DNC Clearly Worried About FBI Investigation of Emails:

[amborin]

WASHINGTON — Senior Democrats in Congress have accused the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies of politicizing their review of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

The accusation — made in an unusually pointed letter dated Wednesday — underscored the increasingly partisan nature of the controversy over the email practices of Mrs. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Those practices are the subject of an F.B.I. investigation, in addition to inquiries by the inspectors general and congressional committees.

snip

Jill Gerber, a spokeswoman for Mr. Grassley, dismissed the accusations of bias, noting that there was not a permanent, Senate-confirmed inspector general at the State Department while Mrs. Clinton was secretary. “Maybe independent oversight looks like a political conspiracy to those who aren’t used to it,” she said.

snip

In a letter last summer, Mr. McCullough said a sampling of 40 emails found four that contained highly classified information. Of those four, however, only one ended up being classified at the highest level, “top secret.” It was done so at the C.I.A.’s request.

The sampling led to a referral to the F.B.I., which then became a criminal investigation. Officials said that the inquiry should conclude in six to eight weeks.

snip

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/politics/7-democrats-in-congress-say-clinton-email-inquiry-is-too-politicized.html

wonder if that email is related to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1462278

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511468802

[Faux pas]

1. Kickin'

[6chars]

2. OP headline differs somewhat from headline of linked article

[thesquanderer]

66. It's not posted as LBN so the headline doesn't have to match, but...

...the problem is really that the posted text doesn't support the assertion of the OP headline.

[6chars]

67. Thanks. You said it better than me.

[revbones]

3. Boom.

“Maybe independent oversight looks like a political conspiracy to those who aren’t used to it,”

[Metric System]

7. Said by a spokesman for a Republican.

[revbones]

10. Actually, said by someone that respects the truth

and doesn't let their hero-worship get in the way of their integrity.

[Metric System]

13. Yes, Republicans respect the truth.

[revbones]

15. Hillary supporters are funny.

Instead of rose-colored glasses, they somehow see EVERYTHING as part of the vast right-wing conspiracy against Hillary.

Hillary mishandled classified information? Thanks right-wing conspiracy!
Bird pooped on my car? Thanks right-wing conspiracy!

[Metric System]

17. You're the one quoting and agreeing with a Republican.

[revbones]

19. Does that make the statement any less relevant or true?

You should really try to get past the identityteam politics that seem to plague many Hillary supporters. Principles matter more too me than the fact the speaker had an "R" at the end of their name.

They weren't maligned Hillary and they weren't lying. They merely stated the fact that there was no Inspector General during that time, and that given the reaction, it would appear that some liken oversight to conspiracy.

But then if you think basically trying to run a shadow government, delete 30,000+ emails, the word parsing she puts out about emails not being classified (note she says emails not information), backstabbing unions on Colombia Free Trade agreement, etc.. is all ok, then perhaps you should re-evaluate things a bit.

[Gwhittey]

21. Wait so now

Republicans are enemy? I thought HRC was for working win them? But why work with people that you hate so much you can't quote them?

[ish of the hammer]

37. Didn't Clinton say something about getting things done through "bipartisanship" very recently?

That's what I'm afraid of.

[ish of the hammer]

39. so it's ok for Clinton to work with republicans,

but we just can't believe anything any of them say. not much for internal logic there.

[Nitram]

48. Gwhittey, the irony is hilarious.

I keep hearing from Bernsters that Bernie has a better change in the GE because Republicans like him more than they like Clinton...

[amborin]

12. "kill the messenger"?

[AgerolanAmerican]

4. Time for her to step aside and hire a criminal defense lawyer

If she goes down because of this - looking much more likely since the immunity deal - she risks taking us all down with her.

She's not important enough that we should all be absorbing her risk.

My fear is that we're watching a Presidential candidate version of Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire.

[Fawke Em]

30. My fear is that we're watching a Pres. candidate version of Blanche from A Streetcar Named Desire

PERFECT analogy! Perfect.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

76. Hillary's campaign is tanking... once she drops out, Obama will no doubt pardon her.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[awake]

5. "Houston we have a problem" This could blowup in our faces

I do think we all need to be aware that there is a very real FBI investigation of one of the people running to be our candidate, and there is a chance of an indictment before or after our convention. My question is what are those chances, and this is a question that we all need to think about.

If our candidate is indicted after the convention then Trump or no Trump our chances of winning the White House become less than 1%

The investigation is not being done by some right wing wing nuts it is coming out of a justice department controlled by our party.

Which ever candidate you support this concern will not just go away by ignoring the real possibility of further action being taken by the justice department.

[LWolf]

6. It could blow up in the faces of those

determined to make Hillary Clinton the nominee.

[awake]

8. If this comes down after the convention and Hillary is the nominee then we all are going down

[LWolf]

14. Of course,

if Hillary is the nominee, from my perspective, we're all going down anyway.

And you know it will be coming down; Republicans aren't going to let go of a juicy bone like this one.

[-none]

18. Not hardly.

The Democratic runner up will then the nominee. Assuming Hillary even wins the nomination, that is.
As things stand now, unless the election fix is in, she won't be and can kiss all chances of being President good-bye.

[Gwhittey]

23. President of the United States you mean.

President of cell block D or President of Chappaqua PTA you never know.

[-none]

26. I was thinking of the primary.

President of cell block D... Or A, B, or C. Power is where you find it.

[Fuddnik]

35. They call them "trustys" in the joint.

But, I doubt the Warden could trust her.

[Nitram]

50. The immature glee in the Bernster posts above is revealing.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

78. Not to worry... Bernie is here to save the day!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[creeksneakers2]

80. The New York Times

printed for the second time that the investigation should be wrapped up in six to eight weeks, or by May. We'll probably know before the convention whether she'll be charged or not.

[kenfrequed]

81. Yup...

Same thing with the speeches to the banks. If people think that the Republicans won't be able to get ahold of those speeches and leak them then they are deeply deluded.

We Democrats have to realize that Hillary is neither the ideal nor the safe option at this point.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. I saw somewhere - not a Rethug website - that 150 FBI agents are on the case. Why so many I wonder?!

[Merryland]

9. This could turn out to be bigger than Watergate

definitely more complicated!

[Nitram]

51. OK, Merry, now you've jumped the shark.

Apparently you have no clue about either Watergate or the history of State Department use of personal email. I'll point out that, contrary to a few posts I've seen from Bernie supporters, Clinton's server was never hacked while government servers have been hacked more than once. I'll also note that in many of the "classified" emails only the subject line was redacted. the government notoriously over-classifies documents.

[NWCorona]

55. How do you know it was never hacked?

[Nitram]

57. How do you know it was?

[NWCorona]

58. I can't for certain.

That's why I've never used absolutes

[Nitram]

60. But it is absolutely certain that the government server has been hacked more than once.

The OP I was responding to compares the email issue to Watergate. I'm calling into question the suggestion that there was any criminal intent whatsoever in the case of the Clinton emails. And that there most probably was actual no breach of security.

[NWCorona]

61. Even if true that doesn't make it right

Criminal intent is for the FBI and the DOJ to decide.

[bpj62]

59. Watergate?

Watergate was criminal act intentionally carried out by a group of men known as the plumbers. The group led by G. Gotdon Liddy was caught as they attempted to break in to the DNC headquarters which where located at the Watergate Hotel and Apartment Complex in DC thus the name Watergate. To equate the email issue with an intentional criminal act is hyperbole of the highest order. I say this as a Democrat who is not satisfied with either candidate that we have. I have refrained from commenting on the whole Hillary vs Bernie issue that has engulfed DU but your Watergate comnent left me no choice. Read up about Watergate and the mulitple players involved from the Nixon Adminstration before you make that comparison.

[Jenny_92808]

11. I see a solution to this problem

VOTE BERNIE!!!

[Lil Missy]

16. You made up that headline. That is not what it says. n/t

[nichomachus]

24. That's it?

That's the best response you can come up with? Then, the DNC has plenty to be worried aboit.

[amborin]

28. Please notice that the subject line is not in quotes; it is not intended as a headline,

nor does it cite any publication in the subject line; both are clues that it is
not an actual headline; rather, it is a sound interpretation of the actual article

[winter is coming]

20. That's the first time I've seen an estimate of when the inquiry will conclude.

I wonder who those "officials" are, since they're not supposed to comment on an ongoing investigation.

[dana_b]

32. and THEN what happens will be the question. n/t

[TwilightGardener]

22. The Clintonite enablers in Congress are trying to push the usual Clinton Persecution Syndrome

crap forward as an explanation for what may be a very damaging set of findings. This is a worrisome sign that they're trying to get their excuses lined up for any action the FBI takes.

[marew]

29. That's all they have-

Especially after taking a realistic and honest look at her record and her constantly changing positions on nearly everything depending which was the wind blows.

[BlueMTexpat]

31. There is no "there"

there. Those who insist on pushing this "scandal" are, deliberately or inadvertently, GOP-enablers.

Why this cr** continues to be allowed on a Democratic forum against one of the Democratic Presidential candidates is something that is indeed damaging and worrisome.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Pushing a "scandal"? This is a federal law enforcement investigation. It exists, and is serious.

It's not actually partisan, despite GOPers cheering it on. Of course they would--look how excited everyone here was over the Chris Christie and Rick Perry legal troubles. But no, this isn't ginned up or crafted out of thin air, it's not a "security review", it's not political persecution--the fact that the DoJ granted her IT guy immunity means the FBI/DoJ are targeting someone above him in Clinton world. That's a real problem.

[BlueMTexpat]

36. They have also said that

Hillary is not - repeat not - a target of the investigation.

She did not send any material that was classified at the time that she sent it. To be liable for a crime, the material must BE classified at the time AND the person sharing it or otherwise misusing it must KNOW that. It's not even "should have known;" the material must have been marked at the time it is being shared/misused.

All of the materials considered "classified" were classified AFTERWARDS. Hillary is off the hook for any criminal actions. Period.

They gave the staffer immunity so that he could describe everything he knows without fear of inadvertently saying something that could be construed against him, NOT because they are going after Hillary.

Please dream on, if you must. There are a lot of people with very little knowledge of the law or how it works that have built this up into something that it is not. They will all be very disappointed if they hope that Hillary will be a casualty.

But what do I know after all? I am only a former lawyer with the DoS, who had to deal with classified material on a routine basis. That was before the Bush II era, where LOTS of material was overclassified in an attempt to keep it from the public and some of those rules may still be in effect with other agencies.

[TwilightGardener]

38. I think you have your facts wrong. They're not going to announce who their target is.

They haven't taken ANYONE "off the hook". No one has been exonerated. The rules that govern classified material are not what you say--I am married to someone who had a very high level of clearance, was an IT guy himself, and negligent handling is a problem. Deliberate mishandling is a bigger problem (like, instructing aides to remove headers, that sort of thing.) And I don't think the granted immunity is because the DoJ is deeply concerned about Little IT Guy's potential self-incrimination. They don't give a shit about his well-being. Not impressed with your credentials, sorry.

[Nitram]

52. Right, Gardener, you and your hubbie know more about the subject than a former lawyer with the DoS.

[TwilightGardener]

62. I think he's wrong. I don't automatically defer to anyone's claim of expertise, especially

when it runs counter to other analyses I've read. No one knows what's going to happen next. My hunch is that some sort of wrongdoing will be found to have occurred among Hillary's staffers, but we'll have to wait and see.

[BlueMTexpat]

68. Well, tough toenails to you

and buh-bye!

[creeksneakers2]

83. The article says

they've cleared her chief of staff.

[TwilightGardener]

85. That's the State Dept. IG's earlier findings (Linick) --different from the FBI's investigation.

[creeksneakers2]

82. They didn't offer him immunity over any crime

or in exchange for testifying against Hillary. The only promised not to use what he said in his interview against him. His lawyer insisted on this before allowing his client to cooperate. The Times said these agreements are very routine.

[TwilightGardener]

84. I've read otherwise--that the federal government is pretty stingy with immunity.

And there's different types of immunity, not sure which he has. But beyond that, I haven't read anything other than he's not the likely target of their probe.

[FlatBaroque]

45. How the fuck do you know

[pugetres]

25. Thanks for the links you provided.

KNR

[merrily]

27. Did the bar just leap from "offical state dept. business" past "classified" to "top secret"?

What's next? Only the undisclosed secret location of the one government official who does not attend the SOTU?

[dchill]

33. K&R.

[Ferd Berfel]

40. What the hell is she thinking?

Even if she became President the Reich would just push more investigations and IMPEACH.

This is too stupid to stomach

[saidsimplesimon]

41. k&r for a great discussion and factual links

[speaktruthtopower]

42. I think a surprise is coming..

and Hillary may not be the target.

[Divernan]

44. Whomever fucked up, it was on her watch!

[dana_b]

46. oooo... that sounds interesting..

Blumenthal? Obama (can't see how)?

[Nitram]

53. A surprise and a lot of disappointment in the Bernie Camp.

Sad that all their hopes are pinned on a criminal indictment of the other candidate.

[Pat Riots]

79. cheer up

all of our hopes arent for Hillary to be indicted. those would be our worries.

you know...the whole electability thing. it would not be much fun to nominate an indicted person, however remote or not the possibility may be.

would I be happy to have her indicted BEFORE being nominated?

Yes.

Do I want her to be indicted?

No.

dont be sad.

[Divernan]

43. drip . . . . drip . . . drip . . drip . drip.Drip.DRIP-DRIP!-DRIP!!-DRIP!!!!!!

[Trust Buster]

47. It's somewhat humorous and disgusting that those that claim that Hillary is a Republican

rush to embrace the dirty political tactics employed by Republicans. Grassley is the same creep that won't even hold hearings for the President's Supreme Court nominee. I'm familiar with the term "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" but this is absolutely pathetic.

[awake]

64. WAKE UP - Hillary's emails which were on her home server are part of a FBI investigation !

This is not about some made up BS by some "dirty political tactics employed by Republicans"

[Trust Buster]

69. Chuck Grassley ? He was the guy quoted in the OP.

You would also have to accept that Grassley isn't playing politics by refusing to hold hearings for the President's Supreme Court nomination.

[awake]

70. " a referral to the F.B.I., which then became a criminal investigation. "

This is not about the slim ball "Grassley" it is about a criminal investigation by the FBI related to Hillary's exclusive use of an unauthorized Home server for all of her emails while she served as head of the State Department.

[thereismore]

49. Do I sense it correctly that the Clinton camp are

now throwing rocks at the Obama administration? Please tell me.

[Nitram]

54. No.

[noiretextatique]

72. Yes...you are correct

They are conflating Grassley with Obama's FBI.

[magical thyme]

56. the Inspector General of the CIA is nominated by and reports to the President, not Congress.

Obama nominated McCullough in 2011.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg72745/html/CHRG-112shrg72745.htm

If they have a complaint about McCullough, they should be taking it to President Obama, not the press. Just sayin'

[DrFunkenstein]

63. Is That Why The E-Mails Were Released On Friday Evenings Before Primaries?

If the timing of the debates was suspect, the timing of the releases of the e-mails to the media was impeccable. If you want no one to notice them.

Some notables: The one where she talks about her role in the legitimating the Honduras coup, and the one with her aides describing the massive weapons sale she lined up for Saudi Arabia as a "Christmas present."

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2015/07/emails-show-secretary-clinton-disobeyed-obama-policy-and-continued-fund

https://theintercept.com/2016/02/22/saudi-christmas-present/

[HenryWallace]

65. For God's sake, stop posting this crap!

Huge Bernie Supporter, grappling whether I could or should ever again support status quo candidate for party leadership.......

But this is just right-wing, Benghazi-ish nonsense! .........Stop posting it!

For Secretary Clinton, nothing is more wrongful than a side-by-side comparison of progressive issue with her opponent's. Her crime is having no vision of a better future (let alone having no plans to obtain anything but the most achievable of systematic tweaks)! She is guilty of the lazy cowardice of complacent acceptance, seemingly happy to be mired in the 30-year quagmire that neo-liberalism has brought us to.

What's next, a Vince Foster post! She is not evil, unlawful or particularly immoral; she is just not the right leader for this time in history. We need someone who can articulate and fight for a radical course correction! We live in the dark times that the radicalism of the Reagan Revolution has brought us to. Staying the course (shut up and keep suffering) risks making the Democratic party irreverent!

The bottom line; this post and ones similar to it are beneath the standards of your preferred candidate.

For the sake of Senator Sanders campaign: Shut the hell up!

[awake]

71. You wish this was about a right wing witch hunt over Benghazi

It is not, rather it is about an on going investigation by the FBI that can not be ignored. As much as you would like to wish it away, If Hillary does become our nominee and this issue has not been resolved it could easily come back and bit us all.

[noiretextatique]

73. If it is a RW witch-hunt, Obama is the ringleader

Since he is the President.

[awake]

74. good one

[noiretextatique]

75. Basically the same thing you said

Over and over and over