Folks on here got themselves on boner based on a Fox story that Hillary is about to be indicted.
Perhaps you've heard this before. Like from April or January of this year?
Those weren't even the originals, those were cover versions, the NY Times had a couple of smash hits with Hillary's Gonna Be Indicted! back in the 90's.
So the WSJ wrote an article about a feud in the FBI's NY office. FBI guys wanted to make a case, higher ups told him they didn't have enough evidence to make a case. Then Fox took the story and ran with it.
HER SERVER WAS HACKED!
One difference between the stories was the WSJ actually talked to the FBI and DOJ folks and got both sides of the story and pointed out a bunch of reasons for skepticism.
Fox's story was sourced so it looked like FBI sources, but they don't actually say this.
The Fox Story was ludicrous on a few levels, but they caught boners anyway.
It never said who was going to indict her. Or when Or what the charge.
It might have excited you if you hadn't seen the WSJ story where it was revealed, they didn't have enough to convene a grand jury. This means they are miles from an indictment.
The sources acknowledged that the FBI began looking into the Clinton Foundation after the controversial book “Clinton Cash” was published last year. In particular, agents were trying to determine whether donations to the foundation may have been traded for access to Clinton while she was secretary of state.
In February, FBI agents presented their findings to senior FBI officials and prosecutors in the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, sources said. But the prosecutors and senior FBI officials agreed there was no clear evidence of wrongdoing, and that a criminal case tied to the Clinton Foundation could not be made, according to the sources.
"It was not impressive," one source said of the February presentation. "It was not something that [prosecutors] felt they could authorize additional steps for. They were not impressed with the presentation or the evidence -- if you could even call it evidence to that point."
Investigators and higher-ups have continued to discuss the matter, but there has been no change in posture, sources said. Authorities still believe there is no evidence of wrongdoing, and they do not believe there is a sufficient reason to pursue charges, according to the sources.
Fox News’ Bret Baier walked back his November 2 claim, which was based on two unnamed sources, that FBI investigations relating to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will “continue to likely an indictment.” On the November 3 edition of Fox’s Happening Now, Baier described his comments as “inartful,”
MARTHA MACCALLUM (CO-HOST): The FBI sources that you spoke with suggest that an indictment is likely. That would prove -- go ahead.
BRET BAIER: I want to be clear -- I want to be clear about this, and this was -- came from a Q and A that I did with Brit Hume after my show and after we went through everything. He asked me if, after the election, if Hillary Clinton wins, will this investigation continue, and I said, “yes absolutely.” I pressed the sources again and again what would happen. I got to the end of that and said, “they have a lot of evidence that would, likely lead to an indictment.” But that’s not, that’s inartfully answered. That’s not the process. That’s not how you do it. You have to have a prosecutor. If they don't move forward with a prosecutor with the DOJ, there would be, I'm told, a very public call for an independent prosecutor to move forward. There is confidence in the evidence, but for me to phrase it like I did, of course that got picked up everywhere, but the process is different than that.
A. a political and one side leak designed to influence the election.
B. a plea to try and do an end around the Department of Justices Public Integrity Division. They are hyping this to try and get a special prosecutor appointed.
If you remember the 1990's the first outside prosecutor on Whitewater was ready to wrap up his case in 6 months. They took it away from him and appointed Ken Starr and years later after they couldn't get anything on Whitewater we would up with going after Clinton's sex life.*
* In a bizarre 2016 irony, Ken Starr had some good things to say about Clinton this year.
Trying to spin a reporter stating that the process is different than implied as meaning evidence doesn't look as good, even though in the same quote you are using he states there is confidence in the evidence.
There is confidence in the evidence, but for me to phrase it like I did, of course that got picked up everywhere, but the process is different than that.
All he's saying is they need to assign a prosecutor before moving forward.....but hey you are an idiot.
No. He is not saying anything like that at all. He wouldn't be correcting himself if he got it right.
Cops don't get to indict people and neither do FBI agents. We don't give them that power and for very good reasons. Their confidence in the evidence doesn't count at all.
You have to have a case to get an indictment and the higher ups and career prosecutors DO NOT have confidence in the evidence whatsoever.
There is simply no indictment coming out of the department of justice because the evidence is weak. It's hearsay evidence from someone who is not in a position to have first hand knowledge.