Bernie is waiting, waiting for the FBI …


In this case it does appear that where there is smoke, there will be fire.  IMO the FBI is losing patience with AG Lynch and whatever inclination she has (with or without instructions from Obama) to avoid indicting HC on a variety of charges of violations of federal law.  The State Department dealt with violations of the federal records act, but there are more serious matters pending.

  • If as alleged in the articles below she and her staff repeatedly transmitted Top Secret Special Access Program material on her unclassified and unencrypted e-mail system this is very likely to be a violation of several laws regarding the safeguarding of such material .
  • It may well be true that her staff were not cleared for access to this material since such material is often couriered directly to the named recipient (in this case HC) on the basis that uncleared staff will not see it.  Giving them unauthorized access would be an additional violation.
  • There is an ongoing FBI investigation of the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) with regard to money laundering and sale of influence to donors.  Discussion of the CGI investigation has now appeared in many places on the internet.

HC and her campaign staff are putting on a brave face but they must be worried sick about these investigations.  Bernie waits to see what turns up.  People will say that Obama will protect her but even the narcissist prez must realize that the policemen at the FBI know very well how to leak artistically if they are sufficiently angered.  HC has a long history of brusque haughtiness in dealing with "the little people" in government.  These chickens may be about to come home to roost.  pl

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Bernie is waiting, waiting for the FBI …

  1. hemeantwell says:

    For more on worries about her campaign, this article considers what is likely a White House ok’d leak by Bernstein of fear that the campaign is in “freefall.”
    “Bernstein: There is a huge story going on. I’ve spent part of this weekend talking to people in the White House. They are horrified at how Hillary Clinton is blowing up her own campaign.”

  2. John Minnerath says:

    I’ve long thought the chickens in this mess could indeed come home to roost, but then I’ve been wrong too many times as I watched the powerful sleaze bags slip through the net.
    Perhaps this time the Clinton machine, believing themselves untouchable, will find themselves nailed.

  3. The Beaver says:

    Ah, but she has her defenders amongst the elite journos because:
    Hillary’s fibs or lack of candor are all about bad judgments she made on issues that will not impact the future of either my family or my country. Private email servers? Cattle futures? Goldman Sachs lectures? All really stupid, but my kids will not be harmed by those poor calls. Debate where she came out on Iraq and Libya, if you will, but those were considered judgment calls, and if you disagree don’t vote for her.
    When the new 21st century Boadicea gets to choose the members of her court next January, I guess those who marry up and well in the rich families won’t have to worry about their progeniture going to wars.

  4. ThePanzer says:

    We can only hope the chickens do in fact come home to roost. She well and truly deserves to be hoist by her own petard.

  5. Old Microbiologist says:

    Don’t forget that this material has to get out from the SCIF and onto an unsecured computer which isn’t easy. Computers in a SCIF have no CD/DVD writers and all USB ports are disabled. Documents are kept either on the secure system or as hard copies kept under lock in a safe. So, taking something out requires significant effort and somebody is responible for controlling access and accountability. Every document is tracked so it is easy to determine when and by whom it was removed. Many heads will roll eventually.

  6. Old Microbiologist says:

    It has already been suggested at least one major intelligence operation was ruined due to her unsecured emails. So far, no damage has been suggested until now. This raises the stakes significantly. I have a secret hope Russia or China will do a major dump of the all 60,000+ emails. The other thing to consider is the original server was kept by the contractor when they migrated everything to the newer server. I suspect Team Hillary forgot about that being mostly amateurs.

  7. turcopolier says:

    Yup. They will have to build a large scaffold. pl

  8. Jack says:

    This is going to be an interesting tussle. We’ll find out soon enough how politicized the FBI and DOJ are when it comes to indicting and prosecuting the high up muckety mucks.
    Clearly, the Wall Street banksters, Clapper and Alexander got away. Petraeus got a slap on the wrist. I am very curious about the application of the law as it relates to the Borg Queen.

  9. asx says:

    I have never rooted more for the FBI in my life. FBI 2016 FTW. If they do/are allowed to do their job this is what we can hope for.

    /             \
    /               \
  10. Charlie says:

    Too bad we can’t see the Im as opposed to email
    I know I put the good stuff on im. Can’t search it.

  11. jsn says:

    What is interesting to me is the quality of what happens next as an exemplar: either D O Justice acts on this in the same spirit they have acted on Assange, Manning, Snowden, Stirling etc, or Obama doubles down on the Patraus treatment for the elite and everyone who’s ever had a security clearance is formally notified once again that the rules only apply to little people.
    For those implicated at the heart of the security establishment, either decision will have crystal clear implications. If it is the former, the National Security State lumbers on in its more or less current form which isn’t exactly great but embroils the “presumptive” nominee in a criminal investigation. If the latter, things could get very interesting as those feeling betrayed will be uniquely positioned to do something about it, particularly interesting is the prospect of spooks foreign or domestic having dirt with which to blackmail a sitting President.
    Another great example of a status quo that, however you support it, sucks.

  12. Jack says:

    Considering that the Borg Queen has contempt for the law and information security, it would seem that the Russians and Chinese would prefer her information sieve.
    Can you imagine how much information they would get about US government intentions if she is Prez?

  13. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Just want to mention two fairly detailed reports on the situation:
    From the security viewpoint:
    “Intel Vets Urge Fast Report on Clinton’s Emails”
    A group of U.S. intelligence veterans is calling on President Obama
    to expedite the FBI review of former Secretary of State Clinton’s alleged email security violations
    so the public can assess this issue in a timely fashion.
    by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, 2016-05-24
    (I believe Colonel Lang knows something about this group.)
    From the legal and political viewpoint:
    “Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down”
    by Dan Metcalfe
    Lawnewz, 2016-05-29

  14. dc says:

    I found of particular interest the “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity” letter to the President; link:
    One may recall that Ford issued a pardon for Nixon (“the unindicted co-conspirator”) while Nixon’s handlers in the affair (including the burglars, of course) went to jail. I doubt the POTUS is going to pardon all of HRC’s guilty staff, in this one.

  15. Haralambos says:

    Since no one seems to have put this up, I will for those here to comment upon and perhaps speculate about:'s_sinkhole_wars
    Thank you, Col. Lang, for continuing your “service” in its various forms.

  16. Cvillereader says:

    If Hillary has done what has been suggested, I am puzzled about her motives. Was it only done for money? Or was there some underlying ideological reason for her behavior?
    I can see Bill being motivated by nothing but appetite, but not so much Hillary. Since they don’t appear to have a traditional marriage, I wonder on what basis each trusts the other. Mutual assured destruction?

  17. Mishkilji says:

    Paging Joe Biden,

  18. HankP says:

    I see a lot of opinions, and a lot of “what ifs”, but not a lot of facts. HRC might get indicted or face serious legal problems, but I sure wouldn’t bet any money on it. I get the feeling that everyone except me has forgotten all the BS leaks that have come out about all the Clinton pseudo scandals over the past 25 years or so. At some point you have to question why they never (except for the blue dress) seem to pan out.

  19. walrus says:

    When narcissists like Hilary fail, they cut and run very suddenly, I’ve seen it happen in a matter of hours. They simply break off and vanish leaving chaos behind them. My expectation is that Hilary is going to be offered a “deal” to go away, perhaps such a thing is already being negotiated by Hilary’s people and the White House. Both Hilary and Obama must have briefed trusted people to think the unthinkable unless they are both pig ignorant which is obviously not the case.
    Hilary in my opinion already knows that the jig is up as evidenced by her latest fall back defence; “cosi fan tutti” – everybody does it, suggesting that Bill Clinton set up and used the system and she continued the practice as well as suggesting Colin Powell and others in various administrations did exactly the same as herself. This new defence, to me, is an explicit admission of guilt.
    Given that President Obama has to consider his own life after politics, I would expect him to wish to stay in the Clintons good graces. I would imagine that an agreement between Hilary and the White House would involve:
    1. A graceful if hurried exit from the campaign, possibly for health reasons, and the endorsement of some other (female?) candidate.
    2. Pleading guilty to the mildest misdemeanour available in the statute books, followed by a Presidential pardon.
    3. The closing of investigations by the FBI.
    To not do this leaves open the possibility of unfavourable comparisons of the treatment of Hilary with whistleblowers, including Snowden.
    As for the feelings of the legions of Hilary supporters, well why would she care?

  20. ISL says:

    In deposition, U.S. Ambassador Lewis Lukens’s sworn testimony is that Clinton’s server did not have a password.
    A tall scaffold indeed.

  21. Walker says:

    Well typed!

  22. DWhite says:

    At least she didn’t wreck the economy. Until there are bankers and hedge funders indicted, I’m not worried about Hillary’s supposed misdeeds.

  23. Jackrabbit says:

    This is the best description of the legal issues that I’ve seen:
    It provides details that most are not aware of.

  24. Jackrabbit says:

    Is Bernie waiting for the FBI?
    Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that Clinton played fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure HER OWN communications. This was NOT a ‘judgment call’ on a policy issue but a deliberate choice to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself(!!).
    That alone should disqualify someone for the Presidency.
    Yet, AFAIK EVEN NOW (after the State Dept IG Report) Bernie Sanders doesn’t attack Clinton about her email server. Is it sufficient for Bernie to sit back and let Trump attack Hillary on the emails? Does it help him to ‘unify the party’ later? On both counts I would argue: NO!!!
    Bernie’s silence:
    1) contributes to the view that the email server is just a partisan football;
    2) contributes to the view that it is just a question of judgement;
    3) undermines his ‘man of principle’ positioning;
    4) undermines his argument that Clinton is a flawed candidate;
    5) undermines his claim to have better judgement than Hillary (as explained above – her decision to operate a private email server is disqualifying);
    6) makes a mockery of his self-proclaimed Democratic Party ‘revolution’.
    ‘Third-Way’ Centrists, conservative ‘blue-dog’ Democrats, and DNC contributors (nearly half the Party, most of the elected representatives,and virtually all big-money backers) will not support Sanders. If Hillary is disqualified, they will find someone else to take her place. What they really care about is that Hillary beats Sanders in delegates and votes cast so that Hillary can be a King-maker if she can’t be a candidate.
    An FBI referral is only a first step. The DOJ will determine what charges to bring and will probably negotiate a plea agreement that is very favorable to Hillary if the evidence is compelling. Plus Hillary’s team will be prepared to spin any charges (they already have much practice doing so).
    Bernie’s silence doesn’t help him to win over the Party. By pulling punches (again!) Bernie is choosing Party over Principle. This seems to confirm that he is indeed just a sheepdog for the DNC as described here:
    <> <> <> <> <> <>
    Note: The emails are not the only ‘punch’ that Sanders has pulled. For example:
    > Sanders could have done more to contest the black vote. Obama clearly supports Hillary and blacks have responded to that. Sanders could’ve been critical of Obama policies that have been adverse to black voters including: the poor economy; ineffective help against foreclosures; wall street bailouts; austerity; harsh policing – Obama never traveled to Ferguson and doesn’t seem very interested in the issue.
    > Sanders generally stays away from criticizing Hillary’s time as Secretary of State. He prefers to focus on his domestic policies like free tuition.

  25. turcopolier says:

    When McGovern started sending letters around on issues that he cared about I let my name be attached to several. I stopped allowing that a long time ago. pl

  26. walrus says:

    Cvillereader And others, HRC’s use of an illegal private servers if proved, is grounds for failure as a candidate for at least Two reasons:
    1. The illegal handling and storing of classified material. This is a felony.
    2. The establishment of secret communications with the intent of avoiding freedom of information. legislation. This is typical of narcissists who will only communicate with “special people” and not allow “little people” to scrutinise their actions. In other words Hilary does not wish to ever be held accountable as a public office holder – as is required by law.
    To put it another way, it IS a big deal.
    What would happen if she became President is that the left hand (unprivileged officials) would never know what the right hand (Hilary and her secret inner circle) was doing. This is a recipe for United States domestic and foreign policy disaster. I have had a taste of this behaviour in a large institution managed by a creature like Hilary.

  27. Peter Reichard says:

    Bernie would likely have dropped out by now but for the cloud of corruption hanging over Hillary. He has gone easy on her because he lacks the killer instinct but wants to be waiting in the wings if lightning strikes in the form of an FBI recommendation to indict or some other bombshell that causes her candidacy to become unviable. Maybe he knows something we don’t.

  28. MRW says:

    A Harvard MBA Guy Is Out to Bring Down the Clintons by Pam Martens and Russ Martens.
    There’s a new Markopolos in town with that same brand of leave-no-stone-unturned tenacity and he has his sights set on the charity operations of Hillary and Bill Clinton, known as the Clinton Foundation and its myriad tentacles. Ortel’s actions come just as Hillary Clinton makes her final sprint for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States with Bill in tow as her economic czar. Like Markopolos, Charles Ortel does not mince words.
    In a 9-page letter dated yesterday and posted to his blog, Ortel calls the Clintons’ charity the “largest unprosecuted charity fraud ever attempted,” adding for good measure that the Clinton Foundation is part of an “international charity fraud network whose entire cumulative scale (counting inflows and outflows) approaches and may even exceed $100 billion, measured from 1997 forward.” Ortel lists 40 potential areas of fraud or wrongdoing that he plans to expose over the coming days.
    Like Markopolos, Ortel has an impressive resume. Ortel’s LinkedIn profile shows that he received his B.A. from Yale and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He previously worked as a Managing Director at investment bank Dillon Read and later as a Managing Director at the financial research firm, Newport Value Partners. In more recent years, Ortel has been a contributor to a number of news outlets including the Washington Times and


  29. Interestingly, HuffPo had the racketeering charges story posted on their site too … for about a split-second! But long enough for a copy of it to be archived here:

  30. Farmer Don says:

    The Bernie and Hillary situation would make a perfect Bed time story/novel/Greek tragedy/holly wood movie.
    This story has:
    Good against evil
    Weak against strong
    Rich against poor
    Hope against impossible odds
    The last chance before doom
    Popular against mistrusted
    The village (USA) against the outsider (multinationalism)
    The hero against the empire’s gladiator
    The reality may be more mundane, but the drama has me hooked!

  31. Fred says:

    HuffPo has a wonderfully ethnically cleansed, ah make that “diverse”, executive board. One would almost think they were trying to prove Voxday’s point for him.

  32. The Beaver says:

    That’s what I was saying to hubby last evening. Since she would be surrounded by clueless advisers or “well-intentioned” aides with their own agendas and “loyalties”, it could be bonanza.

  33. bwilli123 says:

    I think she had a hand in wrecking the economies of Libya and Syria. I’m not sure that that counts of course, outside of the small numbers of affected individuals.

  34. steve says:

    I think Sanders pulling punches as you say has to do with the fact that he is running in a democratic primary process and is seeking to pull votes from at least some democratic voters who, in fact, do view the emails as a partisan issue and do happen to like Obama. He apparently is in it to win. It doesn’t mean he agrees with or is ignorant of those issues with the emails or Obama.
    That may not be the majority of his democratic voters by any means, but definitely includes some of them.

  35. Lefty_Blaker says:

    I disagree with your analysis of what Sanders is doing or not doing in the email scandal. I think him sitting back and letting it play out through all the other active parties will enable him to claim that he always took the higher ground on this issue. Thus, if and when it becomes something that the DNC has to deal with (like Clinton dropping out) Sanders can claim that he did the right thing in the view of the DNC and push them to nominate him. If they choose another candidate over him (Biden seems to be the one most talked about) Sanders will scream and fight bloody murder over the issue and can use his silence on the email scandal to his credit with the DNC.
    Nor is Sanders a sheepdog to the DNC. Contrary to being a sheepdog, he has already been fighting them over the platform representation and won, and choose some very atypical democrats to be on the committee who are raising some havoc already (Palestinian issue so far). He apparently has threatened to start a big fight at the convention if they do not remove the partisan bias in the rules and platform committees with the Clinton supporters as the head (Frank and Malloy). He has used the Democratic primary process very adroitly to bring him national prominence that he never would have gotten as an independent.
    “‘Third-Way’ Centrists, conservative ‘blue-dog’ Democrats, and DNC contributors” who will not support Sanders in your view are actually a small percentage of the voting population. And will this group mostly vote for Trump? They have big clout among the establishment Dems but Sanders has much support among independents to overcome this factor. The national polls are showing this I think.
    In terms of the black vote, Sanders does have the segment of younger voters who recognize the factors that you correctly identify as being important. However, the older more prosperous black population are inveterate Clinton supporters and have been since Bill brought them to his side in 1992. He was the first candidate to court the black vote in a serious way and the older population remembers this and loves him for it. I canvassed for Sanders in black neighborhoods and came across this view many times after it had been brought to my attention by an academic friend of mine who made me aware of this strong support among older blacks. This population would not be swayed like the younger with the evidence of Clinton’s policies, but they will shift to Sanders should he be nominated.
    I think the big battle for sanders will be to get the DNC to back him if/when Clinton goes down. I think he is positioning himself to make that argument in strong way.

  36. different clue says:

    Hillary’s motivation was to go down in history as being the First Woman President in American history. She was going to be THE singular and first Feminist Of Privilege to break the Tiffany Glass Ceiling.

  37. different clue says:

    I have also thought about that when people say this is just as much nothing as all the other cardboard replica scandals that the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy tried and failed to get the Clintons on.
    This all reminds me of the Nixon Administration during my late childhood and pre-teenhood. Some people just hated Nixon. Some people worshiped Nixon and/or projected their own class and style identification-resentments onto Nixon. So whenever anyone criticized Nixon for anything, even if totally well founded; his cult worshipers and bitter-end backers would call such critics “Nixon-haters”. The Clintons have the same sort of supporters and have a more sophisticated way to dismiss any criticism however well founded. They call it Clinton Derangement Syndrome ( CDS) because some of Clinton’s critics do indeed seem deranged.
    I believe Nixon thought the only thing he did wrong was to leave himself exposed to his Enemies. I remember on his interview with David Frost, that he said ” I handed my enemies a sword, and they used it with relish.” The Clintons might well say the reciprocal . . . ” Our enemies have handed us a shield, and we use it with relish.”
    If this set of scandals are as fabricated as the Arkansas Project’s sets of scandals, they will come to nothing. If this set of scandals is based on real problems, they may still come to nothing, because the Clintons are better smarter lawyers than Nixon apparently was, and they can design better coverups. And coverup the coverups. If these latest Clinton actions are bad for real, it will take huge patience and determination and pressure by all kinds of people and agencies to burn through the layers of teflon and cult worshipers which the Clintons have protected themselves with.
    And if the Clintons end up going down, I hope they can bring down everyone who was associated with them in every aspect of this. I hope the Establishment which the Clintons did so much to serve and enrich is not able to escape the roosting chickens if indeed those chickens do come home. I hope the chickens are all zombie vampire chickens.

  38. different clue says:

    If Clinton ends up leaving the campaign in that manner, the nomination will be a poisoned chalice for Bernie Sanders. I hope he would refuse to accept the nomination under that particular scenario or set of circumstances. The millions of Clinton supporters would believe that Sanders had orchestrated her downfall to usurp the nomination which had been rightfully hers. They would all vote against Sanders the most effective way they could bear to do so. Sanders would be blamed for the Democrats’ ensuing loss, and after a decent interval, the Establishment Democrats would seek to preserve Clintonism without Clinton, and keep right on running in future elections on the Clintonistic platform of Free Treason Trade Traitor Agreements, “improving” and “updating” Social Security and Medicare, etc.
    It would be better for Clinton to keep the nomination and take herself and the DemParty down to a flaming defeat. The Dems would try to blame the Sanders supporters, but they would have to find data support for that in voting patterns. If Clinton got elected under such a scenario, then hopefully all the vampire zombie chickens would come home to roost for real, and Clintonism and the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party would finally be incinerated once and for all. That would be the best outcome IF war with Russia or with others could be avoided in the meantime.

  39. different clue says:

    Her husband ( President Clinton) help begin the long decline and fall of our economy with NAFTA, MFN for China, WTO Membership for America, etc.
    Since Clinton has said that she will put her husband in principal charge of “revitalizing the economy” if she is elected, her husband’s legacy of economic erosion and decay is very relevant.
    If erupting scandals can keep Bill Clinton from becoming Economic Revitalization Czar, then erupting scandals are a good thing.

  40. different clue says:

    If Sanders had criticised Obama the least little bit, Obama’s worshipful black followers would have turned on Sanders in their millions, and he knows it. If he were to start criticizing any part of Obama’s “legacy”, they will still turn on him in their millions, and he knows that too.
    How many black people even read Black Agenda Report? A thousand? Five thousand? Ten thousand?

  41. Cvillereader says:

    I agree with you that a Clinton presidency would mean war with Russia. But why do you suppose that is?
    Most posters here seem to attribute Hillary’s flaws to defects in her personality (narcissism, overweening ambition, etc.)
    Why does no one consider the possibility that it is ideology that is driving her?

  42. different clue says:

    I believe she would risk war with Russia because she believes Putin is a bad evil president of a bad evil country who does bad evil things like support Assad in power when Clinton wants Assad toppled, support the East Ukrainians in protecting themselves from the Nazi-Nazi Banderazis when she herself believes the Banderazi coup-government people in Kiev are Democratic Liberators against Putin and Putin’s Yanukovich-of-the-golden-toilet, because she believes in Madeleine Albright’s concept of Exceptional America the Indispensable Nation, etc. She would act on her beliefs and might well shove American and Russian armed elements together into a supercritical mass which would “go nuclear”, even if she doesn’t overtly seek nuclear war.

  43. rjj says:

    Reuters says double digit lead:
    “Some 46 percent of likely voters said they supported Clinton, while 35 percent said they supported Trump, and another 19 percent said they would not support either, according to the survey of 1,421 people conducted between May 30 and June 3.”
    and presents graph showing:
    Results here are all respondents, not just likely voters
    MARGIN OF ERROR: +/-3.3%
    Hillary Clinton (Democrat) 39.5%
    Donald Trump (Republican) 31.9%
    Other/Wouldn’t vote/refused 28.6%
    Is Reuters trying to confuse me?

Comments are closed.