quote:

There is no way Loretta Lynch is going to move forward when a Democrat presidential candidate is in the cross-hairs.

Not unless HUSSEIN wants Biden to be the nominee.

quote:

FBI interviews can lead to additional felony charges when 18 U.S. Code Section 1001 is violated. She can't open her mouth without lying at least a handful of times. Why not lock her into statements on the record before she knows exactly what evidence the FBI has?

Hillary is not going to say anything to the FBI, she probably would not even say good morning to them without counsel. Why should she? She has nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I don't know why anyone talks to the FBI without counsel and Hillary certainly would not. Dewey, Cheatum & Howe would be there with full support. Hillary's counsel would probably ask for CNN coverage of the interview.

Her interview would sound exactly like the Benghazi hearing; you ask sharp questions, she equivocates and discusses her grandchild.

When (I hope) she is indicted, she will tell them; "I'll see you in court" and immediately call the Whitehouse.

As long as the money is flowing into the Clinton Slush Fund she will keep doing what she does.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigboreshooter:

quote:

There is no way Loretta Lynch is going to move forward when a Democrat presidential candidate is in the cross-hairs.

Not unless HUSSEIN wants Biden to be the nominee.

I'm not too educated on a lot of details. A few questions...

When is the latest time Biden can actually get in? My understanding was he already lost the opportunity to be on a lot of ballots.

If Hillary is indicted after she become the dem nominee what happens? How do they put someone else in?

Technically the Dem Party names it's nominee at the convention unless there's a two-way contest and one side concedes the race to the other. I'm not familiar with the by-laws of the DNC, but theoretically if delegates are already committed to a candidate and that candidate's candidacy becomes non-viable then those delegates are free to cast their votes for another candidate. Depending on timing, a rerun of the election may not be possible.

The thing is, I'm not sure an indictment would be more likely to persuade Hillary to drop out than it would to persuade her to stay in. If she's indicted, she'll be in the PR battle of her life and her first instinct will be to cling to any source of funding, access to the media or opportunities to emote that she can get her hands on.

It depends on what the definition of "interview" is. Isnt that how it goes with them? You can bet your blue dress that their daughter is neck deep in it too. Perhaps in the end this is the deal they will make...take the fall and let your kid walk.

quote:

Technically the Dem Party names it's nominee at the convention unless there's a two-way contest and one side concedes the race to the other. I'm not familiar with the by-laws of the DNC, but theoretically if delegates are already committed to a candidate and that candidate's candidacy becomes non-viable then those delegates are free to cast their votes for another candidate.

^+1+^
I would say that the States need a couple of months to print ballots and handle absentee ballots right up to that time the Democrats could change the name on the tickets, as a guess early September.

An independent bid requires time to get on the ballot, but the major parties are already on state ballots.

Effectively I suspect they would want to get it done at the convention.

Im telling ya theyre gonna pull a Lautenberg. Do the switch-a-roo at the last minute with some fresh face out of the blue who will be treated like the Second Coming. The media will be all over them treating it like no big deal and in the process drowning out the R candidate and taking the spotlight off the 8 years of fail

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
It depends on what the definition of "interview" is. Isnt that how it goes with them? You can bet your blue dress that their daughter is neck deep in it too. Perhaps in the end this is the deal they will make...take the fall and let your kid walk.

I'm not convinced they would put Chelsea first! I won't give them that much humanity.

flashguy

Clinton's 'no individual too big to jail' tweet backfires...

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...es.html?intcmp=hpbt2

Hillary Clinton's campaign encountered heavy backlash Sunday night shortly after tweeting a statement made by Clinton during the fourth Democratic primary debate.

" There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail ," Clinton told the moderators during the first hour of the debate Sunday.

Within seconds, the remark was tweeted out to the former secretary of state's five-plus million Twitter followers.

And the response was not what Clinton's campaign had hoped for.

Clinton has defended herself against numerous scandals and sought to decrease voters' distrust in her since she launched her second bid for the White House in April. Several reports last week signaled an expansion of the FBI investigation into the private email server Clinton kept during her tenure as secretary of state.

Lovely, keep it coming...



EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the text of the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even “top secret,” the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate’s handling of the government’s closely held secrets.

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

Intelligence from a "special access program,” or SAP, is even more sensitive than that designated as "top secret" – as were two emails identified last summer in a random sample pulled from Clinton's private server she used as secretary of state. Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a "need-to-know" because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection -- or a human asset -- at risk. Currently, some 1,340 emails designated “classified” have been found on Clinton’s server, though the Democratic presidential candidate insists the information was not classified at the time.

“There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material,” a former senior law enforcement with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures told Fox News. “It is the most sensitive of the sensitive.”

Executive Order 13526 -- called "Classified National Security Information" and signed Dec. 29, 2009 -- sets out the legal framework for establishing special access programs. The order says the programs can only be authorized by the president, "the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each."

The programs are created when "the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” and “the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved," it states.

According to court documents, former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding “unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling … could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.” Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.

Fox News is told that the recent IG letter was sent to the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and State Department inspector general.

Fox News has asked the committees to make the letter public because its findings are unclassified.

Representatives for the ODNI and intelligence community inspector general had no comment, but did not dispute the findings.

The intelligence community IG was responding in his message to a November letter from the Republican chairmen of the Senate intelligence and foreign relations committees that questioned the State Department email review process after it was wrongly reported the intelligence community was retreating from the “top secret” designation.

As Fox News first reported, those two emails were “top secret” when they hit the server, and it is now considered a settled matter.

The intelligence agencies now have their own reviewers embedded at the State Department as part of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. The reviewers are identifying intelligence of a potentially classified nature, and referring it to the relevant intelligence agency for further review.

There is no formal appeals process for classification, and the agency that generates the intelligence has final say. The State Department only has control over the fraction of emails that pertain to their own intelligence.

While the State Department and Clinton campaign have said the emails in questions were “retroactively classified” or “upgraded” – to justify the more than 1,300 classified emails on her server – those terms are meaningless under federal law.

The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, “gross negligence” in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act.

It doesn't matter.
She could run over puppies and little kids in her car (if she actually drove) and it would not matter.
As much as BHO wants to throw her under the bus, he can't afford it politically (for his so-called legacy).
He would never let the AG indict her, ever!

quote:

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers

If you look back many pages ago you will see a long discussion about SAP and the various conditions applying. When it was discovered that Hillary was sharing troop movement information gained by Satellite Intel. it was obvious serious felonies had been committed.


I cannot imagine why the DoD would ever share this sort of intel. with State which is as leaky as a sleeve.

Over and over, each day in the morning, after lunch, and before locking up, "NEED to KNOW" was drummed into my head.

Why on God's Green Earth, did Hillary need to know?

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
It doesn't matter.
She could run over puppies and little kids in her car (if she actually drove) and it would not matter.
As much as BHO wants to throw her under the bus, he can't afford it politically (for his so-called legacy).
He would never let the AG indict her, ever!

I wish I thought you were wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:
Why on God's Green Earth, did Hillary need to know?

Cuz she and her boss have been trying to undermine the military since the day they were sworn in.

This is getting pretty deep.

over a thousand Confidentials

a few Secrets

two TS/SCI

now some number of Special Access.

If there aren't indictments, we are truly a third world banana republic.

Do we really need to write 'honorable' before everyone's name? Seriously? Really? Why not just rub each others' belly while your at it....sheesh!

quote:

Originally posted by Krazeehorse:

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
It doesn't matter.
She could run over puppies and little kids in her car (if she actually drove) and it would not matter.
As much as BHO wants to throw her under the bus, he can't afford it politically (for his so-called legacy).
He would never let the AG indict her, ever!

I wish I thought you were wrong.

I do not believe zippy believes it will tarnish him....he has worked to separate the clintons as much as possible. He might even think it would help his legacy as the "most transparent administration ever".

BUT the DNC heads have no other viable candidates......maybe biden but he has to hit the ground running and get the signatures needed to be placed on the ballot. Not that the dems have ever had a problem finding names...

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Do we really need to write 'honorable' before everyone's name? Seriously? Really? Why not just rub each others' belly while your at it....sheesh!

Yes. Despite the errant behavior, there must still be a level of decorum. They rate the appellation, even if it is due to office rather than deed or merit.