Media outlets have confirmed that Hillary Clinton met voluntarily for 3.5 hours this morning with the FBI to discuss her email server. Experts say the target of an investigation is often interviewed last or close to last, but nobody who knows what they are talking about seems to think that any real legal trouble is in the cards for Clinton. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt seems certain that Russia, China, and Iran already know everything that was on those servers.
I’ve always thought this to be much ado about not very much, but what’s really much ado about nothing is a conversation Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch had at the Phoenix airport a couple of days ago. People are trying to make way to much hay over a conversation that by all accounts about Janet Reno, grandchildren, and golf. I have no patience for optics arguments on things like this. Either put up (i. e. produce a secret tape recording of Lynch and Clinton talking about the case) or shut up! Lynch said before and again after this meeting that she anticipates accepting the FBI’s recommendations. Sen. John Cormyn has called for a special prosecutor, for which when it comes to the Clintons, what could possibly go wrong?
What was Bill Clinton thinking when he walzed into AG’s Loretta Lynch plane?
Did he really think he could ‘get on her good side’? The result is Lynch publicly declared she leaves the decision about an indictment to the professional prosecutors in charge of the investigation.
In effect, Bill’s action neutralized precisely the possibility that political appointees could intercede in his wife’s favor – putting to ice long running speculation about how the investigation will be hadled by higher ups.
Ouch!
…but I don’t mean that in a bad way. There is no indication he was trying to get on Lynch’s good side, and I suspect both Clintons gave up a long time ago on considering every action in light of how their enemies, who were going to find something to complain about anyway, would treat it.
Mayve he thought the AG has no current business with the Clintons, and just wanted to chat about old times.
Maybe there’s JUST NOTHING THERE. Maybe neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton are Satan incarnate. Maybe this “investigation” like ALL the others that have come before it, is just another witch-hunt, just like Benghazi, and Whitewater, and all the others. Whatever Hillary Clinton did or did not do with her email server was known, investigated, and done with years ago.
Maybe you might follow the lead of Bernie Sanders and move on.
n/t
An ex-president approaches — do you have time to mentally run through that your department is investigating his wife, or do you think “Here comes a President?”
HE is the one who should have known better. She (might) have just been caught off guard.
…said this morning that it is not appropriate to bring charges against Hillary Clinton. He did say Clinton and her aides were “extremely careless”. Predictably, those with Hillary Derangement Syndrome cried cover up.
the media didn’t want to address it. Petraeus certainly broke the law by giving his girlfriend classified info and got a slap on the wrist. I can’t remember where I read it, but there was also someone who posed for a picture in, I think, Time magazine, and had copy of the National Intelligence Estimate.
…that we have State Department emails on WikiLeaks? Who would read that?
1. The WikiLeaks disclosures have NOTHING TO DO with Ms. Clinton’s email server
2. The US treatment of Bradley Manning is a national embarrassment
3. The entire WikiLeaks scandal (specifically, the ability of a low-level private like Ms. Manning to access the material at all) is the direct result of absurd decisions made in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 — during the administration of George W. Bush.
What is the point of your comment, since this thread is about the predictable end of the FBI investigation of Ms. Clinton’s use of a private email server?
I saw it trending on FB that Wikileaks had access to the Clinton emails and was intending to release them – different case entirely.
Even if they are accurate.
You offer no link to anything connecting WikiLeaks to Hillary Clinton. What WAS on WikiLeaks has nothing to do with Ms. Clinton, and was instead material from Ms. Manning.
Your cheapshot about accuracy might be more meaningful if you offered a cite and a quote.
Why is it that GOP supporters are so enthusiastic about this kind of dishonest, snarky, and rude commentary?