(Our observations appear in red.)
This morning, FBI investigators interviewed Hillary Clinton for three-and-a-half hours. The meeting took place at FBI headquarters in Washington.
Presumably, the interview with Clinton signals that the FBI’s investigation is at or near an end. Investigators already have interviewed numerous Clinton aides, including the key ones: Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Bryan Pagliano, the IT technician who set up Hillary’s server.
In the course of those three interviews, the FBI collected an all-time Guiness record number of: 50,000″On advice of counsel…” and 180,000 “I don’t recall…” responses.
Not even the gender of any Clinton aide interviewed was determined.
According to CNN, “sources” say the “expectation” is “there will be announcement of no charges in [the] Clinton email probe within [the] next two weeks or so.”
History will record that from that day forward no government bureaucrat was ever again convicted of a crime.
I don’t know how much stock to put in this report, but it’s consistent with what I’ve thought all along — that there probably won’t be an indictment. It’s also consistent with Loretta Lynch’s statement that she will accept the recommendation of the career prosecutors and investigators. As I discussed yesterday, if Lynch knows what that there almost certainly will be a recommendation not to prosecute, it makes sense for her to say she will accept the recommendation.
For me, the close question was never so much whether Clinton would be prosecution but whether the FBI would recommend such a prosecution. The way the wind seems to be blowing, it looks like the FBI will not.
In that case, the interesting questions become (1) how much, if any, push back there will be from folks who participated in the investigation and wanted a prosecution and (2) how much attention any dissent from these folks receives in the media.
UPDATE: If Hillary lied to the FBI investigators during her three-and-a-half-hour interview and the investigators know she lied, that might change the dynamic significantly.
A complete fiasco from beginning to end. How one might ask Mr. Comey, does the deliberate destruction of government documents under subpoena not constitute “Obstruction”? Martha Stewart should have a real beef with this one: Clinton in a press conference- ” no confidential information passed through personal server…”; If the question were posed by FBI, any denial would seem to constitute lying to FBI, an offense for which Martha went to the slammer. A 5th Amendment response would seem to have no effect in that there are mountains of evidence that the answer was “yes it did”.
Update on this matter via AOL / News
Clinton likely won’t face charges over private email server
DLH
It was no chance encounter. They met for a reason. It was to create a reason to allow her the illusion of personal separation from the case, all along knowing the deputies would do what was wanted. If there are not serious repercussion in the ranks of the FBI then they are thoroughly politically corrupt.
Of course the FBI is corrupt…at some level, if not the very top. Look at the IRS “investigation”! “Fast and Furious”.