In post 133, OhGodMyLife wrote:I really hope the Clintons don't torpedo Tulsi Gabbard's career for daring to oppose the coronation
I don't think she'll get a cabinet position or anything, but the presidency is politically terminal, a final destination. Assuming Gabbard doesn't do something like oppose Clinton in the general election, there's less need to enforce loyalty after the fact.
here's a better version
there really is a new development in the case -
Clinton’s FBI problem became a little more concrete over the weekend. The Los Angeles Times reports that “Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.”
Notifying aides that interviews are imminent means the Feds have collected all the relevant data. The background work is done. “They are likely nearing the end of the investigation and the agents need to interview these people to put the information in context,” said James McJunkin, former FBI official. “They will then spend time aligning these statements with other information, emails, classified documents, etc., to determine whether there is a prosecutable case.”
however,
It’s unlikely that Clinton will be prosecuted for using the private email server. Although questionable, using a private email system was not illegal at the time – and Clinton certainly wasn’t the first government official to do this. The key issue, as the LA Times notes, is whether classified material was communicated outside the State Department’s secure system. Regardless, Clinton can still avoid prosecution, as investigators have to prove she “knowingly or willfully” handled classified material “in a grossly negligent manner.”
Establishing this beyond doubt is difficult, especially for someone as careful as Clinton. And while you can question her judgment, Clinton does not appear to have broken any laws. “The facts of the case do not fit the law,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at American University. “Reasonable folks may think that federal law ought to prohibit what Hillary did, but it’s just not clear to me that it currently does.”
I think "entering into final stages" is probably more likely to be good for her in the end. Better to have an announcement that the probe is over or that some staffer is going to be charged in June than to have it happen in september. Of course, if she's actually indicted, I guess that makes things crazy whether June or September.
The truth is that absent an actual indictment, the Republicans messed up by overplaying their Benghazi hand. The emails got lumped in with the more obviously politically motivated Benghazi hearings, so I think that unless you have something that comes across as fairly neutral indicting her, it'll seem like more Benghazi nonsense.
Also, the actual details are sufficiently nuanced that I think many are likely to just see what they want to see in it than actually have their ideas swayed.
I know the guy I posted is an obvious Hillary hater, but the possibility of an indictment still hangs over her head. I don't think she'll ultimately get in any trouble, but certainly something like that will play into the Republican/Trump's hands. All they need is the tangible implication of a crime, which they can then beat to death in the public forum.
Official Gimmick List:
