Any bets? Hillary gets a prosecutor visit in early Feb, and charges are publicly processed at the end of Feb? The Dems in a state of fear that it’s strictly Bernie...suddenly open some door for Bloomberg, who enters and gets just enough delegates, with super-delegates added....to win the Dem convention, then goes onto to meet Trump?
If you're like most people, your mental concept of the investigation of Hillary Clinton's Emailgate has probably involved a hazy idea that standard things are being done. I know that's been the image in my head — to the extent I've given it any thought.
The story line goes: Department of Justice has the FBI investigate something, with the idea that a grand jury may be convened and an indictment may be sought. A federal prosecutor is at the helm. His or her office would at some point be talking to us, explaining decisions about charges and prosecution.
That's the normal way of things. It's how our system works. But it hadn’t really registered with me that we have not heard from a federal prosecutor.
Andrew McCarthy has a must-read piece at NRO today, pointing this out. His fine~tuned prosecutor's radar keyed on this point from the wording of a recent New York Times article on the investigation of Hillary's rogue email server. The article was, as he puts it, unusually careful to stress the following:
Yet, in reporting the story, the Times' Mark Mazzetti took pains to stress: 'The government has said that Mrs. Clinton is not a subject of the investigation.'
McCarthy recognizes that it seems kind of crazy to anyone with common sense, to stress that Hillary Clinton is not a subject of an investigation that's all about something she did.
But that's the clue that there's no standard DOJ process going on. In a formal sense ~ a prosecutor's sense — there can only be a 'subject' if there's a judicial process being pursued. And there isn't one.