The other, however, is very real: Her email server.
Despite the attempt of liberal commenters (and Bernie Sanders) to insist "There's nothing to see here. Move along," it is inexcusable, and prima facie illegal, for a Secretary of State to keep state documents concerning sensitive diplomatic and national security matters on a private server in her bathroom. We now know this included information that was classified "Above Top Secret/SAP" (Special Access Programs). SAPs are the "crown jewels" of the intelligence community, Area 51-type secrets. Apparently, a Romanian guy who calls himself "Guccifer" hacked her server ("and it was pretty easy"), and the Russians hacked him. So the Russians now have about 20,000 of her emails, presumably containing all the American state secrets they were able to collect from HIllaryNet, which they are deciding whether and when to release. Clearly, from the U.S. government's point of view, Hillary created a serious security problem, and from her campaign's point of view, a looming threat.
Also relevant to those who profess interest in open and accountable governance, is the fact that her powder-room PC violated federal rules designed "to make and preserve records to be readily available when needed, such as for congressional inquiries or FOIA requests." Pardon me for thinking, especially since her lawyers have already deleted 30,000 of them, that hiding documents from public scrutiny might have been precisely the point.
But it doesn't make any difference what I think. It's what the FBI thinks that matters. In that regard, we should take notice that the FBI has extradited Guccifer, and is now interrogating Hillary's close aides. Yesterday Cheryl Mills, who was Clinton's Chief of Staff as Secretary of State, walked out of an FBI interview, according to the Washington Post, "after being asked about emails." And today (May 11th), I got a message from a friend of mine, who's been a close supporter of Hillary for a long time, saying that the FBI interviews with her staff are not going well, and it's "disturbing."
Then I typed "Joe Biden" into Google, and got this:
Seeds of doubt? Is it a coincidence that that the Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren pairing gets national press the day after Hillary's Chief of Staff walks out of an FBI interrogation?
Don't get me wrong. I, of course, think that Obama will do his best to steer the FBI investigation away from incriminating Hillary, who is too cherished an establishment fish to fry.
Unless, that is, the head of the FBI, James Comey, or a quorum of his senior agents, refuses to toe the line. Yesterday, Comey rejected Hillary's attempt to downplay the FBI investigation as a "routine inquiry." Comey is also the guy who, as Acting Attorney General in 2004, refused the order of his boss, John Ashcroft, to re-authorize a surveillance program Comey thought was illegal.
Or unless the Russians, who seem to have a soft spot for the Donald, release something fatally damaging. Would it not destroy her campaign if they just showed that they were able to get the documents from her server?
Or unless it becomes clear that Trump has, and will use, seriously damaging information from the FBI and/or SVR.
Or unless".
Turns out there are a number of possible scenarios in which the email card, played against Hillary's other weak cards--her increasingly obvious unlikeability, her rejection by youth and white workers, her inability to force Bernie out on schedule at all--will force her to fold.
Whatever anybody says in public, it's inconceivable that Hillary, and the DNC/Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, are not worrying--at least thinking--about this in some juice-filled room. And for the latter, that means preparing--at least considering--a plan B.