So much for “security inquiry”

White House confirms 'criminal' probe over Clinton emails, 'shreds' campaign claim

Perhaps it was an unguarded moment, but the White House has seemingly confirmed that the Justice Department is conducting a “criminal investigation” regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email use – despite persistent claims from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee that investigators are pursuing a mere “security inquiry.”

Press Secretary Josh Earnest used the term at Thursday’s briefing, after being asked by Fox News about whether President Obama’s newly unveiled endorsement of Clinton might apply pressure to investigators assigned to the Clinton case.

Earnest rejected the premise, saying the job of career prosecutors is to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

“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,” Earnest said. 

The Republican National Committee seized on the use of the term “criminal investigation.”

“The White House’s admission that the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server as a ‘criminal’ matter shreds her dishonest claim that it is a routine ‘security inquiry,’” RNC spokesman Michael Short said in a statement. 

Asked Friday to clarify his comments, Earnest said he hasn’t been “briefed” by the Justice Department and had no particular “insight” to give. 

In fact, FBI Director James Comey had already shot down the Clinton campaign’s terminology last month. Asked at the time by Fox News about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, Comey said he doesn’t know what "security inquiry" means -- adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

Yet days earlier, Clinton in an interview had downplayed the probe as a “security inquiry.”

And her campaign website still asserts there is no criminal investigation.

On a campaign ‘factsheet’ about the email controversy, the website includes this Q&A:

“Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.”

Clinton has voiced confidence all along that, no matter what it’s called, the probe will not result in an indictment.

She said so again on Wednesday during an interview with Fox News. 

“That is not going to happen. There is no basis for it, and I'm looking forward to this being wrapped up as soon as possible,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal reported overnight that investigators handling the “criminal probe” are focusing on emails that discussed drone strikes in Pakistan.

So much for “security inquiry”

Warren to meet with Clinton this morning, fueling VP speculation

Sure as hell hope this comes about. 

The Lying Highness and Pocahontas on the same ticket. The kiss of death.

On another note beside the email scandal, she got some hefty paydays from Wall Street but won't release the transcripts. What did she tell them that she doesn't want the voting public to know? If she has nothing to hide why won't she do press conferences?

Remember this:

Video 248

  

--------------------------------------

Warren endorses Clinton: 'I'm ready to get in this fight'

Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton will meet privately Friday morning, according to two knowledgeable Democrats.

The sit-down, coming just hours after the Massachusetts senator formally endorsed the presumptive Democratic nominee, will fuel speculation about her prospects as a potential vice presidential pick.

The women have had several conversations over the past month, including one that lasted around half an hour, sources told The Washington Post. The conversations were broad and focused on large topics and issues, rather than the nitty-gritty of the campaign. Their staffs have been engaged in more tactical discussions.

The two women do not have a particularly deep relationship, but that could change as Clinton rallies Democrats around her in the wake of winning the Democratic nomination in recent days. There were three big endorsements that could have meaningfully helped Clinton wrap up the nomination battle: Warren, President Obama and Vice President Biden. Clinton secured all three on Thursday.

Clinton, a Yale-educated lawyer, like Warren, a Harvard Law professor until she was elected in 2012, is a policy wonk at heart. So the two might talk in more detail about how Clinton could embrace pieces of the progressive agenda that allowed Bernie Sanders to win more than 20 states.

Warren is late to get on the Clinton bandwagon, but her support is crucial nonetheless to Democratic unity efforts. When all of the Democratic women in the Senate endorsed Clinton very early in the campaign,Warren was the lone holdout. She had earlier been the target of efforts from the left to draft her into the presidential race as an alternative to Clinton.

The Massachusetts senator justified staying on the sidelines until now by telling Rachel Maddow on MSNBC Thursday night that she thought it was "really important" to let voters choose in the primary and that the debate has been "constructive."

"Hillary Clinton won," Warren said. "And she won because she's a fighter."

"What Bernie Sanders did was just powerfully important," she added. "He ran a campaign from the heart. … And he brought millions of people into the Democratic Party.

The meeting on Friday will only further fuel speculation about Clinton drafting Warren as her running mate on a historic all-female ticket.

Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon declined to comment.

The vice presidential nominee historically plays the attack dog role on the national ticket, going hard after the other side so that the nominee can stay more positive. Warren has shown repeatedly in recent weeks that she is willing to throw punches at the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Just before formally endorsing Clinton, Warren delivered an anti-Trump stem-winder at the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. She told the liberal legal group that Trump is a "thin-skinned, racist bully" and "a guy who inherited a fortune and kept it rolling along by cheating people."

A few weeks ago, she fired off a storm of tweets at Trump. They successfully got under Trump's skin, which was the goal. He responded by attacking her, not just on Twitter but at his rallies. This further elevated her profile.

Since then, there have been more frequent conversation between the Warren and Clinton camps, below the level of the principals. Clinton's team was very pleased with Warren's first attack and offered encouragement. The Clinton campaign also gave Warren a heads up before her own speech attacking Trump in San Diego last week, outlining the key themes.

Warren is very clearly intrigued by the possibility of becoming vice president, but Friday's meeting is not necessarily some kind of interview for the job.

Warren told Maddow that she is not being vetted. "I know there's been a lot of speculation about this," Warren said. "But the truth is, I love the work I do. I can't tell you how grateful I am to the people of Massachusetts who sent me here to just wade into these fights."

Friday's session could be a way for Clinton to signal to the progressive wing of the party that she still cares about their priorities even after vanquishing Sanders.

Whether Clinton picks Warren, or a populist progressive in her mold, ultimately depends on how much work she believes she must do to win over those who supported Sanders during the nominating contest.

Clinton may decide that it makes more sense to tack a little more to the center now that the primaries are over or that she should choose someone who could help deliver a battleground, such as Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

Trump's racially-loaded attack on a federal judge of Mexican descent is just the latest example of an issue that might allow Clinton to make inroads with moderates, independents and even GOP-leaning women. Warren might not help bring those voters into the fold as much as someone else could.

Ed Rendell, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and governor of Pennsylvania, predicted earlier this week that Clinton would not choose Warren as her vice presidential nominee because the senator is not ready.

"I think Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful, bright, passionate person, but with no experience in foreign affairs and not in any way, shape or form ready to be commander-in-chief," Rendell, a longtime Clinton ally, told a Philadelphia radio station.

The ensuing kerfuffle prompted Clinton to come to Warren's defense. "I have the highest regard for Sen. Warren," the former secretary of state told Politico. "I think she is an incredible public servant, eminently qualified for any role. I look forward to working with her on behalf of not only the campaign and her very effective critique of Trump, but also on the issues that she and I both care about."

Maddow asked Warren about the Rendell quote Thursday night and whether she thinks she's capable of being commander-in-chief. "Yes, I do," Warren replied.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also thinks highly of the idea of putting Warren on the ticket. The Senate minority leader has expressed public concerns about losing the Senate seat if that were to happen, because the Republican governor of Massachusetts would get to pick Warren's successor until a special election is held. But he is now more comfortable with the idea.

Short of becoming Clinton's running mate, Warren still has a very big role to play in bringing Sanders's supporters around and making them more enthusiastic about Clinton. That could be a big theme of the Friday's conversation.

Republicans take Warren very seriously, and a constellation of groups attacked her when news of her endorsement broke. Both the Republican National Committee and American Crossroads called Warren a "sellout."

Some significant differences exist between Warren and Clinton. In an old book, Warren attacked Clinton for changing her vote on a bankruptcy bill when she was a senator from New York, accusing her of siding with the financial services industry over consumers in order to get campaign contributions.

Warren has been Wall Street's most outspoken antagonist in Congress. Sanders has benefited enormously from criticizing Clinton's ties to the big banks and for getting hefty fees to speak at Goldman Sachs. The Vermonter has spent several months pushing Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman.

Warren ducked when The Boston Globe, her hometown paper, asked her Thursday night whether the woman she had just endorsed should release the transcripts. "That's for her to decide," she said. "There will be a whole lot of issues to talk about over the next several months."

Warren to meet with Clinton this morning, fueling VP speculation

Killary makes history as first female presidential nominee

But when you really think about it isn't it the same old crap? These two are scandals just waiting to happen.

My last hope is the FBI. Only a Clinton could run for president while simultaneously under criminal investigation by the FBI!

Killary makes history as first female presidential nominee

What's the difference between your "normal" Muslim and ISIS?

Evidently not much.

Pakistan woman burns daughter alive for marrying against family wishes

June 8, 2016: Hassan Khan shows the picture of his wife Zeenat Rafiq, who was burned alive, allegedly by her mother, on a mobile phone at his home in Lahore, Pakistan. (AP)

LAHORE, Pakistan – A woman in Pakistan burned her 17-year-old daughter alive on Wednesday to punish her for marrying against the family's wishes, the latest in a series of so-called "honor killings" that claim the lives of nearly 1,000 women every year in the conservative Muslim country.

Police say Zeenat Rafiq's mother, Parveen, tied her to a cot and drenched her with kerosene before lighting her on fire. Neighbors in the congested, working-class neighborhood in the eastern city of Lahore came running when they heard the screams, but family members kept them from entering the house, said Nighat Bibi, who lives nearby.

The police eventually arrived and found the charred body near a staircase. They arrested the mother soon thereafter.

The victim's husband, Hassan Khan, told reporters the two had been "in love since our school days" but the family had rejected several marriage proposals, forcing them to elope last month. He showed an affidavit of consent signed by his wife before a magistrate. He also showed cellphone photos of a smiling Zeenat wearing a red dress.

Sheikh Hammad, a local police official, said Parveen confessed to killing her daughter with the help of her son Ahmar. He quoted the woman as saying "I don't have any regrets." Another police officer, Ibadat Nisar, said the body showed signs of beating and strangulation.

Hundreds of women are killed every year in Pakistan -- often by their own family members -- for violating the country's conservative norms regarding love and marriage. Sex outside of marriage is seen by conservative Pakistanis as a stain on the honor of the woman's entire family, one that can only be removed by killing her.

Last week a schoolteacher, Maria Bibi, was set on fire for refusing to marry a man twice her age. The prime suspect in the case — the father of the man she refused to marry — and the other four are in custody.

A month earlier, police arrested 13 members of a local tribal council who allegedly strangled a girl and set her on fire for helping a friend elope. The charred body of 17-year-old Ambreen Riasat was found in a burned van.

Khan, the husband of the woman killed in Lahore, said her mother and uncle had visited her three days ago to try to persuade her to return home and have a marriage ceremony with the family, so that she wouldn't be branded as someone who had eloped. He recalled his wife telling him: "Don't let me go, they will kill me."

What's the difference between your "normal" Muslim and ISIS?

Clinton Claims Historic Victory in Democratic Primary

I got it!
 The FBI is waiting until after her Inaugural for the most dramatic effect.

Hillary Clinton will win California's Democratic presidential primary — NBC News projected early Wednesday — a symbolic victory a day after she was declared the presumptive nominee of the party.

Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders campaigned heavily in California ahead of its primary, a rare spectacle for state voters who are more accustomed to the contest being overlooked when it's held so late in the primary season.

The win gives Clinton momentum heading into the party's convention this summer and will deal another blow to Sanders, who has refused to drop out of the race.

Claiming her place in history, Clinton declared victory Tuesday night in her bruising battle for the nomination, becoming the first woman to lead a major American political party and casting herself as the beneficiary of generations who fought for equality.

Clinton Claims Historic Victory in Democratic Primary