Fate

What you fail to grasp is that Fox's reporters, like Catherine Herridge, are among the very best

I'm sure she is...
So is the guy who wrote the Politico story.

http://www.politico.com/staff/josh-gerstein

And yet they write the story with such different emphasis.....And with different conclusions.
(The substance of the difference you aren't addressing..)
But you choose to dismiss one entirely and lean entirely on that of Fox News... Who, you'll admit, do have a bias. And an agenda.

rickyp wrote:Fate

What you fail to grasp is that Fox's reporters, like Catherine Herridge, are among the very best

I'm sure she is...
So is the guy who wrote the Politico story.

http://www.politico.com/staff/josh-gerstein

And yet they write the story with such different emphasis.....And with different conclusions.

No, the Politico story doesn't make the truth plain enough so that YOU can understand it. Let me help you, since you clearly need it. From the beloved Politico story:

"With respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handled classified information, as I'm sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence. They look at the law. And they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," Lynch said.
Lynch said concerns about improper pressure on prosecutors or agents were unfounded, at least to her knowledge

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... z41HsFfTzK

Now, I know that bolding and underlining probably don't resolve this for you, so I'll go further.

What do "law enforcement officers" and FBI "agents" do? ". . . follow the evidence."

Oh, "evidence?" What is "evidence?" Evidence is something that shows wrongdoing.

How do I know that? ". . . prosecutors . . ." are not involved unless there might be something to PROSECUTE. What do they prosecute?

Crimes!

Same story:

It's unclear whether the FBI inquiry, which began as a look at a potential counterintelligence breach, is now focused on Clinton personally, her staff or others.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... z41HtJTY5z

So, it's a matter of WHO is being investigated. It is clearly a criminal investigation. Everything Herridge said is validated in the Politico piece. That he does not come to obvious conclusions may be because of laziness (not asking experts what her testimony means) or it may be because he doesn't want to think about Hillary getting indicted.

(The substance of the difference you aren't addressing..)
But you choose to dismiss one entirely and lean entirely on that of Fox News... Who, you'll admit, do have a bias. And an agenda.

I have now addressed it and shown you are exactly what I've said: a know-nothing, with a thin veneer of puffery under which lies sheer ignorance.

I have not leaned entirely on Fox News. I never have. In this case, their reporter is not known to have any bias whatsoever. In fact, the bias is in the commentators--O'Reilly, Hannity, etc.

Hillary said she had a private server for "convenience." Her word, not mine. National security experts detail the problems with that. You have no answer for that, so you try to cry "bias."

Pathetic. Illogical. Infantile.

If you want to defend the private server, go ahead. But, pointing to others won't do it. No one else had a private server after being told not to do it. No one else claimed it was guarded by the Secret Service. No one else lied about having classified info on it.

Hillary is in a class of her own.

fate

Evidence is something that shows wrongdoing

Wrong.

Evidence means the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

that which tends to prove or disprove something;

You'll note prove OR disprove.

Your bias is showing.

rickyp wrote:fate

Evidence is something that shows wrongdoing

Wrong.

Evidence means the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

that which tends to prove or disprove something;

You'll note prove OR disprove.

Your bias is showing.

No, your stupidity is showing. In a criminal investigation, you don't mark as "evidence" something that proves nothing. That is the sense in which I am using it.

Your girl is in trouble. That is why "career prosecutors" are evaluating "evidence."

You're just too dishonest or unintelligent to understand that.

fate

you don't mark as "evidence" something that proves nothing. That is the sense in which I am using it.

The sense you are using.
But not the sense Lynch is using. And the sense any investigation follows. They don't prejudge.
She says "They follow the evidence". And in the sense of an investigation that evidence can prove or disprove ...

With respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handled classified information, as I'm sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence. They look at the law. And they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," Lynch said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... z41IWWzr67

Is there something new here? Clearly, the FBI is looking into possible criminal wrongdoing whatever the label for the investigation. I guess that we did not know justice attorneys were involved, but given the stakes involved and the technical nature of the investigation I would be surprised if they were not. And as the article noted, they need attorneys to issue subpoenas, giving them the power to gain access to more records. Again, given the stakes involved I think it would be expected that they would want to able to be to do that in order to do a proper investigation. There is no simply no way to know the status of the investigation. They appear committed to doing a thorough investigation. But we don't know anything about their ultimate conclusions. And the vast majority of lawyers familiar with these types of cases doubt there will ever be an indictment. Nothing has come up to change that assessment.

As for the opinion by the former NSA and CIA guy I don't think that is going to have any bearing on the criminal investigation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/opinion/mrs-clinton-show-voters-those-transcripts.html?_r=2

Seems like the "conservative rag" NYT wants Mrs. Clinton to show the transcripts.

On another note, I would love to see ALL the candidates tax returns for the last 5 years.

Knowledge is power and the judicial light of day on any corruption is the best disinfectant.

rickyp wrote:fate

you don't mark as "evidence" something that proves nothing. That is the sense in which I am using it.

The sense you are using.
But not the sense Lynch is using. And the sense any investigation follows. They don't prejudge.
She says "They follow the evidence". And in the sense of an investigation that evidence can prove or disprove ...

With respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handled classified information, as I'm sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence. They look at the law. And they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," Lynch said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... z41IWWzr67

You are incapable of communication.

freeman3 wrote:Is there something new here? Clearly, the FBI is looking into possible criminal wrongdoing whatever the label for the investigation. I guess that we did not know justice attorneys were involved, but given the stakes involved and the technical nature of the investigation I would be surprised if they were not. And as the article noted, they need attorneys to issue subpoenas, giving them the power to gain access to more records. Again, given the stakes involved I think it would be expected that they would want to able to be to do that in order to do a proper investigation. There is no simply no way to know the status of the investigation. They appear committed to doing a thorough investigation.

Right. I'm just sick of one person here not being able to comprehend that there is an investigation into criminal wrongdoing. Now, it may be that they determine none has happened, but I don't believe it should be assumed that a large contingent of FBI agents and DOJ attorneys are busily doing nothing. That's not how they work.

But we don't know anything about their ultimate conclusions. And the vast majority of lawyers familiar with these types of cases doubt there will ever be an indictment. Nothing has come up to change that assessment.

We shall see. If Herridge's reporting is accurate, no indictment will spawn resignations, or leaks, or both. Time will tell.

As for the opinion by the former NSA and CIA guy I don't think that is going to have any bearing on the criminal investigation.

And, I didn't say it did. The point of bringing Flynn and Hayden into this was to highlight the carelessness of Clinton. She risked national security for her convenience. Is that Presidential?

I re-read what Herridge wrote. She quoted an unnamed source close to the investigation as saying that career FBI agents will "be angry and walk off if no indictment recommendation is followed through." Could that statement be any more ambiguous? That statement could be interpreted in three ways: (1) read literally, FBI agents will walk off if a "no indictment recommendation" is followed and an indictment is not filed, (2) that they already believe there is enough for an indictment and will be mad if no indictment is made, or (3) that there has been no determination regarding an indictment but if an indictment recommendation is ultimately made that they will be mad if it is not followed.

I am going to guess...guess that number three is correct. Did Herridge intentionally mislead in order to make what her source said bigger than it is really is or is she just sloppy and her editors sloppy as well. I don't know but she needs to be clearer in her reporting.

freeman3 wrote:I re-read what Herridge wrote. She quoted an unnamed source close to the investigation as saying that career FBI agents will "be angry and walk off if no indictment recommendation is followed through." Could that statement be any more ambiguous? That statement could be interpreted in three ways: (1) read literally, FBI agents will walk off if a "no indictment recommendation" is followed and an indictment is not filed, (2) that they already believe there is enough for an indictment and will be mad if no indictment is made, or (3) that there has been no determination regarding an indictment but if an indictment recommendation is ultimately made that they will be mad if it is not followed.

I am going to guess...guess that number three is correct. Did Herridge intentionally mislead in order to make what her source said bigger than it is really is or is she just sloppy and her editors sloppy as well. I don't know but she needs to be clearer in her reporting.

That's how I understood it (#3).

Fast forward 3 weeks ... Trump and Clinton lock up their respective nominations ... it seems to me that the only way that Trump wins is if Clinton is indicted. Oy vey.

Agreed.

Ray Jay wrote:Fast forward 3 weeks ... Trump and Clinton lock up their respective nominations ... it seems to me that the only way that Trump wins is if Clinton is indicted. Oy vey.

That seems to be true.

However, I do expect this, if it is Trump v. Clinton, to be the lowest, meanest, nastiest, most X-rated, hide-the-dogs-and-children campaign since the Civil War.

This is what the decline of the American "empire" looks like--and it is going to be ugly. I might have to cancel satellite and switch to Netflix and Hulu.

If it's Trump v. Clinton, I'll be rooting for them both to lose.

ray

Fast forward 3 weeks ... Trump and Clinton lock up their respective nominations ... it seems to me that the only way that Trump wins is if Clinton is indicted. Oy vey

.

In August Trump will be called to testify in one of 3 civil suits in which he is accused of defrauding thousands of people who paid to get courses from Trump University.