HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » AJAMís David Shuster Excl...

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:50 PM

AJAMís David Shuster Exclusive: Clinton to be Interviewed by FBI Director Comey in Coming Days

"Per Shuster:

While Hillary Clinton fights for the Democratic presidential nomination, law enforcement officials tell Al Jazeera America the Federal Investigation into her personal email system while she was Secretary of State has reached a critical stage.

The FBI, led by Director James Comey, has now finished examining Clintonís private emails and home server. And the sources add that Comeyís FBI team has been joined by the Justice Department prosecutors. Together, they are now examining the evidence, analyzing relevant laws, and attempting to arrange interviews with key figures in the investigation.

Those interviews, according to attorneys, will include former State Department aides Philippe Reines, Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton herself.

Soon after those interviews ó in the next few days and weeks ó officials expect Director Comey to make his recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch about potential criminal charges"


http://www.mediaite.com/online/ajams-shuster-exclusive-hillary-clinton-to-be-interviewed-by-fbi-director-comey-in-mere-days/

42 replies, 2357 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply AJAMís David Shuster Exclusive: Clinton to be Interviewed by FBI Director Comey in Coming Days (Original post)
NWCorona Mar 2016 OP
enough Mar 2016 #1
NWCorona Mar 2016 #2
grasswire Mar 2016 #3
NWCorona Mar 2016 #5
Samantha Mar 2016 #19
NWCorona Mar 2016 #4
grasswire Mar 2016 #6
NWCorona Mar 2016 #7
grasswire Mar 2016 #8
NWCorona Mar 2016 #9
Jarqui Mar 2016 #11
morningfog Mar 2016 #26
leveymg Mar 2016 #29
840high Mar 2016 #15
Jarqui Mar 2016 #10
NWCorona Mar 2016 #12
Jarqui Mar 2016 #14
NWCorona Mar 2016 #17
Jarqui Mar 2016 #24
NWCorona Mar 2016 #28
B2G Mar 2016 #40
7wo7rees Mar 2016 #30
H2O Man Mar 2016 #13
frylock Mar 2016 #16
NWCorona Mar 2016 #18
RiverLover Mar 2016 #20
NWCorona Mar 2016 #21
agracie Mar 2016 #27
PonyUp Mar 2016 #41
antigop Mar 2016 #22
NWCorona Mar 2016 #23
PonyUp Mar 2016 #25
DebbieCDC Mar 2016 #31
B2G Mar 2016 #42
bbgrunt Mar 2016 #32
MineralMan Mar 2016 #33
NWCorona Mar 2016 #34
MineralMan Mar 2016 #35
NWCorona Mar 2016 #37
MineralMan Mar 2016 #38
NWCorona Mar 2016 #39
randome Mar 2016 #36

Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:53 PM

1. That's fine then. Comey is the perfect person to exonerate her on the spot,

and he certainly will do that. No problem.

Seems I need to add: SARCASM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to enough (Reply #1)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 07:55 PM

2. I am glad it will be him that will be interviewing Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #2)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:04 PM

3. I didn't see that in the article.

It does sound hella scary for anyone sitting in that hot seat before Comey.

I assume this will take place at FBI HQ. I'll have to watch Shuster's tweets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:06 PM

5. It's gonna be an interesting few weeks that's for sure.

Last edited Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #3)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:47 PM

19. Take a look at the link title

You will see it there.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:04 PM

4. From the sounds of it

This will be happening right before Wisconsin, NY and the debate.

Maybe this is why Hillary was reluctant to debate? These interviews have to be scheduled by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #4)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:09 PM

6. Glad I'm not Cheryl Mills about now. Or Huma Abedin.

For many reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:11 PM

7. Word!

But it is strange that Huma wasn't listed on the interview list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:14 PM

8. hmmmm

Maybe that means she is turning state's evidence. LOL. Not likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:18 PM

9. That's was my first thought actually.

Out of them all I would peg her as the first to break.
I will always give credit where credit is due and Hillary has a loyal circle. Huma seems like she'd be the first to want nothing to do with jail lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #8)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:25 PM

11. I've seen media rumors that they're considering offering her immunity

I don't think she'd take it. She and Cheryl will probably try to take the fall for Hillary if it comes to that.

They'll be set for life as a charity for the Clinton Foundation if they do.

They can tap into the Sidney Blumenthal Charity Fund.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:30 PM

26. Maybe she's become a target.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #7)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:39 PM

29. Nor was the aide whom she instructed to "send unsecure". Hmmm

Makes one wonder about him, as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #6)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:45 PM

15. Yep - !

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:21 PM

10. "interesting that the FBI would lean on Petraeus' prosecutor" (Paraphrased)

Apparently the Clinton interview could be in days ...

Going back to her first press conference and since, Hillary has lied about the emails - which helped inspire the investigation - to see why she was lying. That's beyond dispute.

As Shuster reminds, Scooter Libby and Bill Clinton got into trouble - not so much for the underlying potential crime but for lying to investigators.

Hillary has spent the last 25 years having big problems telling the truth. Unlike her husband, she's not a good liar. If she has a Bosnia sniper moment with these guys, she's toast. It's one thing to lie to voters but you can't lie to top people in law enforcement trained to spot deceit who have thoroughly done their homework. Hillary's lying is so chronic, I do not know if she could help herself. This is going to be a tense moment.

So why would her lawyers let her expose herself to that? Maybe if she pleads the 5th her goose is cooked anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #10)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:26 PM

12. The same thing happened to Martha Stewart.

Got tripped up in the interview and it was a wrap.

The FBI can lie to you and lead you down a path without even realizing it. Normally a lawyer would advise their client to decline the interview. Hillary can't do that and still look clean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #12)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:36 PM

14. I was saying in another thread the FBI's best case may be obstruction of justice

Several batches of emails were not turned over by Hillary and have since been found. Many of them were of a potentially classified/delicate nature between Obama, Petraeus, on Benghazi, Dept of Defense, etc

If those emails do not fit the purge criteria they provided when they turned over the balance of the emails they did not delete, then they've got a problem. Now,.the FBI have the IT guy who probably helped them purge the emails as a witness who with immunity, must testify honestly.

So that could be a very tricky dialogue for Hillary. Though I'm sure her lawyers will attempt to prep her with "I did not have sexual relations with ..." type lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:41 PM

17. Not to mention the fact that she signed an affidavit

Stating that she turned over everything. I really wonder how the judge feels about this development as he seemed pissed that emails kept popping up after he was told the record was complete.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #17)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:25 PM

24. That's a different judge in a different case but a sworn affidavit is a sworn affidavit

Perjury is a felony.

I was imagining some of the questions:

FBI: "Hillary, you signed off on the nondisclosure agreement that you knew what classified info was and had attended briefings where our people verified you understood. What does born classified mean?

Hillary: "yada yada yada .." (whatever answer she can come up with - she can't say she doesn't know)

FBI: "So why didn't you think defense emails on drones was classified? Or why didn't you think "Sudan Intel" might be classified? Or "extremely sensitive"?"

============

FBI: "Hillary, you gave us the purging rules for your emails. How come Obama, Petraeus, Dept of Defense and Benghazi emails got caught in your purging rules? Aren't these work related and in many cases, classified?"

=============

FBI: "Hillary, how come Saudi Arabia and many other weapons dealers or customers don't give the Clinton Foundation any money for about ten years but after the State Dept approves an arms deal, they send the Clinton Foundation millions? Why does this keep happening while you are Secretary of State but doesn't happen before or after you are Secretary of State?

===============

A lot of very awkward questions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #24)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:37 PM

28. Oh I know it's a different case. Hillary has multiple problems


Has Hillary released the methodology to how she instructed her team on what to keep and delete? I've followed this case closely but haven't had time to keep up as much as I'd like but that is one thing I've been waiting for.

I'm very interested in Hillary's answers to your questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #28)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:11 AM

40. Yes. They used the following keywords to flag for deletion:

 

Wedding
Yoga
Funeral
Blumenthal
Saudi Arabia

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #14)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:46 PM

30. All time favorite "...it depends on what the definition of

Is is....."

Never able to get over that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:27 PM

13. Important.

Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 08:54 PM

16. Quiet in here.

knr

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #16)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:43 PM

18. Yes it is.

Regardless of what some would say. I think it's starting to sink in.

She's going to be interviewed by the FBI with prosecutors present. This is huge!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:51 PM

20. This is going to be a movie one day. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:55 PM

21. And a Woodward book!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #20)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:35 PM

27. Yes. A comedy-horror movie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiverLover (Reply #20)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:13 AM

41. Kissinger can play himself. No one else could act out his evilness. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 10:57 PM

22. interesting...Jake Sullivan and Huma Abedin won't be interviewed? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #22)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:06 PM

23. You're not the only one who noticed that!

Leaves a lot to the imagination. I just wonder if that was an intentional omission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #23)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:27 PM

25. Maybe they were both granted immunity and already talking?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PonyUp (Reply #25)

Wed Mar 30, 2016, 11:49 PM

31. Or they are also targets (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to antigop (Reply #22)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 10:13 AM

42. I suspect the article doesn't contain the full list

 

of who will be interviewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 02:16 AM

32. K and R!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 08:23 AM

33. More "unnamed sources."

No names; No Truth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #33)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 08:55 AM

34. I can except your position

But what will you say if it turns out to be true?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #34)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 08:58 AM

35. What would you expect me to say?

When we hear something directly from the FBI, we will have information that is accurate. My issue is with stories that are all over the map and use anonymous sources.

The FBI never releases information about investigations until it finishes them and issues a report. Anyone who claims to have inside information but refuses to be identified should be treated as a bogus source.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #35)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:03 AM

37. What would I expect you to say?

Judging by our exchanges here, I'd expect just what you said and I'm fine with that if you are consistent.

I also have a problem with anonymous sources but I realize that this is how it works and not only with this story. If things turn out differently I have no problem admitting I was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Reply #37)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:05 AM

38. I will simply wait and see what happens.

My guess is that there will be no indictment nor any report that calls for one. If I'm wrong, of course I will admit being wrong. You can't argue with facts. I can, however, and will argue against politically motivated stories that rely on unnamed sources. We can all wait for actual information, and should, I believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #38)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:15 AM

39. We will see soon enough

And I'll respect the outcome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NWCorona (Original post)

Thu Mar 31, 2016, 09:00 AM

36. "Oh, boy, this is gonna be great!" {Someday. Maybe?}

 


[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)
[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread