[MineralMan]

32. It's common for DUers to think that everyone remembers everything

they have posted here. It's also a mistake. Most people don't remember much about most other DUers.

[Fawke Em]

37. Considering how many times people slammed me for my position, I thought they'd remember.

That said: I work in data security. I don't consider this investigation to be a right-wing witch hunt. I believe it to be serious based on what I understand about cyber security, security clearances and FBI investigation.

I will agree that Benghazi was a witch hunt, but I hope Clinton supporters stop conflating the two. They are difference investigations and use(d) difference investigation methods.

Benghazi was a bunch of Republican politicos hoping to do nothing more than take Clinton down. The FBI investigation, however, is a serious one that will use the gathering of forensic facts - such as data on the server - to make a determination and it won't be made by politics.

[MineralMan]

43. The FBI only does investigations.

Too many people think they can actually indict someone. They cannot. They will send a report on their investigation to the Justice Department. The Attorney General will review it and decide whether or not to call a Grand Jury. Only the Grand Jury can indict.

Would you like to know what I think? I think there will be no indictment arising from this investigation. I think it continues to be "buzzed" about because that serves the purposes of the Republicans. That's what I think.

I also think that constantly bringing this to DU is indicative of something. What that is I will leave to your imagination.

[Fawke Em]

53. So we're never supposed to care if Democrats are being investigated?

We're supposed to ignore that?



That sounds like Republicans.

[MineralMan]

55. Uh, we already know about the investigation.

So far, it has led to nothing. the "buzz" is all coming from the right. You've helped spread it, though. I guess that's OK. The reality is still that an FBI investigation is just that: an investigation. Until it is complete, we have no evidence of anything criminal or indictable.

You let me know when it gets sent to a Grand Jury.

[LiberalArkie]

87. If it keeps going, "for the good of the country" nothing will happen

[karynnj]

77. "no indictment" is not good enough in this case

If the FBI report has a strong recommendation that various indictments be made that itself would be horrible if she is our nominee.

A question I have is whether the FBI report itself or a summary of their conclusions is typically made public. If it is public, consider that it might not be a Black/white judgment - so both sides will try to frame it politically as meaning the opposite.

Only if there is a clear cut call to indict HRC or a close aide does it become near impossible for the Democrats. Scenario 1: the DOJ starts the process and initiates a grand jury meaning the specter of an indictment exists. It is already almost February, how long would this take? Scenario 2: the Justice Department announces that they reviewed it and will not seek an indictment -- politically this is not fun for us. Scenario 3: the DOJ announces that they need time to review everything ... but that ends up similar to Scenario 1.

For HRC, the best I can envision is that they put out a report saying nothing rises to the level of an indictment and they leave it at that.

The huge middle area is if they don't indict, but put out a list of things that should be precluded from ever happening again - calling on the legislative branch to write laws that set limits that make things that happened illegal down stream.

[MineralMan]

78. Odds are that nothing definitive about this will appear

before the November election. There's no rush on the part of the agencies involved, frankly. If there were, we'd already have some information. I'm 98% certain that nothing will come of any of this, beyond rumors and "buzz."

[karynnj]

102. Not sure I agree - today, there are more articles because today there will be more released

It should have been all the remaining, but there will still be 7000 or so still to do. This means that there will be the typical stories on the silliest or perceived most damaging (R sources) or most endearing (D sources). In addition, the fact that they missed the deadline - and missed it because they needed other departments to review them for classification purposes is an additional bad story. Not to mention, the SD might be pushed to put the rest out in several chunks -- meaning more stories.

Not to mention, I don't think the FBI is necessarily on the same track as the SD release of the emails. In some ways, the email release - asked for by Clinton, then required by a judge at the request of a journalist is to some degree a distraction from the real issues - did HRC break administration policy or even the law by keeping her email private with no process to insure that the SD archives got them on a regular basis and, in addition, did she ask people to send classified info to her non secure account .. for her convenience.

[askew]

117. The State Dept is only releasing 1000 emails. They are violating the court's order

Because they forgot to send 7000 emails to other depts to sign-off on their release. They've admitted the most troublesome emails won't be released until Feb 29th after IA, NH, NV and SC vote. That is a huge problem.

[karynnj]

122. True - and as their lawyer filed, they can't release all of them- it would actually be irresponsible

If even one email came out - that say the CIA wanted a redaction in, but they weren't ask - it would be the SD that would be criticized.

The fact is that Clinton by asking they all be published created a huge no win job for the SD, which is likely why they have had trouble getting the people they wanted to hire to do this. There are not that many people qualified -- and it is the ultimate high risk of failure, high pressure, long hour job with almost no possible use as a resume builder or career plus. It could easily be a career ender -- especially if you miss anything that should have been redacted.

If you had the credentials would you race to get your resume in?

[askew]

124. THe State Dept has been slow-walking this whole FOIA process to cover up for Hillary and help

Her electoral chances. It's a huge black mark on the otherwise excellent Obama admin. Not surprised they "forgot" to get 7000 emails cleared by other depts. Not surprised at all.

[Bjornsdotter]

64. Interesting....

....I get what you are saying. At times with my business I know things long before the news is released to the general public.

A buzz is interesting. Let's see how this plays out.

[hootinholler]

88. All I know is that if the FBI found a TS/SCA document on my personal machine

I would be wearing new bracelets, and an orange pantsuit.

[Fawke Em]

23. Because I've discussed many times that I work in data security.

I admit I'm biased toward Bernie, but I also know more about data security than the average person and the issue of the server has always concerned me. Benghazi did not. Benghazi was nothing more than a Republican witch hunt.

I an tell the difference, despite by personal bias.

[MineralMan]

30. You should never assume that people have read

other things you have posted. They probably have not, or do not remember who wrote what when.

If you want to let people know about your relevant experience, you need to do it each time it may be relevant.

Also, you may well not be the only one on DU with experience with security issues and classified information handling. In fact, I guarantee that is true.

Buzz is simply buzz. It is not news. It is not necessary factual. It is simply buzz.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

36. Bullshit. I remember LOTS about many different posters here. If they've been here for...

...a while and have participated on a regular basis, I remember them and what they've revealed about themselves. For instance, I know that your parents live on an avocado farm in California and that you are a writer doing mostly website content and I know that you've purchased a Kia and that you used to be on another forum and on and on and on.

And I also know about you that you can't help a brother out with a simple "yes" or "no" answer when it doesn't suit you.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

33. Many people here don't bother to or care to remember anything about other posters. They can't be...

...bothered to keep track of the things that make forum interaction more personable, they only track the slightest critique of their candidate.

Some, like the poster you're referring to, can't be bothered to settle a dispute with a simple "yes" or "no" but can spend hundreds of words telling you why he won't type a simple "yes" or "no" response.

[Jarqui]

76. I appreciate your efforts on this

In my opinion, it is unrealistic to have to provide your resume on every post in the forum that might relate to your work.

[NCTraveler]

22. I bet some are buzzing about it.

Those who are educated on the subject know that nothing is going to come from this right wing witch hunt. The FBI isn't some bastion of progressive thought. I imagine many are very hopeful this will go somewhere. You and I are bright enough to know it won't. Hence the need to promote the words of a person we both agree is shady as hell.

I do appreciate you shining light on right wing propaganda. I like knowing what those fucks are up to.

[Fawke Em]

26. The FBI isn't a "right wing witch hunt."

I don't agree with you there. This is serious. This is NOT Benghazi, which WAS a right-wing witch hunt.

The professionals I work with who have security clearances have all said that if they'd done what she is accused of doing, they would be prosecuted. And that's their professional opinion, not a political one.

[NCTraveler]

34. Lol

Nope. Not a right wing witch hunt. Just using the words of an absolute hack to promote it.

Fuck Halperin.

[Fawke Em]

42. Did you totally disregard what I said about the professionals in my office?

None of them are hacks (although, they ARE white hate HACKERS. LOL.) They are people with security clearances who work with the FBI every day (hell, I get an email from them every morning and I'm not an investigator) and they've been buzzing about this over the past few days, as well.

The difference is my co-workers aren't going to go on YouTube and Morning Joe to talk about it because they can't, so I couldn't share their thoughts with you via video. I'm just saying that Hallperin is echoing what I'm hearing from people in the business.

[NCTraveler]

49. Yes. Nt

[Fawke Em]

61. Disregard at your peril.

I work in public relations and handle our social media, which includes reporting on and promoting issues regarding cyber security.

We have had discussions about how to report on the FBI investigation of Clinton since it's an issue in our wheelhouse without sounding partisan - even the Republicans I work with don't want the company to sound partisan - it's bad for business.

I don't know the political leanings of everyone in my organization, but of the ones I do know, both Dems and Repubs are taking it seriously enough to have a discussion about what to do if and when it happens.

[NCTraveler]

65. I bet. I love the expansion of the story.

The great progressives I work with are more interested in fact than Halperin spin. They are livid over Sanders assault on PP, his support of the Tea Party "Audit the Fed," and his supporters attacks on almost every single progressive organization in this country. They see the email situation for what it is. Right wing crap. You see, we have bigger issues.

Disregard these facts at your peril. No, just kidding. I think that comment is petty as could be. You are spreading Halperin and a right wing witch hunt. I'm promoting progressive thought.

Fuck Halperin.

[Z_California]

89. "Assault on PP"??

Talk about hacks. Completely dishonest statement.

[NCTraveler]

94. It's perfectly factual.

Is Sanders running against the establishment?
Are most Sanders supporters anti-establishment?
Did Sanders completely and unnecessarily define PP as establishment?

Facts.

[Z_California]

101. That's not an attack

And you know it. Sanders had been 100% supportive of PP his whole career. His statement about the HRC endorsement was a spot on analysis.

Not facts. Intellectual dishonesty as is most of what's coming from the HRC side these days. When the facts aren't on her side, just twist 'em up a little.

You can pull that on less informed people, but not here.

[NCTraveler]

103. Fully disagree and the case I put before you...

Is one hundred percent factual. No wa around it. We are witnessing a part of Sanders revolution. He isn't just in Vermont anymore.

[farleftlib]

106. Ah, the PP Deflection tactic

This investigation is serious and if you have to pull PP out to try and deflect - YOU KNOW IT!

[NCTraveler]

108. You keep promoting Halperin.

I'll keep fighting for PP.

Sounds like a plan.

How do you call it a deflection when I have addressed Halperin multiple times as replies to the op?

[grasswire]

110. a post rooted in propaganda

Not exactly enhancing your argument.

[NCTraveler]

112. Agree. Halperin? Seriously?

Thanks. Not sure why he isn't only being brought here, but it has been done so in a supportive manner. Truly amazing.

[2pooped2pop]

130. Yes that's all exactly the same as national security

seriously Hillary fucked up. If she is the nom. guilty or innocent, she hands the POTUS to the republicans nomatterhow based you argue otherwise. We are screwed because she will not walk away from it. The US is fucked.

[jonno99]

56. Thanks for your input - it is very much appreciated (and needed). nt

[hrmjustin]

35. Your story is noted.

[NCTraveler]

54. It's like they think we don't have reputable places to read about this.

See their last reply to me. They literally claim they have to use Halperin only because the people they work with can't do a YouTube video. Well, I don't expect them to. I also think it's funny as hell that'd why they think I should give Halperin weight here. Pretty amazing.

[hrmjustin]

57. I don't believe either of their fantasy stories.

I beliefe he works where he says he dpes but i don't buy his rw bull.

[askew]

114. So any thoughts as to when the FBI might conclude their investigation?

It took 2 years to get Petraeous. My biggest fear is that we end up with the FBI deciding to charge after O'Malley and Sanders drop out. We'd be screwed.

[think]

14. Cokie Roberts talks about if Clinton is indicted then they go find Joe Biden. Apparently she forgot

we have an election process and candidates actively running....

[thereismore]

19. Yes, that had the establishment stench all over it. nt

[Jarqui]

20. If all of us had law enforcement look over the last 55,000 or more pages of

our emails (including our personal ones because we deleted them and they recovered them), I wonder how many of us would feel comfortable.

Cokie Roberts expected an indictment sooner if they were going to make one. I'm the opposite. An indictment would end her presidential run so you have to be absolutely sure you've got something pretty airtight before you bring any whisper of impropriety against her. I'm a Bernie supporter and not a big fan of Hillary but I'd be outraged if they did anything less. She deserves that. Be very careful and fair about this. It's not a way I wanted Bernie to prevail.

The reports were that they were checking into the Clinton Foundation connections and going back to the originators of the classified material in the 1300 emails with classified material in them. That takes time.

I've said it before: if there was nothing to look at, the FBI would have been long gone. They have better things to do. I cannot imagine them having an army of FBI agents chase all this down for months and say "oh, there was nothing there all along". Something had to keep the investigation going this long beyond the original concerns.

I have read recently that it's her staff members that have more to worry about. Hopefully, that's the case if there has to be a case.

[Fawke Em]

47. Cokie doesn't seem to understand how this investigation works, then, if

she expected an indictment sooner.

The FBI spent months trying to restore the wiped server so they could investigate it. I'm not sure they have restored every thing yet.

Now, they're going through the arduous task of reviewing what they have restored.

There are industry tools that will help them determine if the computer was hacked and that won't take all that long. What they're reviewing right now is whether the server housed classified and sensitive information and, if so, who had access to that information both legitimately and illegally. That's requires people-power, which, obviously, takes longer than a bot.

[Jarqui]

60. According to what I've read, they're taking each piece of classified info

in those 1300 emails and tracing it back to the source - probably to pin down at what point did it get labeled classified. That takes time - a lot of time.

If Clinton's staff was doing what some have recently alleged: cutting and pasting parts of this info and sending that out unsecured, then they have a problem.

1300 hundred emails with classified info ... that's a lot, isn't it? Every single one of them only got classified after they got sent? Maybe so but it does raise eyebrows on why it wasn't classified before it got sent out.

[askew]

120. So we could be talking well after November election before we know then?

That's terrifying.

[book_worm]

25. And Bernie supporters pass on this unsubstantiated trash from Right wingers

and then get upset if anybody says anything about Bernie.

[hrmjustin]

29. Yet we are the bad guys.

I don't bring free republic style bullshit attacks against Sanders but they can't help doing it to Hillary.

Tells me all i need to know.

[treestar]

66. Yeah you can get hides

for simply mentioning a news story about Bernie, if it has anything unfavorable to Bernie about it.

[Maedhros]

81. Unsubstantiated?

Is there not an FBI investigation? That's substantial.

Like it or not, your candidate is involved in a scandal. This has bearing on the coming election, and it is a fair topic to discuss.

[Punkingal]

27. She will never be indicted.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. LOL!

Halperin is now a body language expert?

[ucrdem]

44. Cokie's body language said dream on clown.

Comical.

[LexVegas]

38. ...

[Jarqui]

39. There is a right wing paper where Issa (who I can't stand)

is quoted making comments about this during the debate last night.

Because it's Issa (who I don't trust) and a right wing paper I don't trust, I'm not posting it.

Someone else can take the heat. Or the mainstream media will eventually pick it up if it's real.

Any paper that puts someone's words in quotes usually gets those words right or close enough to right. Maybe not in proper context. But what Issa says doesn't seem to suffer from context.

[Fawke Em]

50. I've seen the right-wing going on about this as well and haven't posted it.

Mark Hallperin, like him or not, IS the mainstream media. He's the first in the mainstream - not exclusively right wing - to mention this, which is why I posted it.

Morning Joe gets posted on DU all the time.

[Jarqui]

63. MSNBC and Halperin ?

It's difficult to justify automatic shoot the messenger with those two.

I do not blame anyone for posting that video.

If Hillary is in trouble, the sooner we get that out in the open the better it is for keeping the White House.

[ram2008]

51. Mark happenin may be a hack but

I wouldn't doubt his sources- as the establishment whisperer he is pretty reliable.

[in_cog_ni_to]

58. Well,

that's no surprise. People aren't going to vote for someone who's under an FBI INVESTIGATION and waiting for a possible INDICTMENT to come down.

Go Bernie!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[retrowire]

67. aand we really shouldn't

too risky.

I'm noticing alot of Hillary supporters think this is just a right wing hit job.

no, that was Benghazi, this is an actual failure in security. I'm not going to wait to find out what the FBI decides.

[in_cog_ni_to]

70. If by some miracle,

She is the nominee and in OCTOBER, an indictment comes down from the Justice Dept., WE-ARE-SCREWED. Hello President Trump!

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[retrowire]

71. pretty much

unless her VP takes over in that case??? I dunno

[JimDandy]

149. Doesn't work like that. Each state has a process and deadline for candidates to get on the ballot.

The VP can't just take over the Presidential "slot" on the ballot. If the above scenario came to pass, Clinton's VP choice would have to run as a write-in candidate for Prez. If it's ever been tried, it's never succeeded.

[amborin]

59. the real scandal, unaddressed, is WHY did Hillary push US regime change in Libya in the 1st Place?

Was it for Wall Street?

Because of all the hundreds of billions in Libya's sovereign funds?

Qaddafi, who had taken a turn toward the West, also refused to participate in the Bank for International Settlements;

Thanks to Hillary, we destabilized Libya, created a space for ISIS, then moved on to destabilize Syria.

HIllary learned NOTHING from the Iraq fiasco, which she voted for

[840high]

128. Good point.

[DFW]

68. If there is something to this

Then let's hear more than an OP quoting a Republican hack using his interpretation of the body language of Obama administration officials as support for the claim.

[CorkySt.Clair]

72. Their interest in this story begins and ends with its ability to aid Bernie

[jeff47]

131. Are you operating under the illusion that FBI investigations are public?

We're left with lousy sources because the FBI does not advertise everything going on during an investigation.

[DFW]

135. Hardly

However, I am not operating under the illusion that someone's body language is a reliable substitute for a real source. My dad was a print journalist for 50 years. I know that if all you have is lousy sources, then you have no sources. If that's what passes for journalism these days, you might as well go around quoting Fox Noise.

[jeff47]

136. "Lousy sources" include more than this one interview

it also includes anonymous leaks. Which were considered a "lousy source" on DU because they were anonymous.

[DFW]

137. If that's good enough for some people, so be it

I got trashed in 2008 when I revealed early that Biden was Obama's pick for VP, and wouldn't reveal the source. That was another matter, as the source was Biden's own Senate staff who slipped up in revealing it to a member of my family without realizing it, and I didn't want to risk their getting punished for it. So, I didn't say on this open forum where I got it from, as way back then, people in DC used to read DU. Mine was an anonymous source as far as DU was concerned, but it was not a lousy source.

If there is a distinction, then say so. I did. As for this one, I'm waiting for someone to say they have something more solid than a Republican pundit and unnamed Obama administration officials and their body language.

[JTFrog]

74. Yea, most of Hillary's attacks come from right wing hacks.

No BUTS about it.

Thanks for bringing yet another disgusting source to DU.

[AlbertCat]

84. most of Hillary's attacks come from right wing hacks.

I would think most of Hillary's attacks come from Hillary...

But I think most of the attacks ON her policies come from....everywhere.

Most attacks on Sanders come directly from GOP memes and talking points.

[jalan48]

79. Hillary showed poor judgement in dealing with her emails this way.

She seems to have a history of showing poor judgement, her Iraq war vote being one on the most glaring examples.

[librechik]

86. The day after GOP debate debacle, Halperin is trying to change the subject to Hillary

paid hack indeed. Halperin's the worst whore in DC, seriously. Not above poking a dead horse.

"People are talking" is the story? Horse crap

[DrBulldog]

95. There will never be an indictment.

Remember, this is timid Obama's Department of Justice, right? They have been scared of their own shadows for the past seven years to do anything significant regarding bringing justice back to America. Just look at the unabated rampage of police against the blacks during this time. Hillary's a big shot, so it will be hands-off with her, without question. If I - or you - had jeopardized national security by putting that many emails with top-secret security information onto my private server, I would have already been prosecuted and sent to prison.

[Jarqui]

116. Just like there was a problem with us when the 2008 bankers didn't go to jail,

the GOP will be howling for an indictment (IF that's what all this is about).

Before you jump all over me, I know, it's a very different situation. Those bankers were guilty of some pretty heinous stuff that hurt a lot of people badly. Hillary is not guilty of that - though they'll make it sound like she was.

Trump will confront her on it during the presidential debates, etc.

Not indicting her might be even worse because they won't let it go and she might try to carry on with little chance of winning.

It's awful to discuss. But dragging it out is exactly what the GOP want. The party has to keep an eye on it because they might have to pull the plug.

[blackspade]

97. "the body language"?

Cringe.... I would not hang my hat on that type of crap analysis.

There is enough shitty policy from Clinton to dislike at this point.
I don't think that we need to be listening to hacks like Hallperin.

[KingCharlemagne]

98. Is it possible Obama and Sanders really talked about this when they

met? Thinking Obama preparing Sanders for a heavy shoe soon to drop?

[SoapBox]

100. I've really tried to lay low on this email thing...

But it's seeming like there is something...big or small...don't know but something more than she claims.

[NCTraveler]

111. After Clinton is elected.

We can get back to calling this the right wing bullshit it is. Halperin?

You use Halperin to make your point, and back it up by saying time and time again that the people you work with are parroting the same thoughts.

[randome]

125. A story based on third-hand interpretation of body language. Hilarious.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Orsino]

138. Ah. The old "some people say." n/t

[Bjornsdotter]

140. I thought you should know....

....the buzz may be surfacing.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-clinton-emails-top-secret-20160129-story.html

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.

[Arazi]

141. State Department to Withhold 22 HRC Emails Entirely B/C They are Top Secret

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511091063