Thursday, January 28, 2016

Rush Limbaugh: ‘Stunned’ by Fox News Acting as if ‘Jilted at the Altar’


by ALEX SWOYER27 Jan 2016Washington, DC3730
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaughsaid the GOP frontrunner will own the entire GOP primary debate hosted by Fox News on Thursday night, even without being there. He added that he was “stunned” watching Fox News last night and that the network is acting as if it was “jilted at the altar.”
“Donald Trump knows that by not showing up, he’s owning the entire event,” Limbaugh said of the GOP frontrunner refusing to participate in the Fox News debate because Megyn Kelly is a moderator – someone who Trump doesn’t think was fair to him in a past debate.
Some guy not even present will end up owning the entire event, and the proof of that is Fox News last night. I have to tell you, folks, this is where this gets tough for me. I was stunned watching Fox News last night. Fox News was acting like they had been jilted at the altar. If it had been me — and this is easy to say — if it had been me and Donald Trump makes a big to-do about not showing up for the debate, report the story and move on. Talk about Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Go talk about the other candidates. Go talk about Hillary and the FBI. There’s a lot of news out there. But don’t devote the rest of the night to how a candidate’s not showing up because of you. I mean, the network, not just Megyn Kelly.

Limbaugh also described the GOP frontrunner as “controlling the media”:
Trump is so far outside this game, he’s so far outside the rules, he’s never been a player in this game. He’s always been an outsider. I heard people on Fox last night talking about this. ‘Who does he think he is?  He can’t control the media.’  I got news for you: He is controlling the media, and it’s his objective. He is controlling the media.  He controls the media when he’s not on it. He controls the media when he is on it. He controls the media when he’s asleep. Nobody else has been able to do anything like this short of the Kennedys, and they’re pikers compared to the way Trump is doing this.

Limbaugh said what Trump is doing, his action of not participating in the debate, is laid out in his book The Art of the Deal.
“Trump is not that hard to understand if you pay attention to him and read his books,” Limbaugh explained. “In The Art of the Deal, one of the things that he makes a huge deal about is being able to know when to walk away and have the guts and the courage to do it.”
Trump had previously called for Kelly to be removed as a moderator, but Fox News did not comply.
“I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that,” Limbaugh added, about understanding Trump through the book The Art of the Deal.
I mean, there could be some personal things going on here that I don’t know about. But just from the standpoint of knowing Trump, reading his book, and seeing how he operates elsewhere, in his mind, screw the rules, screw what’s expected, screw ‘This is just the way you do it.’ I’m not gonna put myself in a position [to] go where I’m gonna be treated unfairly. I don’t have to. I’m Donald Trump. Anybody can do this.

Trump appeared to approve of Limbaugh’s analysis and show topic,because he posted on Twitter, “Just got to listen to Rush Limbaugh — the guy is fantastic!”
Trump said he would host a fundraiser for veterans while Fox News holds the debate on Thursday night.
Read More Stories About:

Donald Trump on Ted Cruz Debate Challenge: ‘Can We Do It in Canada?’

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

by MICHELLE FIELDS27 Jan 2016855

Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump responded Wednesday to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’s debate challenge by mocking him.

Trump tweeted:

Even though I beat him in the first six debates, especially the last one, Ted Cruz wants to debate me again. Can we do it in Canada?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 27, 2016


The real estate mogul has been going after Cruz for several weeks by questioning his eligibility.

On Tuesday, Cruz challenged Trump to a debate after Trump announced he would not attend Fox News’ Thursday night debate. Cruz has been tweeting about it using the Twitter hashtag #DuckingDonald:

I challenged @realDonaldTrump to a one-on-one debate. Tell him to accept:https://t.co/wUZHtRpaj4#DuckingDonaldpic.twitter.com/xjCvjS7yyx

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) January 27, 2016


Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,FOX NEWSDonald TrumpTed Cruz,debate#DuckingDonald

‘Love-Fest:’ Megyn Kelly Blasts Donald Trump, Flirts With Michael Moore


by JOHN NOLTE27 Jan 201610,919

Those of us who obsessively observe the media never thought we would see a day like yesterday, a day when someone finally got the better of Fox News and Roger Ailes. The infallible network proved itself fallible with two of the biggest strategic errors in the history of its existence. First, The Mighty Fox fired off a snarky but strategically stupid press release that played directly into Donald Trump’s hands. Then, an obviously rattled Megyn Kelly seeking solace from Trump’s withering spotlight, sought that solace in no less than anti-American filmmaker Michael Moore.

To understand just how big of a blunder this is, we have to step back a few months.

Ever since the first Fox News Republican primary debate took place back in August, Trump has been pounding the cable news network for what he felt was a gang tackle from the three moderators, Kelly, Bret Baier, and Chris Wallace, and there is no shortage of those on the political right who agree with him. Trump’s primary complaint was directed at Kelly, who didn’t so much ask a question as much as she attempted to paint the billionaire businessman and reality TV star as a degenerate sexist.

To put it mildly, Trump took umbrage with the question and for the past six months the two have been feuding. To his credit, Trump has been openly attacking Kelly. Via Twitter and various interviews, he has criticized her directly. Kelly’s and Fox News’s response has been subtler, and some might say dishonest. “The Kelly File,” a primetime cable news juggernaut, is seen by many as a Anti-Trump Organ for Establishment Republicans.

In the lead up to Thursday night’s debate, the final one before actual voting begins in Iowa, Trump has used every opportunity to again express his concerns about Kelly’s return as moderator. Fox News refused to budge on the issue. But Trump obviously found his way into Ailes’s head because Tuesday night the network made an unprecedented strategic blunder by releasing this statement:

We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president — a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the Cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings.


When a major presidential candidate is accusing your network of bias, unless you want to prove him 100% correct, this is about as tone-deaf and dumb as it gets.

Knowing he had Fox by the short hairs, Trump waved the snarky press release and further burnished his brand as a leader and fighter by announcing his withdrawal from the debate.

In short: Trump spent a half-year carefully crafting and building the Narrative that Fox News was out to get him, and with one press release, Roger Ailes blundered right into it.

The benefits for Trump are obvious. 1) Just 5 days before Iowa, he will own the news cycle at least through the Sunday shows. 2) The controversy will overwhelm any opportunity his opponents might have had to get their message out. 3) Trump has completely upset any gameplan his rivals had planned, not only for the debate, but as a closing argument in Iowa. 4) The Fox News debate has been diminished into an undercard event because Trump’s competing event will dominate the news cycle.  5) Beating up on Fox News will hardly hurt Trump in a general election. 6) Trump looks like a badass who refuses to jump through the media’s hoops — which is exactly the type of candidate the GOP base has been praying for.

As though the gods smile on The Donald, just a few hours after the world came crashing down on The Mighty Fox, left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore made an already-scheduled appearance on “The Kelly File,” and it was an unmitigated disaster.

After the August debate, I actually defended Kelly’s questioning of Trump. My rationale was that Kelly, unlike the rest of the mainstream media, is tough on everyone — right and left alike. Presidential candidates should be asked tough questions. As long as the questioner isn’t biased in favor of one side or another, nothing should be off-limits.  As Kelly played kissy-face with Moore last night, I started to feel like a fool for defending her.

Moore isn’t some run-of-the-mill celebrity pitching his latest blockbuster. He is an anti-American propagandist, a fabulously wealthy hypocrite, and a degenerate liar. Under normal circumstances, it would be nauseating to watch Kelly giggle, joke, softball, and get all chummy with this cretin. The fact that she did so in the wake of Trump’s charges of bias showed an extraordinary lack of judgment.

Watch for yourself what even the left-wingWashington Post and Salon described as a“love-fest.“:

Is it just me, or did Kelly actually flirt with Lenny Riefenstahl?

For six months Kelly has played it cool. With Trump’s blistering spotlight on her, she’s put on a face meant only to assure the world and her critics that she’s a professional journalist interested only in holding The Powerful accountable. Most of all, Kelly wanted the world to know that Trump wasn’t living rent-free inside her head.

Well, now we know the exact opposite is true because all it took for Michael Moore to play Kelly like a fiddle, to turn her into a giggling Rachel Maddow, was to open the interview by commiserating with her about that awful Donald Trump.

Even the Washington Post noticed the gooey affair:

[A]fter Kelly introduced Moore’s “Where to Invade Next?” — in which, as Kelly put it in an opening that probably made many Fox viewers’ skin crawl, “Moore travels through Europe to highlight what he believes to be America’s shortfalls” — Moore didn’t want to talk about himself. For the man who hounded General Motors chief executive Roger Smith and vilified President George W. Bush, it was all about Kelly and her bold stand against Trump.

“What does this feel like for you?” Moore said. “Because you don’t want to be the story — you’re a journalist.”

Kelly’s rejoinder: “I get to ask the questions here!”

“I feel bad for you,” Moore said. He then wondered why Trump would deprive himself of Kelly’s company: “What’s he afraid of? I’m sitting here. I don’t feel any fear.”

“You shouldn’t,” Kelly said. “I’m a pussycat.”

“You can ask Donald,” Moore said, volunteering to play chaperone for the candidate. “Donald — come down. Come sit beside me. I’ll hold your hand. She’s fine.”

Kelly: “Stop that!”


Somehow it got worse. Moore asked her out, and the Washington Post thinks she may have blushed:

 “I was thinking I was maybe going to have to, like, take you out to dinner afterwards,” Moore said. “We could talk. You could emote … get it out. I’m here for you.”

“I had no idea there was this side to you,” Kelly said.

Maybe this all was a joke. Maybe it wasn’t. But then, Moore got real about Kelly and Trump.

“In all seriousness, let me say this,” Moore said. “… You’ve done something that Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rubio, Cruz — none of them have been able to do. Which is to, essentially, frighten him.”

“Would you move on from the Trump situation?” Kelly said. But, at least on some laptop screens, it appeared she may have blushed.


In short, Megyn Kelly made a fool of herself, and Donald Trump can now add two more scalps to his collection: Kelly’s and the previously unbeaten Fox News.

Read More Stories About:

Big Journalism2016 Presidential RaceFOX NEWSMichael MooreMegyn KellyDonald Trump 2016Roger Ailes

MSNBC mocks Hillary RELENTLESSLY for leaving Iowa to fundraise at investment bank

Posted on January 28, 2016 
Apparently last night Hillary left Iowa to go raise money at a big investment bank fundraiser in Philadelphia. Just a few days from the Iowa Caucuses, Morning Joe can’t believe she’d do such a thing and neither can Bernie:


Trump Campaign Manager Reveals Fox News Debate Chief Has Daughter Working for Rubio

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio 


Chip Somodavilla/Getty
by MATTHEW BOYLE28 Jan 2016DES MOINES, Iowa2,309
DES MOINES, Iowa — Corey Lewandowski, the campaign manager for 2016 GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, exposed a blatant conflict of interest on Wednesday that the Fox News Channel has been hiding for months.
Lewandowski showed how Fox News has been hiding the fact that Fox News Channel Vice President Bill Sammon has a daughter working for the campaign of the Washington establishment-backed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL).
Sammon’s daughter, Brooke Sammon, is Rubio’s national press secretary, and obviously both have a vested interest in the success of the Rubio campaign and the demise of the other campaigns.
CNN’s Erin Burnett asked Lewandowski about Fox News’s controversial anti-Trump statement from Tuesday evening—and specifically the network’s claim that the top Trump aide had allegedly made threats against Fox News anchor and Thursday debate co-moderator Megyn Kelly—when he responded by dropping the explosive revelation.
Lewandowski revealed two things for the first time: that the executive he was discussing matters with was Bill Sammon, and that Sammon’s daughter Brooke Sammon works for Rubio’s campaign, giving the first-term Floridian Senator an obvious boost. That blatant conflict of interest has never before been disclosed to the viewers of Fox News by the network.
“Not only did I not make threats, but the conversation with the Fox News executive—his daughter works for the Rubio campaign, he’s one of the executives on Fox that writes the debate questions so maybe he has his own ulterior motives, I’m not sure,” Lewandowski told Burnett in the Wednesday evening CNN interview. He went on:
But his daughter is a senior executive on the Rubio campaign, maybe he should disclose that before he’s writing the debate questions for Fox. There were no threats made. The bottom line is this isn’t about me and it’s not about Megyn Kelly. It’s about the way that Fox News put out a statement about Mr. Trump that’s wholly inaccurate and unfair and it’s very difficult to treat someone fairly when they’re the GOP frontrunner when you put out a statement like that.

When Burnett followed up, Lewandowski doubled down. “What I said was the Fox News executive who oversees the debate process, their daughter is a senior executive on the Marco Rubio campaign—is what I said,” the Trump campaign manager said.
A Fox News spokesperson has not responded to Breitbart News’s requests for comment throughout the day on Wednesday. A Rubio spokesman, communications director Alex Conant, responded to a Breitbart News inquiry on this matter by standing up for Brooke Sammon and questioning Breitbart News’s integrity.
“It’s no secret Breitbart traffics in conspiracy theories, but this accusation is a whole new level of crazy,” Conant said in an email. “Brooke is a star of our campaign and her integrity and professionalism is second to none. If you’re worried about someone’s integrity, you should do some serious self examination.”
Conant has not answered a pair of follow-up questions. One question Conant won’t answer centers specifically on whether Brooke Sammon has ever in any way communicated with her father about the Rubio campaign–including regarding debate matters. The other question Conant won’t answer is why, if “Breitbart traffics in conspiracy theories,” Sen. Rubio’s campaign provides Breitbart News with exclusives like the one earlier on Wednesday about his new ad targeting Evangelical voters.
“I believe you can’t have a strong America without strong families. I believe in the fundamental freedoms that make us great. And I believe in God; that God has blessed America,” Sen. Rubio says in a new advertisement he provided exclusively to Breitbart News, for instance. Conant and his team provided Breitbart News with that exclusive mere hours before changing their tune on Breitbart News.
Bill Sammon is a Fox News Channel Vice President and the bureau chief of that network’s Washington, D.C. team. Several times leading up to the previous Megyn Kelly-co-moderated debate back in August 2015, it was confirmed that Sammon was personally involved in crafting the entire focus of the debate.
For instance, on Howard Kurtz’s Aug. 2Media Buzz show on the Fox News Channel, Kurtz and Fox’s Chris Stirewalt confirmed that Sammon is the “secret weapon” crafting the questions.
“You’ve been to this rodeo before,” Kurtz asked Stirewalt. “How do you and Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier and Chris Wallace go about formulating your questions, knowing the candidates are going to try to pivot to their talking points?”
“Well, the first thing is we have a secret weapon and that is Bill Sammon, who is the best at not only team cohesion and keeping everybody on point about what the point is, but in crafting the questions,” Stirewalt replied before Kurtz interjected that Sammon is the Fox News Channel’s “Washington bureau chief.”
“Absolutely, he’s a managing editor and a great mind and a great journalist and so that is a big help,” Stirewalt finished.
In addition, a Washington Post pre-debate profile of Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace—one of the other debate moderators alongside Megyn Kelly and Bret Baier—confirmed Sammon’s involvement in crafting the narrative of the debate. Of course, that profile quotes Wallace as saying he has several “doozies” prepared for GOP frontrunner Donald Trump.
“On a recent Thursday morning, Wallace walked the few steps from his small, memorabilia-filled office — his father’s Rolodex, a photo of him playing hoops with Michael Jordan — to the more spacious suite of his boss, Bill Sammon, the vice president of news, who had called together a small debate-prep meeting,” the Post’s Krissah Thompson wrote.
Thompson then detailed what the debate-prep room was like one day when Wallace and Sammon prepared for battle, quoting the two of them extensively—and making clear that Sammon was in charge.
What’s interesting, however, is that these people, who claim to be journalists—Wallace, Baier, Kelly, Stirewalt, Kurtz, and pretty much everyone else at the Fox News Channel, especially Sammon—all committed what is pretty much a cardinal sin in journalism: They didn’t disclose a major conflict of interest ahead of a presidential debate. That conflict, of course, is that Brooke Sammon—Rubio’s national press secretary—is the daughter of Fox News executive Bill Sammon.
Brooke Sammon is no small player in Rubio’s orbit, either. She’s second in command to Rubio communications chief Alex Conant, and has worked for the senator for years.
The network did not disclose this conflict of interest to anyone–most importantly, the 24 million people who watched that first debate this summer. It’s unclear why the network has hidden this detail. Other GOP presidential campaigns have been whispering about pro-Rubio bias at Fox, but none have been willing to publicly hammer the network, except for Trump.
Lewandowski has gotten close to exposing this conflict of interest before—making an allusion to it on Good Morning America on Wednesday morning—but not until his CNN appearance was he so explicit.
“It’s a shame, when you have a conversation with some of the Fox executives, you’d hope they’d keep that conversation private,” Lewandowski said on GMA. “Instead you have executives over there who have relatives working for other campaigns. These are the people who are putting debate questions together.”
Read More Stories About:

Donald Trump Solidifies Lead Over GOP Rivals in First States to Vote

www.google.co.uk

ENLARGE Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is the first choice of more than 30% of people likely to vote in the Republican primaries or caucuses in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, a poll finds. Photo: Getty Images By Janet Hook Jan. 28, 2016 6:00 a.m. ET

Donald Trump is dominating the GOP presidential field in the first three states to vote in the 2016 campaign, including in Iowa where he has extinguished the lead once held by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC/Marist Poll finds.

In New Hampshire and South Carolina, Mr. Trump leads by double-digit margins. In all three states he is the first choice of more than 30% of people likely to vote in the Republican primaries or caucuses.

“Trump is positioned to run the house in these first three states,” said Lee M. Miringoff, director of the Marist College Institute of Public Opinion. “His supporters are committed and plan to turn out.”

The poll suggests Mr. Cruz will be his strongest competitor even if the senator has lost ground in Iowa. Mr. Cruz now stands in second place in all three states including New Hampshire, a place that doesn't typically favor Republicans with his kind of conservative profile.

ENLARGE

Among Democrats, the poll points to a roller-coaster ride through the three early-voting states. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont remain deadlocked in Iowa; Mr. Sanders has opened a commanding 57%-38% lead in New Hampshire; in South Carolina, Mrs. Clinton enjoys an even wider 64%-27% spread.

The polls demonstrate that Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton remain their party’s front-runners. While Mrs. Clinton has a rougher road than Mr. Trump in Iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina gives her a “firewall,” Mr. Miringoff said.

The Iowa poll found, with less than a week before Monday’s caucuses, that Mr. Trump is the leading Mr. Cruz by 32%-25%, after weeks of pummeling his rival by questioning the Canadian-born senator’s eligibility to be president, his personality and character. Earlier this month, Mr. Cruz had led 28%-24% in Iowa, the state that represents his best shot to block the billionaire businessman.

What’s more, the poll found that Mr. Trump has inspired deep support: three-quarters of Trump backers in Iowa say they are strongly committed to their choice of candidate, compared with only 58% of Cruz supporters. Similar gaps show up among voters in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Showing quiet improvement in Iowa is Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida who came in third with 18%—a five-point improvement over the early January poll. But he has slipped in New Hampshire, and dropped behind Mr. Cruz to third place. In the Granite State, Mr. Trump leads with 31%, to Mr. Cruz’s 12% and Mr. Rubio’s 11%. The South Carolina poll finds the same three candidates topping the GOP field.

Among Democrats, the Iowa poll is little changed from the neck-and-neck finish found earlier this month. Mrs. Clinton drew 48% to Mr. Sanders’s 45%. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, remains in the low single digits in all three states.

New Hampshire is a growing bastion of support for Sanders, who had led Mrs. Clinton only narrowly earlier this month, largely on the strength of his appeal to independent voters. Now, the latest poll found, Mr. Sanders has a double-digit lead having gained among those who identify themselves as Democrats. Mrs. Clinton’s earlier 18-point advantage among party regulars is now an eight-point edge for Mr. Sanders.

The poll showed how South Carolina is a formidable backstop for Mrs. Clinton. Her steep 64%-27% advantage builds on her strength among the minority voters who dominate the primary electorate. She leads by 57 points among African-American primary voters.

Although the enthusiasm of Mr. Sanders’s campaign crowds has suggested a big enthusiasm gap between the two Democratic candidates, the poll found that about the same share—roughly three-quarters—of Sanders and Clinton supporters have a high level of commitment to their candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire.

And in South Carolina, more Clinton supporters than Sanders supporters—68% to 58%—say they are firmly committed to their candidate choice.

The stakes for both candidates are higher in Iowa.

“If Clinton carries Iowa, she can absorb a defeat to Sanders who has a home-field advantage in New Hampshire, and then move on to South Carolina,” said Mr. Miringoff. “But if Sanders carries Iowa and then New Hampshire, this contest will, indeed, be a marathon.”

The Iowa poll, conducted Jan. 24-26 included interviews with 426 likely Democratic caucusgoers, for whom the margin of error was plus or minus 4.6 percentage points. It also included 450 likely Republican caucusgoers and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.

The New Hampshire poll, conducted Jan. 17-23, included interviews with 568 likely Democratic primary voters and 612 likely Republican primary voters. The margin of error was 4.1 percentage points for the Democrats and 4.0 percentage points for the Republicans.

The South Carolina poll, also conducted Jan. 17-23, included interviews with 718 likely Republican primary voters and 446 likely Democratic primary voters. The margin of error was 3.7 percentage points for the Republicans and 4.6 percentage points for the Democrats.

Write to Janet Hook atjanet.hook@wsj.com

COMMENTS

FBI's Clinton investigation not letting up

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com

thehill.com

Six months after it began, the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server shows no signs of slowing down.

Former FBI officials said the length of the probe is not unusual, and speculated that a decision on whether to file charges against Clinton of her top aides could come later this year, during the heat of the general election campaign.

“I don’t know that there’s any magical cutoff date,” said Ron Hosko, the FBI’s former assistant director of the criminal investigative division and a 30-year veteran of the bureau.

For Democrats, the extended investigation has become a source of some anxiety, with Republicans gleefully raising the prospect of their presidential front-runner being indicted.

“It does give pause to Democrats who are concerned that there may be another shoe to drop down the road,” said Andrew Smith, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire.

The government has been looking into the possible mishandling of classified information since last July, when the inspector general for the intelligence community issued a security referral about the possible mishandling of classified information on Clinton's server.

That referral came months after Clinton acknowledged that she had exclusively used a personal email address housed on a private server during her tenure as secretary of State.

The scrutiny of Clinton’s email practices has mounted since then, as more than 1,300 emails that passed through her “homebrew” setup have been marked as classified, some at the highest levels.

The State Department and Clinton’s campaign contend that none of the information in the emails was classified when it was originally sent, and have portrayed the matter as an inter-agency dispute.

The FBI and Justice Department have refused to discuss the details of their investigation and declined to comment to The Hill.

However, officials have indicated that the bureau is not targeting Clinton specifically, but instead is investigating whether any information on her account was mishandled. Earlier this month, Fox News reported that the FBI had expanded its probe to examine how the State Department’s work intersected with the Clinton family foundation.

In December, FBI Director James Comey pledged that the probe would be “competent,” “honest” and “independent.”

“We don't give a rip about politics,” he told a Senate committee.

Yet the FBI is well aware of the high political stakes surrounding the investigation.

“I think the clock ticks louder every day,” said Hosko, who is the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “I’m sure they’re all incredibly sensitive to it.”

President Obama has downplayed Clinton’s email setup, claiming that it was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Multiple former officials, lawmakers and lawyers have said they are confident that Comey, who is a Republican, will not let the presidential campaign influence the FBI’s investigation. 

Yet many conservatives worry that even if the FBI comes up with sufficient evidence that Clinton broke the law, the Justice Department will decline to press charges. In response, some have pressed for a special prosecutor to be appointed, or for the FBI to pledge to release the evidence that it dug up. 

So far, Democrats have largely publicly shrugged of the threat of criminal action by painting it as a partisan attack from Republicans.

Clinton’s top rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), channeled the feelings of Democrats in October when he told Clinton during a debate that “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”

But Clinton will have to confront the issue more forcefully if charges are actually filed. 

And should Clinton win the nomination, the topic is sure to rear its head in the general election — even if no indictment is ever handed down. 

A general election fight over the emails could weaken Democratic enthusiasm and turn off swing voters, some analysts predicted. 

“More likely, it’s going to sour some of those folks in the middle,” said Doug Roscoe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

“Having to be in the news talking about this investigation takes her off-message,” he added.

It might not be Clinton herself who faces the music for any potential crime, however.

The former secretary of State did not appear to send most of the emails now marked classified. Instead, they were largely sent or forwarded along to her by close aides.

“It’d be a lot harder to make a criminal charge for having received [classified] information," said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security and protection of classified information

“If I’m in Clinton’s campaign, I’m more worried if am Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin or Jake Sullivan than if I’m Hillary Clinton,” Moss said. Mills, Abedin and Sullivan were all top aides of Clinton’s at the State Department. Abedin and Sullivan continue to hold high positions in Clinton’s presidential campaign. 

“The sloppiness and the complete fundamental failure to comply with any aspect of operational and informational security is what puts them at risk,” Moss said. “You just can’t do that that many times and not expect to find yourself in trouble.”

Clinton’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment from The Hill.

COMMENTS