The Hill: FBI's Clinton investigation not letting up

[berni_mccoy]

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/267269-fbis-clinton-investigation-not-letting-up

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 or 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.

If Clinton gets the nomination and the FBI brings up recommendation of charges, even if against her aides, there is a really good chance she'll lose the General Election.

[Punkingal]

1. What a nightmare scenario....

[Helen Borg]

40. Imagine if she is the nominee and this thing blows up...

President Trump and VP Palin.

[hrmjustin]

2. Don't get your hopes up.

[berni_mccoy]

6. It's a real risk at this point.

Even if Clinton or her aides are not indicted, the recommendation of such will sway enough independents that she'd lose the election.

[hrmjustin]

9. This articke is mostly based on fox polling.

Most non partisan legal scholars agree there will be no indictment. There will be no recommendation.

Don't get your hopes up.

[FlatBaroque]

12. Would you kindly link us to where

"Most non partisan legal scholars agree there will be no indictment. There will be no recommendation. "

[hrmjustin]

13. You have google.

[FlatBaroque]

16. That's what I thought

[DemocratSinceBirth]

109. Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

[Fawke Em]

88. *I* may be partisan, but the company I work for isn't.

It's a data security company and, to a letter, most of our professional analysts think she should be indicted. They all have security clearances and say that if they'd done something like that, they would have been charged.

[still_one]

102. Well gee, I guess that makes it official. What a sack of nonesense

[Abouttime]

163. They aren't Hillary Clinton

No way in the world Hillary gets charged. We as a country don't hold our leaders accountable, if the previous Vice President didn't get charged for war crimes as heinous as any the Nazis committed why would we charge Hillary for something 1/100000 as serious?
This is going nowhere, they are just dotting the i's and crossing the t's on finishing this up. No harm no foul, no charges.

[randome]

8. Far too late for that.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[hrmjustin]

10. Yep. Hard to believe we see this on DU.

[roguevalley]

38. reality is hard for some

[Fawke Em]

91. This is not Benghazi.

Stop conflating the two.

This is a serious investigation by the FBI, not the Republican kangaroo court.

[cali]

21. Don't think this.won't be a honking big obstacle in the general election

[hrmjustin]

27. Good luck with that.

[cali]

32. Say what? I expect Hillary to be the nominee

I don't want a repuke in the White House, but I think Hillary will lose to Rubio or Kasich. She could beat Cruz. I doubt she could beat tRump. And the email mess will absolutely damage her. It already has and that's in the democratic primary.


I've said for years that Hillary will lose if she's the nominee.

[hrmjustin]

33. You say a lot of things.

[cali]

45. And you seem incapable of taking off your blinders.

[hrmjustin]

46. You are blinded by your hatred of Hillary.

[AlbertCat]

65. your hatred of Hillary.

This is not "hatred".

Pointing out things that are happening is not "hatred".


This is not the prayer circle or the interfaith group so you can drop the fundamentalist nomenclature.

[sabrina 1]

135. Why do you think people 'hate' politicians whose policies they don't agree with? Do YOU

hate for that reason? Just asking as it would never occur to me to think that when someone chooses a candidate to vote for, it means they harbor a personal hatred for the one they are not voting for??

You see that a lot coming from Hillary's supporters, the tossing around of the word 'hate'.

How can you 'hate' or 'love' a total stranger, someone you do not know personally someone who is asking you for a job?

You would have to be very personally, irrationally actually, involved with a politician to harbor such strong, wasted emotions on someone who doesn't even know you exist.

[redstateblues]

130. Well if you said it

it has to be true. The reality is that any Democrat that runs on raising taxes is toast. The last to do it was Walter Mondale. He won one state- MN

[libdem4life]

167. Might I kindly suggest that significantly reducing health care costs and slightly higher taxes

do not make Toast. And I was there for Mondale...voted for him even...and he didn't have any cool health care plan. So, there's that.

[leveymg]

54. Don't say we didn't try to warn you. This is going to hurt all Dems. But, HRC muddled on, anyway.

Thanks a lot for putting her arrogance, vanity and ambition above the interests of the rest of the Party.

[hrmjustin]

55. " Don't say we didn't try to warn you"

[leveymg]

58. What your response lacks in substance, it makes up with insult. No surprise,

as you clearly have nothing to say in response. Scraped from the bottom of the Sid barrel.

[hrmjustin]

60. We are all Sid!

[leveymg]

62. Spartacus, not. Dumb and Dumber, perhaps.

[2pooped2pop]

119. yes. it reminds me of how pissed I was

When Edwards kept running his campaign knowing that he had such a huge skeleton in his closet. What if he had already won the primary when his affair came out? He too would have handed the presidency to the republicans.
I wish this Hillary shit would wrap up immediately. Guilty or not (and I think at the very least it was another foolhardy dangerous decision on her part) but I don't want her to be our candidate then hand it all over to tRump or Rubio in the end.

[kenfrequed]

67. More fear than hope

I am willing to settle for Hillary if I absolutely have to. I would not be happy with it, but there you have it.

I am not "hoping" for email scandals. I am afraid of what might come of this.

[Ned_Devine]

79. I'm not settling this time

I'll vote in the primary for Bernie. In MA, I'll vote in the general for all the down ticket dems like I always do, but my presidential vote in this state doesn't matter so I don't have to plug my nose and vote for someone I am completely against, i.e. Hillary.

[kenfrequed]

89. I understand you point of view

I know it is rough and I am not giving one penny of support to the DNC or the Hillary campaign or even my state party until after the primary. I know how difficult it is to hold your nose and pull the lever and I respect your choice. It just isn't my choice.

I am also tired of our party pulling this crap and putting the interests of donors before people and trying to rig the primary process. I think Bernie Sanders, win or lose, is the START of a political revolution. We MUST be more aggressive and more assertive in what we believe in as progressives and me MUST be proud to say it and we MUST take over our party.


That said I will vote for the Democratic candidate. I just really am going to hope and work and donate to try to assure it is Bernie Sanders!

[peacebird]

3. What happens if she gets the nomination and they recommend charges?

Is there a mechanism to replace her as the nominee?

[Punkingal]

4. Probably not, and it wouldn't work anyway. We would just be screwed.

[berni_mccoy]

5. Even if there were such a way to replace her

At that point it's too late. You can't put someone up who didn't win even the party nomination and expect that person to win the General Election.

[karynnj]

30. True - and I suspect it would take her willingness to step down -- and that sounds very unlikely

( In fact, I suspect that unless Clinton thought the JD had an open/shut case AND Obama held out a pardon conditional on her dropping out, there would be absolutely no chance for this - and with that little chance.)

As a precedent - replacing the VP was devastating to the McGovern campaign -- and that was replacing a person who was not chosen by the people. The problem with putting someone else up as the President - is that you have two choices - pick the person who lost or pick someone who didn't even run.

Both seem to defy Democratic process. If the race were close, I would prefer they name the loser - but it runs the risk of about half the party saying his positions/ideas had been rejected. Picking someone else is worse -- they have not even been tested this time around.

[Reter]

96. They would pick Biden

As much as I want them to pick Sanders, party bosses want someone more establishment.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

22. I think convention rules would allow Hillary to be replaced as the candidate... although Bernie winning the nomination will make it a mute point.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[navarth]

37. grammar nazi

it's actually 'moot' point. No offense.

Personally, I thank people when they correct my grammar or spelling. I hope you're not offended, none intended.

Hey, that rhymes..

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

43. I just ignore grammar Nazis by hittin the "moot" button... lol... seriously thx, no offense taken.

[navarth]

48. smileys!!!

[ejbr]

49. An ellipsis should have three periods...

I couldn't resist.

[navarth]

51. dammit

ya got me pal!

Please note: I am purposefully reverting to the vernacular.

[ejbr]

52. All in good fun!

[nxylas]

57. Actually four at the end of a sentence....

Three in the middle...at least that's what I was taught.

[artislife]

63. Actually, I love this subthread

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 04:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I am learning things that passed me by! I did know moot, but had no idea of the name for this... or for the how many and where!

I use them a lot, it stops auto correct in its tracks!

Edited to fix typo! That's what I get for typing on the laptop instead of the phone which would have auto corrected it!

[yeoman6987]

136. I learn from the grammar police too

I feel funny at first getting called out, but the next time I am in the position again, I remember the correction. It's actually awesome.

[ejbr]

103. Four?

That I didn't know. Thank you.

[mikehiggins]

108. I believe the rule is three for the elipsis, one for the end of sentence period. N/T

[nxylas]

115. Apparently, the last one represents the period

Can't remember where I read that, though, so I may be wrong.

[grasswire]

101. she would need to step down

...but what are the chances of that?

[RiverLover]

7. I really wish the blatantly corrupt candidate was a republican.

She does not reflect well on, nor does she represent, her party base at all.

Her supporters can try all day to paint lefties as the extreme left tea party, but we're actually just the base of the party. Democrats are on the LEFT. And we are decent caring people who want Democracy for the people by the people put back into the DEMOCRAtic party and the country.

Not have some purchased, corrupt, secretive, war-mongering conservative as our presumptive leader.

This is the most bizarre presidential election of all time.

[nyabingi]

86. Great post and opinions

The base of the Democratic Party is truly much farther to the left than the people who we've been sending to Washington, and I think this election cycle is the base, once again, fighting to regain control of the party from the damn-near-Republican wing.

The right-wing Democrats should have recognized their folly when a large chunk of would-be Democratic voters opted for Ralph Nader over Al Gore, but the whole thing went right over their heads.

[2pooped2pop]

155. Yep

[restorefreedom]

11. just more evidence that the clintons only care about themselves

even if this leads to nothing, lets say hillary gets the nom (unlikely) and wins a ge (nearly impossible).

what do we think is going to be the first order of business? IMPEACHMENT. it will drag on through most of a first (and last) term, nothing will get done, and the repubs will sweep midterms as well as the next pres election. if she even survives a first term legally, she will probably be primaried. the country will go into a tailspin, and it will take years to recover from it and decades for the dems to recover.

do they care that they will be putting the country through this? of course not. she is running for HER. bernie is running for US.

[RiverLover]

19. That ^ is a really good look at the big picture.

I hadn't thought that far ahead. You're absolutely right, restore.

[restorefreedom]

151. :). sucks to be right about stuff like this.

this is not good for any of us if this scenario plays out.

[NV Whino]

25. The people who say she is more electable don't seem to understand this scenario.

Even without this investigation hanging over her head she is not electable. With it, she is most certainly not electable.

[restorefreedom]

150. and if by some freak accident, were elected

this is all we would ever hear about. no progress for the country.

[NV Whino]

158. Yep. N/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. The Democrats actually picked up seats during the Impeachment trial

The U.S. House elections in 1998 were part of the midterm elections held during President Bill Clinton's second term. They were a major disappointment to the Republican Party, which was expecting to gain seats due to the embarrassment Clinton suffered during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and the "six-year itch" effect observed in most second-term midterm elections. However, the Republican lost five seats to the Democratic Party, but retained a narrow majority in the House. A wave of Republican discontent with Speaker Newt Gingrich prompted him to resign shortly after the election; he was replaced by Congressman Dennis Hastert of Illinois


With the GOP having lost 5 House seats and failing to gain any seats in the Senate, it was the first time since 1934 that the non-presidential party failed to gain congressional seats in a mid-term election. It was also the first time since 1822 that the non-presidential party had failed to gain seats in the mid-term election of a President's second term.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1998

[cali]

34. Hillary already has sky high unfavorables. Most people simply

do not trust her. This is a completely different situation with different people.

[restorefreedom]

149. unfortuntely for hillary, she is not her husband.

the fav/unfav between the two of them is enourmous. she could not overcome this. and neither could the country. the repubs are itching to get at her one way or another. and the people will pay the price for this major distraction.

but thanks for the wiki link

[2pooped2pop]

157. Are you advocating for Hillary because being impeached is good?

Surely I read that wrong. Not only would they be the first husband and wife to be potus, they would also be the only ones impeached. That should tell us something right there.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

162. Sir or madame...

Sir or madame, I know you were not putting words in my mouth. I am sure, sir or madame, that wasn't your intention, and a man or woman of your inestimable intelligence and stellar character won't do it again.


Respectfully,

DemocratSinceBirth

[2pooped2pop]

164. Lol but you posted how good Bill's impeachment was for other dems. Unless I misunderstood, which is

Always possible. What was I suppose to take that from that? And do you really call people sir or madame in real life or just online? As for not doing if again, I most certainly will question a post like that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

165. Sir or madame....

"...Lol but you posted how good Bill's impeachment was for other dems. Unless I misunderstood..."

I posted that to disabuse my interlocutor of the notion that the Clinton impeachment was a disaster for Democrats.

And do you really call people sir or madam in real life or just online?

Only those people I hold most dear.


Respectfully,

DemocratSinceBirth

[2pooped2pop]

166. Lol you sure do try to make the simple things complicated.

But it still kind of sounds pro impeachment to me.

[global1]

31. WoW!!! You've Painted A Nightmare Scenario....

If Hillary really cared about the Country and the Dem Party and not only about herself and her aspiration of being the first woman president - then she should drop out of this primary. Why risk the future of the country and the party? Is it worth the risk?

[restorefreedom]

148. it is not worth the risk. an indictment or an impeachment.

its a certainty that one or both will occur. this is what personal ambition at the expense of everyone else looks like

[MissDeeds]

61. All excellent points

Why would the party run a candidate who is embroiled in so many controversies? Of course innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land, but with the Clintons it's always something. There are always scandals or rumors of scandals, something to explain away or deflect.

Not only would the GE be a full out assault on Hillary and her 'baggage', but it would hurt the party that we ran her as a candidate. In the unlikely event she would win, she will be stonewalled at every turn and would likely face impeachment early on. There are real and important issues that need to be addressed from day one. We don't need a candidate whose personal issues will take time and effort away from those issues.

[grasswire]

107. Too Flawed To Run As A Democrat

that should be the new meme regarding Hillary.

[MissDeeds]

113. Works for me n/t

[restorefreedom]

147. it would set the country and the party back decades

and as for us, the people, .....screwed.

[treestar]

95. that is caving to the Republicans

[restorefreedom]

146. running a candidate who is either going to be indicted or impeached

is political suicide for the dems

but tptb would rather see trump than bernie anyway

[treestar]

152. Republicans would look for a way to find something on Bernie

They will threaten that kind of thing no matter who we choose - and we shouldn't choose by fear of their threats. That's caving to them.

[restorefreedom]

153. its not an idle threat when the fbi is investigating

and legal scholars have said there are almost certainly prosecutable offenses committed.

its political suicide

[MineralMan]

14. 'Former FBI officials said...'

All I needed to know. When media outlets are reduced to quoting people who no longer work at the FBI for their story, I'm out.

"Former" says it all.

[bigdarryl]

15. If I remember correctly the FBI refuted the NY Times article

Saying Clinton might be facing an indictment they came out and said Mrs. Clinton wasn't a target of an indictment.

[berni_mccoy]

17. Why haven't they concluded their investigation then? On the contrary...

they've expanded it in two directions:

1. To investigate involvement in the Clinton Foundation
2. To go directly to the sources of the classified info to determine if the info was classified at the time it was sent through her servers.

[hrmjustin]

20. What is your source on the clinton foundation?

[berni_mccoy]

41. Here

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/265402-report-fbi-expanding-clinton-investigation-to-look-into-public-corruption

Granted it's Fox News reporting on sources in the FBI, but hey, our own Steven Lesser who is a Clintons supporter (and I believe endorsed her) is a political pundit on Fox News.

[hrmjustin]

44. This is all i need to know.

[morningfog]

50. Thy never said that.

They said the subject of the investigation is the servers. There is no target, but that doesn't mean no charges could result. They will follow the trial to whomever it leads.

[Akicita]

69. "subject of the investigation is the server"?

That's like if T-Rump actually shot someone on 5th Ave. like he said and the police said "The subject of the murder investigation is the gun".

[leveymg]

56. The Attorney General determines whether there is an Indictment. But, the investigation is a reality

The FBI refused to confirm that HRC is a target, but the investigation goes on. The Bureau can recommend indictment, but the decision to convene a Grand Jury belongs to the AG.

The longer this lingers, the worse the damage to the Democratic Party.

[Babel_17]

97. Only the DOJ can name targets (afaik)

The DOJ's attorneys are not involved with the FBI investigation.

[book_worm]

18. You know if they are going to file charges they should do so before she is nominated

IF she is nominated.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. I agree - with 150 agents investigating Hillary's secret server, the FBI should be able to decide whether to indict her well before the convention...

... I think we should all just take a deep breath and let the FBI investigation move forward. The facts will come out and then we'll know if there's any there there.

[leveymg]

125. The FBI makes findings - the AG decides to convene a Grand Jury, which may vote to Indict.

There is no prosecution unless and until the Attorney General decides to pull the trigger. The Grand Jury usually votes to Indict. The Indictment may be sealed for a long time. The US Attorney may decide to do nothing, and the President may pardon, whether there is an indictment or not, as in the case of CIA Director John Deutch (Google him). Federal Justice System 101.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. The FBI investigates. The DOJ prosecutes.

EOM

[karynnj]

35. If they file charges -- if things even warrant doing so -- the timing has to depend on the time

needed to properly build the case. Unless they have a very strong case, they should not do anything - as they would be harming Clinton irreparably with a flimsy case.

[winter is coming]

140. I wish they'd shit or get off the pot about this. Voters should know one way or the

other if she's going to be indicted before they go to the polls.

[azurnoir]

23. and the Democratic party that is the DNC wants to go into the general with sh#t going on?

really?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

24. Why I hope that if charges are forthcoming, they come BEFORE she has a chance to win the

nomination, so that she only loses the primary, and doesn't automatically cost Dems the general.

[nxylas]

72. I suspect that depends on whether Republicans are pulling the strings

If they are, they would have motive for holding back until the primaries are over.

[Jarqui]

36. We don't know precisely what they have or don't have because the FBI or

other authorities investigating are not talking much. The IG's letter is not good:


What we also know is that it's still going on. That isn't good for the party or Clinton.

Some of the media I've read seems to have some of it figured out - and that's not looking good for Clinton's assistants.

We also know Bryan Pagliano could testify with immunity. They could drop that just before Super Tuesday to hurt her.

And it's been alleged that they're looking at the Clinton Foundation and the State Department and what went on there now. That's the one that frightens me most because the GOP can do a Joe McCarthy guilt-by-association on her insinuating wrong doing without full proof - an email here and a contract or donation there and you've got a living conspiracy. Most of us won't fall for it. But the media will lap it up and that could move 2.5% of her voters into the GOP column - which would alter a lot of close elections. She could be totally innocent but remains very vulnerable here.

[humbled_opinion]

39. She has a responsibility to address this

to the entire Democratic party... She can't keep saying nothing is wrong or I did nothing wrong or move on because we need to know before we invest...

[LiberalArkie]

42. I don't think it makes any difference at all to her supporters, like Watergate, Iran-Contra and Bill

Clintons impeachment did not have any effect to their supporters.

[thesquanderer]

47. But she doesn't win the general on the votes of her die-hard supporters alone.

She needs to capture a bunch of independent and other voters, who largely don't like her, but luckily, often like the Republican alternatives even less. A new scandal at the right (well, wrong) time could make it that much harder to capture those additional votes she needs.

[LW1977]

53. Okay, their has to be trolling Republicans pretending to be Bernie supporters here...

If not, you're making Bernie supporters look bad, and shame on you!

[DUbeornot2be]

81. People who say...

...'shame on you' are the same as those other people criticising each other...

One big old circle jerk we got going on here!

[merrily]

59. Didn't Hillary ask her staffers to send those classified emails? If so, how does she escape

liability? Moreover, did she create the server set up or have it created with the idea that classified material would be sent and received on it? Surely, she knew a Secretary of State sends and received classified material, whether it's "marked" classified at the moment or not. (That whole "marked classifed" distinction is bs anyway.)

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 to her by aides.

Are they setting us up to accept she has no liability in this? That can't be right.

[artislife]

66. The voice of clarity, once again merrily.

Surely, she knew a Secretary of State sends and received classified material, whether it's "marked" classified at the moment or not. (That whole "marked classifed" distinction is bs anyway.)

[merrily]

68. Thank you kindly!

[VulgarPoet]

70. "Marked classified" can be called as a coy word game by anyone with a clearance

I just feel sorry for her staffers, because "Befehl ist befehl" won't save 'em.

[glinda]

64. Her "stock" holds too much risk.

I say sell....

[AlbertCat]

77. Her "stock" holds too much risk.

Y'know, when Clinton started running in the other primary, I thought: "Oh no, not another Clinton!" not because I disliked the Clintons or anything, but, what IS this? Passing down the leadership husband to wife... Bush's father to son... Aristocracy? Isn't not doing that the whole point of the USA? And then I thought: 'There's so much baggage! Tons of it!". But, no.... those are no reasons to reject a candidate. It's the issues that count!

She lost the primary and I didn't have to worry about any of it.

Now we have this primary. Again I thought at the beginning not wanting her to run because of name and baggage.... a lot of it thrust on her and empty suitcases... is as foolish as voting for someone because they are female. Again... it's the issues that are important.

Well, Clinton sux on the issues. And it turns out, all that baggage and her name DOES matter, whether it's fair or not.

Look at how ridiculous the GOP got during Bill's terms. And then, though I don't care what Bill does sexually, how DUMB is it to do it in the Oval Office with a Fellini-esque intern???? Remember all those unhinged accusations from Vince Foster to putting crack pipes on the White House Christmas tree? The Right is even NUTTIER now, and Hillary has a lot of real baggage to carry along with the stupid stuff.

Just for practical reasons, let's nominate someone else!

[glinda]

168. Last election I was for her. After learning more

and thinking about the future and being familiar with Sen. Sanders work, it was not difficult for me to make the choice.

[sorefeet]

71. They didn't do shit to General Betrayus

A small fine for him and it was done. He probably didn't even pay the fine ,a crony did. But the Republicans will do their best to destroy her AND the country.

[leveymg]

75. Likely ended whatever political ambitions he may have had. Maybe not.

If Hillary survives, maybe there's hope for him to become President one day, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. Petraeus deliberated shared classified information with his mistress...

Petraeus deliberated shared classified information with his mistress and lied about it to the FBI... The latter is what really pissed them off...

[EndElectoral]

73. There's a good chance she loses anyway.

[Akicita]

74. This really has the potential to sully President Obama's legacy and

cause great harm to the Democrat Party. If the FBI has the goods and wants to press charges and the Justice Dept. refuses it could turn into a huge scandal possibly rivaling Watergate. Especially if FBI higher ups start resigning and spilling the beans. That could damage the Democrat Party for years.

I am no Hillary fan at all, but for the sake of the Democrat Party, President Obama, and the country, I sure hope she is innocent of any criminal acts.

If she did break the law, I hope President Obama does the right thing for the sake of the above.

[leveymg]

85. Problem is, her violations of federal felony statute are clear on their face.

Unlike Watergate, there is no question from the beginning that she authorized a crime when she had classified materials loaded onto and transmitted through her private server without first obtaining authorization.

She compounded that crime by instructing subordinates to strip information out of classified documents and transmit that material through the unauthorized server. The CIA IG and IG of the Intelligence Community both attest that there are highly classified documents on HRC's server. That is a prima facie case, and the U.S. Attorney General should seek a Grand Jury indictment.

This isn't Watergate in the sense that it was a complete subversion of democratic process, but there is no question that she was trained regarding handling of classified materials, signed a security agreement, and proceeded, nevertheless, to violate that agreement. She has committed acts that are felony violations.

[Akicita]

98. So far they are alleged violations. My Watergate analogy refers not to what she did

but to what would happen if the Justice Department refused to indict and initiated a cover up for political reasons in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing. That's a big if and I hope the president does not go down that road if it comes to it.

[leveymg]

120. Alleged in the sense that she hasn't been prosecuted. But, the acts are clearly criminal

Last edited Thu Jan 28, 2016, 03:56 PM - Edit history (1)

My feeling is that the more likely historical antecedent is the Clinton Administration's handling of CIA Director John Deutch. If you will recall, he was found to have taken classified materials home which he plugged into his insecure home laptop, and proceeded to plug them into his unsecured home internet. The classified materials were found on the computer, judged to have been a violation of his security agreement, and he resigned. The CIA IG and the Office of Information Security (which deals with breaches and policy) recommended prosecution, but Attorney General Janet Reno let the matter drag out until Clinton's last day in office, when Clinton pardoned Deutch.

The CIA IG report -- http://www.apfn.org/apfn/deutch2.htm -- found that “all [computers] were connected to or contained modems that allowed external connectivity to computer networks such as the Internet.” The information found on these computers included “Top Secret communications intelligence” as well as information "related to covert action" and “National Reconnaissance Program.” The IG criticized senior CIA officials for not immediately taking appropriate action against Deutch when they were apprised of the results of the security investigation. That was one of the reasons the IG “initiated an independent investigation.”

Of course, John Deutch wasn't running for President.

[Akicita]

129. That is a better factual anolgy but the political damage done

would be much, much, more serious than Deutch if the administration acts politically rather than by the rule of law. I would have no problem with President Obama granting Clinton a pardon if she is guilty but her campaign would be toast. If she is guilty she shouldn't be allowed to drag the party down with her, although I have no doubt she would if she thought that would give her any chance of prevailing. With the Cintons its all about them.

[leveymg]

133. Exactly how I see it, as well. n/t

[grasswire]

110. the "Democrat" party?

Hmmmmm.

[hollysmom]

76. please inform me - what possible charges could there be?

I just don't see any charges possible.this is not a partisan answer, I really just do not understand? Everything that could be known, should be known by now.

[randome]

82. "Failure to be Bernie Sanders" is the charge some are hoping for.

I think some are forgetting the fact that other cabinet members have done the exact same thing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[hollysmom]

83. you know I am one of the people who despise the petty and bitterness posted around here lately

if you want to be valuable - and support your candidate, do it in a positive way, if you want to be negative anxd shit call over the opposition, well, that is something you would see at freeperville,
I would like to be above that kind of crap. Obviously you are not.
trying to be positive here is like shovelling against the tide. time for a break.

[randome]

84. Sorry, but this fervent wishing for something to 'ding' Clinton with seems rather sad.

So I respond by injecting some levity into the conversation. Oh, well, I'm not for everyone.

And notice how no one can answer your original question.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[hollysmom]

87. I do levity when I am in a topic that seems to call for it.

and I have been called out for it by the person posting the OP. heh. I actually had to justify why I brought up my dog in one topic here recently, and I was answering seriously in that case,

[leveymg]

90. Violations of 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Links contained in post here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[randome]

93. And as Huddie94 points out in that thread:

F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.

In other words, no one is accusing Clinton of anything. This is just more fervent wishing that something will 'stick'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Akicita]

99. And once they determine who, the next question is why. If it was done at her behest

she is in deep shit.

[randome]

100. But no one is accusing her nor are they investigating her, currently.

It's been months and there are some who still cling to the 'hope' that there will be a scandal. Months. Personally, I think it's time to move on.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Akicita]

111. C'mon think about it.

If stolen goods were found in your house and it looks like people who work for you put them there, you can probably assume the authorities are investigating whether you were involved even if they say they are only investigating the stolen goods and how and why they got in your house.

[randome]

117. It's email, not stolen goods. You can't prevent someone sending you an email.

You can have it shunted into your spam folder, but you can't prevent it from arriving in the first place.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[Akicita]

121. It's classified information, the possession of which on a private server is much

more serious than possession of stolen goods. I don't think a hundred FBI agents would be assigned to a stolen goods case. Do you really believe all those emails containing classified information(supposedly over a thousand so far) were shunted to her spam folder or was she using them for her job as SOS?

[leveymg]

131. Of course it was at her behest. There was no other way for email to reach her except through that

unauthorized server. This is actually an unusually simple Sec. 793 case to prove, but the most difficult to prosecute in history

[leveymg]

127. No. She knew that her server was unauthorized. She knew that classified materials went through it

in and out through an insecure network connection. She apparently had her own reasons for this unauthorized transmission of classified materials in violation of Sec. 793. It's really a cut and dried case.

[hollysmom]

94. thank you, that is a lot to read,I have bookmarked it for tonight when I will have more time.

[lark]

78. How freaking convenient for the Repugs.

Bet it's the Bush imbeds that are making sure that this hits at the worst time. Wonder if Obama can preemptively pardon her to avoid a political nightmare? Of course, best case is Bernie wins the primary so this doesn't kill Dems.

[Babel_17]

80. Clarence Page, on The Mclaughlin Group, said no indictment, but one would be recommended

Go to 26:37 for the panel predictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Page

He's been around a long time, and has been a solid liberal, so his prediction is interesting, imo.

My guess is that an indictment will be recommended for some Clinton aides. For Secretary Clinton there will be no recommendation, the FBI will be neutral but they will list the security violations they see her as having made. They will say or imply that it's up to the DOJ to decide if her being SOS is exculpatory enough to preclude prosecution. The FBI will be neutral, but will submit troubling evidence that will be enough for an indictment, if the DOJ were so inclined.

The Nixon defense of "When the President does it, that means that it's not illegal." doesn't quite apply here as security protocols are meant to apply to all. But the SOS has to be allowed extraordinary discretion. Yadda, yadda, yadda, the FBI sees violations but is willing to drop the whole thing in the DOJ's lap. Let the public and the DOJ decide things, now having all the facts. At the end of the day Secretary Clinton is a politician who is elected/appointed to office, and not a career civil servant.

Needless to say, I'm at an enormous remove from being a Washington insider. There might be circumstances that will excuse all Clinton staffers, or instead Clarence Page might have heard of a tidbit that will make the FBI actually compelled to recommend an indictment. We can look to the Petraeus case to see how fanatical about enforcing penalties for breaking regulations the security establishment can be. Different cases, but the same mentality goes to how to all instances regarding lapses in security are reviewed.

[Z_California]

92. This is the "safe" choice for our nominee?

If you don't support the candidate of the "Very Serious People" with 54% negatives who may be indicted, then you're a "Berniebro". Got it.

[draa]

116. Too bad for them they exposed themselves to the base.

Not likely that I'll ever vote for them again. I hope to hell that other people are watching and paying attention because as long as we vote for the shit our party does we will never have a party that isn't corrupt or bought by power.

Just stop voting for the fuckers and problem solved. Or at least it is for me because I'd no longer be comprising my principles or values to vote for pond scum. Even if I have to write my own name in they no longer get shit from me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

105. Petraeus prosecutor: Clinton committed no crime

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/

[Babel_17]

122. That was in August, he now says ...

"At this point [it is] an acknowledged fact, that she had information at the highest level of classification on an unsecured server that she maintained. That is at least as serious, if not far more serious, than what sustained a charge against Gen. [David] Petraeus," he said, referring to the former CIA head prosecuted for passing government secrets to his mistress.
"If it was exposed to being hacked then that could very well be gross negligence in the handling of defense information. That is a felony and there are other charges as well.

"[And] if any of the emails that were destroyed were, in fact, information or emails relating to her official duties, that would be a violation of a statute as well."

Ironically he said that while on a Newsmax TV show. I just googled his name along with the Clinton FBI investigation, and there it was. Only a few days old so presumably it reflects his current thinking pretty well. Shocking, nearly a 180 degree turn from his previous position. Washington is a rumor mill and presumably he has some kind of a pipeline. Is what he's hearing accurate? We'll soon know.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. Michael Mukasey was

"At this point an acknowledged fact, that she had information at the highest level of classification on an unsecured server that she maintained. That is at least as serious, if not far more serious, than what sustained a charge against Gen. Petraeus," he said, referring to the former CIA head prosecuted for passing government secrets to his mistress.
"If it was exposed to being hacked then that could very well be gross negligence in the handling of defense information. That is a felony and there are other charges as well.

" if any of the emails that were destroyed were, in fact, information or emails relating to her official duties, that would be a violation of a statute as well."

Ironically he said that while on a Newsmax TV show. I just googled his name along with the Clinton FBI investigation, and there it was. Only a few days old so presumably it reflects his current thinking pretty well. Shocking, nearly a 180 degree turn from his previous position. Washington is a rumor mill and presumably he has some kind of a pipeline. Is what he's hearing accurate? We'll soon know.

-Babel17

As my attorney friend would say, we seem to be arguing on parallel tracks.

Dear sir or madame, Michael Mukasey was George W. Bush's Attorney General and is currently an adviser to Jeb Bush. I was citing Anne Tompkins, the woman who actually prosecuted General Petraeus, ergo:

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently compared the inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server when she was secretary of State with former CIA director David Petraeus’ federal conviction for the unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.

As the former U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina, I oversaw the prosecution of Gen. Petraeus, and I can say, based on the known facts, this comparison has no merit. The key element that distinguishes Secretary Clinton’s email retention practices from Petraeus’ sharing of classified information is that Petraeus knowingly engaged in unlawful conduct, and that was the basis of his criminal liability.

The facts of Petraeus’ case are a matter of public record. During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest levels.

http://tinyurl.com/oz9sllo

BTW, you do know Newsmax is a right wing source and Michael Mukasey was George W. Bush's Attorney General and is currently advising Jeb Bush, right?


Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth

[Babel_17]

139. Woops, I see now, the snip read to me like it was an intro to Michael Mukasey

I thought the first paragraph was the into to him, and the rest was quoting him.

If I would have dug deeper I could have seen what you refer to. I thought Mukasey was your dog in this fight, so using what he said on that show would be acceptable.

Woops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Tompkins

Still, what was known back in August is different that what is known now. I'd like to hear her recent thoughts, preferably from an interview. A good Democrat, an Obama appointee, saying back in August "nothing to see hear" doesn't move me especially regarding the FBI investigation of the server.

"Indeed, the State Department has confirmed that none of the information that has surfaced on Clinton’s server thus far was classified at the time it was sent or received."

Pretty sure that argument is now widely held to be inoperative.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. No problem...

Stripped way of niceties, most Republican attorneys believe she should be in the dock and most Democratic attorneys believe that while her actions were careless they weren't illegal.

And that's why DOJ won't touch it.

[Babel_17]

170. Thank you. The politics can sure be a sticking point. (nt)

[leveymg]

141. Tompkins' a donor to Clinton's campaign. She didn't even touch on the issue of presumed classified

materials in this August Op-ed, as found by the CIA IG and head of the Office of Information Security Oversight which rules on violations of security clearances. Since that article was published, it's come to light that there are more than 1,000 highly classified documents on the server and that Secretary Clinton ordered subordinates to strip classified information out of documents and email them to her.

[jillan]

106. It hangs over her head. How can anyone say this will not hurt her in the general?

This is not going away because they will not have the final report until right before the election.

Get out of your bubble people! The goppers are going to have a field day with this.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

114. The same way Bill Clinton was re-elected in a landslide while the target of a special prosecutor.

DSB

[jillan]

118. You cannot compare that - I'm sorry to say because I will vote for Hillary in the general, if

she is the nominee and I will do all I can to help her win.

Bill was a governor of Arkansas with a loose zipper.
Hillary was secretary of state and represented us all over the world. A little different scenario.
Not to mention that Bill was not President during facebook, twitter, DU, etc etc etc.

You can act like this is not a problem. But I prefer to live in reality. We need to retain the Whitehouse at the very least.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. Sir or madame I am grounded in reality

Sir or madame, I am grounded in reality, and I respectfully submit the evidence suggests that Hillary Clinton has an infinitely better chance of holding on to the White House than a seventy five year old independent senator turned Democrat from a small, sparsely populated, homogeneous state, ergo:

The majority of Americans think Hillary Clinton is going to win the presidential election in November, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll. Assuming Clinton is going up against Donald Trump in the general election, 54 percent of Americans said they'd expect Clinton to win; the poll also reports that among registered voters — who tend to be more Republican-leaning — some 52 percent expect Clinton to win. Clinton is also seen trouncing Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio by larger margins than she's expected to beat Trump.

Bernie Sanders is also expected to perform well against the GOP, although Americans are less certain he could beat Trump. However, the poll saw Americans expecting Sanders to beat Cruz or Rubio in a general election matchup. On the whole, higher educated Americans expect Clinton and Sanders to beat out their GOP opponents.


http://theweek.com/speedreads/601868/most-americans-think-hillary-clinton-going-next-president

The general election observer is probably most interested in who will win. When it comes
to U.S. presidential elections, vote expectation surveys are likely to provide the best answer to
this question. In addition, the results of such surveys can be translated into highly accurate vote
share forecasts.11
Vote expectation surveys are inexpensive and easy to conduct, and the results are easy to
understand. They should be more strongly utilized by election observers as well as researchers

https://forecasters.org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/7-2a51b93047891f1ec3608bdbd77ca58d/2013/07/Graefe_vote_expectations_ISF.pdf

Respectfully,
DemocratSinceBirth

[retrowire]

112. Hillary is TOO DAMN risky

She's untrustworthy, the Republicans hate her the most, she's got too many skeletons in the closet...

Come on guys. Voting Hillary isn't even worth that trouble.

[redstateblues]

132. Any Democrat who runs on raising taxes

as Bernie is doing is toast. The last to do it was Walter Mondale. He won one state- MN

[retrowire]

138. when was that, 1984?

a lot has changed since then.

A LOT.

[840high]

145. Hillary has so many issues. She

is a detriment to our party.

[randys1]

126. What isn't letting up is the endless references to this on DU.

The right loves to talk about this....


...


...

[redstateblues]

128. Bernie supporters everywhere cheer

[Purveyor]

134. I just hope I get to post the LBN on the finding of the FBI's investigation...

[MrWendel]

137. Could Hilary haters...

fess up and admit that they were all Trey Gowdy fans for at least that one fateful day when the Benghazi hearings happened, and they are still hoping against hope now that something else will come down the line?

[leveymg]

142. I used to like Hillary Clinton, before I learned about Hillary Clinton.

Not, so much now. As for Trey Gowdy, he's a putz who did nothing but muddy the waters of Sec. Clinton's Libya and Syria policy.

[MrWendel]

143. Not to mention the fact...

that he didn't do his job right and nail Clinton when he had the chance to right?

[leveymg]

156. The disingenuous tend to also be incompetent putzes.

Trey and most of his crew fit both descriptions.

[Jim Lane]

144. Clinton's email problem is like Sanders's "Socialist" problem

Some of the people who decry any discussion of the email issue have been among those screaming that Sanders, as the nominee, would get clobbered by Republican attack ads superimposing a hammer and sickle over his face.

I don't think those comments by Clinton supporters constitute red-baiting, just as I don't think that comments by Clinton opponents about email problems constitute purveying right-wing memes. In both cases, it's legitimate for Democrats to consider that a particular line of attack, even if without merit, might nevertheless sway some general-election voters whom our nominee will need.

An indictment of Clinton would be a huge problem, and an indictment of any of her aides would be an only slightly smaller problem. The tougher question is what happens if there's an official statement that Clinton departed from best practices for IT security (which I think she herself has already admitted) but that there was no criminality. The GOP will of course say that the Department of Justice is, at Obama's orders, covering up a prominent Democrat's crime. The Republican partisans will eat this up but they weren't going to vote for Clinton anyway. What may turn out to be critical is whether such a line of attack resonates with a significant number of the genuinely swing voters. (I have the same question about the projected attack on Sanders using the "socialist" word over and over.)

[HassleCat]

154. Nobody will pay any attention

I think we all know the "scandal" is pretty much made up, probably an attempt by the various parts of the "intelligence community" to shuffle responsibility off themselves and onto Clinton. It's mostly rumor and speculation, wishful thinking by people who hate Clinton. The voters will largely not care.

[leveymg]

161. Captain of Titanic: "We hit an Iceberg. Don't worry, it's now just crushed ice for cocktails."

Come and enjoy a complementary chilled beverage in the starboard lounges. We will be resuming our record-breaking voyage to New York any minute now. You are part of history. We hope you are as thrilled as we are. At White Star Line it is our pleasure to be part of this with you. We know that you have choices in your TransAtlantic steam voyage experience, and we thank you."

[Mike Nelson]

159. They can re-label everything "Top Secret"...

...she still won't be found guilty and hanged, as Ted Nugent suggests.

[eridani]

171. Even if (as I suspect) it's all bullshit, it is going to cause a great deal of trouble--

--for all Dem candidates.