BOSTON HERALD: Potential indictment of Hillary could be convention wild card

[BigBearJohn]

A potential indictment of Hillary Clinton is a wild card in the Democratic race that could roil the party’s convention, a former federal prosecutor said.

“There is no way Secretary Clinton and her staff have not violated classified information laws — both misdemeanors and felonies,” said Joseph E. diGenova, former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. “The FBI is conducting a serious, criminal investigation. This is not a security review.”

Clinton has been under fire for using her private email server for official communications while serving as secretary of state. More than 1,000 emails were retroactively deemed classified.

DiGenova, who handled public corruption and espionage cases as a prosecutor, said he would expect the FBI to recommend charges within the next two months. The Democratic National Convention is in July.

“It could and should come down by then. The people deserve to know if the person who may be president of the United States has violated federal law,” he said.

SOURCE: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/03/potential_indictment_of_hillary_could_be_convention_wild_card

[Ferd Berfel]

1. It's gonna happen. the only question

is WHEN are thy going to pull the trigger.



answer - when it's too late for Dems to do anything about it.

[NWCorona]

3. Agreed! With the news breaking today

It's not a question of if but when.

[MissDeeds]

15. No doubt about it

[Omaha Steve]

33. Toon about what you just said

[Live and Learn]

65. +1000 nt

[Ferd Berfel]

120. They would pull the trigger LONG before this

and she will lose.

[angrychair]

44. The race isn't over

While there is still a very real possibility Sanders can win but even if she does win and no matter the reason (incapacitated or otherwise unable to serve), Sanders would have a significant number of pledged delegates and the support of many SuperDelegates so the Dem Party executive committee would give the nomination to Sanders.

[book_worm]

82. IF that happens (a very big IF) then VP Biden will probably be our nominee.

[Ferd Berfel]

97. Almost no one would accept that.

If they try to pull that..... President Trump

[Autumn Colors]

101. or 1968 Chicago Dem. Convention (nt)

[Major Hogwash]

114. Within 90 days.

An FBI spokesman said they were nearing the end of the phase where they were reading all of the e-mails to collect evidence, and that they have now moved on to the phase to determine how to approach an indictment.

[razorman]

118. If and when (both big questions) there is an indictment,

I am not certain that would be enough to make her let go. Also, at what point would it be too late for the party to select a replacement candidate, assuming that Mrs. Clinton has indeed won the nomination process? We are in entirely uncharted territory here, I believe. Precedents will be set.

[Raster]

2. OOPS-A-DOODLE...

...

[Ken Burch]

4. An indictment would make it impossible to elect her.

We all know that.

Some of us just won't admit it publicly.

[appal_jack]

5. It's already impossible to elect her. Nor should we be trying. Bern-on. k&r, nt

[BigBearJohn]

7. I can just picture all horric Trump ads destroying Hillary

Very easy to imagine.

[sabrina 1]

49. That is going to happen, especially if there is no indictment before the GE.

Only way to stop it is if she is cleared. Even then, the Repubs will use it against her. They will claim she was only cleared because it was a Dem DOJ.

She should suspend her campaign for the sake of the party and the country.

If this was Bernie, he would be ASKED by the DNC to do so and we know it.

[marions ghost]

73. that is likely true

Zero tolerance if it was Bernie. This is really the elephant in the room...

[sabrina 1]

86. Other Dems have been forced to step down for far less serious reasons, see Van Jones eg

who 'resigned' for signing his name to an obscure petition years earlier. Or Shirley Sherrod who was dismissed the instant Breitbart and his right wing gang put out a doctored video, before anyone even checked.

Now we have a presidential candidate who is under investigation for possibly endangering Nat. Sec and it's all okay??

[marions ghost]

94. good points

---yeah there's something fishy here.

[loyalsister]

61. If this does turn out to be as serious as that

Despite her ethical deficiencies, I think she would release her delegates and ask them to vote for Bernie in order to minimize any damage to Democrats in the general. I think a lot of her motivation is legacy. I don't think she would want to be remembered as the woman who could have been president but instead, handed the election to republicans.

[Autumn Colors]

102. No, she'll ask them to vote for the party's handpicked replacement

... whoever that might be.

I'd love for your prediction to be what happens in that case, but there's no way the party would allow that.

[JudyM]

104. Do the rules allow the appointment of another candidate who has him/herself received no votes?

[Autumn Colors]

105. 1968 Dem. convention

Rachel Maddow did a whole segment about it, but she was using it to show what might happen at the REPUBLICAN convention if their party did something like that.

Video in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403317

[jwirr]

107. I would hope that she would do that rather than let the other

party take the win. You know "lay down her win for the good of all".

[emulatorloo]

6. Just so y'all know who the "expert" you're salivating over. diGenova and his wife Victoria Toving

Lying partisan hacks. He's spinning like a top, and I wouldn't believe him if his tongue came notarized.

This isn't to diminish the importance of the FBI investigation here. Simply a heads up that diGenova is a right wing hack so take this with a grain of salt.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Victoria_Toensing

Republican partisan

"Toensing is, of course, not only a pricey DC defense lawyer. She's also a professional Republican, one tightly connected with the DC GOP power structure, and someone you could find at pretty much any point in the late nineties as an anti-Clinton 'legal expert' on every chat show under the sun,"Joshua Micah Marshall wrote January 1, 2004, at Talking Points Memo.

"Joe DiGenova (as well as his wife and law partner Victoria Toensing) is a part of the DC Republican establishment who is routinely put forward when legal opinions are needed which exculpate Republicans or inculpate Democrats.

"There's no other way to put it. Look at their public statements in the various Clinton 'scandals', the Fitzgerald investigation and now this case. In their voluminous public pronouncements they are both, in the clearest sense of the word, advocates. And their 'client' is the Republican party establishment in Washington, DC. That's fine, as far as it goes. But they should be identified as such, albeit perhaps in gentler terms, when they provide quotes in papers like the [Washington] Times," Marshall wrote November 25, 2005, at Talking Points Memo.

[hedda_foil]

9. I was just going to post the same thing. Joe and Vicky are professional right wing legal spinners.

[Punkingal]

13. Yep, Joe and his wife are RW legal spinners. Can't stomach either of them.

But what the hell are we doing in another Clinton scandal? I had enough of that in the 90's.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. So her IT guy wasn't given immunity then?

Because if he's given immunity, he can be compelled to testify, under oath, and perjury would constitute a felony.

He invoked the Fifth Amendment before because he didn't want to incriminate himself. You're saying he'd likely go to jail for years and years in order to protect something he felt he couldn't testify about before because he would incriminate himself? Key word being "incriminate".

[SunSeeker]

22. Hillary WANTS Pagliano to talk.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said: “As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Department of Justice’s security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed.”

He also said that the campaign is “pleased” that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before Congress, is now cooperating with prosecutors. The campaign had encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html


I don't blame Pagliano for insisting on immunity before talking, with the GOP frothing at the mouth to take someone's scalp, if they can't have Hillary's, over their Benghazi/email faux scandal. Look what happened to Lois Lerner even though the GOP'S target was clearly Obama.

[HooptieWagon]

31. The FBI doesn't give immunity without something in return.

Whatever testimony he gives implicates higher up(s) with greater crimes than he committed, or else the immunity wouldn't be given. During the immunity negotiation, it will be spelled out exactly what he'll be testifying to. It may or may not implicate Zclinton, but it will definately implicate someone high up the ladder.

[SunSeeker]

40. They're getting his testimony in return. They need to be thorough.

The FBI is dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" because this is such a politically charged matter and the Benghazi Committee is watching every move. So, it will be thoroughly, mind-numbingly investigated.

[HooptieWagon]

60. Not just any testimony.

First of all, it would be testimony they can't get from other sources. Second, it would be incriminating testimony. Immunity wouldn't be given for the testimony unless it was damaging.

[cherokeeprogressive]

68. This is not Benghazi.

[Adrahil]

115. Sure they do.

They may not suspect him of anything. They just want his context fro their investigation. If he is not under suspicion, then giving immunity (and it's probably a limited form of immunity) is a freebie.

Also, if their investigation so far makes it unlikely they will recommend a significant indictment, then it may simply be for completeness.

[angrychair]

50. Nice spin

Conflating the Benghazi faux scandal and the very real email server scandal. Totally different issues that have nothing to do with each other.
Also a dash of "attack the source, ignore the content" and this is a very very high profile figure involved and giving that the person is also running for president, they have to dot all the "I"'s and cross all the "t"s.
At first I could not imagine what the tech guy offers the FBI. This guy must have a very key piece of the timeline and/or insight into when and what emails disappeared from the server. It has to be worth the effort. Its not just for "review", it has to be worth the investment and political attention this will get with that kind of move.

[SunSeeker]

70. Nice right wing talking points.

This all started with the Benghazi committees. Then outside right wing group's piled on with FOIA requests even broader than what the Benghazi committee was asking for.

[angrychair]

71. The fact that is what you think that

Shows you don't understand or are willfully ignorant of the issues. Please do a little more research or not. Totally up to you.

[jeff47]

78. No, it started with a FOIA request.

Judicial Watch (not exactly wonderful people) filed a FOIA request for emails when Clinton was SoS. State turned over what they had.

Those emails revealed the existence of Clinton's server, since they had @clintonemail.com addresses in some of their from/to fields. That demonstrated State had not actually turned everything over, and Judicial Watch got to sue.

It also showed that Clinton violated FOIA, because she failed to turn over her work emails from that server when she stepped down. Fortunately for Clinton, FOIA does not have criminal enforcement mechanisms.

That caused Clinton to turn over her emails to State. State and the intelligence agencies did their routine review of the emails before turning them over to Judicial Watch. That review turned up classified information. Triggering the FBI investigation.

The emails, minus the very highly classified ones, have been turned over to Judicial Watch. The FBI seized the server, and recovered all the emails, including deleted emails.

The IT guy pled the 5th to avoid talking to the FBI or Congress, and was just granted immunity by the DoJ. The FBI investigation continues.

And when you come back with "It's a witch hunt by right-wingers!!", be sure to explain how Obama's Department of Justice is right-wingers.

[SunSeeker]

89. This started as a fishing expedition by the Benghazi committees.

Then the right wing scum bags Judicial Watch piled on with their FOIA requests to State, then Judicial Watch sued State (the federal government) under FOIA claiming State failed to comply with their FOIA requests. That is the "federal lawsuit" everyone is referring to.

As State tried to respond to the FOIA requests, protocol was they had to pass the docs by other agencies before turning them over. A dispute arose between State and Intel over what to classify these otherwise unmarked docs after the fact, i.e. what can be turned over to Judicial Watch. That is how the FBI Inspector General got involved--to investigate and decide what the classification should for purposes of responding to the FOIA requests. Intel won, resulting in some ridiculous overclassification, like newspaper articles as secret. Nonetheless, once it declared those docs confidential/secret, the FBI had to follow through and determine the security maintenance of those now "secret" documents.

The GOP/Benghazi committee is watching what is happening like a hawk, so the FBI has to be utterly thorough to avoid cries of favoritism by the GOP. This is all about politics.

[jeff47]

96. Nope. Judicial Watch's FOIA request is far broader than Benghazi.

A dispute arose between State and Intel over what to classify these otherwise unmarked docs after the fact, i.e. what can be turned over to Judicial Watch

Nope. The intelligence agencies have always held the position that the information was always classified. The only "after the fact" aspect is applying the correct markings.

That is how the FBI Inspector General got involved

Nope. That was the DNI inspector general.

Intel won, resulting in some ridiculous overclassification, like newspaper articles as secret.

Nope. There's lots of emails where we do not know the content.

Nonetheless, once it declared those docs confidential/secret, the FBI had to follow through and determine the security maintenance of those now "secret" documents.

Nope. That investigation would be by the State inspector general or the DNI inspector general. The FBI is investigating to see what, if any, laws were broken.

So you only got every single detail wrong.

[SunSeeker]

99. The Inspector General IS with the FBI. Nothing I have stated is wrong.

Interesting that the GOP is right now bashing Trump and Hillary in the news, and you choose to pile on with the Hillary bashing rather than the Trump bashing.

[lovuian]

121. Agree

It was testifying under oath before Congress ......some of her aides testified for over 7 hours

Her IT guy took the "Fifth"

My question is if she gets so many delegates can she give them to anybody such as Biden if she had to bow out

[emulatorloo]

100. Did I say that? No. I said take diGenova's spin with a boulder of salt

He's dishonest

[rpannier]

26. I was sure I had heard the name and when I looked it up I remembered him

I don't know if there's anything to the e-mail server story
But diGenova as some sort of expert on it is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge stretch

[jsmirman]

32. It's just disgusting that this major area of DU has embraced right wing sources

we'll see how the email situation plays out - right now, I continue to think that the fact that Powell and Rice both used similar setups will limit where this will really go. It is good that this guy can speak freely right now. As Charles Pierce said, "I'd request immunity in front of that body if this current Congress asked me for my first and last name."

But really, turning to the Boston Herald - it's shameful and it's a sad statement on where things are at right now on the site.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

36. Sad that there are so many here who seem to be gleeful about this happening.

She is very likely to become the Democratic Presidential nominee. Are there that many non-Democrats on this site?

[jsmirman]

37. I understand and appreciate their desperation

I just wish some things would still be considered beyond the pale.

What's next, approvingly quoting Drudge? Trump?

[grasswire]

43. it isn't just about the "setup"

She tasked staff with circumventing the law regarding the handling of classified information by COPYING CLASSIFIED TEXT ONTO NEW UNMARKED DOCUMENTS SO THEY COULD BE TRANSMITTED THROUGH HER PERSONAL SERVER.

Willful evading of the law.

[jsmirman]

48. Oh come on, you're not a data security expert and neither am I

I'm pretty sure I know which thing you're referring to and that is *hardly* the one to fixate on.

Stop being so desperate to tear down the woman who might be, who just might be our best chance in November.

Talk about your own candidate, let this process play out.

It's clear how excited you all are about any perceived thing that could blow up the clear path laid out in front of Hillary. That's ugly. Choose your sources with a little more self respect for yourselves as democrats.

I can tell you what - I truly don't think Bernie is electable, but I don't get into that, because I'm trying not to antagonize here (even thought this isn't supposed to be a protected group). But to my eye, if she's not electable, we may have zero electable candidates. I also think Bernie would make a terrible president, as much as I believe in much of what he believes in. And that also has consequences that are real. But I don't talk about that.

Many of you really seem like right wing crusaders in training. Who knew that after twenty five years of trying to throw everything that might stick against the Clintons, their greatest allies would be members of her own party. Gross.

[sabrina 1]

51. Do you remember what Hillary said when asked about the Chelsea Manning case?

She stated that we MUST protect classified information. I disagreed vehemently with the way Whistle Blower Manning was treated. And the sentence she received is unconscionable.

And many here sadiy agreed with Hllary's position on Manning

What's even more interesting is that Manning's attorneys claimed that Manning deliberately held back 'Top Secret' documents, only released 'classified' information and stated that no harm was done since the Govt OVER CLASSIFIES info. Gates confirmed no harm was done.

Hillary has now made the same claim, that material is OVER CLASSIFIED by the Govt

I agreed with Manning's attorneys and so did many experts on the subject, but it didn't save her from one of the most egregious acts of 'punishment' a Whilstle Blower has received.

I also agreed with Hillary's defence.

However what is good for the little people should be the standard for everyone.

I would like to ask her again now how she feels about Manning's case.

[jsmirman]

56. So you're saying that people are making too big a deal about HRC emails that have been retroactively

overclassified, right?

[sabrina 1]

59. I really hadn't paid much attention the email fiasco assuming it was coming from the right tring

to make something of it. And yes, I agree that the Govt does over classify material so her defense like Manning's, made sense to me.

i did not know that the FBI and the DOJ were conducting a Federal Investigation until recently.

I don't know why they felt the need to do that, obviously there is a lot we do not know

Aside from all that my point was, that if she believed that Manning was justly convicted because 'we must protect Classified information' then surely she recognizes her own culpability since at the time she apparently didn't buy Manning's 'over classification' argument, but does now.

Too bad she supported that wrong conviction. Whistle Blowers should be judged as the SC did in Elsberg's case, on the Public's Need to Know' and Manning informed us of some very important things we DID need to know, mostly about the Bush/Cheney era which is when she was in the military.

A public servant however, unless they become a Whistle Blower, cannot claim 'the public's need to know'. Their position is entirely different and as SOS she definitely needed to protect sensitive information.

But we don't know if this is the reason for the Federal Investigation.

[jsmirman]

62. These are markedly two different cases

I don't know enough about the legalities attached to Manning's case to comment intelligently, but I'm sure that it being a court martial had plenty to do with what standards were available.

From what little I know, it seems they pumped up some of the material in search of making sure the offense seem as serious as possible, but again, I only read so much about it back then, and that was a few years ago.

On a quick glance, it seems like the information he put out into the world was far too diffuse to be just a whistleblower situation - my impression is that Ellsberg released a much more distinct set of papers (which would cleanly match the definition of whistleblowing) (although I don't think this even came up in Ellsberg's trial).

But Manning intended this information to get out into the world, while Clinton had no such intentions, and there also doesn't seem to be any evidence that any classified information ever got into the wrong hands via Clinton's server. These things make the situations markedly different.

Also, if she didn't think, and had good reason not to think that any of the emails she handled on that server were classified then your argument is void. We also don't know exactly what level of security was in place to protect the server's contents.

Mainly, though, you are taking two disparate cases and trying to connect one to the other in order to make some sort of point. I am sure you are able to discern the differences between the two situations.

[sabrina 1]

66. Her statement about Manning emphasized the need to 'protect classified material' She didn't do that

by using a private server and yes, recent revelations show that she knew on at least one occasion that material was sensitive, and her solution was to remove the header.

Now I don't think anyone should go to jail for doing that, but it shows an enormous lack of judgement.

I'm no expert on computer security but IF I were in a job as responsible as Sec of State, there is NO WAY I would not use the system that was available.

Either she is grossly incompetent which is not a crime but sure doesn't create confidence in you as a leader, or she had some other reason.

All material passing through the State Dept belongs to the people. Not to the employees.

There is a reason why the DOJ is so involved in this. I dismissed it before but it's not easy to dismiss it now.

[jeff47]

80. No, the emails were classified. They were retroactively marked classified.

It isn't the marking that makes something classified. It's the information.

The emails that are problematic for Clinton contained information that was classified at the time. These emails were not marked classified, but again the markings are not what makes it classified.

Should she have known? Yes. It's utterly obvious that TS/SCI/HUMINT and SAP information should be classified at some level, even if you don't know what level. TS/SCI/HUMINT would include things like the name of someone stealing information from foreign governments on behalf of the US. It's really, really obvious that such things should be classified at some level, even if you're not sure it's TS/SCI/HUMINT.

It's not uncommon to be wrong by one "level". For example, it's not uncommon to think something that is actually SECRET is unclassified. "Here's Pyongyang's bus schedule". Sounds relatively innocuous and thus unclassified. But the fact that we have it and how we got it might make it SECRET.

But being wrong by several "levels" is really, really rare.

[jsmirman]

110. We will see

I think absent something that your average person can sink their teeth into, this is not going to derail her. I get that you're very committed to the idea that it will.

Please let me know if you have something like that to refer to. All the classification lingo in the world isn't going to get you where you want to go.

Abbe Lowell doesn't agree with your position and he made a compelling case on MSNBC today.

I'm not interested in continuing this conversation - although if you have some information on really juicy stuff that was actually in the emails, please share it. Otherwise, I'm out.

[jeff47]

79. Not quite.

What's even more interesting is that Manning's attorneys claimed that Manning deliberately held back 'Top Secret' documents, only released 'classified' information and stated that no harm was done since the Govt OVER CLASSIFIES info. Gates confirmed no harm was done.

Manning got her documents from SIPRNet. SIPRNet only goes up to SECRET. Top Secret documents are on different networks that Manning did not have access to.

[sabrina 1]

85. Thanks, I probably misinterpreted the attorneys who were arguing that the info released by Manning

was not Top Secret even though a lot of it was marked 'classified' and then went to say that the Govt over classifies info and takes too long to declassify information so Manning's leaks were NOT a threat to Nat. Sec but rather information that the people needed to know.

Hillary agreed with the prosecution, that classified info must be protected.

Then later when the email issue came up, used Manning's defense, that the Govt overclassifies info.

[Gwhittey]

83. Boston Herald

is right wing rag? I have never read or know much about it other than it has won several Pulitzer prices. Now if this was a story from some trashy source I'd not even take a look, but Boston Herald is not some rinky dink paper.


edit: Ok I guess you could say they are more conservative leaning than the Globe but it is only by a few % according to pew research on Brow GE. The only part they are more conservative is editorials and there news is rated similar to the Globe. And you can not say the Globe is right wing rag. You know the newspaper that exposed the Catholic Church and child molestation cover ups.

This post is a news article. So take it what it is but that is that, a major news paper is starting to come out on story with lead ins.

[jsmirman]

112. Way to put words out there I didn't use - NEVER SAID RAG

I'm so tired of some of you.

Don't say I called it a right wing rag if I didn't call it a right wing rag. It's so intellectually dishonest.

Don't tell me about the fucking Pulitzers like you're talking to someone who doesn't know that.

I am familiar with both the Globe and the Herald's work. One is much more conservative than the other, one is much closer to an organ of the GOP. It's a good paper - it exists in the conservative thought-os-phere.

Nice bizarre fucking diversion into discussing the Globe.

Gah, your whole post is just filled with so many BS forms of argumentation.

[Jitter65]

84. Most young people do not even know who they are. If they haven't seen them on FB or Twitter

they are dead to them.

[pdsimdars]

90. I think I remember that name and I think you are correct

We'll have to see if there's any fact behind it or it's all spin.
Good heads up on that one.

[sabrina 1]

95. I do know who they are and agree that they are despicable, sleazy right wing Faux

deceivers. However this gives us an idea of what Hillary is going to face from Republicans who are staying relatively quiet about it as they WANT her to win the nomination.

Whether the investigation is over, even if she is cleared, or whatever happens re this investigation, Repubs will have a field day claiming no one who 'risked Nat Sec so carelessly deserves to be CIC. IF she is cleared they will claim the Obama DOJ covered for her.

This is a disaster frankly. Those two have just given us a taste of what they are going to do.

[jwirr]

108. That is not the man who was given FBI immunity. All he

gave them was the 5th. Unless there is more than one guy the one who was given immunity was Pagliano.

[kgnu_fan]

8. what a mess she made...

[Chichiri]

10. The Boston Herald is a conservative tabloid. nt

[HooptieWagon]

18. You claiming he wasn't offered immunity?

[rpannier]

30. Yeah! Well. Does that change the fact that

di Genova is a conservative, lunatic hack who sees conspiracies involving the Clintons everywhere and has for 20 years?

Hope it made you look



Cheers to you Chichi



See you at the next round of primaries/caucuses

[Chichiri]

45. Nicely played!! nt

[Gwhittey]

87. Um No

You think tabloid means something it does not, tabloid is just the paper it is printed on vice a broadsheet. The Times is a tabloid newspaper also.

As I posted earlier I did not know what the Herald was as paper and looked it up. Pew Research rated it conservative as a Editorial but was same % as Boston Globe on news. This is a news article and not some rinky dink paper either. It is a paper that has won several Pulitzer prices.

I would not brush this off so easily, but time will tell and DNC will have to deal with it on way or the other.

I use to be a programer for news paper website and We use to print on broadsheet but the switched to Tabloid due to scaling back in print ads(ie cost cuts).

[zappaman]

11. Dream big!

[AzDar]

12. She has exhibited HORRIBLE judgement. But is blinded by ambition, and will not do the right thing:

GTFO of the Race...

[pa28]

14. Bernie is just focusing on his message and winning delegates into the convention.

The supposedly insurmountable "maths" are going to change in a hurry if she's indicted or if the FBI recommends criminal charges.

[DURHAM D]

16. Joe is a right wing idiot.

Where is his lovely wife Victoria. I am sure she has some lies to speak as well.

This is a new low for DU.

[HooptieWagon]

19. So there's no immunity?

Either there is, or there isn't.

[SunSeeker]

24. See post 22.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511400844#post22

[Tanuki]

63. Victoria was too busy making the rounds of Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham with the same crap.

I can't believe DiGenova and Toensing are being cited as credible sources on a Democratic website.

[silvershadow]

20. This is why we can't have nice things. nt

[azurnoir]

23. ^^^^^ thread winner ^^^^^

[silvershadow]

52. Thank you.

[Half-Century Man]

21. This will be simmering for a bit yet.

Patience everyone.

[Chicago1980]

25. Never gonna happen

[malokvale77]

34. So you have an inside track?

Please let us all in.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

27. And extraterrestrial aliens might land too

At least that would put Trump in a tizzy

[demwing]

69. They might, but the ETs aren't under FBI investigation (or running for POTUS)

Not to our knowledge, at least.

[Lil Missy]

28. When pigs fly outta my butt.

[madaboutharry]

29. DiGenova is a right wing kook.

He has been on the wing nut circuit for years. He and his wife, also a lawyer, are rabid Clinton haters going all the way back to the administration of President Clinton.

[rpannier]

35. Googled the guys pic

I thought he was someone else
I thought he was Marion 'Pat' Robertson's attorney for his religious freedom institute thingy
Wish I could remember his name.
I can see his face, but his name eludes me

That guy is/was worse than di Genova, but not by much
I believe di Genova about as much as I believe Trey Gowdy

People can talk all they want about the immunity and such
Doesn't mean that diGenova's opinion/judgment isn't a seriously large question mark

[andrewv1]

38. Yeah, you are right DiGenova but it's over for Hillary's Campaign

It's just gonna keep dripping....

Good try, but it's over with;

Sorry, Go Home & Come up with another Candidate if you won't support Bernie!

[Zynx]

113. Eye. Roll.

Try again.

[jwirr]

109. So? This has been posted on other news sites also and it

appears to be true making the first source irrelevant.

[ellennelle]

39. please vet your sources

the boston herald has been bashing hillary since the early 90s. seriously; i live here. i've been defending her against their BS since even before then (lived in memphis when bill was AR guv), and these guys are the worst!

i share concerns about the problems inherent in this legal situation, but c'mon; we don't need nonsense to make the case against her

[Beacool]

41. You're quoting the Boston Herald and DiGenova???

What's the matter, you couldn't find a similar article on Newsmax?

[PonyUp]

42. Hillary would look good in stripes. nt

[BigBearJohn]

46. I'm still wondering whether she should be standing for office, or standing before a judge?

[PonyUp]

47. You know the answer! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

53. it'll be like that time you let cousin Ed drive you downtown and didn't realize until you were

careening across 3 busy lanes of the Eisenhower expressway, that he was three-fourths of the way into his third bottle of jack daniels, for the day.

Well, shit, not much left to do but hang on.

[BigBearJohn]

57. I've been on that Expressway many times on the way to the loop.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. me, too.

but man, you want Cousin Ed to be sober.

[PatrickforO]

54. THIS IS WHY CLINTON IS UNELECTIBLE.

The only thing keeping her going at this point is the massive machine behind her. But this happens and all bets are off, no matter how smug the pundits and Third Wayers are about inevitability.

If Clinton runs against Trump, Trump will win, and that is so horrible I don't even have words. Well, yeah I do. Trump is a fucking Nazi wannabe who could send this nation into a death spiral with his fucking racism and white supremacy.

That's why I'm so strongly for Bernie. He CAN win against Trump.

[BreakfastClub]

55. The right wing has been breathlessly YELLING that Hillary (and/or Bill) will be

INDICTED and going to JAIL for over 20 years now, but I never thought I'd see it on a democratic site. Every single "scandal" they made up, with the exception of Bill's sex life, was fake as hell. Every single one. Whitewater, Christmas card list, travelgate, Benghazi, emails, etc., etc. You're falling for the oldest republican trick in the book. Hillary will NOT be indicted because she has done NOTHING wrong. That is a fact and you can take that to the bank.

[SunSeeker]

91. Exactly. nt

[Kaleva]

64. So now we are citing a Republican attack dog in an effort to smear a fellow Democrat?

Some info on Joseph E. diGenova:

"Who Are The Right-Wing Media's Benghazi Lawyers Victoria Toensing And Joseph diGenova? ...

Toensing And diGenova Both Served As Advisers To Romney In 2008. The two previously supported and advised the campaign of Fred Thompson. [American Presidency Project, accessed 4/30/13]

The Pair Has A History Of Investigating Democrats And Defending Republicans Under Investigation. In a 1998 profile, The Washington Post reported:"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/04/30/who-are-the-right-wing-medias-benghazi-lawyers/193842

[rpannier]

67. I care less about him being a Republican and more about how he spins

everything
He has been a vocal critic of the Clintons for over 20 years
So, IMO, it calls into question his take on what is happening
Yes, they've offered immunity and that could be troubling for her
But, I'd have been more convinced of the statements made by him, it it were someone else who wasn't some guy seeming to have a vendetta against them (Clintons)

[randome]

72. If you wish really, really hard...

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

74. This story is highly speculative and right-leaning.

The sources quoted are suspect.

[hack89]

75. Joseph E. diGenova is a RW hack heavily involved in Benghazi!!! nt

[dlwickham]

76. DiGenova has been pushing for indictments for three years now

His wife filed an amicus brief on behalf of those who outed Valerie Plame


Very nice right wing sourced you're using

[SDJay]

77. If There Actually Was Going

to be some sort of indictment, wouldn't Obama, being the Democrat that he is and not wanting King Orange the Fascist to take the reins, make sure that said indictment was actually put out there before the GE so it didn't destroy the Democrats on every level of every ticket in the United States?

This notion that 'Repukes are waiting until the GE to unleash this' is bunk IMHO. They don't control this process and they don't have the pull to make this happen. Obama and Lynch do, and if they were convinced that there was a crime here my guess is that if they were actually going to bring a political element into this they'd have brought this to a head by now.

That said, we'd better get used to at least 4 and possibly 8 more years of never-ending freaking scandals and bullcrap. It's the nature of the Clintons. Most of these scandals are complete garbage, some may not be, but the common variable here is that they tend to bring them on themselves. To me that's the fundamental basis of Clinton Fatigue - it's nonstop drama, 24/7/365.

[KamaAina]

81. BOSTON HERALD: Sick-making Murdreck rag

My friend north of Boston wouldn't even use it to line her cat box. And she's a centrist!

[pdsimdars]

88. Time to quote GW Bush here "Bring it on!"

[Arazi]

92. The investigation is scheduled to be done by early May

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511403650

We should know if there's going to be any charges before the convention

[bornskeptic]

93. Nice! Trashy right wing tabloid quotes lying Repulican sleazebag

and gets 74 recs from Sanders supporters.

[lovuian]

98. FBI is on the hot seat

and I believe


FBI have offered immunity

“The FBI is conducting a serious, criminal investigation. This is not a security review.”

Her and her staff have testified before Congress and the guy who took the fifth in front of Congress is getting immunity

I think Bernie is going to have to ask her about her emails in the next debates. It's getting serious.

The DNC is now in the hot seat also ....their reputation is on the line

[Darb]

103. Whoooo Hoooo!!! Huge jump.

You were so high the shark didn't even notice.

[jwirr]

106. The guy who helped her set up the system and plead the

5th in the hearing has been given immunity by the FBI and will be testifying about what he knows. This is another big problem for her.

[Zynx]

111. Wow, the Boston Herald and diGenova? WOWWWWWW. Might as well bring in Dick Morris.

Honestly, everyone who recommended this thread should be ashamed of themselves.

[BigBearJohn]

116. I am not the only one posting... there is no harm in discussing things... even if they are from

sources we don't approve of. Instead of just always attacking the source, why not even consider
the topic that is being discussed. Are we so weak-knee'd that we can't even discuss the issues at
hand? There is NO shame in discussing unpleasant realities.

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017335421

[BlueStateLib]

117. digenova & toensing hate the clinton's

[riversedge]

119. Another Right leaning newspaper stiring up crap that so many Sanders fans are so eager

to eat up. Shamefule.