To those who are still under the false impression that this is a criminal investigation the optics might not look good.

To those who realize this investigation is about moving the Government into the 21st century when it comes to technology advances, this is a yawner.

Hopefully the investigation will be done soon so people can finally put their minds at ease.

Because you'd better hope is the 2nd one, which I highly doubt.

detailed and thorough report that will address all questions and provide detailed guidelines for the future.

The FBI isn't doing a security review

that they did criminal investigations. So now they do consulting?

It helps to read a variety of news sources instead of relying on music magazines where the Political writer is a golf journalist.

She said she will accept the recommendation of the career prosecutors at Justice, not Comey's recommendation directly.

and moving us into reality.

They know better, they know that it's gonna taint public trust in what the DOJ does if any outcome is favorable to Hillary.

Self-regulation is a joke in the profession.

Or did they just not care?
It just enables ALL KINDS of conspiracy theories

And theres no way in hell they didnt discuss the investigation at some point. Regardless of which party you back anything like this is obvious as hell.

really?

No biggie though.

Just say you dont know , if you dont know. Dont double-down.

My OP is clear as day. That you don't want to see it is not my problem.

Later.

Have you ever been at Sky Harbor when it is 120 degrees and all Plane operations are down until the Temps drop? Been there done that,the Terminal is a Zoo,and Security Details have to do what is necessary. Just a thought. This is a none issue folks,but,for those Conspiracy Lovers,what a juicy Theory. These folks are friends,Lawyers and they knew darn well what the Yammers would say or do.

The damage is done.

Have never seen a group so darn slow to push back. They just seem to love the swirl of controversy.

It's a strategy that has been in play since Bill Clinton got caught cheating and labelled himself "the comback kid." Stoking the idea of Clinton persecution has bred a very deep loyalty. No the impeachment wasn't a high crime or misdemeanor, but he did break the law and people (myself included) lined up to defend him.

I am certain that the slow response you speak of is no accident. Let people go to extremes with conspiraries and supporters will forget the problem of secrecy and stay loyal. I am going to vote for her for certain, but I really hope a lesson has been learned and this pattern stops. she really needs to operate fully above board and under the assumption that full transperancy is a reasonable request for any public official.

and that goes back to his home state. As you and I agree,this crap gets old and folks have long memories,especially salacious things.

Bill just has this attitude that the world revolves around him.

And, I hope she will urge him to stay in the background.

And her secret weapon will not be Billy,it is going to be Mr.Obama and Bernie Sanders.

for anyone but himself.

Hillary has Obama, Michelle, Warren, Biden, Jill and all the other vp hopefuls and prominent Dems, she doesn't need someone about to switch back to having an (I) next to his name.

The real story always trickles out later.

He had training as a lawyer, was a lawyer but he lost the right to practice law or call himself a lawyer.

After a lawyer and sitting President lied under oath to a grand jury and got impeached for it, he got reinstated.

He voluntarily surrendered his license. The only time he "lost" his right was as a result of that voluntary surrender after which the Supreme Court disbarred him from practicing before the Supreme Court.

He never "lost" the right to practice law.

I heard Secretary Lynch say she and Bill both knew the same person. That implies they were not friends and did not know each other before this meeting. I am curious if you have actual different information that Bill and the Secretary knew each other before Bill met with her.

circuit .

Loretta Lynch was nominated to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York by President Clinton in 1999. She served in that capacity for several years.

She said they know people in common. That implies they did not know each other. I just think people should stick to the truth rather than invent a fact such as a friendship that does not exist.

It is why I asked this as a question. It would be more understandable if they were actual friends but a 1999 appointment is not a friendship

I'll let you out the morn of Nov 8th so you can vote. You will vote for me, right?

Hil

What the hell did you expect her to say?

'uproar" (I do not recall the exact word she used), she decided she needed to have the interview to explain how the process works at the justice department. She had done this a few weeks ago also but gave more details now.

.

It's not even over, but she has already made-up her mind. Hopefully this will be taken from her and given to someone more fair.

future if that poster isn't spelling things out for us?????

I feel so lost.....

to the American public. Instead of facts and real news, we get narratives (framed to drive ratings) from TV news stars who earn millions of dollars for playing the game the right way.

Last year both the New York Times and the Washington Post made monetary deals (complete with nondisclosure clauses) with a discredited right wing author to "advance his story lines" in exchange for exclusive rights to access parts of his "research". Bob Somerby (liberal watchdog of the liberal press) wrote about the ethics of the deal and the press's abrogation of its duty at length last year at the Daily Howler.

I've been watching some in the press try to walk back the nonsensical non-stories concerning the Clintons for a few months now that we have a candidate who is truly dangerous, unethical, and purely self-interested, but 25 years of the anti Clinton nonsense has taken its toll. It certainly didn't help when some "progressive" partisans employed a scorched earth strategy in an attempt to bolster their candidate by serving up every anti-Clinton right wing talking point to young voters (who didn't know the history of the ridiculous claims) in an attempt to convince them to never vote for a candidate named Clinton.

I take everything I read and hear with a grain of salt. Many of our telegenic and personable highly paid news stars are dumb as dirt and either entirely manipulative or blinded to their own privilege.* When I want to sort things out, I'll go to sources I trust like Bob Somerby, Kevin Drum, and the brilliant Lambert Strether at Naked Capitalism, who is no fan of Hillary.


*Anderson Cooper, who asked Hillary Clinton why she was paid such high fees for giving speeches, himself receives a minimum of $75,000 to give a speech. I'm sure he would take great umbrage if he were told that there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

http://www.celebritytalent.net/sampletalent/3374/anderson-cooper/

You own impartiality.

We all politically aware grown-ups here and to put forth a premise that the Clintons are 100% innocent new born babies that are pure victims of "a vast right-wing conspiracy" is intellectually dishonest and just as partisan as the ridiculous nonsense being babbled by the teapublican batshit crazy.

I have a huge appreciation for JFK and RFK but I am not so partisan or naive to not know and understand that both men were morally and ethically challenged.

In the kabuki theater of politics the truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Bill Clinton is probably won of the best politicians of the 20th century. That, by definition, means that he knows how to toe the line ethically to get what be wants. That is what a politician does -- and, anyone that thinks otherwise is woefully blind. That doesn't mean Clinton was a bad Democrat or person, it just means he was one of the best at what he did.

Nor am I blind to the many faults and foibles (both personal and political) of both Clintons.

Here's the difference: people are not relying on me for unbiased information. I do not have a duty to the public. I am just another commenter with an opinion. I am not "the news".

If it's an opinion piece on an opinion page, there is no problem. But when those narratives show up on the news pages of our newspapers of record, we're all in trouble.

+10,000

Those of us old enough to remember Walter Cronkite and Watergate and other historical points know better than to think we have real media.
Well, there's democracynow at least.

We have more media today than ever before, mostly thanks to technology.

What we don't have is a functioning Fourth Estate. A fully independent slew of journalists is required for democracy to properly work. This is one reason that freedom of the press is a First Amendment right. An informed public is necessary for free elections to make sense. If the public is ignorant, how can they make informed electoral choices?

I remember watching the evening news with my parents and recognizing that the news was serious business. My parents often argued about whether to watch Walter Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley but never Peter Jennings; my mom said, "He's too young to be taken seriously." Yet each of the networks presented the real news. Good times for the American public. Today, not so much. Of course, as you wrote, there are reliable news sources available, especially online. The big problem is that too few of our fellow citizens are paying attention.

But you already knew this, didn't you? (wink)

You and I share that memory.

Corporate media does what it does best, not tell the facts.

Well that's a huge relief.

And I think it's surprising that you're surprised I'm surprised.

over yet another fake/manufactured Clinton 'scandal'

Of course Lynch is going to follow the recs of the FBI. I don't think there was ever any question of that.

That being said, I don't beleive FBI will rec that HRC be indicted. You may believe differently.

Please now, the FBI doesn't waste time investigating fake/manufactured "scandals".

Nobody can predict exactly what will happen, but if you think these allegations are made up, then you haven't been reading much about it.

neither you nor I have a clue as to what the FBI is doing/investigating, as they are not leaking to the press.

All we have is speculation in the press. There is the actual investigation, and then there is SPIN.

The investigation is real. The spin is nothing but spin and speculation.

I will point out that most op-eds that claim 'Clinton will be indicted' are based on Fox News 'reporting' and the opinions of right-wing hack 'experts' like DiGenova and that ex-general who is a surrogate for the Trump campaign.

maddening.

to Barack Obama, who can then use the very information you posted to suggest ever so politely that his chief has been working awfully hard and deserves some time off to recharge his batteries so to speak. In other words countermand his AG without undue drama.

move along folks. Nothing to see here, cough, cough, Watergate.

Let's hope the FBI puts out a report that does not recommend that any charges are brought against Clinton.

Obama isn't the subject of the investigation, and he's in the last six months of his second term, with high favorability. Of all the players he has the least to lose, and while I have no doubt that he will resolve the situation with his usual scrupulousness, it's better that he be seen as handling the recommendations so that Lynch isn't seen to be endorsing them by passing them along.

In fact, either removing them or an indictment play pretty much the same. An indictment is NOT a conviction and the likelihood is that HRC continues her run with either. Either would,of course, be bad for the campaign, but the opponent is Trump.

Removing one or more people would not change the message. That message is that the FBI recommended an indictmant. If the Republicans had a remotely sane candidate, this would be devastating for her as would actually being indicted. Neither precludes her running.

The only thing it does for Obama is that his well deserved reputation would be hurt by EITHER, but It would be far more damaging if he intervened in that way. One minor, at this point, negative on his administration is everything related to this State Department mess. Removing someone would not end that issue but I think would ensure it continues in one way or another.

However, I think that Obama would not have signaled support for the last three years if he thought it would explode. I am NOT saying he has inside FBI info, but certainly, he knows what the SD knows.

FEDERAL PROSECUTORS NEGOTIATED DOWN TO ONE CHARGE IN EXCHANGE FOR A GUILTY PLEA. LYNCH DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.

you win this thread!

and others, who just like to be self righteous but don't realize how dumb they sound falling for a fabricated controversy.

It's about the end result that occurred.

But do go on.

Also in the don't give a hairy monkey butt camp.
There will be no indictment.
Sanders won't be the nominee
Appreciate all the fake concern so we can talk about it
Though.

But that has nothing to do with this.

I can't believe he did this. WHY???

it's either that or he did it because he's Bill Clinton and the rules just don't apply to him.

I think that's fairly parsimonious.

But that does beg the question and pushes the answer to -why- down field. Now, considering all that is going on in Bill Clinton's life, why would he want to be sure he wanted to appear to be a personal friend of the Atty General?

IMO, the conversation may have turned to grandchildren, but it really was about having an impact on Lynch. And, it did.

... who first came to prominence defying the Cheney-Bush WH when then WH counsel Alberto Gonzalez tried to get a then ailing AG Ashcroft to sign off on a torture memo... Comey intercepted him in the ICU, then took over as acting AG. He appears to be an independent, stand up guy who will be looking at the facts...

Everything that I've ever read about him suggests the same thing as you.

all u Hillary Haters can get back to greasing ur ropes....

Emails....... Drink!

Indictment Fairy juice is hard to quit once you've been on a binge or two.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

Minus another 10 for not using all caps in the headline.

I keep reading and seeing that Lynch said she WILL accept the FBI's recommendations.
I saw a video clip of her addressing this issue and I am almost certain she used the words "I will LIKELY accept their recommendations."
If what I think I heard is accurate, there is a big difference in "will" and "likely".
Please let e know if what I think I heard her say is accurate.
Thanks!

Clinton showed extremely poor judgment and it's not the first time. Yes, he's a private citizen now but his wife is running for office as a Democrat and is under investigation by the usual gaggle of Republican witch hunters. That means he really should have avoided Lynch like she had cooties. The vaguest appearance of collusion, even when there are dozens of witnesses that it didn't happen, will damn any Democrat immediately.

Republicans can buy hunting trips and other junkets for USSC (in)justices when they're having cases heard without fear of reproach or recusal or anything else. Clinton will be pilloried over this.

Or witch hunt. Geezus.

James Comey, head of the FBI and in this investigation up to his earlobes, was a special deputy counsel with the bunch of weasels trying to make Whitewater into an impeachable offense instead of a bad real estate deal the Clintons lost money on.

We'll see whether the "git Clinton" people will finally get an indictment and whether or not it's based on laws that passed after she left office as SOS.

While I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, I do know this is just a continuation of witch hunt after witch hunt, trying to find a crime to pin on either member of a couple the Republicans think are guilty of something, somewhere, somehow.

So far, there is no "there" there. I will wait to see what the FBI comes up with and will likely take it with a pound of salt.

If he is so right wing and anti-Clinton?

"While I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, I do know this is just a continuation of witch hunt after witch hunt..."

i.e. not political appointees.

So the people cheering for an indictment may be a little disappointed.

Or are you one of the people cheering for a politically motivated result?

Lynch said today she had already planned to do such before tarmac-gate

nt

They've been trying to get something to hang around Clinton's neck for more that 30 yrs. Whitewater was the prototype: take a particular innocuous incident, try to insinuate that various illegal things happened with no proof, then claim the Clintons did something improper.

Hasn't worked out the way the anti-Clinton folks imagined it would so far.

People that hate the Clintons will see this as confirmation for their hatred. People that like the Clintons will see this as just another attempt to smear them in the press. After decades of public exposure and public service I doubt there a really that many who haven't already made up their minds about the Clintons.

Affiliation is. If that was trump you'd all be howling at the top of your lungs

that it doesn't matter what decision Lynch can or cannot make. This is a fake scandal invented by right-wing nut jobs bent on destroying Hillary. It will go nowhere and she will almost certainly become or next President.

There is no there, there.

The indictment fairy is not coming. Sorry.

You have to look at past cases and this case does not merit an indictment.Hillary would have to knowingly dissimulated classified information.none of these e-mails originated with her.

Negligence can be criminal as well...

Negligence is hard to prove in this case because she was not the originator.whoever was the original person that actually e-mailed classified information using state.gov which is not a classified system should be the one that is in trouble.those e-mails should have never been on state.gov in the first place,it has been hacked.

If she discussed information that was classified on its face on the private server then there is a case for indictment.

Some things are very clearly sensitive and as she was the driving force behind the use of the private system, it could come back to her.

I don't think it will though. An aide or someone will take the hit. Maybe even a top aide and folks will move along.

BFD

... am not one of his biggest fans, but given the scrutiny the Obamas have been under, if there was even a fraction of the questionable behavior of the Clintons, they'd be escoriated 24/7... the best they could do was Benghazi, and tho a tragedy and not a scandal, none the less was a direct result of the decision to overthrow Kaddafy without thinking thru the consequences.. and that was HRC's pushing.

The Obamas are a couple that don't make me embarrassed for our country. I'll miss at least that. Unless we get the Sanders's in the WH.