Is Hillary Clinton being criminally investigated?

I browsed some of the threads and can’t find a factual answer to this question:

Is Hillary Clinton being criminally investigated by the FBI for anything - Benghazi, Whitewater, Email Server, or The Clinton Foundation?

According to the New York Times, for less than a New York minute, she was, but the Hillary campaign requested they delete that and speak in the general, third person.

She has called the FBI investigation a “security review.”

A week or so ago the director of the FBI said, rather pointedly, “we don’t do security reviews. We’re the FBI.” (Cites to come.)

Your call.

How are you defining “criminally investigated”? Any investigation by any law-enforcement body? An investigation that has led to criminal charges being filed? A Congressional hearing?

Those answers are Yes, No, and Yes.

Wow. Talk about SerenDipity:

Daily Mail, today:

Barack Obama’s spokesman described the FBI’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s classified email scandal as a ‘criminal investigation’ on Thursday, less than an hour after the president endorsed his embattled former secretary of state to succeed him.
Josh Earnest told reporters during a White House press briefing that Obama was committed to keeping his hands off the investigation, trusting career investigators and prosecutors to follow evidence wherever it leads.
‘That’s what their responsibility is,’ Earnest said. ‘And that’s why the president, when discussing this issue in each stage, has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference.’

Why No? By your definition “Has led” then no. But that is not the definition, which is “may lead.”

And yes, the FBI cannot prosecute, merely recommend to the Attorney General.

OP didn’t ask is she is on trial.

That does not definitely say that she is being criminally investigated. Plausible deniability. He’s a spokesperson and they’re very good at choosing their words carefully.

Heh. A very Clintonian obfuscation. :wink:

What if we define it as a Chinese opera? A nagging sense of fin-de-siecle despair? A plate of shrimp? Those answers are No, Yes, and Maybe!

I was merely trying to figure out what question Clu-Me-In was asking, because the question is vague.

I would say that my first question implicitly contained “may lead.” That’s the problem with the term “criminally investigated.” It’s inherently prejudicial. Any investigation *may *lead to charges. Many, probably the majority, do not. Nevertheless, people look at the investigation as itself damning.

But Clu-Me-In responded without answering my post, so it’s moot for now.

Has the FBI said anywhere that they are investigating Hillary Clinton criminally about anything?

Could they not be investigating if someone criminally accessed her server at the time she was SOS?

[quote=“Clu-Me-In, post:6, topic:756984”]

**He’s a spokesperson and they’re very good at choosing their words carefully.[/**QUOTE]

So Josh Earnest, the White House Press Secretary, chose his words very carefully when he said Hillary is under criminal investigation. Got it.


Where exactly did he say Hillary was under a criminal investigation is what I’m trying to find. Can you point to the exact statement?

She basically had nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi. That was below her pay grade. No Secretary of State makes day-to-day decisions regarding embassy security staffing. If you think she did, then the real culprit is clearly Obama: he was the guy in charge, rigiht?

Whitewater was a colossal waste of time and effort. It was, IMHO, criminal that it cost so much when it was clear from the get-go there was nothing there regarding the Clintons. It also cost James McDougal his life due to the pressure Starr put on him to commit perjury and being kept from getting proper medical care.

Email server: Just remember, if 4 Secretary of States do this, why does Hillary get singled out?

The Clinton Foundation: So far no one has identified a possible actual crime. E.g., person X gave $Y and return got favor Z from Hillary when she was Secretary of State. Note that under recent SCotUS rulings, there has to be explicit quid pro quo for a bribery charge to stick. I.e., someone has to have verifiable proof that an agreement occurred. In still other words: The people involved would have to be complete idiots. There isn’t even any smoke here, let alone fire.

It’s akin to “Travelgate”. The White House fired fire-able people. Absolutely nothing illegal about it. Yet there was a special prosecutor, congressional hearings, and on and on. Millions of dollars wasted. For something that was known not be a crime on day one!

From what I understand, it’s a criminal investigation, but no specific person is the target of the investigation. They are just trying to determine if a crime has been committed.

And that her boss at the time of the email server situation has the latitude to dismiss any charges brought up against her anytime he feels the need. Like maybe the week before she takes the oath of office. It’s all just an election ploy that waste taxpayers money when we already know the outcome will be no charges brought. Obama doesn’t dare pardon her now due to the political fallout, but after the election it will be like who cares.

I don’t follow any of this anymore because it used to eat up all my time, but I’ve definitely never heard this before. Can you either expand or throw me a link? I’d be interested - because this email nonsense is annoying.

That was determined a long time ago when classified information turned up on her server. Those 2 things are mutually “inclusive:” Classified Breach + Unclassified Server = crime. It is simply, IAW 18 U.S. Code § 798, ILLEGAL for this to happen in any way, shape or form:

The Law

Exactly who did what, when and how needs to be “determined” before indictments can be made.

From your link:

Her server isn’t an unauthorized person. So it sounds like there’s no proof of the law being broken unless it can be shown that the information on her server was accessible by unauthorized people?

By definition, this IS the case.

That’s not correct, per the law you quote. It’s not all classified information that’s illegal, it’s only certain categories of classified information.