FBI likely to interview Hillary Clinton within weeks in email server probe: CNN

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is likely to interview Hillary Clinton in the next few weeks about her use of a private email server while she was U.S. secretary of state and have already interviewed some of her aides, CNN reported on Thursday. The nine-month investigation into whether laws were broken as a result of the server kept in her New York home has overshadowed Clinton’s campaign to become the Democratic Party’s candidate in November’s presidential election. With only a few states left to vote in primary elections, she retains a commanding lead over her rival, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

More than 2,000 emails sent and received by Clinton while working as President Barack Obama’s top diplomat include classified information, which the government bans from being handled outside secure, government-controlled channels.


http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/fbi-likely-to-interview-hillary-clinton-within-weeks-in-email-server-probe-cnn/

More than 2,000 emails sent and received by Clinton while working as President Barack Obama’s top diplomat include classified information, which the government bans from being handled outside secure, government-controlled channels.

But the FBI has already determined that none of the emails sent by Clinton contain any illegal information.  According to the Associated Press on August 31, 2015, experts in government secrecy law believed there was little chance criminal charges would be filed against Clinton.

Associated Press wrote:“To prove a crime, the government would have to demonstrate that Clinton or aides knew they were mishandling the information — not that she should have known. A case would be possible if material emerges that is so sensitive Clinton must have known it was highly classified, whether marked or not. … But no such email has surfaced...”

So, the criminal investigation is into the many, many people--perhaps some of the FBI's superiors--who sent in possibly illicit information to her from the outside.  I would look closely at Republican House Members.

Perhaps she's dodgy and guilty as hell?

Why is it, people can be so blinkered by what they want to see?
If this was Trump, you'd be saying something entirely different.

eddie wrote:Perhaps she's dodgy and guilty as hell?

Of what? They've checked all of her outgoing emails, and nothing is wrong there. Their only option is to find someone else guilty.

eddie wrote:Why is it, people can be so blinkered by what they want to see?
If this was Trump, you'd be saying something entirely different.

But no one has accused Trump of any such thing, and therein is the crucial difference. No one has "[wanted] to see" Trump covered in mud, except and unless it arises as fact (not supposition).

That is because Democrats and progressives don't invent lies and engage mudslinging. Democrats are too busy running the government, trying to make the world better for mankind, oh yes...and cleaning up after Republican/Tory messes.

It goes back to what I've been saying all along. Republicans need to obfuscate, and obscure their own doings in order to keep the public unaware that they (Republicans) are working against the public interest. They need a mudslinging contest to distract the voters.

Of course, you don't see Trump in this same situation. That's because its only a Republican game. Democrats and progressives don't play.

eddie wrote:Perhaps she's dodgy and guilty as hell?

Why is it, people can be so blinkered by what they want to see?
If this was Trump, you'd be saying something entirely different.

I have no idea whether she is and she may well be, but if the FBI is investingating, then it should not be dismissed out of hand as Quill is badly trying to do.
I mean lets face it her husband was caught lying and badly so.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

eddie wrote:Perhaps she's dodgy and guilty as hell?

Why is it, people can be so blinkered by what they want to see?
If this was Trump, you'd be saying something entirely different.

I have no idea whether she is and she may well be, but if the FBI is investingating, then it should not be dismissed out of hand as Quill is badly trying to do.
I mean lets face it her husband was caught lying and badly so.

The FBI isn't saying whose wrongdoing they are still investigating.  Only, as AP has noted last year, and quoted above, it is no longer Hillary.

It should be embarrassing for the Republicans when the FBI issues its report.  But by then they'll be on to another lie.  For them, it's not about the truth, it's about the distraction.

Original Quill wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:

I have no idea whether she is and she may well be, but if the FBI is investingating, then it should not be dismissed out of hand as Quill is badly trying to do.
I mean lets face it her husband was caught lying and badly so.

The FBI isn't saying whose wrongdoing they are still investigating.  Only, as AP has noted last year, and quoted above, it is no longer Hillary.

It should be embarrassing for the Republicans when the FBI issues its report.  But by then they'll be on to another lie.  For them, it's not about the truth, it's about the distraction.

The only people who will be embarressed will be the Clintons and the Democrats, if they have been complict in a crime.
Has nothing to do with the Republicans

Quill now can you make such a sweeping generalisation about democrats and republicans???!

"Democrats don't invent lies and engage in mudslinging"

What never? No one? Never?

eddie wrote:Quill now can you make such a sweeping generalisation about democrats and republicans???!

"Democrats don't invent lies and engage in mudslinging"

What never? No one? Never?

In order to understand, you have to follow the motives. (Like they say, follow the money! Lol) Go back to basic interest politics: conservatives are motivated by personal interests, liberals and progressives are motivated by the public interest. But in a democracy the crucial element is votes. Personal interests serve wealth, and this narrows as one goes higher (fewer voters the wealthier they get). This is the massive flaw in conservative ideology. Liberals and progressives have no such flaw, as they have always been on the true path of public interest.

To counteract their flaw, conservatives must obfuscate and obscure what they are doing in the political realm. They must distract, and mislead. That's why they engage in mudslinging and character assinations. Again, liberals and progressives have no need for distraction, because they have been on the true path of public interest.

Now, more than that, conservatives have to obfuscate and obscure that they are misleading the public. In order to do that, they invent the biggest lie of all: THEY ALL LIE! It's not true, of course. Liberals and progressives have no need to lie because they have been on the path of real public interest all along. But conservatives don't present it as a verifiable statement; they treat it as a kind of folk homily...a kind of, we all know its true statement, that is presupposed to be verified.

You have fallen for that bigger lie, and you are presently asking the predictable questions. Who? What? We aren't all liars? Yep, that's the reality. They aren't all liars.

Only the ones who need to lie are liars.

Well,perhaps I'm more liberal than you then, because I judge each person, regardless of their chosen party or side, on their own merit.

You simply cannot say you think a certain group of people act and think, only a certain way. That's not what liberal thinkers are about, surely?

eddie wrote:Well,perhaps I'm more liberal than you then, because I judge each person, regardless of their chosen party or side, on their own merit.

You simply cannot say you think a certain group of people act and think, only a certain way. That's not what liberal thinkers are about, surely?

Of course you can.  You can read an ideology like a map.  All you have to do is break it down to its logical entailments.  Ideologies are belief systems built upon simple metaphors.  Most importantly, they are wide open...people are willing, anxious to tell you what they will believe.  None of it is a secret, nor even cryptic.

All you have to do is perform a regression analysis, of sorts, into where the ideas originate, and where in consequence they end up.  It's a well studied discipline called cognitive linguistics.  A few books to start you out: Lakoff, Geo., Moral Politics (1996); and Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (1980).

It's intriguing why you, with your penchant for looking into conspiracy theories, aren't more interested in where things come from.  Ideas are things, too.  So are words.  Ideas and words are the substance of political theories.  Ideologies are political theories.  Ideologies motivate people.  Here you are, willing to accept false homilies like everyone lies, yet unwilling to look into the plain facts that everyone offers you.

I don't think people can be summarised by facts alone.
People are complicated and multi-faceted and continually changing.....

How do you explain people that change from a right wing PoV to a left eay of thinking?

eddie wrote:I don't think people can be summarised by facts alone.
People are complicated and multi-faceted and continually changing.....

If you cant hear or trust what someone else is saying, drop out. If they don't make sense, these are the people at Sandy Hook and Columbine.

eddie wrote:How do you explain people that change from a right wing PoV to a left eay of thinking?

They see the light.