I guess we should plan on non-stop investigations from here on out. There's plenty to investigate. I hope the foundation is among those things being examined!

This shit sandwich known as Presumptive Nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for the electorate's consumption. They have no one to blame but themselves if this is hard to swallow for thinking voters. This has got to be THE most flawed presidential candidate in US history. If this thing gets drug out through November, you can say President Drumpf. God I just threw up a little....

Time to buy popcorn futures

It would be fitting for Hillary to be convicted of perjury as well. If they can't get enough mileage out of this before the election, at least we know what the first impeachment charges will be.

On Tuesday I opined that the press conference by Comey was the "leak" we expected if the FBI was politically precluded from recommending an indictment. Now I'm wondering if the FBI wasn't instructed to investigate a crime where proof of intent was required for indictment, which is always hard to prove (set up to fail). Thus the "reasonable prosecutor" would not indict on those charges. By going public with the findings of fact (which would ordinarily be buried when the recommendation to not indict was issued) Comey set the stage for this testimony in front of Congress. Why did the Republicans all of a sudden act like they had three digit IQs? Because they had rehearsed the Hell out of this performance.
Now the FBI has its facts as part of its now concluded investigation, all they need is a crime to go with it. The Republican Congress can supply that. I have no idea what the procedure is here, whether Congress can act directly (I'm guessing not until she is President) or whether they can issue a request to the DoJ to indict on perjury charges. Lynch is already on record as deferring to the FBI recommendations, and (happily) accepted those recommendations in the current case. The FBI could, with modest review of the testimony transcripts, recommend indictment on perjury charges, and Lynch would have a shitstorm of controversy if she rejected that recommendation.
Need to check my popcorn supply.

I've been half joking about this for a while now, but I'm starting to get the feeling that it really might happen. Nobody except the Democratic establishment is happy about the email situation.

In the long run, though, I think that perjury charges are nothing compared to what could come out about the relationship between Hillary's State Department and the Clinton Foundation. That is the issue that I'm much more interested in having disclosed to the public.

Comey kept saying she broke the law but there was no criminal intent to charge her with. I guess that depends on what questions you ask her.

1. Why did you set up an email server?
At minimum and I think it is worse the answer is to keep her emails private (this was said in a deep under oath by Huma)

So first, these are not your emails Hillary they are the governments and you do not have the legal right to hide them and setting up a private server to do so is clear intent to bro the law.

2. If the government had not found out about your private server, two years after you left office, what was your plan to return this government property?

In Atlantic City Hillary Clinton lambasted Donald Trump for taking "destructive risks with other people's money" and for denying American voters an "informed choice." what a poignenty unfortunate themes she chooses to highlight the day after FBI Director Comey's report that Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when she first said, "I never received, nor sent any classified information" from her private account. We already knew from the scathing IG report that she lied when she assured Democratic voters and delegates that her illicit basement server was authorized by the State Department.

Her Democratic primary victories were based on deliberately fraudulent representations which have besmirched her character, and damaged her already low "trustibility," even more than the poor judgment she displayed when she decided to take such reckless risks with our national security for selfish reason in the first place.

A besmirchment reminiscent of John Edwards' willingness to gamble the Democratic Party's election chances and the well being of the United States in order to pursue his obsession with becoming president despite the disqualifying affair he was hiding while his wife was dying of cancer. Democrats were outraged, most especially, those of us who were his supporters. Both were willing to take "destructive risks" with the Democratic Party's election chances in order to selfishly pursue their own obsessions with becoming president based on equally delusional presumptions that they would not get caught. Clintons' destructive gamble was worse as she also has jeapordized our national security. John Edwards immediately withdrew in shame once his deception was discovered, Hillary Clinton, however, appears intent on trying to bulldoze her way to a Democratic Party "lock-in" and has shown little sign of remorse.

Is this implausible denial of reality not a continuation of the same judgement order she continues to fall victim to? The Democratic Party convention delegates must not endorse these shameful and reckless choices. Unlike the Republicans who appear to be stuck with Donald Trump, the Democratic Party rules apparently contain an exception that allows even pledged delegates to change their vote in the event of a major issue of conscience. This is such an issue.

If she does not withdraw within the few weeks she will put the Super Delegates and even her own pledged delegates, in the awkward position of having to replace her or knowingly endorse this deception which will be a disaster for their own reputations, the Democratic Party, and our Nation.

What kind of a person would do this? Knowingly lying to her own supporters, voters, and delegates telling us we have nothing to worry about, when she has known all along what she has done. We see two independent disqualifying issues - her character, and her judgement.

If she withdraws now, she still may be able to do so retaining some few shreds of grace and legacy. If, on the other hand, she chooses to try to bulldoze through with the apparent strategy of getting "locked-in" at the Democratic convention, we know the Republican drumbeat for her prosecution or impeachment will escalate and expand to include influence peddling and public corruption at the Clinton Foundation. She will eventually go down like Richard Nixon, in complete disgrace and breaking the hearts of young women and girls everywhere for whom she is a hero.