quote:

Originally posted by Sigmanic:
I'm just focused on the likely reality part and not so much the dream. I'm betting he's pretty insulated legally on this deal. Who knows for certain, though.

\Like leaving the room when Benghazi was just starting with the CIC statement, "Handle it"?

Plausible deniability, as he was not in the room while those guys were fighting a losing battle with overwhelming opposition.

quote:

So Obama is hedging his bets. He is letting the FBI investigate, but on its own, without Justice Department prosecutors and the grand jury. This frees the administration and the Clinton campaign to be, by turns, ambiguous and disingenuous about whether there really is a formal investigation going on.

But, the FBI can make sure that the appropriate info gets out to the more honest media, and just how long would it take for a massive protest to begin?

It covers not only Benghazi, it covers a bunch of stuff like treason in the form of knowingly exposing national security information to foreign intel operatives, just to name on issue.

Then there is the criminal issue of perjury on a grand scale, all the selling of influence in return for generous "contributions" to the Klinton's personal bank. (aka trust fund).

How about selling, what was it 40 tons? of uranium to Russia?

I seem to recall that there have been off the record statements about how a number of FBI agents involved in this case are so pissed off that they will resign and then dump the info to the media.

Nearly all the pundits (that aren't Clinton operatives) seem to agree that the FBI is more likely than not to recommend prosecution of Hillary. If the DOJ and Obama decline to prosecute, I would imagine it would have far reaching consequences beyond the politics (which will be O's only considerations in making the decision). Either way, I think it ends Hillary's chances of becoming president, but even beyond that, I think it would signal once and for all that the rule of law is dead and that some people are too big to jail. I would expect that lack of respect for the law to make its way into every aspect of society - if the elites don't have to obey the law, why should anyone else? I think it will turn an already dangerous time into something worse.

Clinton team coordinates positions with the WH.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01...nytimes.com&gwh&_r=0

The Clinton campaign is trying to smooth out future bumps by maintaining contacts at multiple levels, including high-level calls on policy between the campaign chairman, John Podesta, and the White House chief of staff, Denis R. McDonough, and routine check-in calls about public statements between the campaign’s communications director, Jennifer Palmieri, and her White House counterparts, Ms. Psaki and Mr. Earnest.

“If we’re going to do something we think we need to give them a heads-up on, Jennifer or I will call our former colleagues and let them know,” said Mr. Podesta, who was a senior Obama adviser before joining the Clinton campaign.

“If we’re out on the campaign trail and rolling out a new policy, building on something he’s done or taking a position different than his, we’ll let him know we’re going to do it.”

Mrs. Clinton meets periodically with Mr. Obama, most recently last month when he invited her to the White House for a private 90-minute lunch the day after they each delivered speeches about how to confront the terrorist threat from the Islamic State.

In the four years Mrs. Clinton was a member of Mr. Obama’s cabinet, their staffs became friendly. She hired several of his advisers to work on her campaign, including Mr. Podesta, Ms. Palmieri and the pollster Joel Benenson.

In addition, her policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, worked closely in the White House with Mr. Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Benjamin J. Rhodes.

good old Jake Sullivan, on so many of the HC emails


Mr. Obama’s political director, David Simas, speaks periodically with Robby Mook, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, on practical issues, like the use of the president’s image or voice in advertising

Mrs. Clinton, for her part, has weaved a stout defense of Mr. Obama into her stump speech. “I don’t think President Obama gets the credit he deserves for saving the American economy,”

Page and McLaughlin: The FBI Will Recommend Prosecution For Hillary

http://www.breitbart.com/video...ecution-for-hillary/

Chicago Tribune Editorial Board member Clarence Page and “McLaughlin Group” host John McLaughlin predicted the FBI will recommend Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton face prosecution for mishandling classified information on Friday.

McLaughlin asked, “Forced prediction for the panel: the FBI will recommend that Hillary Clinton face prosecution for mishandling classified information? That’s the FBI. Yes or no?”

Page stated, “I’m going to say yes, but she won’t be indicted.”

McLaughlin responded, “I’m with you.”

quote:

Originally posted by braillediver:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
So does O have the balls to try to stick it to Hill? If so, how does he go about it?

He doesn't have to do anything- that's what's beautiful about it. Let justice take its course.

If anyone asks obama he could say- ”no individual is too powerful to jail”.

Why risk his legacy buy protecting her or harming her in any way? Let the Justice Department do it.

Yeah, Obama has a fantastic "out" if he wants, which is to simply not get in the way, let the system work as planned, and take the "high road" of "no one is too big", which, of course, he doesn't believe or actually represent, but it would work exceptionally well.

if the juice to charge her is there, and it surely seems so, the only real remaining question may be: how does he rank/weigh the competing issues of Himself/his legacy vs his dislike for the Clintons vs his loyalty to the Left, and whether or not he's more worried about what a Republican win will do to tarnish his and their "work" these last excruciating years.

everything about him so far points to significant narcissism rather than Party loyalty, so if he's not "saving her to save the Party" then why would he protect her at all? It's almost entirely to his benefit to fuck her over, even if the Republicans win. he'll look like a good guy, a positive end to an otherwise Rocky, at best, Presidency, and she'll be out of the way, he'll be the self appointed king of the Left and speech circuts, and all that.

Ultimately, I think he's not so much "protecting her" as he is worried about the overall effect on his image and work if a Trump or whomever immediately starts undoing everything he's done while in office, and as such - Hillary gets saved as an aside, as does the Party, at least temporarily, that way even if she wins the nomination but loses the election it's not "his fault" and maybe the Rs charge her 90days later, and he still wins , sort of.

I don't see her getting charged as long as he's in office.

quote:

if the juice to charge her is there, and it surely seems so, the only real remaining question may be: how does he rank/weigh the competing issues of Himself/his legacy vs his dislike for the Clintons vs his loyalty to the Left, and whether or not he's more worried about what a Republican win will do to tarnish his and their "work" these last excruciating years.

A another factor to consider:

Even without the various scandals Hillary is not doing well as a candidate.
Hillary is not likeably. Hillary is far from a magnetic speaker, downright boring as a matter of fact. Hillary's main supporters seem to be feminists of a certain age while the younger single woman flock to Bernie (Bernie Sanders a sex figure?). The African-American population is unenthused. Bill Clinton is a drag on her campaign. White males dislike her. For every so called accomplishment she has, the GOP can point to twice as many failures.

Say what you like about Bidden, but he is a far better campaigner than Hillary.

Suppose, while we are conjecturing here, that the Democrats decide Ol' Hill is not going to beat the eventual GOP Candidate. There is a lot of mumbling going on even today.
I assume that the Democrat Establishment thinks Bernie cannot win either, I certainly don't see how he could.
When it becomes obvious to the establishment that they have two losers, it makes sense for Barack to let the chips fall where they may as far as an indictment goes and unleash the DoJ.
Assuming that she and Bernie are still contesting the nomination, her convention delegates would be released if she withdraws and Bidden can come stumbling to the rescue. No doubt he would be nominated by acclamation and with a huge sigh of relief.

Meantime I do not see the various judges in the FOIA lawsuits cutting State much slack as far as releasing the next batch of emails goes because they have stalled enough to exasperate the most even tempered judge.

So-drip-drip-drip, the old Chinese Water Torture.

quote:

her convention delegates would be released if she withdraws and Bidden can come stumbling to the rescue. No doubt he would be nominated by acclamation and with a huge sigh of relief.

Plus, Biden will have avoided a grueling, months long campaign. No Biden gaffs on the campaign trail; no debates to blow. And it hasn't cost Ol' Joe a cent up to this point.

But, but, he might have to run against Bernie and Bloomberg!

Come save the party, Unka Joe. By now I'm sure Dankie will be more than happy to schedule a couple more debates if you like.

In 2008, dropped her off in Cheyenne, WY during the primaries. On the other side of the fence were THREE PEOPLE. One had a Hillary sign. We chuckled. I commented those were probably the 3 democrats in the whole state. The crowds that greeted her were never large.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:
Even without the various scandals Hillary is not doing well as a candidate.
Hillary is not likeably. Hillary is far from a magnetic speaker, downright boring as a matter of fact. Hillary's main supporters seem to be feminists of a certain age while the younger single woman flock to Bernie (Bernie Sanders a sex figure?). The African-American population is unenthused. Bill Clinton is a drag on her campaign. White males dislike her. For every so called accomplishment she has, the GOP can point to twice as many failures.

And this is something people ignore, even on this forum. Hillary is extremely polarizing. For the last 10 years, she has been this way. Clueless feminists and gay people will flock to her, but she turns off black voters, blue collar workers, white males, etc. She just grates on most voters, including independents. She lost against a black junior senator in 2012. And she is going to lose again this time.

Ahh, that's sweet, sweet music to my ears.

The irony is if there is no indictment, and I'm hoping there is just as much as everybody else here, I can foresee a wave of leaked documents. Which will promptly be followed by investigations and arrest warrants issued...

If this administration refuses to indict is that the end of it? Or can a future administration bring charges? Is there a statute of limitations or something?

quote:

Meantime I do not see the various judges in the FOIA lawsuits cutting State much slack as far as releasing the next batch of emails goes because they have stalled enough to exasperate the most even tempered judge.

As opposed to the slack the court has been granting already? Consider the fact that they gave the state dept. MONTHS to turn over emails, state simply ignores it, and we get the drip, drip, drip of emails, many of them already modified when they finally get turned over. Then, was that number 33000 that suddenly go missing, or are "personal".

It is not clear to me that anyone, including the FBI is really serious about getting to the bottom of this mess.

Why does the FBI not simply get a court order and go out and seize all that stuff?

I guess the whole freaking federal gubbermint, including federal law enforcement has suffered major dry rot which makes the "system" incapable of tackling the politically powerful.

Even if it is painfully obvious that such is the case, and the politicraPs are above the law.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:

quote:

Meantime I do not see the various judges in the FOIA lawsuits cutting State much slack as far as releasing the next batch of emails goes because they have stalled enough to exasperate the most even tempered judge.

As opposed to the slack the court has been granting already? Consider the fact that they gave the state dept. MONTHS to turn over emails, state simply ignores it, and we get the drip, drip, drip of emails, many of them already modified when they finally get turned over. Then, was that number 33000 that suddenly go missing, or are "personal".

It is not clear to me that anyone, including the FBI is really serious about getting to the bottom of this mess.

Why does the FBI not simply get a court order and go out and seize all that stuff?

I guess the whole freaking federal gubbermint, including federal law enforcement has suffered major dry rot which makes the "system" incapable of tackling the politically powerful.

Even if it is painfully obvious that such is the case, and the politicraPs are above the law.

There may be a difference between State handing over materials for a FOIA request and a demand from the FBI. The FBI doesn't have subpoena power, as I understand it, but they must have some influence over a mere FOIA request.

The FBI could also get a search warrant for what they want, and I assume that would be easier because there’s no need for a court case or grand jury hearing to be in progress. It might be harder to find what they want because I also assume that they’d have to dig it out of State’s records themselves. If, however, they threatened to seize all the computers in the building, that might encourage some cooperation in finding what they’re looking for.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
If this administration refuses to indict is that the end of it? Or can a future administration bring charges? Is there a statute of limitations or something?

I raised that possibility earlier:

Yes... he's hedging his bets... trying to run out the clock.... but,

One year from now:
President Trump will appoint Attorney General Ted Cruz who will see to it that Hillary is indicted.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
The FBI could also get a search warrant for what they want, and I assume that would be easier because there’s no need for a court case or grand jury hearing to be in progress. It might be harder to find what they want because I also assume that they’d have to dig it out of State’s records themselves. If, however, they threatened to seize all the computers in the building, that might encourage some cooperation in finding what they’re looking for.

Yes, and they would do that if it was a private business or individual, but to do that to another arm of government is seen as ungentlemanly, unsound, unnecessary, and in the past it has been.

Moreover, you have to be careful whst you might find if you go in "bull in a China shop." You might find things you aren't supposed to know about.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Moreover, you have to be careful whst you might find if you go in "bull in a China shop." You might find things you aren't supposed to know about.

Tru dat.