January 29, 2016: FBI agents are saying “something’s happening” with their Clinton investigation.

Mika Brzezinski (left) Joe Scarborough (right) (Credit: public domain)

Mika Brzezinski (left) Joe Scarborough (right) (Credit: public domain)

Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” comments, “[T]he Hillary Clinton investigation of the FBI is far more progressed and [my co-host] Mika [Brzezinski] and I have been hearing it from the top officials in the Obama administration for actually several months now. And we can’t go to a meeting in Washington where we don’t hear that. […] All of our sources high up are telling us the same thing: that this investigation is far more advanced than we the public knows. What are you hearing?”

Mark Halperin, a political analyst at Bloomberg News, comments, “There’s a lot of chatter amongst FBI agents, many of whom have never been big fans of the Clintons, but a lot of FBI agents seem to be saying something is happening here. … [And] there are some people in the White House are starting to talk about this. It’s not clear whether they know what’s happening or it’s just their intuition but the body language among some Obama administration officials is, this is more serious and something is going to happen.” (MSNBC, 1/29/2016)

January 29, 2016: 22 emails retroactively deemed “top secret” had been sent through Clinton’s private server.

This is revealed by the State Department. However, the department will not make public any part of the 22 emails, not even the years they were sent or who sent them, because they contain such highly classified information. It is believed the 22 emails occurred in seven different email chains. (The New York Times, 1/29/2016) The US government defines “top secret” as “information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” (The New York Observer, 2/1/2016) 

A Clinton spokesperson claims that none of those emails originated with Clinton. (The Washington Post, 3/27/2016)

January 29, 2016: The State Department announces it is launching its own Clinton email investigation.

It will look into whether information on Clinton’s private server was classified at the time it was sent or received. The Wall Street Journal calls this a “dramatic reversal,” since the State Department has consistently downplayed the issue. This investigation is in addition to the FBI investigation and other inquiries. It is also separate from the investigation being conducted by the State Department’s inspector general office. (The Wall Street Journal, 1/29/2016)

January 29, 2016: Representative Darrell Issa says, “I think the FBI director would like to indict both Huma [Abedin] and Hillary [Clinton] as we speak.”

Representative Darrell Issa (Credit: public domain)

Representative Darrell Issa (Credit: public domain)

“I think he’s in a position where he’s being forced to triple-time make a case of what would otherwise be, what they call, a slam dunk.” Issa is a Republican and he chaired the House Oversight Committee from 2011 to 2015. (The Washington Examiner, 1/29/2016)

January 29, 2016—March 9, 2016: White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is criticized for his Clinton scandal comments.

On January 29, 2016, Earnest is asked if the White House believes Clinton will be indicted for her email scandal or not. He replies, “I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it’s trending, but I’m certainly not going to weigh in on a decision or in that process in any way. That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors. But, again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction.”

On March 9, Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that Earnest shouldn’t have made such comments. “Certainly, it’s my hope when it comes to ongoing investigations, that we would all stay silent. […] It is true that neither I nor anyone in the department has briefed Mr. Earnest or anyone in the White House about this matter. I’m simply not aware of the source of his information.”

Earnest then clarifies that he was only referring to his opinion of news reports. (Politico, 3/9/2016)