Question for those sure Hillary won't be indicted

[B2G]

How do you think an indictment against one or more of her top aides would play with voters?

My opinion...not much better than an indictment against Hillary herself.

[Trust Buster]

1. Win on the merits. This has gotten old.

[NWCorona]

3. This has nothing to do with Bernie

Try again.

[Trust Buster]

6. Yeah, keep telling yourself that......LOL

[NWCorona]

7. I didn't know that the FBI was working with Bernie

Who knew!

[Trust Buster]

9. You were talking about your motivations and not the FBI's. Sloppy deflection.

[NWCorona]

11. Where did I bring up motivations?

[dchill]

4. Win on the merits...

So you're supporting Bernie, now? Great!

[Gwhittey]

5. True

I am voting for Sanders because he is not under investigation by FBI. Also he and his family do not sit on board of a foundation that is currently also under investigation. Those are some merits for Sanders.

[Punkingal]

2. I wish this whole thing wasn't hanging out there.

It's a no-win situation. I don't want her indicted, or anyone else. It does not help us at all for the GE if she is the nominee.

[CoffeeCat]

15. I agree. This needs to be resolved

sooner, rather than later.

We can't have a Dem candidate with an FBI investigation hanging around her neck like a political anchor.

Yesterday's LA Times article indicates that Clinton may be questioned by the FBI soon.

Let's get it done, so our party can have closure on this once and for all. Wrap up the investigation and either indict her or close the case.

Then we can all move on and have a brief reprieve until Hillary or Bill pulls their next dishonest or corrupt move--which will trigger the next embarrassing scandal.

[thereismore]

8. I don't expect Hillary to be indicted. She is too high up the chain, too close to Obama. More likely

there will be some prosecution of her underlings. Not Pagliano, obviously. Who is between Pagliano and Clinton? Someone there will take the fall. Probably Mills or Huma.

I do think it is highly unlikely that there will be no charges at all. "Oops, our bad, 147 FBI agents found no wrongdoing."

[B2G]

10. I agree completely. nt

[zipplewrath]

16. No one will be indicted

There was a lot here that was done seriously wrong. But none of it will rise to a level of criminal activity. Someone would have to admit to willing intent and I can't believe anyone in the Clinton circle will do that. Much worse has happened with no criminal charges being filed.

[thereismore]

20. I heard that mishandling classified info does not need intent to be a felony. We'll see. nt

[zipplewrath]

22. You heard that did you?

The critical factor will be whether a prosecutor believes what you heard. They won't. They'll know that without intent, and in the lack of any evidence that any damage was done, making a case will be extraordinarily hard. And I'm dubious that in this administration, anyone will allow "political" prosecutions.

[thereismore]

24. No need to be nasty. I said "I heard" because I am not a legal expert. You sure sound like you are.

Do you know the letter of the law? Or are you just so enlightened that the rest of us who "heard something" are so below you that you can spit on them with condescension?

[zipplewrath]

33. Where did you "hear"?

This issue is your sourcing.
What I know is how these things are normally handled. I think the general public would be amazed how bad it gets before criminal proceedings begin. People lose jobs and are fined big bucks, and no criminal charges are filed. You have to have demonstrated that you intentionally did these things, usually with the purpose of exposing the very people from whom the information was to be withheld in order to generate criminal charges. None of that happened here.

[thereismore]

36. You seem to be intimately involved in the investigation. Where did you "hear" none of this happened?

Or are you just continuing with your condescension?

[zipplewrath]

43. Where did I hear nothing?

You don't hear a negative. No one has yet accused anyone of any criminal activity. Furthermore, the descriptions of what has been discovered has not represented any of the criteria which would support a criminal charge. If there is something, no one has made it public yet.

So, what is your source for your claim?

[thereismore]

45. A WaPo article, don't play obtuse. Bye now.

[zipplewrath]

47. It's obtuse to ask for a source?

Odd definition of obtuse.

And apparently it wasn't this article in which you heard it.

[stillwaiting]

28. How could gross negligence when pertaining to classified information not be a crime?

Especially when ordered to not do something and then going ahead and doing it anyways (when it pertains to classified information)?

HORRIBLE judgment regardless.

[zipplewrath]

31. Horrible judgement isn't criminal

Because she got the approval, what happened ended up not being all that surprising, and wouldn't really rise to the level of gross negligence. I think there is a huge misunderstanding in the general public about how often classified information finds it's way into unclassified contexts. It's not supposed to happen, but it does on a frequent basis.

[Bob41213]

21. Not sure.

1) I wouldn't be surprised to see an underling taken down. I think that's close to fairly likely.

2) I don't know the laws I'll admit. I believe there are different laws on classified material than intent. I've seen lots of people say she had to knowingly do it and lots of people say she didn't have to knowingly do it when classified material is involved.

3) I do expect there was a hubris involved in all this and I think they operated with an air of invulnerability because they controlled the server and all access to it. So I don't know that won't play into it.

[zipplewrath]

23. I would be very surprised.

1) What do you think that anyone could have done that will rise to the level of criminally prosecutable?

2) There is the law, and then there is what a prosecutor can successfully prosecute. Without evidence of intent AND evidence of damage from mishandling (neither of which has yet been suggested, much less shown) it would be EXTREMELY difficult to get a conviction.

3) There was hubris involved. Unfortunately, there was also some numbnuts that approved the use of the server for official business and so they get a "get out of jail free" card.

[thereismore]

25. 1) leaving 22 top secret emails on the server that was shipped to somebody's home in CO.

Genius.

[zipplewrath]

32. And not all that surprising

The amazing part here was that the State Department approved the use of the private server at all, because what happened was entirely predictable. That it was a more common arrangement than we knew, is just unimaginable in the modern context.

[B2G]

41. They approved the server?

Are you sure about that?

[zipplewrath]

44. Relatively

This has been represented from the beginning as an "approved" server. I have searched for the name/position/authority that did this approval and can not find it. Oddly, the committee which has been investigating this has made no issue of the approval, merely of the people who acted upon it. I've been curious for a long time because anyone who was knowledgeable about these systems would have immediately understood the "risks" for exactly what happened. So it was either someone with authority and no knowledge, or it was someone with no authority, which could be a little problematic for Clinton. About the only other possibility was that some lawyer in State wrote a legal opinion which they are using for cover here. But heck, it worked for Bush and torture so....

[B2G]

46. I think you're mistaken.

I have not read one word about this being an 'approved' server.

[zipplewrath]

49. It's out there, but vague.

In sum, Clinton’s exclusive use of private email makes it difficult to know with certainty whether she complied with rules governing transparency, recordkeeping and security. We may never know what emails she deleted. Additionally, we may never know the details of her conversations with the State Department officials who briefed her on records management and security, and why they agreed to let her use a private email exclusively.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/

You can find many articles about the larger topic, including one in which judicial watch is trying to get to the person or office that "approved" the use.

[basselope]

39. Maybe Ollie North is available?

[HereSince1628]

12. No one will much care about her aides as long as they keep their mouths shut.

Historically, the Clintons have had many aides in trouble and never got much dinged by it.

If they talk, that's another thing. But that's unlikely as they've all probably signed confidentiality agreements.

[B2G]

13. Confidentiality agreements?

That's going to fly in a criminal investigation??

"Sorry Mr. FBI Agent. I'd love to talk to you, but you see I've signed this agreement with Hillary".

Lollol.

[HereSince1628]

19. No. obviously not, but they do with investigating reporters

and with people wanting to produce ghost written tell-all stories.

[LonePirate]

14. Useless question. People who think she won't be indicted also think her staff won't be indicted.

I don't think anyone will be indicted, much to the chagrin of the fervent torch and pitchfork crowd here.

[FSogol]

17. +1. Totally agree. n/t

[emulatorloo]

27. Agreed, no one will be indicted.

Nor will there be any 'FBI recommendations to indict'

[LexVegas]

18. Vince Foster! nt

[Attorney in Texas]

26. I think Hillary's emails are proof that Sid Blumenthal violated the law and may well get indicted. I

see no clear proof that Hillary or her top aids will get indicted (although there are clear indications that the FBI will recommend some indictments against Hillary or her top aides or both but Obama's DoJ is NOT going to pursue those recommendations).

[Land of Enchantment]

29. When they announced the immunity deal I thought the writing was on the wall for a Grand Jury...

Anyone remember Archibald Cox, Elliott Richardson and William Ruckelshaus?

[Gothmog]

30. If you really believe this silliness, put your money where your mouth is

Go open an Irish brokerage account right now and lock in the current great pricing for Sanders not becoming the nominee http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination The Free Market system and the smart money are predicting that Sanders will not be the nominee and so you will make a ton of money. The investors making these markets will be happy to take your money and you will make a great return if your prediction is correct.

[B2G]

34. What prediction? nt

[Gothmog]

37. That Clinton or her aides will be indicted and so she will lose

[B2G]

38. It's not a prediction

It's a question. I've seen so many posting the Clinton will not get indicted, but that 'maybe an aide would'.

I am saying that would be extremely harmful too.

OK?

[Gothmog]

40. Again, if you really believe this silliness, then make some money

[BreakfastClub]

35. Nobody is getting indicted. It's a right wing fantasy. Sorry you got caught up in it. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Yep. Shit flows down hill.

The general who planned the battle blames the colonel who commanded it who blames the major who blames the captain who gave the orders to the lieutenant who told the sergeant to carry them out.

Private Snodgrass gets the firing squad for not shining his boots properly before the battle.

[EndElectoral]

48. Depends if they accept her playing the victim card based on "a few bad apples."