Is the FBI investigation actually about the Clinton Foundation and not emails?

[repoman]

The internet being the clusterfuck that it is, it is such a pain in the ass to sort through the claims.

Anyway, the conspiracy theory which seems possible is that the emails pointed to the Clinton Foundation.

Does anyone here have what they think is reliable information about this?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No.


Some.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm thinking no. The email investigation is about nothing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm thinking no. The email investigation is about nothing.

Each new report about Clinton's emails is basically like a Seinfeld show for conservatives?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, Senfeld was entertaining and knew enough to stop before everyone got tired of it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

No, but we can expect the usual GOP numerous, long dragged out investigations of the Clinton Foundation to come, just like Benghazi or Whitewater if she is elected.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's basically an exercise in mudslinging, keep so much mud in the air that the target looks dirty even though nothing is actually sticking.

 

[Ford]

My understanding is that the actual FBI investigation is looking to see if there were leaks, where those leaks originated if there were, and if so, was it a matter of simply poor management or was it criminal negligence.

Near as I can tell the FBI investigation has less to do with politics than with policy. The State Department - judging by the fact that Clinton was not the first Secretary of State to use a private email/server for communication - has had a less than robust policy regarding handling of sensitive information. The FBI is trying to ferret out if there was an actual security breach as a result.

It arose out of the endless Benghazi investigations by the Permanent Committee To Impeach Anyone Named Clinton (a continuously operating part of Congress since 1992) much in the same way that an investigation into real estate led to the discovery of Bill's cigar peccadilloes.

The FBI investigation will be over soon, it doesn't look like Secretary Clinton will be charged with any wrongdoing, and there might not even be any indictments.

If Clinton wins in November, rest assured the impeachment proceedings will start on January 21st of next year.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I've been through government security clearance procedure and have had to take the infosec and compusec training. If the allegations are true, then this really honestly isn't about "nothing", it is about something that would get an average joe like me thrown in jail.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That seems like some wasted time. Do you need to wait until a President is sworn in before starting impeachment hearings? There are likely a number of preliminary items to get through with this and those can be done in November and December. I get that you can't actually vote for the impeachment until after she's been sworn in, but that doesn't mean you can't get the ball rolling beforehand.

 

[Ford]

If the allegations are true, then this really honestly isn't about "nothing"

What are the allegations, though? I mean we know the right wing alleges that Hillary is personally hell-bent on destroying America and that this was merely phase one of her nefarious plan, but officially there are no "allegations" at all at this point. The investigation isn't even finished.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Independent Prosecutor.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Independent Prosecutor.

Because, as Ken Starr showed us, those are totally independent and unbiased.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If the allegations are true, then this really honestly isn't about "nothing"

What are the allegations, though? I mean we know the right wing alleges that Hillary is personally hell-bent on destroying America and that this was merely phase one of her nefarious plan, but officially there are no "allegations" at all at this point. The investigation isn't even finished.

I thought the allegations were that she used a private server to handle classified information.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Independent Prosecutor.

Because, as Ken Starr showed us, those are totally independent and unbiased.

And long. And drawn out. Did I mention long?

And FYI Ken Starr has been fired for mishandling sex cases. Maybe a little more experience...

The three dozen members of the Baylor regents board are ousting Starr - not football coach Art Briles - for failed leadership during the ongoing scandal over how the school handled reports of rape and assault made against five BU football players - two of whom (Tevin Elliott and Sam Ukwuachu) were convicted of raping Baylor co-eds, sources close to the situation told HornsDigest.com.

http://www.scout.com/college/texas/story/1672296-sources-bu-regents-preparing-to-oust-starr

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If the allegations are true, then this really honestly isn't about "nothing"

What are the allegations, though? I mean we know the right wing alleges that Hillary is personally hell-bent on destroying America and that this was merely phase one of her nefarious plan, but officially there are no "allegations" at all at this point. The investigation isn't even finished.

No, there are no formal accusations yet. She is being investigated over allegations that she used a private server to handle classified information. As my infosec and compusec training told me, if she actually did that she did so in violation of several federal laws.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, she might even find herself on the receiving end of a sternly worded note.

 

[ksen]

No, Senfeld was entertaining and knew enough to stop before everyone got tired of it.

 

[repoman]

Well, another conspiracy theory blown out...

 

[Ford]

What are the allegations, though? I mean we know the right wing alleges that Hillary is personally hell-bent on destroying America and that this was merely phase one of her nefarious plan, but officially there are no "allegations" at all at this point. The investigation isn't even finished.

No, there are no formal accusations yet. She is being investigated over allegations that she used a private server to handle classified information. As my infosec and compusec training told me, if she actually did that she did so in violation of several federal laws.

This morning's press conference reminded me of a county prosecutor I once met who had a 100 percent conviction rate. When asked how he achieved such a thing, his answer was simple: "I don't prosecute unless I'm 100 percent sure I can get a conviction."

So there are not going to be any formal accusations, no charges pursued, and no indictment of the Secretary. She was careless, not a criminal.