She has to be toast now.

FBI's Clinton probe expands to public corruption track

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ck.html?intcmp=hpbt1

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter.

It is unclear which of the two lines of inquiry was opened first by the FBI and whether they eventually will be combined and presented before a special grand jury. One intelligence source said the public corruption angle dates back to at least April 2015. On their official website, the FBI lists "public corruption as the FBI's top criminal priority."

Fox News is told that about 100 special agents assigned to the investigations also were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, with as many as 50 additional agents on “temporary duty assignment,” or TDY. The request to sign a new NDA could reflect that agents are handling the highly classified material in the emails, or serve as a reminder not to leak about the case, or both.

"The pressure on the lead agents is brutal," a second source said. "Think of it like a military operation, you might need tanks called in along with infantry."

Separately, a former high-ranking State Department official emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate non-use of her government email address may be increasingly “significant.”

“It is virtually automatic when one comes on board at the State Department to be assigned an email address,” the source said.

“It would have taken an affirmative act not to have one assigned ... and it would also mean it was all planned out before she took office. This certainly raises questions about the so-called legal advice she claimed to have received from inside the State Department that what she was doing was proper."

On Sunday, when asked about her email practices while secretary of state, Clinton insisted to CBS News’ "Face The Nation," "there is no there, there."

quote:

about 100 special agents assigned to the investigations also were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, with as many as 50 additional agents on “temporary duty assignment

If nothing comes of this, it would be a terrible indictment of how corrupt our present federal govt is.

Perhaps even worse if it is slow rolled until after the election.

And then there's this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...fb874a18d_story.html

Close your eyes for a minute and imagine it’s Feb. 10. In the past nine days, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) has beaten his Democratic presidential challenger Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. There won’t be another vote for 10 more days (Nevada), and then it’ll be another week until South Carolina, the last of the big four early states, votes.

That scenario would be a total nightmare for Clinton. Period. It’s also a lot more likely to go from fantasy to reality than most people — including most establishment Democrats — understand.

Consider two polls conducted by the Wall Street Journal, NBC and Marist College in Iowa and New Hampshire that were released Sunday. In Iowa, Clinton has 48 percent, Sanders has 45 percent, and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley has 5 percent. In New Hampshire, it’s Sanders in the lead with 50 percent, with 46 percent for Clinton and 1 percent for O’Malley.

Even if you accept that these surveys are a snapshot in time and take a step back to look at the broader polling picture, the idea of Sanders sweeping the first two states remains plausible.

In Iowa, Clinton’s lead on Sanders is 10 points, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polling conducted in the race. In New Hampshire, Sanders’s lead over Clinton is just shy of five points, according the RCP polling average.

There’s little question that Iowa is the tougher nut to crack of the two states for Sanders. Although Clinton finished third in the state’s 2008 caucuses, she and her team have worked extremely hard to ensure that she is well organized and well funded in the state to avoid a repeat of that performance.

Sanders’s strong liberal positions on, well, almost everything — including his early opposition to the war in Iraq — should endear him to the liberals who tend to make up a large chunk of the caucus electorate. In 2008, a majority of Iowa Democrats in the caucus exit poll identified themselves as either “very” (18 percent) or “somewhat” (34 percent) liberal.

In New Hampshire, Sanders has steadily run ahead of Clinton. Of the past 10 polls in the state, Clinton has led just three — and never by anything outside of the surveys’ margins of error.

Clinton allies have long insisted that Sanders’s geographic proximity to New Hampshire makes him naturally competitive in the state. And, they argue, a Sanders victory in the state would effectively be a “favorite son” situation — rendering it largely meaningless.

But back-to-back wins in Iowa and New Hampshire would make it impossible for the Clinton team to make that case credibly. Sanders wouldn’t be a one-state phenomenon; he would be 2-0 in head-to-head matchups against the heavy favorite to be the Democratic nominee.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Even if Sanders wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton is still in fine shape, because the rest of the calendar is made up of much more racially diverse states — Nevada on Feb. 20, South Carolina on Feb. 27, and so on and so forth — where Clinton runs far better than Sanders.

True! But remember that politics is a changeable business. And that most normal voters (still) aren’t paying much attention to the process. If Sanders won the first two states, is it that hard to believe that the race could fundamentally shift — and not in a good way for Clinton — in the 10 days between New Hampshire and ­Nevada?

To me, the idea that the race is totally upended is at least as likely as the notion that Sanders winning the first two states wouldn’t affect much of anything in the states that followed.

Clinton and her team are very aware of the peril inherent in their present situation. She has launched an aggressive attack on a 2005 Sanders vote in favor of giving immunity from liability lawsuits to gun manufacturers, a strategy clearly designed to take some of the shine off the senator from Vermont in the eyes of Iowa liberals.

“I think that the excuses and efforts by Senator Sanders to avoid responsibility for this vote, which the National Rifle Association hailed as the most important in 20 years, points at a clear difference,” Clinton said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “It’s a difference that Democratic voters in our primary can take into account.”

The political reality for Clinton goes like this: If she wins Iowa, she almost certainly could weather a New Hampshire loss and go on to win the nomination. But, if Clinton comes up short in Iowa, look out. We could be in for a longer — and more competitive — race than anyone expects.

Catch me if you can. I'm running out the clock. Dindu nuffins.

I wonder how many other big name Dems are kicking themselves for not running. We know Shotgun Joe is.

I'm telling ya...they're gonna pull a Lautenberg...just wait and see.

If I was Comey, I would have my Corn Flakes tested every morning for pathogens.

quote:

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340.

Holy crap...

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

On Sunday, when asked about her email practices while secretary of state, Clinton insisted to CBS News’ "Face The Nation," "there is no there, there."

Is that kind of like saying, " it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."?

Like two corrupt little peas in a pod.

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
I'm telling ya...they're gonna pull a Lautenberg...just wait and see.

If I was Comey, I would have my Corn Flakes tested every morning for pathogens.

This. People are going to die! Conveniently die.

RMD

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340.

Holy crap...

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

On Sunday, when asked about her email practices while secretary of state, Clinton insisted to CBS News’ "Face The Nation," "there is no there, there."

Is that kind of like saying, " it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."?

Like two corrupt little peas in a pod.

My first thought was when Billy wagged his finger at the nation and declared boldly and indignantly, "Now I gonna say this one more time. These allegations are false. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski. Not a single time. Never.......blah, blah, blah" He was so convincing, but it was a bold faced, aggressive lie. And I'm to believe Hillary is not capable of the same deception? Ha! They suck my butt.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

On Sunday, when asked about her email practices while secretary of state, Clinton insisted to CBS News’ "Face The Nation," "there is no there, there."

Is that kind of like saying, " it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."?

Technically it's a literary allusion - something Gertrude Stein is supposed to have said about Oakland, California. IOW, it's not even an argument, it's a (fairly desperate, IMHO) assertion that everything the FBI is looking at is simply irrelevant.

And this is happening at the right time, in terms of the election.

Bad, bad for Hillary, and that means good for those of us who love this country.

One can only hope and pray.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
And this is happening at the right time, in terms of the election.

Yep, and now they are discovering that Bill has become a liability to the campaign, once again. The Man Who Can't keep His Snake In His Pants is finding, like Bill Cosby, that the world will not forget his past (or present ) , especially Trump.

I think I mentioned it many pages back in this thread that the FBI findings and recommendation to DOJ to prosecute this case may be enough to finally drive a stake through Hill's ridiculous political aspirations. I'd love to see her go to jail (fingers crossed), but I'll accept her having to withdraw from this race in utter disgrace.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
And this is happening at the right time, in terms of the election.

Yep, and now they are discovering that Bill has become a liability to the campaign, once again. The Man Who Can't keep His Snake In His Pants is finding, like Bill Cosby, that the world will not forget his past (or present ) , especially Trump.

Attacking Bill Clinton's misdeeds is the wrong tact. It would be much more compelling, especially in the current 'victim is right' world, to attack Hillary Clinton's response to his misdeeds. The victim blaming and active attempts to discredit or silence his victims. The use of Government resources to do so.

Painting her as a big government oaf out to violate the rights of victimized women is much more compelling than as the loving wife who tried to repair her marriage after her husband was a dolt.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
I think I mentioned it many pages back in this thread that the FBI findings and recommendation to DOJ to prosecute this case may be enough to finally drive a stake through Hill's ridiculous political aspirations. I'd love to see her go to jail (fingers crossed), but I'll accept her having to withdraw from this race in utter disgrace.

But you will only be disappointed, not surprised, if neither of those happen?

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
And this is happening at the right time, in terms of the election.

Yep, and now they are discovering that Bill has become a liability to the campaign, once again. The Man Who Can't keep His Snake In His Pants is finding, like Bill Cosby, that the world will not forget his past (or present ) , especially Trump.

Attacking Bill Clinton's misdeeds is the wrong tact. It would be much more compelling, especially in the current 'victim is right' world, to attack Hillary Clinton's response to his misdeeds. The victim blaming and active attempts to discredit or silence his victims. The use of Government resources to do so.

Painting her as a big government oaf out to violate the rights of victimized women is much more compelling than as the loving wife who tried to repair her marriage after her husband was a dolt.

her involvement in all of Bill's misdeeds should be an issue. Maybe bringing Bill's acts up now is the prelude to asking Hilz what she was doing when. IIRC, the book she wrote when they left the White House, she stated she didn't know about Monica till the day Bill went on TV and admitted he did have sexual relations with Monica. And that story was over two years old be then.

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
And this is happening at the right time, in terms of the election.

Yep, and now they are discovering that Bill has become a liability to the campaign, once again. The Man Who Can't keep His Snake In His Pants is finding, like Bill Cosby, that the world will not forget his past (or present ) , especially Trump.

Attacking Bill Clinton's misdeeds is the wrong tact. It would be much more compelling, especially in the current 'victim is right' world, to attack Hillary Clinton's response to his misdeeds. The victim blaming and active attempts to discredit or silence his victims. The use of Government resources to do so.

Painting her as a big government oaf out to violate the rights of victimized women is much more compelling than as the loving wife who tried to repair her marriage after her husband was a dolt.

I think this is right, but there still needs to be a reminder of what Willy did to give proportion to what Hillary did. Hard to believe, but there are plenty of voters who were too you then to know what happened.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

I think this is right, but there still needs to be a reminder of what Willy did to give proportion to what Hillary did. Hard to believe, but there are plenty of voters who were too you then to know what happened.

Exactly. Quite a number of younger and first time voters have no knowledge of all this, so for them it is not 'old news' (a very good thing) and will hopefully be quite damming for the HillHag.

Driving home the fact that she enabled WillyScum and attacked the "bimbos" to discredit them needs to be front and center.

quote:

HillHag.

LOLOL