More and more reports/stories are beginning to surface about the FBI and its investigation into Hillary.
My question is this, 'Does anyone know the criteria it takes to initiate an investigation?
I understand it is not a court of law, and I am not sure where their powers are vested to carry on such a inquiry, but it ( reasons ) must be substantial to warrant this type of activity, yes?    


Really going out on a limb with this scenario, however, that has never stopped me before.
If I understand the reports of that night, Obama's whereabouts have never been revealed.
Is that true?
If yes, maybe it was him who stopped any action and not Hillary, and this is where it all gets tangled  
Personally I see him pulling such a stunt with all that we have learned since.
I believe Hillary would have a pretty easy time of giving a go ahead, if it falls within her jurisdiction.

Serowbot wrote on 01/14/16 at 21:52:43:


If that what you do, then no thanks.....
But I sure like the way you reason the NRA, and every law abiding citizen, who owns don't care if someone else gets killed, as long as they get to keep theirs.....

Nope, I'll stay the village so I don't have to pretend I know everything  

But hey, I didn't expect you to answer the question anyway, your attacks are predicable.
I will wait for a real scholar to school me, you can go out on the schoolyard and bully now......

From the last article about the FAST response being held at the border, only the pres can authorize it.  So if he was too busy to deal with it... it would not be in the secretaries authority to ok it.

Of course it's a criminal investigation, that's what the FBI does. They don't investigate allegations of good conduct......

Biden is still being held in the wings in case Hilary takes up residence in Martha Stewarts old cell....

Look, we all know what happened with respect to Benghazi. Obama wanted to play down any allegation that Islamic terrorist were growing under his policies so request for additional security was denied because he didn't want attention drawn to it. When the $hit hit the fan, they rolled the dice hoping everyone would get through this unharmed. Unfortunately, didn't work out that way. They under-estimated the situation on the ground. They needed a way out of this and the video was a convenient happenstance so they all agreed to blame the video. I'm sure it made sense at the time and who knows, maybe it was Hilary's idea to use the video as cover. Maybe it was Obama's. I tend to think it was Hilary or someone on her staff. Regardless, that was the cover plan they came up with.

However, when it was clear the video had nothing to do with it, they reaffirmed their deal that they were all gonna stick with that story no matter what. They figured, correctly for the most part, their liberal media friends would provide them cover. (the cover they never provided to their now deal ambassador by the way....) Fox News wouldn't let it go and eventually, even the media wearing the same color jersey as Obama/Hilary had to turn on them a little bit.

Now, Hilary is in the position she's in because she followed her bosses orders. She could have thrown him under the bus which leads me to believe she or her staff came up with the idea of blaming the whole thing on the video.

Lucky for them, the congressional hearings were run by Republicans who are dumb as a bag of hammer. Plus, even after clearly lying, the media touts the 11 testimony she gave as some kind of success.

And that children, is the story of Benghazi. The moral of this story is if your life depends upon the honor of Obama or Hilary, make sure you've got a good insurance policy to pay for your kids college....

They needed a way out of this and the video was a convenient happenstance so they all agreed to blame the video. I'm sure it made sense at the time and who knows.

It would only make sense to a narcissistic personality who sees the Dumb Masses as so stupid that they would believe such crap.

Which one was it?
At this point in time, what difference does it make?

That's what an investigation IS. Having probable cause to go and See IF a crime has been committed, or, seeing that a crime has been committed, then investigating to see how, etc, build a case.
No idea what percentage of FBI investigations result in no indictment. This may be one. Which, IMO, wouldn't be an indication of innocence,necessarily.