Sorry, apologists, but yes, it is a criminal probe.
With all the laws being violated, how could it not be?
I’m trying to recall the last time the presumptive nominee of a major party was under investigation by the FBI. And failing.
[Update a while later]]
“People need to know whether she’s a crook.”
Really, after the history of the 90s, is there any doubt about that? But she’s their crook, supported by a party of long-time thieves and liars.
Unnamed source. I guess we’ll see.
In _much_ more important news, Scott Walker was actually under investigation by the John Doe 1 in Wisconsin. http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/prosecutors-believed-scott-walker-committed-a-felony-while-county-executive/article_405aaae1-0c9a-5eee-9e86-289b5ce0f2d1.html
Serious crime – sounded like he favored turning down someone’s bid. Hope I didn’t shock any Walker supporters here.
‘Course, he was not found to have done anything wrong, but the fact that some partisan special prosecutors thought he did is pretty damning, right? Anyhow, that’s what all the comments there say.
“I’m trying to recall the last time the presumptive nominee of a major party was under investigation by the FBI.” Richard Nixon and Watergate? Not sure of the timeline there.
Watergate wasn’t seriously investigated until after the election. Remember, he didn’t resign until August of 1974.
Still, the FBI was involved from the first. “Within hours of the burglars’ arrest, the FBI discovered the name of E. Howard Hunt in the address books of Barker and Martínez.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
Yes, but it wasn’t investigating the White House.
And in the bizzarro world present, the FBI participated in Obama’s persecution of dissidents.
” “I’m trying to recall the last time the presumptive nominee of a major party was under investigation by the FBI.” Richard Nixon and Watergate? Not sure of the timeline there. ”
A slightly different scenario because, yes while he was a presumptive nominee, it was because he was already President. He was running for a second term.
This isn’t to suggest that the investigations should not have been done.
““People in Wisconsin and across the country deserve answers from Governor Walker on why law enforcement officials had probable cause to believe he committed felonies,” Baldauff said.”
Wow, this is astounding considering the WI supreme court said this John Doe investigation had no legal standing to begin with. The Democrats lost in court after using fascist police state tactics to persecute dissidents and now they are trying to use the media to claim Walker is a criminal.
Only Walker isn’t guilty of any crime but guilty of Democrat prosecutors thinking he needed to be investigated. The threshold for probable cause in this case was incredibly small and related entirely to the R next to Walker’s name.
Is Perry’s indictment a felony?
I’m frankly stunned at how absurdly partisan American politics have become. Gone is the idea that some things are above party politics or that politicians should be held to, with the power they have access to, greater ethical, moral, and legal standards than the rest of us are expected to live by, not lower ones.
I don’t care what party or cause you support. If a candidate or official in office does something wrong, we should all unanimously reject him or her, not come up with excuses. What good does another criminal or run-of-the-mill corrupt politician do anyone? In fact, politicians should be like Caesar’s wife, above even suspicion.
Politics is inherently corrupt: how can organized theft and violence not be so?
The real problem is the left’s push to expand politics into every corner of human life, where it’s brought its inherent corruption along for the ride.
Sorry, but that happened in the 90s.
True, and some of it has always been there, but what’s changed is how many of us common folk now accept these politicians’ behavior as the new normal.
Given that the John Doe warrants have been unbelievably abused, count me skeptical about the Walker claim. Are these the same bastiches who went after his supporters?
God, I am getting so tired of the dodge of “she never sent or received any e-mail that was marked classified.” It is such an obvious intent to deceive to anyone versed in the handling of classified information. When you type an e-mail, it’s free-form, just like this comment. I could, in this comment, mention the weight and ballistic coefficient of a Mk 12-A reentry vehicle. It wouldn’t be marked classified, but it would be classified information, and I could go to prison. And the comment would be removed from the server, and marked “SECRET/CNWDI/FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA.”
As Secretary of State, Hillary received information via the President’s Daily Briefing, a document containing information so highly classified that the briefings themselves are never declassified. If she mentioned anything from a PDB in one of her e-mails, that document would be considered a security breach so large that we would have the intelligence community assessing the damage for years. If anyone who handled the PDB were to leak any of it, they would be in prison for life.
The apologists at the New York Times demonstrate their profound ignorance of the issue every time they set pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard).
“God, I am getting so tired of the dodge of “she never sent or received any e-mail that was marked classified.””
But I bet if you check her computer monitor, classified will be stamped all over it. How else do you mark an email classified?