HRC Campaign spreading false meme on social media that FBI has cleared her of everything

[amborin]

this reported today on Twitter

----sources cited

[silvershadow]

1. Yes, they are. nt

[cali]

2. Stupid liars.

[AzDar]

3. Shocker (not really)...

[Renew Deal]

4. There is a source for their claim. Where is the source for yours?

[JoePhilly]

5. The indictment fairy will be here shortly!!!!

[nolawarlock]

11. please, please, please!

It just never gets old.

[COLGATE4]

6. "We don't want it to be true"

[Renew Deal]

9. I think so.

[KingFlorez]

7. What sources?

[Dragonfli]

15. From what I have read the sources are members of her staff, that made assumptions after interviewed

Or perhaps were told to make assumptions.

I know there are no official sources named, but those that are named when these claims are made are all Clinton staffers.

I would like anybody to name any official source that does not look like this:



Any official source, any at all?
.
.
.
.
.
.
I didn't think so as the meme/claim s a pure straight up lie.

[KingFlorez]

17. I was asking the OP

The OP posted sources cited, but didn't cite any sources at all. I'm not going to argue back and forth, so end of debate, thank you and have good day.

[Dragonfli]

19. You missed it, the sources the meme was supported by concerning "her being cleared" was typed ----nt

[ViseGrip]

8. They just....got started! Maybe not done until there's a new prez.

And it it's her, the repubs said they'll impeach her. Nice way to start out something 'new'. It's not new, and we need a break from these family dynasty corruption, Carlyle Groupies.

[jwirr]

10. I've seen a couple of them here on DU - I trash the post.

Until some reliable source tell me I am not going to believe it. Need to read "Lies: and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" even if the author doesn't believe it any more.

[Dragonfli]

21. I've seen them too, but all I see when reading them is this:

After a while, the astro-turfers all look alike and resemble the hand controlling them.

[AzDar]

35. The resemblance is eerie...

But I suspect the sock has more integrity...

[JimDandy]

12. Wonder why? The FBI is fully capable of putting out any such info themselves, if true.

Does pressure like that from supporters of the person being investigated really work on the FBI? Good grief, I hope not, for the sake of integrity!

[Fairgo]

30. I am guessing there are people behind the curtain

furiously yanking switches pushing buttons and turning cranks just hoping for a miracle.

[nolawarlock]

13. I love posts that say "sources cited" ...

... and yet they have no actual sources. Are you speaking to spirits or something.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. What?!? Someone associated with HRC is lying? Oh, she'll soon put a stop to that!

[HooptieWagon]

16. Yep. Already seen the BrockBros propaganda on DU.

[Joob]

18. Backfires instantly

classic.

[pdsimdars]

20. C'mon, who you gonna believe . . . Hillary or the FBI?

[Attorney in Texas]

22. I'd want to get out ahead of the truth on that one, too.

[grasswire]

23. same thing they did initially...remember?

The FBI is not investigating HRC!!

How many blabbering foolish posts wasted bandwidth on that?

Moving the goalposts, they are.

[CoffeeCat]

24. The original source of this laughable disinformation

Is the CNN article that quotes an anonymous, unsourced, "US official" who claims, "so far investigators haven't found evidence to prove that Clinton willfully violated the law the U.S. officials say."

First off, no one is supposed to be commenting about an ongoing FBI investigation. Loretta Lynch publicly chastised Josh Ernest for making a very benign comment. She immediately took to the media and wrist slapped the White House for saying anything.

So who is this "US official" who is behaving unethically? I don't trust what this anonymous source has said. This person is not with the FBI. The FBI would never make a comment like this--so why is this person?

Secondly, the quote says that investigators haven't proven that "Clinton willfully violated the law."

There is more than one way to violate the law. You can do it "willfully"--with intent to break the law. Or you can break the law by being negligent. Does anyone think that Petraeus "willfully" set out to break the law? No, he wasn't purposely intending to break laws. He wasn't foung guilty of "willfully" breaking the law. But he did break laws by being negligent and careless.

The only way to prove that someone "willfully" violated the law is to interview them and ask them about their intentions and motivations.

How in the hell can this anonymous "US Official" (who is not an FBI Agent) make the definite pronouncement that the FBI has found no evidence of willful intent--when Clinton hasn't been interviewed yet!?

Are they playing word games here? Sure, Mr. "US official"--no willful intent has been proven because they haven't talked with Clinton yet!

This is ridiculous!

Here's what I think. Obviously the big story is that Clinton's aids were interviewed and Clinton is next. This was going public. It seems as if, the Clinton camp got a "friendly" "US official" to provide a half-truth quote that would allow them to take control of the messaging. Spin the story in their favor.

Then, they can leverage that quote and use it to suggest that she's on her way to being exonerated--blast it on social media and everywhere else to control the PR on this thing. And this is exactly what the Clinton camp has done.

All of this...based on some anonymous "US Source" who is not an FBI agent.

The big story out of all of this is--Who is that mystery source? Seems highly unethical to allow such big claims to be made from an anonymous someone who might just be spinning for Clinton and is not part of the FBI.

I wonder who this person is? If they're unnamed, I bet it's either someone who doesn't have the authority to make such claims; or someone friendly to the Clintons. Or both.

[amborin]

33. great analysis! agree

[trudyco]

36. well stated /nt

[Dragonfli]

37. Extremely well stated, a well deserved recommendation of this post /nt

[Tarc]

25. Sorry, but it is a pretty good indicator that the party's over

All the clapping in the world can't wake the Indictment Fairy now.

[Press Virginia]

26. How is it a good indicator? If news breaks tomorrow citing unnamed officials

say the DOJ is preparing to indict her and members of her staff, will it be any more believable than the CNN claims?

[Tarc]

27. The Indictment Fairy was never going to save the Sanders campaign at the 11th hour

The interviews, we’re told, are focused on whether classified information was mishandled, and the security of the server. So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation, but, again, the investigation is not over.

You can always fall back on, oh, what else is there...transcripts? Hill the "Goldwater Girl"? Libya? I'm sure there's lots of dusty cards left in the recycle bin.

[Press Virginia]

29. Unnamed officials. And the story went from "no malicious intent" to

"no evidence of criminal wrongdoing" in less than 24 hours...

[scscholar]

28. They gave sources...

and you didn't, so it appears we should believe she was cleared. After all, we all read that here yesterday.

[senz]

31. If she were "cleared," it would be top news. It's not.

Her campaign is spinning it because they don't want voters scared off by her legal problems.

[840high]

32. Liars.

[Kalidurga]

34. If Hillary was cleared of criminal wrong doing the investigation wouldn't get to the interview stage

Serious why interview innocent people? Just cuz? No she hasn't been cleared. A grand jury may already be formed. And Comey might finally get some closure.