HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Of course Hillary won't g...

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:13 AM

Of course Hillary won't get indicted. All that will happen is that the FBI will RECOMMEND indictment

and the DoJ will refuse to act on the FBI's recommendation and this will haunt Hillary without her ever going to court to clear up the matter.

Ultimately, those who like Hillary (like me) will continue to like her and those who distrust and dislike Hillary will have another log to toss onto their bonfire of hate and mistrust, and this is a problem because Hillary cannot win a general election without moving the many, many voters who currently dislike and distrust her (and if you think people dislike her on DU, buckle up before entering the real world where loyalty to the Democratic Party counts for nothing):









I believe Hillary deliberately tried to avoid compliance with the Freedom of Information Act -- just like Bush-Cheney, Gov. Christie, Gov. Perry, Gov. Jeb!, and many other Republicans.

I believe this is bad, but not impeachable.

I believe Hillary will NOT be indicted nor SHOULD she be indicted.

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPECT OR WANT HILLARY TO BE INDICTED TO SEE THIS IS GENERAL ELECTION POISON!

155 replies, 9009 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 155 replies Author Time Post
Reply Of course Hillary won't get indicted. All that will happen is that the FBI will RECOMMEND indictment (Original post)
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 OP
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #1
amborin Mar 2016 #2
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #3
amborin Mar 2016 #26
Travis_0004 Mar 2016 #29
amborin Mar 2016 #123
tex-wyo-dem Mar 2016 #129
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #132
Hydra Mar 2016 #135
2banon Mar 2016 #144
Vote2016 Mar 2016 #147
Zambero Mar 2016 #73
FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #5
senz Mar 2016 #94
FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #103
desmiller Mar 2016 #153
bbgrunt Mar 2016 #97
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #6
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #11
amborin Mar 2016 #28
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #30
Gwhittey Mar 2016 #74
jham123 Mar 2016 #96
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #53
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #55
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #72
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #89
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #91
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #93
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #95
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #99
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #102
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #104
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #106
CoffeeCat Mar 2016 #154
riderinthestorm Mar 2016 #57
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #58
riderinthestorm Mar 2016 #67
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #77
bvar22 Mar 2016 #87
spin Mar 2016 #131
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #139
Marr Mar 2016 #71
840high Mar 2016 #111
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #17
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #42
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #50
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #68
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #75
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #82
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #85
grasswire Mar 2016 #83
insta8er Mar 2016 #7
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #15
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #21
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #22
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #25
noiretextatique Mar 2016 #138
insta8er Mar 2016 #31
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #38
insta8er Mar 2016 #44
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #49
Scuba Mar 2016 #19
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #20
amborin Mar 2016 #34
Scuba Mar 2016 #39
Cobalt Violet Mar 2016 #79
99Forever Mar 2016 #84
Autumn Mar 2016 #23
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #24
Hiraeth Mar 2016 #27
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #33
noiretextatique Mar 2016 #140
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #32
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #41
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #52
Autumn Mar 2016 #37
RufusTFirefly Mar 2016 #40
progressoid Mar 2016 #45
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #51
progressoid Mar 2016 #59
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #63
progressoid Mar 2016 #66
John Poet Mar 2016 #64
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #65
840high Mar 2016 #112
BillZBubb Mar 2016 #127
noiretextatique Mar 2016 #141
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #54
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #56
840high Mar 2016 #114
grasswire Mar 2016 #86
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #88
grasswire Mar 2016 #92
AgerolanAmerican Mar 2016 #151
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #4
Vinca Mar 2016 #8
nadinbrzezinski Mar 2016 #13
scscholar Mar 2016 #9
Vote2016 Mar 2016 #10
Ash_F Mar 2016 #12
polly7 Mar 2016 #14
Samantha Mar 2016 #145
polly7 Mar 2016 #146
Samantha Mar 2016 #149
LexVegas Mar 2016 #16
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #35
JoePhilly Mar 2016 #69
DCBob Mar 2016 #18
Barack_America Mar 2016 #46
randome Mar 2016 #48
Barack_America Mar 2016 #62
randome Mar 2016 #76
Barack_America Mar 2016 #78
Hydra Mar 2016 #136
DCBob Mar 2016 #61
Jarqui Mar 2016 #36
paulthompson Mar 2016 #70
BreakfastClub Mar 2016 #43
wendylaroux Mar 2016 #47
mmonk Mar 2016 #60
brooklynite Mar 2016 #80
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #90
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #107
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #108
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #110
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #113
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #116
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #119
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #120
Samantha Mar 2016 #137
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #148
Samantha Mar 2016 #150
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #152
SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2016 #81
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #109
geek tragedy Mar 2016 #98
Logical Mar 2016 #100
snagglepuss Mar 2016 #101
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #105
One_Life_To_Give Mar 2016 #128
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #130
Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #115
HooptieWagon Mar 2016 #121
Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #124
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #125
Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #126
Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #133
Samantha Mar 2016 #117
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #134
Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #118
Attorney in Texas Mar 2016 #122
Vote2016 Mar 2016 #142
2banon Mar 2016 #143
tularetom Mar 2016 #155

Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:15 AM

1. Give the GOP credit, they not only made this non story into a story but evidently

managed to convince many "alleged" liberals that it is a real story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:16 AM

2. nope; it's rather that, upon close study, the facts scream major prevarication, and worse

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:17 AM

3. SMH

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:35 AM

26. what does the acronym represent?

are you denying the facts? they are inconvenient, that's for sure

climate deniers are wont to deny the inconvenient truth, too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #26)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:37 AM

29. It means 'shaking my head'

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #29)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 04:05 PM

123. at HRC's prevarications and reckless behavior?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:37 PM

129. Little hard to SMH when it's stuck in the sand...

Eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tex-wyo-dem (Reply #129)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:51 PM

132. Good one, I will give you that. Problem though is I wont be the one

responsible for a President Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #132)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:05 PM

135. We have to ignore illegal behavior to stop Trump now??

What is this, the Bush Admin 2.XX?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #132)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:11 AM

144. Au Contraire, that's extactly what you will be responsible for

 

remaining in denial isn't going to change the outcome of these events and the impact that will have on the elections unless of course it's delayed until after the elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #132)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 07:36 AM

147. Nominate a Democrat knowing this fatal electability flaw, and YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ELECTING TRUMP

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #2)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:13 PM

73. Meet the new boss

Same as the old boss (the rabid right). Politics makes for strange bedfellows, especially when proclaimed progressives are carrying water in lockstep with the latest right wing witch hunts. And I'm not talking about Bernie, whose integrity is beyond question. He speaks to real issues, but others seem more intent on winning by any means, acting as judge, jury, and lynch mob if necessary in the absence of findings. Of course there is always the Drudge Report, a source with "close study" content for those who choose to rely on "prevarification".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:21 AM

5. Praying for an indictment

and long prison sentence for the three of them. Here's a link to that horrible GOP publication, Harper's.
https://harpers.org/blog/2015/11/shaky-foundations/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:57 PM

94. Your prayer was alerted on.

 

I was juror #3

On Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:39 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Praying for an indictment
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1592604

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

I really don't think we should allow posts- on Democratic Underground- that are "praying for an indictment" of the likely (note I did NOT say "presumptive" Dem nominee. I would say the same about someone "praying for indictment" of Bernie.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:53 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Emotional topic, strong feeling, but not rude, abusive, over the top, etc. Not advocating against a nominee nor for the Republican party. DU is grown-up enough to handle someone's wish for legal action.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Aw please... someone pick up that pacifier for the alerter. And BTW - "likely" IS presumptive! Sheesh!
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #94)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:15 PM

103. Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #94)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:44 AM

153. typical hillmoles are at it again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FlatBaroque (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:04 PM

97. thanks for that link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:22 AM

6. The FBI (notwithstanding Obama's influence affecting the FBI) has dedicated 150 operatives to this

issue and non-partisan sources indicate that the likeliest course of events is that (1) the FBI will recommend indictment and (2) the DoJ will chose not to indict or otherwise prosecute.

That is NOT a non-story no matter how badly you want it to be a non-story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:25 AM

11. And you would not know word one about it were it not for the GOP

making it an issue thru their other investigations, all bogus.

To see so called liberals manipulated like this by the GOP breaks my heart.

Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:37 AM

28. has nothing to do w/ GOP. rather, some are interested in news, facts, etc.

some people read the Wiki leaks of the emails, for starters. It's called wanting to be informed about the social and natural world.

Many of her emails are shocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:37 AM

30. It is the GOP ...sorry you cant see that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #30)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:13 PM

74. No It is not GOP

 

You are confused because GOP had dam Benghazi bullshit hearings that they requested emails for. That would of been end it as far as FBI getting involved they would not. What prompted the FBI investigation was a totally separate incident. A Romainian Hacker(Marcel Lazăr Lehel aka Guccifer ) got into email accounts of several famous people one of them being Sidney Blumenthal. Guccifer posted emails that Clinton sent him about events of some major US foreign Policy events, that he should not have had access to. This is why the FBI is looking into this. Clinton was actually Lucky the GOP did whole Benghazi because it has allowed this email thing to be laughed off like it is a GOP smear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #28)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:02 PM

96. and sadly....

Trumps people are culling through the same emails and lining them up for the first debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:53 AM

53. That's like a drunk driver saying "you would not have caught me if my taillight had not been out."

It may be true, but it is beside the point now that a violation has been uncovered and the cover up attempt has failed.

I was appalled by Bush-Cheney's deliberate violation of the FOIA; I am not being "manipulated" to be disappointed by Hillary's equally brazen violation of the FOIA.

I don't believe Hillary should be indicted over it, but I don't understand why you (or anyone) would be OK with a politician deliberately violating the FOIA. I'd be equally disappointed if Sanders deliberately violated the FOIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #53)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:55 AM

55. You have GOT to be kidding me! I dont know where to start.

At a loss for words.

Drumpf is preparing letters to send out to Americans that they need to be ready to be rounded up in the middle of the night and kicked out of the country, and you are worried about Hillary showing bad judgment using the wrong device, without malice.

This is nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #55)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:12 PM

72. It is not a defense to drunk driving to point out that others are in the process of committing worse

crimes.

If we make the mistake of nominating Hillary, I will support her.

Trump is 1,000 times worse than Hillary (and -- trust me -- Cruz is worse than Trump), but that does not excuse a violation of federal law. I have already said that Hillary SHOULD NOT GET indicted despite her deliberate violation of federal law (the penalties should be civil).

Nixon didn't get away with Watergate by saying "but look what Pol Pot did!" Likewise, Hillary cannot break the law and defend it by saying "but Trump wants to deport Muslims!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #72)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:47 PM

89. Then what is the appropriate punishment for her offense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #89)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:53 PM

91. FIOA has a number of civil penalties for such deliberate violations

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #91)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:56 PM

93. Right, so lets just do a little projection, shall we? The normal kind, into the future, as in.

Between election fraud preventing millions, yes millions of Americans from voting, and just enough changed minds due to this minor violation that you agree is punishable only civilly, as opposed to criminally/jail, etc., turns out we now have President Drumpf or Cruz.

Was it worth it?

We are not talking about a violent crime, a crime of profit, etc, NONE of the above.

Remember, now, worth it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #93)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:59 PM

95. Hillary will lose the primary or the general election. I prefer she lose the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #95)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:06 PM

99. The only way she loses the GE if nominated is election fraud and endless, non stop

attacking of her from all sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #99)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:14 PM

102. Independents hate her, Libertarians hate her, the Working Family Party hates her, Greens hate her,

potential cross-over Republicans hate her, Socialists hate her, and Democrats under 45 generally mistrust her.

Yeah, she's inevitable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #102)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:17 PM

104. Wow, lots of hate, who did she kill? Which bank did she rob? Are you listening to yourself?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #104)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:23 PM

106. I'm listening to polling. Do you doubt that everyone outside of 45-year-old-plus Democrats has a dim

view of Hillary's honesty and likability?

The polling is AWFUL.

Both the Republican and Democratic front runners are the two least well liked candidates in the history of forever, but the Republicans are smart enough to seek another path rather than nominate their unelectable front runner. Let's hope we are not so easily outwitted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #104)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:48 AM

154. Are you oblivious?

You see facts as an attack on Hillary?

She has no path to the nomination in a general election. She polls abysmally with Independents. Republicans despise her and half of the Democratic Party has major issues with her; so much so that 33 percent of Sanders supporters will not vote for her.

That's a recipe for ensured general-election failure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:58 AM

57. The Inspectors General for the intelligence agencies AND the State Dept asked for FBI involvement

 

You know, the IG's Obama appointed and who work for him.

This is not a RW driven thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #57)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:59 AM

58. No, it is a FACT that it is a RW driven thing, that you dont know that is hysterical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #58)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:04 PM

67. The IGs are in the Obama Administration. The FBI is impartial

 

Exactly which of these entities are RW?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #67)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:17 PM

77. Some Hillarians give her a pass on everything just because she's "on our side." You can't reason

with them.

Facts don't matter to everyone - you may as well try to argue to a Yankees fan why the Red Sox are a better team - they have made their decision based on team loyalty and not based on facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #77)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:39 PM

87. Hillary is not on MY side.

I make less than $250K/year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #58)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:46 PM

131. National security is important and there is a possibility that by allowing ...

highly classified email to exist on an unauthorized and improperly secured dark server Hillary may have exposed our nation to grave damage.

Supposedly some of the email on Hillary's server was so highly classified that it can't be released to the public in any form. It may have contained the names of agents and sources in foreign nations. Do you remember the Valerie Plame incident that occurred during the Bush the Younger's administration and the uproar it caused? It is possible that the email on Hillary's server may have put lives in danger.

Hillary’s emails included CIA officers’ names, report says
By Marisa Schultz February 1, 2016 | 12:49pm
http://nypost.com/2016/02/01/hillary-clinton-voters-dont-care-about-my-emails/

Foreign intelligence agencies both friendly and unfriendly would be very interested in reading Hillary's email even if it was unclassified. The SOS is a very high ranking official in our government and you can bet that if these nations found out that Hillary had a private server with government email on it they would have moved heaven and earth in an attempt to access it.

But all we have at this point is rumors as the FBI has not finished the investigation. If the stories are correct there are 147 FBI agents working full time on this case. If the FBI is willing to dedicate this many agents in the current environment it must be a very high priority.

Hillary claims none of the email was marked classified but even if so she should have recognized highly sensitive information if she was even marginally competent.

Hillary supposedly set up the server for her convenience. National security trumps convenience.

I hear the FBI will make a final decision on if Hillary should be indicted in May. At this point I feel Hillary may be in serious trouble but of course I could be wrong.

Some have suggested that Hillary considers herself to be above the law. That may be a fact and she may be the owner of a gold plated Get out of Jail Free card. If so,the rule of law no longer applies in this nation and we are no longer a well functioning representative democracy. Perhaps we are in the process of morphing into a Oligarchy as Bernie has often suggested.

Remember Richard Nixon? I do all too well. I don't ever want to see another president like Nixon in office ever again. Some have called Hillary "Nixon in a pantsuit" and they may be right.



Time will tell. It would be nice to know sooner rather than later but the wheels of justice grind slowly. Patience is a prime virtue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #58)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:33 PM

139. I did not know the FBI, the NSA, The CIA, and the State Department

 

were part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Thank you for setting me straight.

You are correct.. this is appropriate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:10 PM

71. You keep repeating that, but it isn't true.

 

It was discovered because FOIA requests kept coming up blank.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:39 PM

111. I am glad I know - if

 

Hillary did wrong it needs to be exposed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:28 AM

17. I recommend you read a timeline of watergate

 

By the way, DOJ is not investigating the FOIA side. That is a civi lawsuit, and DOJ is not involved. I am sure in your professional capacity you understand this. By the way, they were granted discovery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:43 AM

42. I do understand the distinction between the civil and the criminal cases. I think Hillary loses the

civil case but I expect no action in the criminal case.

I expect the FBI investigation in the criminal case and the discovery in the civil action will both show that there was a deliberate evasion of the FOIA in violation of federal statutes.

I do not believe the DoJ will indict (under Obama or his successor).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #42)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:48 AM

50. That is because of the politics

 

I suspect the president will be informed the morning off as a courtesy. And given that we have seen some leaks already, more like a shot across the bow of state, as it starts to leak from above, we will see more than that. Comet will go in front of the cameras. I do not think a scandal free administration. Wants watergate two.

And if she should be elected, impeachment is on the table.

By the way giving access to classed material to people without one is a felony. She did with with Blumenthal. People are in club fed for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #50)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:06 PM

68. There is literally zero change Obama's DoJ will indict. Yes, Obama will take a ton of heat for this,

but he will NOT authorize his DoJ to indict his former SoS.

Some suggest that Eric Holder might break with Obama over this issue, but Holder is gone now and Loretta Lynch will NOT break with Obama.

I'm not necessarily the person who would be Hillary's best defender, but you say "giving access to classed material to people without one is a felony" as "She did with Blumenthal."

I may be reading the emails wrong, but it looks to me like the emails exchanged between Hillary and Blumenthal which reflect the improper exchange of classified material were all FROM Blumenthal TO Clinton (not from her to him). This indicates a national security leak of information to Blumenthal, but that leak is not from Hillary. This is an investigation worthy problem, and it is an example of why Hillary ought to have been using a more secure email server, but the breach does not appear -- to me -- to have been Hillary's breach or an offense indictable against Hillary (perhaps Blumenthal and his source should be indicted, but that's a different question).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:15 PM

75. Then I hope you enjoy watergate

 

The second Clinton administration will start roiled in scandal. Yes, the House, which will remain in the hands of the Rs, will start hearings after house keeping is done. I expect Comney, Lynch and perhaps Obama to be star witnesses. That will be fun, almost like a root canal

So here are the choices...agree to the recommendation and get some heat, or cover up and throw the country into scandal. From what I have read, they have more than enough for an indictment. This is not politics, but national security. Oh and from a few sources, they do not, the anger is such in the Intel community that none will be shocked if there are resignations, because the precedent is that the government will never again be able to go after people for mishandling this information in such a cavalier way.

That is my read. Since the interviews will have prosecutors involved, and the FBI seems to already know the answers to the questions they will ask with a nice rope to hand out. That is in both the LA times story and WAPO story. Put on your lawyer hat and get out the decoder ring. Professionally you should be able to decode that better than me, a mere civilian that covers local courts from time to time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #75)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:32 PM

82. I'm not saying I enjoy it or not - I'm just saying that Obama's DoJ is not going to indict Hillary.

If you are looking for justice, you will have to settle for this rough justice:

Hillary wants to be president more than a person dying of thirst wants water, and she is not going to be president - whether she loses to Sanders in the primary or loses to the Republican in the general election is up to us, but Hillary will NEVER be president which as harsh a penalty on her than any the law could ever impose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #82)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:34 PM

85. My thinking is that those conversations with prosecutors

 

Will start the process of her stepping down and suspending her campaign. See what I wrote about prosecutors being present. And that is punishment, I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #68)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:33 PM

83. you do know there are pressures to be brought that are superior...

...to Lynch/Obama's wishes on this.

If Obama should dare to instruct Lynch to not indict Hillary despite an FBI criminal referral, all hell in Washington will break loose.

Obama cannot keep a lid on those pressures.

Obama stands to lose his legacy if he does what you say.

Think Saturday Night Massacre.

James Comey is a straight shooter, as are many career federal law enforcement officers. Comey has already demonstrated his spine and his exacting pursuit of truth and justice.

Life would be so much easier for America if Hillary would not drag us all through this ego-drama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:22 AM

7. The sheer "sticking your head in the ground" is mind numbing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to insta8er (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:27 AM

15. Oh for christ sake, I not only am not doing that but I am

acknowledging facts you are not

1. GOP promoted this as part of other bogus investigations
2. She did nothing others had not done
3. Crimes by most sitting GOP members of house and senate make Hillary look like girl scout

4. YOU are being manipulated, assuming you are actually a liberal, that is

all politicians are liars and crooks, other than Bernie

so why does Hillary have to be different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:29 AM

21. Watergate started as a break in

 

And the national security aspects of this are not the FOIA issues. Don't conflate the two please. (For the record, we have at least five investigations)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #21)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:31 AM

22. GOP is stunningly good at this. They thank you for your attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #22)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:35 AM

25. I did not know tje FBI was part of the GOP

 

For that matter NSA (we suspect something is cooking after giving Blumenthal access to SAP material, a felony...or the CIA ar the State Department itself.

Stunning, but Nixon defenders did the same shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #25)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:31 PM

138. This obdurance is mind-numbing eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:38 AM

31. You CLEARLY don't know the facts..

 


1. It started out as the Benghazi hearings, but was followed by a Freedom Of Information Request (Not by the GOP!) that brought to light her use of that private email server.
2. She is lying here, transferring a highly classified email from a secure email server to a non secure email server is a crime.
Don't believe the BS she is feeding you about "others" because nobody did it quite the way she did and on such a massive scale.
3. And that makes everything ok in your book?
4. The quickest and easiest way when you cannot win an argument is to focus on the person itself, maybe my hair is not to your liking also? maybe you can say something about me being fat? or maybe something about my skin color? Or that I am a GOP operative.

Your last line blows it all, I pity the people you are a role model too..it says more about your morals then anyone else. But this is the case with most of her followers..uninformed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to insta8er (Reply #31)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:39 AM

38. So you admit that Hillary must be held to a standard that NO OTHER politician is.

In grown up world that would result in the GOP taking the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #38)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:45 AM

44. I don't think you understand it, everyone should be held to the same standards

 

condoning because the others do the same thing does not justify her behavior or yours condoning it because you are such a fan of her. History has shown us what happens when people look the other way and don't confront dishonest people about their behavior. Her behavior is also detrimental to our political system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to insta8er (Reply #44)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:47 AM

49. No, I do understand. What you are saying is GOP is going to take the WH

if Hillary is the nominee because you think her crime warrants her being arrested and jailed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:28 AM

19. That position is going to cause you some discomfort...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:29 AM

20. So the person who acknowledges that ALL politicians are liars and are corrupt, other

than Bernie, that person is the one with their head in the sand?

Really?

Try to catch up, I am the one who is not holding Hillary to a different standard and who has been around and sees what is going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #19)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:38 AM

34. that image is hilarious!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Reply #34)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:40 AM

39. Training session for Hillary's on-line support team.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:24 PM

79. Love it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #39)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:34 PM

84. It's the beach at Camp Weathervane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:31 AM

23. It's not the story, it's the repercussions. Keep on trying to lay this on liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #23)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:33 AM

24. Oh, dont worry, I dont think anyone who pushes this story is an actual liberal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:36 AM

27. pushing? wow.

welcome to ignore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hiraeth (Reply #27)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:38 AM

33. All day everyday, right here. So called liberals going out of their way making

it almost impossible for the democratic party to take the WH if Hillary is the candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:35 PM

140. It's called: News

There were several articles about it today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:38 AM

32. I call them patriots who care about national security

 

You on the other hand, I call blind partisan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:41 AM

41. There is a clear agenda here, I wonder what it will look like IF

Bernie loses the nomination.

I wonder how hard this GOP story will be pushed here on this board.

That will be a VERY enlightening process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #41)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:51 AM

52. I wonder what it looks like if the FBI recommends

 

DOJ refuses and we enter Watergate during the GE.

Those are not happy thoughts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:39 AM

37. You hit the nail on the head by accident. It was Hillary's decision to set up a privater server

so it all come right back to her actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:40 AM

40. No true Scotsman, eh?

No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing", rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:46 AM

45. Here. I got this broad brush for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #45)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:48 AM

51. I wish I didnt have to say that, but it is true. The only caveat is those who are liberals but

dont know better, dont know they are being used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #51)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:59 AM

59. Ah, the ad hominem. Nice choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #59)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:00 PM

63. Dont use him, he would be APPALLED at anyone claiming to be a liberal

who works overtime making it so the GOP takes the WH.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #63)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:04 PM

66. Don't stop. You're on a roll...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:02 PM

64. I don't think anyone who backs Hillary is an actual liberal,

 

based on her foreign policy "experience" and a few other issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John Poet (Reply #64)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:03 PM

65. Unless that person is doing it ONLY after Bernie has lost and to make sure the

fascists dont take over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:41 PM

112. It's a good thing most

 

of us don't care what you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:01 PM

127. Hey Jackie, you just got another ignore.

The FBI is conducting an investigation into criminal activity, possibly by Hillary. This isn't a right wing attack. The FBI isn't the right wing. The prosecutors assigned to the investigation aren't right wing.

Your list above is totally inaccurate. Hillary isn't being held to a different standard, she being held to the standard others are involving classified material.

Don't bother to respond with your usual rationalizations and lashing out. I won't see it--thank goodness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #24)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:47 PM

141. I am an actual liberal, and if she committed crimes

As we will find out in the FBI investigation, she should face whatever charges and penalties are appropriate. I don't think she should be exempted, as you seem to, just so she can win the nomination, which is questionable anyway. And if there is the slightest hint of favoritism, you can bet your RW boogeymen will be all over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:55 AM

54. That mean old GOP made her install a server in her basement.

 

And twisted her arm to send and recieve sensitive emails. Not only that, they forced her to stonewall a FOIA filing. And then, the GOP conspired to force her to accept Foundation 'donations' from countries and corporations with business before the State Dept.

I have no doubt that the FBI and Comey will recommend an indictment of some sort. It remains to be seen if Lynch and Obama act on it or stonewall. But considering Clinton brazenly defied Obamas orders, and is the source of every 'scandal' in the Obama administration, and he's in the last several months of office and would like to clean up any loose ends to secure his legacy, and not get dragged into yet another Clinton scandal and political brawl...I don't see a logical reason for Obama to protect Clinton. She made her bed, she can sleep in it, and let the chips fall where they may.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #54)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:57 AM

56. ...

GOP thanks you. President Drumpf thanks you for assisting him in rounding up millions of fellow Americans in the middle of the night and shipping them out.

I think I will copy paste this response to you folks from now on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #56)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:43 PM

114. Such drama.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #54)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:38 PM

86. I thought that about Obama too until today..

..when he endorsed DWS. Now I'm ready to let the chips fall where they may even if Obama is implicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #86)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:43 PM

88. Obama not implicated in the Clinton scandal.

 

Unless he involves himself by protecting Clinton. That wouldn't be a legal problem, but sure would unleash a political one. There's no 'win' in that for him...which is why I think he'll remain hands off, and let FBI and DoJ sort it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #88)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:55 PM

92. that's what I mean.

Not involved as far as we know, unless he has already been protecting Clinton. The best thing for him personally to do would be to appoint an independent prosecutor. He's in a political precarious spot either way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #1)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:31 AM

151. The story originates with CREW

 

FOIA request turned up empty which revealed the existence of the server, and then it snowballed from there, in no small part because of the multiple untrue statements from the Clinton camp and their posture of "if you can't prove it, it didn't happen".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:21 AM

4. For the FOIA a nasty fine

 

The handling of secret material...people are in club fed for far less than we have seen. Not that she would ever see prison, that is only for the little people who are serving. By the way, that is just two of the investigations. The FOIA matter is civil.

The other one involves national security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:22 AM

8. I don't know. If the FBI recommends an indictment and it doesn't happen,

DOJ might be accused of a double standard (Petraeus), a cover-up or both. Also, while Obama is POTUS, there is the potential for a pardon. If a Republican is elected there will definitely be an indictment and no pardon. I'm kind of leaning toward thinking it will be an underling or two indicted for something which won't be great campaign-wise either. Who knows what will happen. The bottom line is it's a very bad thing to be going into a general election with, indicted or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vinca (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:25 AM

13. The it does not happen, I predict a Saturday Night massacre

 

And watergate 2

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:23 AM

9. Exactly, a recommendation is not an is!

 

No matter what definition of is you use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:23 AM

10. kick & rec #5

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:25 AM

12. As someone who submits a lot of FOIA's for work I disagree

I disagree that intentionally avoiding the Act is not impeachable.

I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:26 AM

14. If what she did in any way made bringing about the destruction of Libya even easier

than just pushing for it - using Blumenthal's advice against Obama's wishes ........ privately in those emails, I think she should be more than indicted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:48 AM

145. To me, this is one of the most salient problems - the evidence that she did just that

but it not really a big part of most of the discussion on this issue. I think all the way around, no one wants this highlighted.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #145)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:39 AM

146. I fully believe she did ......... and when I think of how

legitimate questions like this are being blown off - even laughingly, as 'no big deal' .... looking at the suffering and destruction left behind, it makes me ill. The more Wikileaks and people here who discuss them at length reveal the clearer it becomes for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to polly7 (Reply #146)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:26 AM

149. It does appear that she was running her own rogue state department

but on a very serious matter like this, navigating it in such a way that it does not bring Obama into the picture, might be extremely difficult. While I personally want Hillary held accountable, the last thing I want to see is President Obama facing impeachment at this late state of the game because of accusations the right-wingers might dredge up to cast a net to capture them both. He obviously did not know about some of these things and he should be given the benefit of the doubt. The last thing we need, I believe, is for another horrific turmoil to erupt on top of those we are facing now. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:27 AM

16. "Ultimately, those who like Hillary (like me)"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:38 AM

35. I vote for the most progressive Democrat in every contest. If the primary was Webb versus Hillary, I

would be as strong a Hillary supporter as I am currently a Sanders supporter.

If the primary was Sanders versus the ghost of FDR, I'd probably be banned from the Sanders group by now.

I like Hillary, I just have a very strong preference for Sanders' platform over hers (just as I have a strong preference for Hillary's platform over Ted Cruz's). Plus, of all the Democratic presidential candidate in my lifetime, Hillary has the least appeal among the independents and other non-Democrats who we need to win a general election and she will also inspire the highest Republican turnout. Nominating Hillary is a path to a Cruz or Trump presidency (I worry more about Cruz than Trump, but she is an unsteady standard bearer in either case), but -- if that should come to pass -- she has my support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LexVegas (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:07 PM

69. + 1

I stopped reading the OP right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:28 AM

18. FBI will not recommend indictment. That's nonsense.

But keep praying for it if that makes you feel better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #18)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:46 AM

46. Yeah, that's why they've dedicated 147 agents to this case.

You keep on praying too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #46)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:47 AM

48. So what do you think those 147 agents are doing?

 

The vast majority of them are reading emails. If you don't think that's likely, offer up another explanation.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #48)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:00 PM

62. Preparing depositions, retrieving deleted emails, searching for evidence of hacking...

...that takes 147 agents (particularly the last 2 items).

Reading through 30,000 emails...not so much. Though they will be reading through all of the aides' email accounts too, to fill in the gaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #62)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:15 PM

76. Sure, here they all are crowded around that golden server.

 



It might take a half dozen agents to prepare depositions, 2 to retrieve deleted emails, 2 to search for evidence of hacking. No way does any of that take 147 agents.


[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #76)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:20 PM

78. Cute pictures. Hopefully we'll find out what they found that was so serious...

...they had to devote such a large number of agents to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #78)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:21 PM

136. Major denial in play

If nothing comes of it, it wasn't because there wasn't something there, it will be because there are 2 sets of laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Barack_America (Reply #46)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:00 PM

61. Its a massive huge effort looking into all the possible security implications.

Means nothing regarding anyone doing anything illegal. Just give a bit more time.. they will release their report soon then we will all know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:38 AM

36. I do not think Attorney General Lynch will indict her - no matter what the FBI say.

I think AG Lynch will follow the old conflict of interest avoidance procedure to appoint an independent counsel to review the FBI report plus the reports of the Inspector General of the State Department and the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (both IG's recommended the FBI review the matter). The idea being that the Independent Counsel would make recommendations when they've completed their review (like they did with CIA Director Deutch).

A key in my assumption is whether AG Lynch has to reveal what the reports say before they get reviewed by an Independent Counsel. If she does, then she may respond differently than I project.

The Independent Counsel cannot possibly get acquainted with all the facts and make a decision before the election because all three reports won't even be completed for a while yet. The Deutch decision took about a year and it was a simpler case. This will effectively run out the clock before the election.

With a new administration and probably a new Attorney General in Nov-Jan 20th period, the independent Counsel may never get to finish the task - it may get passed on to someone else - particularly if the GOP win the White House.

What Hillary really needed was to get cleared of the email and the Clinton Foundation concerns. I do not see how they can do that credibly in the time remaining. It's too complex. If they try that, the GOP would be all over it.

The GOP will be all over it regardless but the Dems needed a solid legal footing. I do not see how they can get it at this point before the election.

I agree this is poison for Hillary and the GOP will pound her on it.

Unlike you, I like Bernie better but I think we wind up pretty close to the same place on where this is likely to go and the impact it is likely to have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jarqui (Reply #36)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:09 PM

70. That sounds probable

IF the FBI recommends that Clinton be indicted (which is still a big if at this point), it makes a ton of sense for the Justice Department to appoint an independent counsel. That'll kick the can way down the road, and dodge issues of bias or favoritism.

However, it would be a moot point for Clinton in terms of the election. If the FBI recommends an indictment, that's going to come out to the public one way or another, and I don't see how her campaign could possibly survive that. And news reports say the FBI is going to make that decision by mid-May.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:44 AM

43. Nope. sorry. Not going to happen. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:46 AM

47. No way,no how

she will ever be indicted for anything,ever.She KNOWS people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 11:59 AM

60. Possible. We don't know. But what we do know is if

there is an indictment in any form even if not enforced by DOJ, there will be impeachment based on any charge, even misdemeanor if Clinton gets elected. I cannot justify a reckless decision. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:27 PM

80. Guess what; you just accused Pres Obama of an impeachable crime...

...maybe you should forward this message to the Hous GOP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #80)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:52 PM

90. See if your mom's computer has "google" and type in "prosecutorial discretion." It is not a crime

for Obama's DoJ to exercise its prosecutorial discretion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #90)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:30 PM

107. Yes, the DoJ can exercise prosecutorial discretion.

 

However, if the FBI recommends an indictment, and the AG declines to do so, there will be an epic political storm. Might as well give the GOP a 5 gal gas can and a lighter. I can absolutely guarantee an impeachment if Clinton is elected under those circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #107)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:32 PM

108. I agree Hillary carries the weight of this baggage regardless of whether the DoJ indicts, but to

accuse the Obama administration of felonies for not indicting Hillary is lunacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #108)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:39 PM

110. AFAIK no one has accused Obama of a felony or any crime.

 

He has been very hands off during the FBI investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #110)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:42 PM

113. see post 80 which I was responding to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #113)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 02:00 PM

116. Poster 80 is a Hillarian. They don't know what they're talking about.

 

Impeachment is a political action, not a legal action. Neither guarantees nor precludes the other.
Bill Clinton was impeached by the House, the Senate voted against removing him from office, but that doesn't immunize him from legal action under double jeopardy...he still had civil suits and a disbarment. Likewise, Hillary could escape indictment by DoJ, but still very likely face impeachment if in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #116)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 03:07 PM

119. I agree, but there can't be an impeachment unless she is elected and I can't see her getting elected

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #119)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 03:27 PM

120. She does have Damacles sword hanging over her head.

 

The GOP detests her, and will show up in droves at the polls to vote against her...no matter who heads up the Republican ticket. Independants don't like her, by a 2:1 margin. And a sizeable number of Democrats don't like her, or may be worried she's a weak and flawed candidate. Just the potential of an indictment or impeachment should be cause to make voters think twice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #107)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 09:17 PM

137. A President can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors during his or her term(s)

in office.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #137)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:25 AM

148. The POTUS can be impeached whenever there's enough votes in the House to do so.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #148)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:28 AM

150. Well that is MY point -- he or she has to be actually installed in the Oval Office and President

and the charges must relate to acts committed during his or her tenure as President, not before.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #150)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 10:42 AM

152. I see no reason prior acts are excluded.....

 

....there's really no limit to what a POTUS can be impeached for, if there's the political will to back it up.
Let's suppose Clinton is indicted on the eve of the election, and loses to the Donald. It's not far-fetched to say there's a possibility both Rs and Ds are so appalled at a buffoon like Trump got elected that they work together to pre-emptively impeach and remove him from office (assuming his VP isn't Sarah Palin or the like). All it would take is the political will-power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 12:28 PM

81. I see only 11 of the 79 replies - "ignore" - you must have hit the nail on the head

 

good work

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoLeftIAmRight (Reply #81)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:33 PM

109. Yes, this thread brings the A team to the yard

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:05 PM

98. if the Indictment Fairy refuses to materialize, it won't be because

 

Sanders supporters at DU didn't clap loud enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:10 PM

100. Kick

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:13 PM

101. Why restrict the issue to FOIA? The Foundation is under investigation

as well regarding Pay for Play. There is also the server which in addition to being private did not have encryption for the first two months. The FOIA issues may be the least of her worries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snagglepuss (Reply #101)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:19 PM

105. Because the criminal charges will die down when the DoJ chooses not to indict, but the civil FOIA

violations are pretty clear and they are not going away regardless of what the DoJ elects to do.

The FOIA violations ARE the least of her worries, but they are very real worries. The recommendation of indictment from the FBI will also be a big issue regardless of the DoJ's choice not to indict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #105)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:11 PM

128. If Comey were to resign in protest

it could sink the underticket as well.

Not saying there is anything there. But failure to follow a FBI recommendation that came to light before the election. That could have wide ranging consequences as a cloud would hang over the whole party. Worst case scenario would be a year in which no dem could win. Blocking Supermajorities might be a victory.

Really depends upon what evidence Comey's FBI has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to One_Life_To_Give (Reply #128)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:38 PM

130. The idea that Comey would resign in protest if DoJ rejects an FBI recommendation for indictment is

widely reported but mostly in the right-wing press:

How the FBI Could Force DOJ to Prosecute Hillary Clinton

BOOM! Dept. of Justice may be FORCED to indict Hillary because of this…

Obama expected to protect Clinton from prosecution, Comey may resign

FBI Director James Comey has Reportedly Said He will Resign if the Bureau’s Recommendations for Charges Are Ignored

Comey is not very partisan (which is partly why Obama appointed him), and I don't see any credible evidence that Comey would throw away his career over the DoJ's decision to exercise its prosecutorial discretion not to indict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:54 PM

115. Gross negligence in handling classified materials is a crime.

When she set up that server and used it for all State Department business, she committed a crime, and she knew it, she just assumed she'd get away with it. She had Microsoft Remote Desktop on at least one of her devices, for pete's sake, with no security. Even I know that's asking for hacking.

And the FBI is investigating her for corruption charges too, for the Clinton Foundation-State Dept. transactions.

There's so much wrong with what she did.

Even if she doesn't get charged with a crime, which I think she will, the court of public opinion will end her public career.

Those in the FBI have said that if Lynch won't bring charges, agents will quit. And maybe higher up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #115)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 03:32 PM

121. Comey has reportedly said he'll resign if no indictment.

 

That's a pretty good indication there's damaging evidence against her. Agents have said they'll go public with the evidence if there's no indictment. Even if she escapes prosecution, there's going to be a huge political shitstorm over the evidence against her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #121)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 04:05 PM

124. Exactly. It's a very good indication of what they have.

This is reminding me of Watergate, except the corruption in this case is worse.

That took place during an election too. Now, as then, it's so surreal to see the principal players on tv, acting as if nothing's wrong. She really is like Nixon in a pantsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #124)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 04:32 PM

125. Nixon in a pantsuit? Be fair. Nixon created the EPA, OSHA, passed Title IX, the Clean Air Act,

the Clean Water Act, ended the draft, and was the instrumental force behind amending the Constitution to lower the voting age and in passing sweeping legislation to restore Native American self-determination.

Hillary will never attempt, much less accomplish, a quarter of the progressive legislation that Nixon passed.

Sanders aspires to restore FDR's progressive Democratic Party. Hillary does not even aspire to meet Nixon's progressive accomplishments as a Republican (although she seems to be aspiring to Nixon's legacy for illegality followed by unsuccessful cover up).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #125)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 04:41 PM

126. Point well taken.

You're right, that really isn't fair to Nixon. (That's a sentence I never thought I'd think.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #125)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:58 PM

133. No, it was the Democrats serving in Congress that caused all that good stuff to happen.

Nixon just signed the bills in to law when he was trying to get re-elected, or while he was trying to keep from being impeached in his 2nd term.

We covered all this at the DU about a year ago, when someone else tried to give Nixon credit for the EPA, etc.
Wikipedia was most useful to see who sponsored each bill to bring all of that about.

In point of fact, Nixon wanted all of the federal environmental agencies brought under 1 umbrella, simply because he believed that it would be easier to dismantle 1 huge federal agency rather than get rid of the 20+ agencies that are now under the EPA.
His thinking was "if I eliminate 1 federal agency, I might get 1 bad headline. But, if I eliminate 26 federal agencies, then I would have to suffer getting 26 bad headlines. And people might get the idea that I am against the environment.'

He was.
That is, against the environment.

Nixon was certainly not a friend of the environment.
He didn't give a rat's ass about the environment, as he was a Republican through-and-through.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 02:54 PM

117. Here is the problem

Last edited Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:43 AM - Edit history (2)

The FBI agents working on the case believe they have a slam-dunk case against her. If an indictment is recommended, and the DOJ does not act, some will stand up and walk away. Some say Comey will resign. There is a Federal Grand Jury seated, and this is being treated as a criminal case.

Just the storage of classified information (marked or unmarked) in an unapproved, unprotected server is a crime. I am not talking about the intent, because as I am sure you know, everyone will speculate on different intents. I don't have the facts so I will not do that. Many ordinary people assume it was a matter of simply convenience. Others say it was a matter of non-disclosure of material stored there. So I am just going to wait and see what the Grand Jury and the Judge say. I do know the judge is upset because many FOIA requests to the State Department were returned with "We have no records..." Some of those requests were not just for example journalists but from lawyers and courts.

The whole issue is so incredibly complex.

But Hillary won't be impeached because she is not the President. A sitting President can only be impeached over "crimes" committed during his or her tenure in the Oval Office. The only question for her at this moment is will she be indicted, and if so what the ramifications of that will be. I personally think some heavy-duty negotiations will ensue to reach a deal. But that is just my opinion, I have no facts.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #117)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:30 PM

134. I agree that the key problem is that the FBI has evidence of illegality. Whether it proceeds to

indictment or stops at the recommendation, there is no happy ending for Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 02:56 PM

118. The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tierra_y_Libertad (Reply #118)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 03:55 PM

122. Hillary hiding the Wall Street transcripts are a good example of that. I doubt they are as bad as we

all now assume they must be due to her failure to discover them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Reply #122)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:54 PM

142. damn good example

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 12:59 AM

143. That's all I've been trying to tell folks

 

I not a student of the law, but all we really have to know is how this works in our political system for the past several decades going back to Reagan's admin in terms of actual legal indictments leading prosecutions convictions etc, for far worse. Really only need to go back to Cheney and Karl Rove, and yes Chris Christie.

But this will be a huge train wreck for her general election and if she should win, this will dog her and the rest of us to death following the inaugural. Which also reverberate down ticket at some point.

It's really sad that the party establishment strategist didn't think this through long before she jumped in the game again. It isn't as if this matter just came up out of the blue.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Attorney in Texas (Original post)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 11:58 AM

155. Is Obama ready to piss away his reputation, his "legacy" if you will, to protect somebody

who has shown him next to no loyalty?

Because thats what it ultimately comes down to. If the FBI recommends indictment (IMO there's a better than even chance that will happen) and Lynch (which really means the president) puts the kibosh on their recommendation, the shit is really going to hit the fan. Even if this happens the day before the election, I'd expect to see articles of impeachment passed in the House within days. The president knows that.

Obama has kept his nose clean for 7-1/2 years. He's a pretty shrewd operator, and I can't believe he would sully his reputation to protect somebody like Hillary Clinton.

No, if the FBI finds evidence of criminal acts, I think the POTUS will let Clinton twist slowly, slowly in the wind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread