Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous."

[Bill USA]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297

TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." As reported by Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall, law professors and former federal prosecutors have told him "to a person" that the chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea and that "on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous -- a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness":



[div style="border:1px solid #000000;" class="excerpt"] As a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.

Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.

So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views. (TPM, 2/1/15)

ABC News: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her." In a February 1 article, ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media outlets hyping the claim that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. Abrams added that "there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time":

(more)

[yourpaljoey]

1. That's not what I'm seeing... not by a long shot

[Hortensis]

98. Paul Krugman feels it is so outrageous that

he calls for Bernie to be responsible and stop feeding the right wing's propaganda machine. Not to drop out -- to stop giving aid to the enemy.

[noretreatnosurrender]

2. Media Matters?

Seriously?

Set up as a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center.[4] It is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News."[5][6]

[Bill USA]

8. again, a Bernie "supporter" talking just like a Repugnant. Censoring those who don't agree with you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511612646#post6

[noretreatnosurrender]

11. It's Not Censorship

to point out the facts. This comes from David Brock's Media Matters. They SUPPORT Hillary Clinton. What would you expect it to say? Do you really think it would be critical of Hillary? Hello?

[Bill USA]

16. identify a mistatement of fact or twisting the facts in the article. You are doing what any

Repugnant does. to say because of someone's preference in candidate that therefore nothing they say can be trusted. that's just dogmatic proscription of a source. same kindof thing they do in USSR/ or russia now.

[noretreatnosurrender]

18. Sorry Dude

I've got better things to do with my time. You have fun now with your "fact filled" article.

[Bill USA]

63. you made my case for me. It's well known that Republicans attack Mediamatters because it is the

most effective site on the internet at pointing out how the Corporate media presents (or doesn't present) news to please the GOP. Most of the content of any Media Matters article is excerpts from articles that have appeared in the media. The MM article usually shows a web-stie or two which actually did present the news item without the RW bias. M$M usually slants the news, or leaves details out that would contradict the GOP propaganda on that matter or news item.

YOu can't point out any facts that have been misrepresented by MM because it hasn't happened.


Republicans prefer the GOP Alternate Reality as presented on FOX News network.-- which has been shown multiple times to be frequently wrong on factual matters.

[840high]

31. Media Matters - ur not serious

[Bill USA]

66. Republicans attack media matters just as they attack any legitimate source of information because

Media Matters is at odds with the GOP's Alternate Universe (the inverse of reality, which is needed to make their many excuses and screwball theories sound reasonable), which Republicans continue to chant endlessly (keep repeating the lie and many people will begin to think it's the truth just because they have heard it before).

IF you can show an example of Media Matters presenting a distortion of the facts or a biased presentation of an issue you are welcome to present your evidence --- for review by others , to see if your claim is valid. Otherwise you are just engaging in a baseless criticism of Media Matters.

Got any evidence to support your "criticism" (implied)? or are you going to be just another typical GOPer protecting your Alternate Reality?

[Bill USA]

67. Republicans hate MM because it has shown Fox News to be misrepresenting the facts so often.

You are just repeating what your 'oracles' tell you to think... O'Reilly and Varney of Fox..LOL


Fox's Varney And O'Reilly Lash Out At "Hate Site" Media Matters
Fox Hosts Proclaim Media Matters Is A "Propaganda" Outlet For Highlighting Fox News' Lies
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/10/09/foxs-varney-and-oreilly-lash-out-at-hate-group/206085

[noiretextatique]

102. You do know what he did to Anita Hill, don't you?

Like another person who "evolved," I don't believe a word he says.

[Bill USA]

65. the excerpt from the MM article was an excerpt from a Talking Points Memo article. I guess the GOP

.. has proscribed that site too, huh? LOL!!

Most of the content in MM articles is comprised of excerpts from M$M articles and internet articles which MM uses to make a point about how M$M tries to shape news coverage to please the GOP. They often include articles of the few internet sites that cover a subject so as to include the relevant facts giving readers an accurate picture of the issue or situation under consideration - which MM includes to contrast with the slanted presentation so often given by Corporate media.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-wages-of-derp-are-derp-lots-of-it

Here's the reality. Who knows what we will learn in the future? And this has nothing to do with the political impact of the "emails controversy". But as a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.

Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.

So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views.

As I've said, the political calculus and potential political damage is a different matter altogether. There is little doubt that this whole on-going controversy, along with stuff in the background about the Clinton Foundation, have hurt Clinton badly on public estimations of her honesty and trustworthiness. But again, on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous - a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness.
(more)

[Electric Monk]

3. Media Matters = David Brock = HRC propaganda. nt

[Bill USA]

6. again, a Bernie "supporter" talking just like a Repugnant. Censoring those who don't agree with you

IF you can't point out specific cases of your proscribed site slanting information of twisting facts you are showing yourself to be a dogmatic, zealot. IOW a Repugnant by another name.

Perhaps you are one of those Republican "for" Bernie ... promoting the candidate you prefer to run against.

[Electric Monk]

7. Second judge says Clinton email setup may have been in 'bad faith' - Reuters

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141397090

So much for your "experts".

[Bill USA]

14. Repugnants never give up on a pseudo scandal, do you?

[merrily]

21. LOL, two judges = pseudo scandal. Ok.

[Bill USA]

59. the IC IG did not make a criminal referral- it was a security referral - Intelligence Community IG &

...State Dept IG


https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security
officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the refe rral was to notify security
officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive
that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not
make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The
IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to
the appropriate IC security officials.

[Bill USA]

61. The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t - from WaPo

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-scandal-that-isnt/2015/08/27/b1cabed8-4cf4-11e5-902f-39e9219e574b_story.html

Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.
[font size="3"]
“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

“It’s common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isn’t used,” said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldn’t normally lead to criminal cases.[/font]
(more)

[Bill USA]

96. got any links? Here I'll help, look on the FOX cable news site. ROFL MediaMatters has a long

history of pointing out Fox News (cable) lies ... (but let's not forget the Factchecker's who have documented that fact too.)

[840high]

34. Open your eyes.

[Bill USA]

70. better tune in Oreilly and Varney to get an update on what your thoughts are..LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1618818

[840high]

86. Let's see - you called me a republican, you

tell me I watch O'Reilly - I don't have cable. Permanent ignore for you.

[Bill USA]

99. anyone who parrots GOP McCarthyist attacks of HRC is a Repugnant in effect, or in hopelessness

[AgerolanAmerican]

54. This literally came out of a HRC propaganda factory

Come on, bro, don't try to play us into believing this is a serious/unbiased/reality-based evaluation.

[Bill USA]

69. YOu are thinking what O'Reilly and Varney have told you to think..LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1618818

[AgerolanAmerican]

94. come on

they are definitely not impartial observers in this race specifically for specific reasons and favor a specific candidate to the extent that they'll just make up whatever the hell they like as they are accountable for it to no one.

[Bill USA]

105. cite anything in the article referenced in OP. make a case against the CONTENT, if you can. Even the

Catholic Church quit with the List of Proscribed books. If you can't make a case against some part of the CONTENT of the article you have nothing to offer worth reading.

BTW, the MM article content is mostly articles from other cites, such as TPM, ABC News, the National Law Journal.

You really should read the OP in question before you make an assessment of it.

[bornskeptic]

88. Another wingnut Reagan appointee, of course.

Judicial Watch has a knack for finding favorable judges.
2. He earned a strong reputation opposing the Clintons: In 1997, he fined the government more than $285,000 because Ira Magaziner, a top healthcare advisor, lied about the composition of a task force. The fine was overturned on appeal in 1999. Lamberth also “allowed Judicial Watch bulldog Larry Klayman to depose everyone from George Stephanopoulos to famous fundraiser John Huang in suits against the administration that most judges would probably have thrown out as frivolous,” according to Washington Monthly.

https://newrepublic.com/article/77203/who-royce-lamberth

[merrily]

17. No one has been more zealous about source shaming than Hillary's supporters.

When the shoe is on the other foot, though, pointing out the patently obvious bias of the source makes one a Republican. o.k.

[Bill USA]

73. oh my, I'll say it again, please provide documentation, links. Without that, you got nothin'

Democrats are far less likely to do that than Repugnants. Democrats are inclined to go after the accusations, or claims being made and show them to be invalid or at odds with the facts. Repugnants attack the source far more than they try to prove the point being made is wrong.

[merrily]

92. Some people never see how wrong they are--and on the rare occasions that they do, they

source shame, deflect, change the subject and so on. I can't be bothered with them.

[geek tragedy]

26. Amazing how Bernie supporters hate Democratic media sites, but love to

cite articles by WorldNutsDaily, Newsmax, Washington Free Beacon, Investors.com, Fox News, NY Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc etc.

P.S. Media Matters was part of the pushback against the Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004. Since Bernie supporters are now Swiftboating Clinton, no wonder they don't like Media Matters.

[Electric Monk]

30. Why can't you admit that it's total HRC propaganda at this point, just propaganda that you like? nt

[geek tragedy]

36. Media Matters defended John Kerry, and it defended Barack Obama against rightwing smear campaigns.

And given the daily bombardment of rightwing sources we get from Bernie fans attacking Clinton, it's rather fitting that the biggest anti-Swiftboating website on the left is displeasing those most eager to enable Swiftboating because they think, rather pathetically, that it's going to help them in a Democratic primary campaign.

I know what side I'm on, and I also know what side people who hate Media Matters but like Rupert Murdoch's media empire are on.

[840high]

35. I don't like Brock, neither

should you.

[geek tragedy]

37. who do you prefer, Trump or Clinton?

*crickets*

[840high]

48. Sanders, Warren, Biden.

[geek tragedy]

49. So, the former it is nt

[Bill USA]

68. Nice job of repeating what your 'oracles' O'Reilly and Varney tell you to think

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1618818

[Jackie Wilson Said]

77. That is what fox news and Bill Oreilly say, all the time.

[Electric Monk]

82. Even a broken clock is right twice a day

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

[Jackie Wilson Said]

83. So lets recap, nothing nice to say about Hillary Clinton, nice stuff to say about O'Reilly though

[Electric Monk]

89. I have nothing nice to say about O'Really. I never watch FAUX Noise.

If he happens to agree with me about something, oh well.

[Bill USA]

95. When u hear GOPers here calling MediaMatters a propaganda site they're parroting O'Reilly & Varney

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511618957

[thesquanderer]

106. Best part: Media Matters admits that Hillary might be indicted!

Yes, Media Matters is a Hillary support site. But look what they are proudly quoting:

As a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.

That sentence is a double-edged sword for Hillary. Sure, "very, very low" chance of indictment is primarily positive for her. But not-so-hidden within that sentence remains the fact that "low odds" means something is unlikely but not impossible. So the same sentence that is putting a positive spin on things is, simultaneously, an admission that, she actually could be indicted.

The fact that this is a lead line on a Brock PR piece is kind of astonishing in its way, admitting in effect that, while it may be unlikely, the fact is that we do need to be prepared for the possibility--even if a small one--that Hillary will be indicted. This might not be news, but it is not something you'd expect to be even slightly legitimized on Brock's site.

[merrily]

4. Here, let me help:

Experts Neoliberal Establishment Democrats Who Support Hillary in This Primary--As All of Them Do--Agree With the Hillary Campaign and With Each Other That the Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous."

[Bill USA]

10. here, let me help. the quote is not from Brock. LOL!

[merrily]

12. ? Please quote where I indicated in any way that the quote was from Brock?

Perhaps you watched Say Anything a few too many times? I get that. I'm a fan of Cusack and a friend was once married to Skye. But, geez. don't take the title literally!

Now that you brought it up though, just for the heck of though, tell me more about media matters, which does seem to be the source of the headline I edited for accuracy.

Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PM
Number of posts: 4,480

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=255779&sub=trans

[Marr]

24. +1

[CoffeeCat]

5. Media Matters! David Brock's organization!

David Brock, who works for the Clinton camp, is issuing articles that laugh off the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton.

That is...beautiful.

Media Matters is a PR arm of the Clinton camp, providing rapid-response articles to hot issues.

The big reveal is that the Clinton camp is putting a real effort toward playing defense on this issue. Obviously, their campaign is devoting resources to counter the damage.

[Bill USA]

9. again, a Bernie "supporter" talking just like a Repugnant. Censoring those who don't agree with you

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511612646#post6

[merrily]

19. What is it that you think you're trying to do when you associate posters

with Republicans simply because they point out that the source at your link works for Hillary?

[hrmbaja]

29. Must be tbeir latest strategy now.

Call posters who disagrees with Clinton about anything Republicans.

[merrily]

46. They've been doing it for years. Criticize any Democrat from the left

and you're exactly like a Republican. Or even fail to fawn to when a story like the opening post is posted.

Because left is identical to right and "Democrat" is a synonym for "Republican." That's all been very clear on DU for years.

[reformist2]

13. The "experts" have no f'ing clue. But indictment or not, this is a serious matter.

[ucrdem]

15. This new-found zeal for National Security is amusing.

So keeping secrets is now progressive-leftist job one. Fancy that.

[merrily]

20. Intentional violation of federal law by a candidate for POTUS is no biggie.

Is that your claim?

[ucrdem]

33. I'm touched by all this patriotism. nt

[840high]

39. I'm touched by your denial.

[merrily]

50. Is that you, Lee?

[blueintelligentsia]

22. Experts are speculating like us non-experts...n/t

[sadoldgirl]

23. All I can say is

that it is high time for the FBI to conclude
its investigation and, if there is a case, to get
it to the JD in no time.

This should not become the biggest scandal
during an election year!

[grasswire]

28. you may get your wish

LBN tonight...Hillary's personal interview with FBI may come in days or a few weeks. FBI Director has finished examining the evidence.

[cosmicone]

25. The devotees of Unicorn J. Sparklepony, out of desperation,

are hanging on to a last hope. I pity them.

#feelthemath

[geek tragedy]

27. the Indictment Fairy is going to leave a lot of people

at DU disappointed.

[jeff47]

32. Josh does not even understand the difference between retroactive marking

and retroactive classification. He's not exactly the best one to base your opinion on. 'Cause he's going to ask those experts about retroactive classification instead of retroactive marking.

[geek tragedy]

38. clap louder for the Indictment Fairy!! The Indictment Fairy is your only hope!! nt

[Electric Monk]

41. I'm curious, have you totally stopped caring about hides and your transparency page?

It's getting pretty darn long.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=144296&sub=trans

[geek tragedy]

42. You care more about it than I do. nt

[jeff47]

43. I'm so happy Skinner made it so you can post whatever you want.

It's such an improvement.

Now, back here in the reality-based community, that retroactive-marking vs retroactive-classification is an extremely important legal distinction, and the fact that Josh keeps refusing to understand the difference is problematic if you're going to trust his coverage on the subject.

[geek tragedy]

45. the jury system still exists. And to me, people citing Matt Drudge's blogroll to attack Democrats

are the ones who are disrespecting this place. If every person who willfully cites rightwing slime outlets to attack Democrats were to get the heave-ho, that would constitute a major improvement.

In terms of showing willful misplacement of classified material, retroactive marking vs classification is a minor detail.

Keep on clapping.

[jeff47]

52. Go ahead and quote me citing Drudge.

Oh wait...you can't.

Instead, I've been citing Clinton's own defense on the matter where she and her staff conflate retroactive marking and retroactive classification. And I've cited Josh Marshall's failure to understand the difference.

Golly, that's exactly like quoting Drudge.

If Clinton was government peon #23647, she'd already be indicted by now for this. But since she's Clinton, there's people like you insisting there could not possibly be anything wrong here.

She fucked up. The security on her server was utterly abysmal. She absolutely violated FOIA, which is why the fuckers at Judicial Watch now get to comb through her emails. And at a minimum, she violated the regulations regarding the handling of classified, meaning at a minimum she could never hold a clearance again. Whether or not it's prosecutable depends on how much negligence she demonstrated.

From what has leaked, it looks like a lot of negligence. We'll see if the investigation shows any mitigating circumstances.

In terms of showing willful misplacement of classified material, retroactive marking vs classification is a minor detail.

Utterly and absolutely wrong. If it is retroactively classified, she could not have been negligent and thus can not be prosecuted. If it was retroactively marked, then she could have been negligent and can be prosecuted.

It is an extremely important distinction. And anyone who doesn't understand it or downplays it is as uninformed on the subject as Drudge.

[geek tragedy]

55. Name one person who was prosecuted for doing what Clinton did.

And no, Petraeus is not the same. Nor did Sandy Berger do anything in the same zip code.

Curiously, you write:

If Clinton was government peon #23647, she'd already be indicted by now for this.

But then write this:

Whether or not it's prosecutable depends on how much negligence she demonstrated.
From what has leaked, it looks like a lot of negligence. We'll see if the investigation shows any mitigating circumstances.

So you really have no idea, other than the (false) claim that someone can be prosecuted for "a lot of negligence."

You should leave the legal punditry to people with legal educations. Or know how to do basic legal research.

This case torpedoes your rightwing nonsense theory that she can be thrown in jail under the Espionage Act:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/case.html

The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation." This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established.

Good luck to you all getting Clinton prosecuted under that standard.


Clinton's partisan enemies on the right and extreme left are the only ones peddling this Indictment Fairytale.

[jeff47]

57. There's tons of examples. They're not famous, so they actually get prosecuted.

Here's a treatise on some of it. It's UCMJ, but similar enough to civilians.
http://www.jamesmadisonproject.org/files/Navy%20Litigating%20Classified%20Cases/Chapter%20Five%20-%20Other%20Cases%20Involving%20Classified%20Information.pdf

So you really have no idea, other than the (false) claim that someone can be prosecuted for "a lot of negligence."

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

Government peon would be prosecuted if there was any possible way a prosecutor could spin some negligence.

For Clinton, the bar is going to be higher because she's famous and thus is treated differently under the law. They'll have to show significant negligence and may attempt to wiggle out of prosecuting her based on "not enough negligence".

That difference is the mechanism by which Clinton gets treated differently than a government peon.

This case torpedoes your rightwing nonsense theory that she can be thrown in jail under the Espionage Act:

Our current classification system came into being in 1947. That 1941 precedent was under the previous system, which allowed more ambiguity. Which was one of the reasons we created the uniform system in 1947.

There is no honest question about whether or not the information was classified at the time - even the State department has given up on that claim. So it really won't be had to show Clinton had reason to believe the information would cause injury/advantage.

[geek tragedy]

58. Hating Hillary is not a substitute for legal training.

1) you cited a Navy handbook. Hillary Clinton is not subject to the UCMJ.

2) that material explicitly states that negligent mishandling cases usually result in additional training, not judicial punishment

3). You failed to find a single example of someone being prosecuted for what Clinton did.

Whiff.

4). The classification system did not amend that statutory language. Ergo, the case is still controlling. That is how this law stuff works.

5) prosecutors would have to show that Clinton knew that sending those emails would damage the United States. That is an impossible standard here.

Sorry, you and the other Hillary Haters and your law degrees from Google are out to lunch on this.

[lakeguy]

87. and all of this ignores what else may have been found while searching

those 30k emails she deleted. Clinton foundation, donations and agreements made after those, and whatever else turns up? that's how they got Bill.

even though i don't support HRC i don't want them to find anything because it will be hell on all D's come election day. but to ignore the possible damage here is just plain stupid. she should have kept all that shit completely separated but apparently didn't have the good judgement to do so. it was a selfish and stupid move. especially considering what they did to her husband.

[DCBob]

40. Its a GOP and Bernie die hards wet dream.

Its always been a fake scandal.

[paulthompson]

44. Did anyone notice the date of this article? February 1st!

Did anyone notice the date? February first. Needless to say, a lot has been revealed since then.

I had a strong feeling before I even clicked on the link that this would be a David Brock/Media Matters thing. Sure enough it was. That's what he's paid to do, catapult the propaganda.

[blueintelligentsia]

47. Also, they are just speculating like the rest of us n/t

[frylock]

56. hahaha! Nice catch!

Welcome back, Paul!

[RufusTFirefly]

85. Well done!

Recycled old news to put out new fires.

[Gothmog]

51. There will be no indictment of Hillary Clinton due to the silly e-mail claims

[k8conant]

53. Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

"there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time":

[Avalux]

60. AHEM. Let me repeat just in case you missed it. Media Matters = David Brock = Hillary Inc.

I'm not saying I think Hillary will be indicted, but I can't take anything 'published' by that site as objective.

[madville]

62. A better title would be

"Experts who work for or support Clinton all agree indictment chatter is ridiculous".

[DemocratSinceBirth]

72. I don't believe these legal experts work for Clinton

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499&nfo=/desktop_newsfeed_ab_refer_google_politics


http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis


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


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/21/clinton-email-state-server-column/32042775/

[madville]

74. You're joking right?

Last edited Thu Mar 31, 2016, 08:15 PM - Edit history (2)

In most of the articles you cited either the author or the cited sources or both are current or past political campaign donors to Hillary Clinton lol. That's why I said "either work for or support" in my post above.

Most of those sources are biased in some way. This website is easy to use if you haven't checked it out before:

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. She's a Democrat and Democrats contribute to her.

I would accept their analyses over this or that random internet poster.

If you believe your analysis is superior to their analyses there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion, but please "keep hope alive."

I am supremely confident she won't be indicted and am willing to wager on it. I even have some ideas that don't involve money.



P.S.

In each article you cited either the author or the cited sources or both are current or past political campaign donors to Hillary Clinton lol.

That is incorrect. Neither Dan Abrams or Richard Lempert ever contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaigns, ergo:

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

-John Adams

[madville]

81. My opinion doesn't matter at all

But that doesn't change the fact that these are mostly just Hillary supporters supporting Hillary and there's nothing wrong with that. They're just biased opinions and shouldn't be presented as facts is what I'm pointing out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

84. I edited my post... At first I took you at your word.

Neither Mr.'s Lempert or Abrams ever contributed to Hillary Clinton as you stated, ergo:

In each article you cited either the author or the cited sources or both are current or past political campaign donors to Hillary Clinton lol.

-madville

That is incorrect. Neither Dan Abrams or Richard Lempert ever contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaigns, ergo:

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/

http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/

P.S. That site disallows hyperlinks. I welcome you or anybody to go to the site you linked and put in the gentlemen's names.

[madville]

90. You're correct

Neither Abrams or Lempert are Hillary donors, that's why I didn't limit to just the authors

Honestly though, I messed up and didn't click on or read the Lempert article, I'm glad you pointed it out because I went back and read the whole thing. I agree with most of his assessment that rules and laws could have been broken but an indictment of Hillary is unlikely because the rules apply differently to people at that level than others. But the people that were sending her the classified info (I take that to mean her aides and Blumenthal) could be in much more serious trouble.

The source cited in the Abrams article that has been donating to Hillary this year is actually pretty funny if you know who it is , mainly because it doesn't make much sense.

I edited my post above to say "most" instead of "all", thanks for the catch.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

91. Blumenthal is a private citizen so if someone sent him classified information they have legal ...

Blumenthal is a private citizen so if someone sent him classified information they have legal exposure not him. That's why the publisher of leaked classified information legal exposure is limited though the leaker's legal exposure is great.

[B2G]

64. How much of the FBI evidence have these 'experts' reviewed?

None?

Then they are the ones 'chattering'.

[grntuscarora]

71. Well that settles it,

because the "experts" have been right-on-the-money this entire primary season--with pinpoint predictions like Trump would implode, Bernie would bust, etc.


Oh, wait.

[revbones]

76. ugh Media Matters and David Brock...

How about a real source please?

[Trust Buster]

78. This is depressing news to republicans. I mean Republicans and Sanders supporters.....LOL

[LonePirate]

79. Was I the only one who read the ABC News snippet which agreed with MMfA?

Why are people dismissing that source?

[RufusTFirefly]

80. Experts agree!

[Lans]

93. This thread is hilarious

I don't know if there is any danger for Hillary since I'm not from the FBI but quoting a site which is being funded by her Super PAC is just sad. Can I quote some conspiracy theory sites here - they have tons of articles about the Clintons I can post here. I think both conspiracy fantasies and David Brock don't have a place here unless its to laugh at them, while being somewhat concerned with the people buying into the bs.

[Bill USA]

97. who needs experts when you can listen to a guy who knows nothing of the law, hasn't graduated

.. from college yet!!! ROFL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511625920

[Bill USA]

100. so glad to have Repugnants on the site. They keep on wishin' and hopin' ..LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1645578

[AgadorSparticus]

101. The only people I see perpetuating this are the wingnuts and sander supporters.

[jfern]

103. "Experts" agree that Anita Hill is a "little bit nutty and a little bit slutty"

I don't give a fuck what David Brock thinks.

[Recoverin_Republican]

107. here's another from the GOP (and Bernie supporters) Alternate Universe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1645578