quote:

The FBI is itching to indict Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and her longtime aid Huma Abedin on charges of conducting classified and sensitive work on unsecured venues, according to former House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

“I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak,” Issa told the Washington Examiner Thursday during a debate watch-party.

Referring to FBI Director James Comey, Issa continued, “I think he’s in a position where he’s being forced to triple-time make a case of what would otherwise be, what they call, a slam dunk.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

o'reilly talked tonight with Kirsten powers and read her that very quote, asking if she thought it would effect Clinton's success at all in iowa, and she said no. her reasoning being (very much my words on it)---the democrats who support Hillary essentially don't care and the ones who don't support her and care about it, are already in sanders' camp.

the problem's going to be when/if the general election comes around (assuming she's still in the race).

a couple of polling experts earlier had said its too late for the democrats to bring anyone else in if something happens to her.

while im here:

quote:

The FBI is itching to indict Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and her longtime aid Huma Abedin on charges of conducting classified and sensitive work on unsecured venues, according to former House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

“I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak,” Issa told the Washington Examiner Thursday during a debate watch-party.

Referring to FBI Director James Comey, Issa continued, “I think he’s in a position where he’s being forced to triple-time make a case of what would otherwise be, what they call, a slam dunk.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/29/rep-darrell-issa-fbi-director-wants-to-indict-both-huma-and-hillary-over-email-scandal/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

o'reilly talked tonight with Kirsten powers and read her that very quote, asking if she thought it would effect Clinton's success at all in iowa, and she said no. her reasoning being (very much my words on it)---the democrats who support Hillary essentially don't care and the ones who don't support her and care about it, are already in sanders' camp.

the problem's going to be when/if the general election comes around (assuming she's still in the race).

a couple of polling experts earlier had said its too late for the democrats to bring anyone else in if something happens to her.

while im here:

quote:

The FBI is itching to indict Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and her longtime aid Huma Abedin on charges of conducting classified and sensitive work on unsecured venues, according to former House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

“I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma and Hillary as we speak,” Issa told the Washington Examiner Thursday during a debate watch-party.

Referring to FBI Director James Comey, Issa continued, “I think he’s in a position where he’s being forced to triple-time make a case of what would otherwise be, what they call, a slam dunk.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/29/rep-darrell-issa-fbi-director-wants-to-indict-both-huma-and-hillary-over-email-scandal/

I agree with this sentiment that the FBI has to make this iron clad.
I agree this adds to the time.

Look, 42% of democrats will vote for a democrat - regardless of criminal history. Same for about 35% of the republicans in favor of a republican candidate.
That only leaves 23 % of the nation to decide things - and its these people that are swayed by indictments, debates etc.

I dont' agree at all, that it can't sway things. I think that the Obama administration made a curious play. They announced it - without giving it sufficient microphone to ensure that it would be noticed by the caucus.

Yet, if they wanted to bury it - the traditional time would be to release friday night.

My gut tells me this is obama being timid - he wants to sway the calculus while appearing not to sway the calculus.

quote:

...Still, it’s questionable if the current U.S. government officials under President Obama will ever prosecute Hillary. When asked about prospects for this scenario, Darrell Issa seems to think the Obama administration will circle the wagons around Hillary.

“I’ve worked with both the last attorney general … and this attorney general, and I really don’t believe they’ll do it,” Issa stated. “Doing it, by definition, would end her run for president. So do I think the Democrats are in an odd situation where the only thing they can do is hold their nose and hold back on an indictment? Sadly, yes.”

Issa’s prediction seems to be coming true since White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the Department of Justice (DOJ) would not have Hillary Clinton indicted “based upon what we know.”…

With the Obama administration unwilling to act, the question is whether the FBI can do anything. Tom DeLay says the FBI cannot indict Hillary Clinton directly, since a federal grand jury would need to file the charges, but his FBI sources also told him “that if the attorney general does not indict, they’re going public.” If the FBI goes this route, it is possible Sanders can capitalize on the scandal to overcome Clinton for good. He can also distance himself from the time when he once defended those “damn emails.”

quote:

It may be enough for Hillary’s lickspittles like Max Fisher and Paul Krugman, but the response of the Hillary campaign to the revelation that the State Department has refused to release anything from the contents of 22 emails on her server because they are too sensitive, including information on human sources, is pathetic. Via Josh Gerstein and Rachel Bade of Politico:

“This is overclassification run amok. We adamantly oppose the complete blocking of the release of these emails,” campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said on Twitter. Appearing on MSNBC after the news broke, Fallon vowed to fight the decision...

We strongly disagree with the finding that has been reached today, and we are going to be contesting it and seeking to have these emails released.”

"We will pursue all appropriate avenues to see that her emails are released in a manner consistent with her call last year," Fallon said in a statement released through the campaign.

Rope a dope, pure and simple. But that works only on dopes. They know the emails can’t be released, so the demand to release them will be futile, and they will just claim that these were yoga positions and wedding dress plans that were mistakenly classified. They are in effect demanding that national security be compromised even further. That won’t fly....

As the Clinton ship sinks, numbers of rats will jump off. Others will simply go down with the ship

quote:

ORIGINAL: voluntaryservant

Does Hillary Rodham Clinton endorse or participate in Beastiality or Paedophilia?

quote:

There are few Democrats willing to openly state that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal makes them nervous that she’ll get indicted in the heat of the general election campaign, but some observers believe it’s an undercurrent of anxiety that explains some of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-VT) rise, and perhaps Donald Trump’s crossover appeal.

“It does give pause to Democrats who are concerned that there may be another shoe to drop down the road,” The Hill quotes University of New Hampshire poli-sci professor Andrew Smith saying.

“I think the clock ticks louder every day. I’m sure they’re all incredibly sensitive to it,” said FBI veteran Ron Hosko, who was former assistant director of the Bureau’s criminal investigation division.

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth political-science professor Doug Roscoe thought indictment anxiety would be more likely to “sour some folks in the middle,” and damage Clinton by obliging her to defend herself from the scandal, instead of pushing her campaign message.

A bit further down the anxiety scale, The Hill has lawyer Bradley Moss speculating the indictment of Clinton’s top aides Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, and/or Jake Sullivan was a more likely outcome, due to their “sloppiness and the complete fundamental failure to comply with any aspect of operational and informational security.”

Those quotes neatly cover the spectrum of Clinton scandal fears, which could only be completely dispelled by a swift and complete exoneration from the FBI. At this point, even the commonly-floated scenario of the Justice Department ignoring FBI referrals to bury the scandal would still bruise Clinton badly, especially if angry agents – maybe even FBI Director James Comey – protest loudly, or resign. The hardcore Clinton faithful aren’t nearly enough to get her over the finish line after something like that, especially since her generally lackluster performance on the campaign trail leaves her without an Obama-sized cult of personality.

It seems unlikely that the FBI would conduct such a huge, long-running investigation, involving so many resources, to give Clinton’s operation a clean bill of health, especially given what the public has already seen of her emails. Throwing an aide or two under the bus might protect her from a game-over indictment, but it would look awful to everyone except those hardcore True Believers. It would galvanize Clinton’s opposition, appear deeply suspicious to independent voters, and puncture her claims of management skill.

At the moment, the possibilities are hurting Clinton in the primary...

As The Hill points out, the FBI is all but promising the end of this drama will arrive during the general election campaign – a problem of Clinton’s own making, because she and the State Department worked so hard to conceal information from Congress and the American people for so long. This all could have been over a long time ago, if we didn’t have to unravel Clinton’s evasions one Freedom of Information Act lawsuit at a time....