Not yet, but some Congressperson will raise enough stink that people will think there is.
Bill and Hillary are excellent at getting people to donate for their causes, possibly the best of all time. The scale of their operations is going to, by itself, eventually bring about some investigation, somewhere, by somebody, likely for political purposes.
So for this story, no. For the premise, yes, inevitably.
The FBI wanted to investigate, the DOJ quashed it.
No, this is a different story that there’s a super-secret investigation being led by Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who was responsible for bringing down some prominent New York politicians. The only source I’ve seen is the linked Daily Caller article – other articles on it cite the DC as their source.
Bharara’s office and the FBI gave the standard “We don’t comment on investigations or the lack thereof as a matter of policy” which shouldn’t be interpreted as anything but that, however will be certainly read as “Oh yeah, we’re totally on this winkwink*” by some people.
Where does it say that? It says something about “three field offices” which would seem to indicate it’s more than just one guy pushing this but then I don’t know quite how the FBI field offices are managed.
The Clinton Foundation and the DOJ also officially “declined to comment” so I’m not sure how one could read anything into the FBI’s (non) statement.
You’re reading the wrong story:
I’m not sure how they could either since there is literally no comment to read into. Declining to comment is like pleading the Fifth – completely within your rights and you don’t owe anyone a comment but people inclined to assume you’re guilty will consider it evidence of wrong-doing.
DOJ is like the FBI & US Attorney office: No comment is just a matter of policy.
In light of Trump complaining about the “biased” polls and the “liberal” media and otherwise making excuses, is it time for a Clinton surrogate (maybe Warren) to start really pushing the message: “Trump is losing the presidential race because he’s a loser. He can’t manage his staff, he can’t handle the spotlight, and he’s cracking under the pressure. Everyone can see he’s a loser.”? Maybe they’re already pushing that message–but they need to do it harder, because I haven’t heard it yet.
And include the hashtag #LoserTrump.
LoserTrump would be better than LoserDon because it would connect his precious “high-value” last name with being a big loser. That would sting more.
You really think it’s a good idea for Warren to start tweeting in Trump like fashion?
That’s kinda what I was thinking when I saw that tweet from her along the lines of Trump can’t stand it because he’s losing to a girl. Just seemed a little beneath her.
I never said anything about tweeting.
But, yes, I do think it’s a good idea for a few well-known Clinton supporters to push attack messages about Trump. Especially ones that call into question Trump’s “strengths”–his claims of being a winner and a clever businessman, of looking out for the small guy and protecting America. It’s a well-tested method of undermining a candidate by questioning what they claim are their best features.
There’s little to gain by harping on what we all know are Trump’s big negatives (being a vulgar and whiny bully).
Likewise, Trump would do well to question Clinton’s competence. We’ve all heard about her “crookedness” and it doesn’t change anyone’s opinion on her. But if he can attack her competence for getting stuff done, it could really hurt her. (I don’t think he can, but that’s the avenue of attack with the highest payout.)
I’m not sure anyone to the left of Clinton who’s not directly employed by her has anything to lose by mocking Trump. The candidate herself should avoid going directly negative, but those who support and have some distance from the campaign should go for it.
Seriously. Rolling around in the mud and taunting calls of “loser, loser!” is only going to diminish her reputation.
It wasn’t the most professional tweet ever, but given that Warren has faced obstacles because she is a “girl”, I will cut her slack on this one bit of openly public schadenfreude.
But more would definitely be unseemly.
I want to hear Hillary say something like this in a speech.
"You know, my opponent likes to give people nicknames. Lyin’ Ted Cruz, Little Marco Rubio, Pochantas. And, of course, Crooked Hillary. He does this because he feels that he needs to help people remember why they’re not supposed to like them.
"So I was thinking about whether I should come up with a nickname for my opponent. I tried to think of something that would remind the voting public about his failures, about his misogyny, about his bankruptcies, about his ties to Russia, about his racism, and about the kind of person he is beneath his thin-skinned schoolyard bully veneer. And do you know what I came up with?
“Donald Trump. I just couldn’t think of anything worse.”
Time for Hillary to let a little air out of the ball (maybe Tom Brady can help) and run out the clock. Take a little vacation until say Labor Day weekend. If Bill gets bored, let Michelle show him his new digs in the East Wing. Any attacks on Trump will be seen as punching down or kicking a guy when he’s down. When your opponent is on the canvas, let the other side throw in the towel.
As metaphors go that’s a terrible one. Trump ISN’T on the canvas. He has a chance to win.
If you want a proper boxing metaphor, Trump is on his feet but in trouble. And a champion doesn’t back off. A champion goes in for the kill.
Anybody who thinks Hillary isn’t going after Trump with both fists is not on her Twitter feed.
I’m just concerned that she’s going to be perceived as going for the overkill. Trump is busy punching his own face, he doesn’t need her help. If I’m her, I back off and save some punches for later in the match if he ever gets on his feet.
Well, this isn’t really a boxing match, so there isn’t a crowd of horrified onlookers, is there? 
Keep the boot on the throat until your hear the crunch.
As long as she’s criticizing his actual statements and general demeanor she should be fine. If she resorts to name calling (eg that silly “loser” suggested above) she’s losing the “adult in the room” advantage.