Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe Clinton Indictment Likely

[nickqt]

http://nyti.ms/29kP2Ra

Cause and effect:

"WASHINGTON — Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case."

At least you were able to answer your own question.

You "recuse" yourself, not because you can't act impartially, but because you don't want there to be even a modicum of doubt about future decisions.

The media immediately seized on the meeting. It became an issue because it became an issue.

Whether or not Bill Clinton is unable to use a burner cell phone to call in a favor with the AG, I don't know. But it sure as shit doesn't mean that Clinton told the AG that if she didn't drop the investigation that she'd end up in a timeshare contract with Vince Foster.

So the AG said, whatever Comey says, goes.

But, again, you seem to have answered your own question.

 

[Jhhnn]

You misunderstand. There is conspiracy, and then there is an error in judgment that gives the apprearance of conspiracy. I would classify what President Clinton as the latter.

Again I ask the question, why did Lynch recuse herself, and only after it hit the media, if their meeting was innocent? Surely there was no need for such a drastic measure if there was nothing wrong with their meeting, perceived or otherwise.

Although to your point, a house divided cannot stand. Bill Clinton is a master strategist and I wouldn't put it past him to pitch the DOJ against the FBI as a triangulation flanking maneuver.

Bullshit. Lynch did not recuse herself-

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/loretta-lynch-bob-goodlatte-clinton-recusal

 

[Jhhnn]

http://nyti.ms/29kP2Ra

Cause and effect:

"WASHINGTON — Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case."

That's not recusal. The fact that you would represent it as such is just trolling.

Anybody with a lick of sense realizes that she would have accepted the FBI recommendation regardless of what it was. Anything else would have been suicidal.

 

[sandorski]

If Hillary were the monster the Right seems to think she is, anyone daring to Indict her would end up dead.

 

[Starbuck1975]

At least you were able to answer your own question.

You "recuse" yourself, not because you can't act impartially, but because you don't want there to be even a modicum of doubt about future decisions.

The media immediately seized on the meeting. It became an issue because it became an issue.

Whether or not Bill Clinton is unable to use a burner cell phone to call in a favor with the AG, I don't know. But it sure as shit doesn't mean that Clinton told the AG that if she didn't drop the investigation that she'd end up in a timeshare contract with Vince Foster.

So the AG said, whatever Comey says, goes.

But, again, you seem to have answered your own question.

Impartiality and modicum of doubt are two different ways of saying the same exact thing.

I don't believe President Clinton threatened Lynch. That is absurd. I think he damn well knew the shadow of doubt it would cast.

 

[nickqt]

Impartiality and modicum of doubt are two different ways of saying the same exact thing.

I don't believe President Clinton threatened Lynch. That is absurd. I think he damn well knew the shadow of doubt it would cast.

And he would want there to be a huge shadow of doubt...because...

 

[Starbuck1975]

That's not recusal. The fact that you would represent it as such is just trolling.

Anybody with a lick of sense realizes that she would have accepted the FBI recommendation regardless of what it was. Anything else would have been suicidal.

Lynch is on record herself as stating conflict of interest as a factor. When I look up recuse in the dictionary, I see conflict of interest and impartiality as two defining characteristics.

What word would you use?

 

[Starbuck1975]

And he would want there to be a huge shadow of doubt...because...

We all know there is no smoking gun email. It doesn't exist. But as the Podesta emails demonstrate, there was definitely an internal debate within Hillary's inner circle on how to handle the NY Times article, with some of her advisors looking to sweep it under the rug.

You have the NY FBI office, notorious for bringing down some pretty big game, sharpening their knives at the prospect of a Clinton indictment.

Enter Comey, a professional who will put the integrity of the bureau above all else, so he pulls the case close to him at HQ.

However, there is still the concern of rogue agents breaking ranks, especially if there is a perception of either Obama or Lynch applying pressure to sway the investigation. So what so you do? You seize the opportunity to take Obama and Lynch out of play, now putting all the pressure on Comey.

A gamble perhaps, but an educated one. Comey as a Republican is not going to jeopardize the integrity of the FBI unless he has a watertight case. He does the right thing as expected, and Democrats praise his professionalism while the Republicans stew in their own frustration.

Enter the wild card. The Weiner device. Something no one can control. The Democrats do the only thing they can do, go on offense and torpedo Comey's character, when all he did was offer transparency to a politically charged situation.

 

[Jhhnn]

Lynch is on record herself as stating conflict of interest as a factor. When I look up recuse in the dictionary, I see conflict of interest and impartiality as two defining characteristics.

What word would you use?

Total bullshit is the way to characterize what you're offering.

Lynch did not recuse herself. period. How else could I link a Repub congress critter grilling her over not recusing herself? I can link up the National review, Freebeacon & even Breitbart if you really need it.

 

[Sunburn74]

If Hillary were the monster the Right seems to think she is, anyone daring to Indict her would end up dead.

I think the better thing to ask is, if she's so corrupt why hasn't she been indicted yet? I mean she was a senator and then secretary of state. Other senators get indicted all the time for way less stuff and pretty much once you're in congress, the necessity for indictment doesn't really escalate more as you move up (ie from house to senate to ambassador or sec of state). Why did it slide all this time if it was really all that bad?

 

[sandorski]

I think the better thing to ask is, if she's so corrupt why hasn't she been indicted yet? I mean she was a senator and then secretary of state. Other senators get indicted all the time for way less stuff and pretty much once you're in congress, the necessity for indictment doesn't really escalate more as you move up (ie from house to senate to ambassador or sec of state). Why did it slide all this time if it was really all that bad?

That doesn't get asked, because if it was her accusers would have to admit to being wrong.

 

[Sunburn74]

That doesn't get asked, because if it was her accusers would have to admit to being wrong.

If hillary really is that corrupt, then wtf were they doing all this time whilst she was rising through the ranks? And why was Trump such good friends with her and her family in the 90s if she was really dripping with such unspeakable corruption? I mean if there's a guy at work I know who's into as shady stuff as trump makes it sound, I'm not being his friend. I'm not inviting him to my wedding as Trump did. I'm not donating money to him as trump did. I just don't get it.

 

[sandorski]

If hillary really is that corrupt, then wtf were they doing all this time whilst she was rising through the ranks? And why was Trump such good friends with her and her family in the 90s if she was really dripping with such unspeakable corruption? I mean if there's a guy at work I know who's into as shady stuff as trump makes it sound, I'm not being his friend. I'm not inviting him to my wedding as Trump did. I'm not donating money to him as trump did. I just don't get it.

The Illuminati Bildeberg Alien Cabal protects her.

 

[lopri]

However, there is still the concern of rogue agents breaking ranks, especially if there is a perception of either Obama or Lynch applying pressure to sway the investigation. So what so you do? You seize the opportunity to take Obama and Lynch out of play, now putting all the pressure on Comey.

Plenty of criticism was laid against Comey from the left when he editorialized on Clinton's email servers instead of simply recommending against bringing a charge. Likewise there were people on the right who commended Comey for bringing awareness of Clinton's carelessness to voters while acknowledging no prosecution is going to be pursued. Clinton herself, if I remember correctly, did not commend or scold Comey but simply wanted to move on, which was understandable.

Now what he did only prior to 10 days of the election day is qualitatively different and much less defensible. Only defense made on behalf of him is that he was "pressured" or in a "no-win" situation regardless of what he did. But we know that is not persuasive because pressure or not what he should have done is clear. He knows that, too.

But ironically he did the country a favor of exposing the FBI's partisan nature.

 

[Thump553]

I know a lot of righties despise Rachel Maddow but when she is at her peak her pieces are extremely well researched and at the pinnacle of real investigative journalism. Last night she gave an extremely damning piece about how a significant portion of the FBI (especially the NYC city office) is in bed with Trump and on a war against Hillary, doing FBI investigations based upon Biebart hit pieces-which is essentially what OP's pending indictment "leak" is 100% based upon. Well worth watching:

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/...agents-presenting-breitbart-hit-pieces/214289

Expect a new FBI anti-Hillary leak every day between now and the election. I still have some faith in Comey but unless he (or his successor) gets a handle on the FBI real quick we are headed right back to the ultra-corrupt days of J. Edgar Hoover.

PS: Many things about Trump's candidacy I never thought would happen in my wildest nightmares, but the Russian government and the FBI essentially teaming up together to influence US elections.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Plenty of criticism was laid against Comey from the left when he editorialized on Clinton's email servers instead of simply recommending against bringing a charge. Likewise there were people on the right who commended Comey for bringing awareness of Clinton's carelessness to voters while acknowledging no prosecution is going to be pursued. Clinton herself, if I remember correctly, did not commend or scold Comey but simply wanted to move on, which was understandable.

Now what he did only prior to 10 days of the election day is qualitatively different and much less defensible. Only defense made on behalf of him is that he was "pressured" or in a "no-win" situation regardless of what he did. But we know that is not persuasive because pressure or not what he should have done is clear. He knows that, too.

But ironically he did the country a favor of exposing the FBI's partisan nature.

I would call the Democrat attacks on Comey more partisan. First they tried the warrant angle, but that dissipated quickly. Then Reid and others throw out the Hatch Act wad of wet toilet paper, but that didn't stick either.

Reports this morning are starting to indicate the FBI has new emails that are not duplicates. If that was known to Comey when he notified Congress, how is that not appropriate?

I see this as playing out far worse if he said nothing, given that the FBI was compelled to act upon discovering relevant emails on Weiner's device.

Doesn't magically mean indictment. It only means due diligence.

 

[Jhhnn]

I would call the Democrat attacks on Comey more partisan. First they tried the warrant angle, but that dissipated quickly. Then Reid and others throw out the Hatch Act wad of wet toilet paper, but that didn't stick either.

Reports this morning are starting to indicate the FBI has new emails that are not duplicates. If that was known to Comey when he notified Congress, how is that not appropriate?

I see this as playing out far worse if he said nothing, given that the FBI was compelled to act upon discovering relevant emails on Weiner's device.

Doesn't magically mean indictment. It only means due diligence.

"Reports"... You mean bullshit, right?

 

[hal2kilo]

I think the better thing to ask is, if she's so corrupt why hasn't she been indicted yet? I mean she was a senator and then secretary of state. Other senators get indicted all the time for way less stuff and pretty much once you're in congress, the necessity for indictment doesn't really escalate more as you move up (ie from house to senate to ambassador or sec of state). Why did it slide all this time if it was really all that bad?

Because the Clinton's are special magically evil people.

 

[Starbuck1975]

"Reports"... You mean bullshit, right?

Total bullshit
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/11/03/clinton-new-emails/

 

[fskimospy]

I would call the Democrat attacks on Comey more partisan. First they tried the warrant angle, but that dissipated quickly. Then Reid and others throw out the Hatch Act wad of wet toilet paper, but that didn't stick either.

Reports this morning are starting to indicate the FBI has new emails that are not duplicates. If that was known to Comey when he notified Congress, how is that not appropriate?

I see this as playing out far worse if he said nothing, given that the FBI was compelled to act upon discovering relevant emails on Weiner's device.

Doesn't magically mean indictment. It only means due diligence.

This doesn't make any sense and tells me that you're getting your information from really bad sources.

1. 'The warrant angle' wasn't an angle, it was a statement of fact that Comey had made statements about emails on a computer while he had zero idea what they contained. That is why the warrant was relevant.

2. It was 100% not known by Comey when he notified congress unless Comey broke the law. Therefore by your own logic it wasn't appropriate.

 

[HumblePie]

I personally have a lot of issue with the use of private e-mail services for official government business for many reasons. However, it appears the use of private e-mail is very widespread among high ranking officials. The fact that no one except Hillary is under investigation for it, and there has been literally zero progress towards making the practice explicitly illegal, shows me this really is nothing but a witch hunt.

The fact that there were classified e-mails on the unsecured side of the State Department's system is a violation. E-mailing classified information is a violation too, but I've heard of no investigation into the senders, only Hillary. Not properly marking documents is also a violation and fyi putting (c) next to one paragraph and nothing anywhere else is not properly marking. Again since the only person being looked into is Hillary, as opposed to the numerous other people involved or the thousands of other times this happens throughout the government and industry, shows once again this is a witch hunt.

Yes and no. Criminal legality for leaked classified info is based upon two things. Intent and level. If the type of info that was leaked was so bad as to be a national disaster, even if the intent was not to leak the info, it would still be considered criminal in nature.

Of course intentionally leaking classified info is always criminal.

I don't believe Hillary was intent on leaking classified info when using her private email servers over the years. As you said, many high ranking officials did the same thing stupidly.

The problem is, she is in a funny position. Had that been me leaking some low level classified info unintentionally I would still have the following consequences:

1) Fired from job
2) Security clearance revoked
3) Potentially fined

Hillary is in position though that makes those options "harder" I guess to some people because of her placement. I personally would have said to have fired her from her current position though and apply the same punishments to her as they would have been applied to just about anyone else

The real other problem was her not handing over the servers immediately once it was found out and being allowed to "scrub" it before the FBI got it. We have no clue what was removed at this point so far. If your average person had done that then they would most likely be in jail for obstruction of justice. That is a criminal offense last time I checked. What cops do you know come with a warrant for a drug house. Then only knock on the door to let those inside know they are going to be during a thorough search of the premises for drugs as soon as the suspects decide that they are ready to let the police in. That's really the main issues most people are having with the whole "scandal" as it is.

 

[Commodus]

"The idea that indictments are near... is just not true."

Fox's "sources" strike me as either Republicans telling it what it wants to hear, or else are completely made up. Anything to skew the election.

 

[HomerJS]

I find it odd people are focusing on "possible indictments" when Trump already has 2 actual trials coming up post election

Trump University
Rape of 13 year old.

 

[brycejones]

Day 10221, reports are coming in the indictment will be happening any day now. They've got her dead to rights this time boys.

 

[jman19]

Day 10221, reports are coming in the indictment will be happening any day now. They've got her dead to rights this time boys.

Sixty days is always sixty days away.