FBI Question

[FourScore]

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)

There are some pretty intense rumblings on the internet that the FBI is close to recommending an indictment against Hillary Clinton for various crimes including obstruction of justice (for the deletion of the 30,000 emails). Apparently, the case also includes charges related to the donations that were funneled to the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at State as well as having classified emails on her home server.

I have found it very odd that the MSM has remained so silent on this topic. Dozens of FBI agents have been working on this for over a year. They have extradited a hacker from Romania (Guccifer) who has confessed to spending 7 hours a day for weeks reading her emails, including those that were classified. Her IT guy has been granted FBI immunity, which according to legal scholars, is only done when the FBI needs the person's testimony to help build a case.

The FBI announced 2-3 weeks ago that they were interviewing Hillary Clinton and 5 of her aides. Such a request is usually time-limited within 5 days. She hired David Kendall (from Lewinsky days) to represent her. That means that HRC and her aides have most likely spoken to the FBI, but there has been no mention of it in the press.

Why is this? No one can presume this is all for naught. There are serious issues behind this investigation and huge resources being spent on it. Can you imagine the turmoil to our party and to the election if she is indicted? Or, if the Justice Dept (AG Lynch has ties to Clinton) refuses to follow the FBI's rcommendation and indict, can you imagine what would happen? Sources say Comey will resign and the FBI will release it's findings. Such a move would not be illegal because if the Justice Dept refuses to indict then they have determined that no laws were broken. If the FBI dumps it's findings, they will be picked apart by the Republicans and the press.

Bernie refused to make this a campaign issue. Why? Does he know what is happening ? Is that why he is staying in the race to the end?

So my question is, and I do not hope this occurs, what if HRC is indicted?

(Please do not reply if you are going to post BS such as "Benghazi!!!" This has nothing to do with that.)

ON EDIT: Within a few minutes I have received a number of non-informative snarky posts but nothing of any substance. Please, is there a Hillary supporter who can help me understand how a person (and a party) just ignores an FBI investigation. I mean, I have looked at the possible charges, and I have to say, they look pretty damning!!

ANOTHER EDIT: Since so many posters are focusing on the first sentence where I said "the FBI is close to an indictment against Hillary Clinton" by insisting that the FBI does not indict (obviously ignoring the rest of the OP where I clarify the DoJ's role), I have added the word "recommending" to the sentence. Now, can we please focus on the real point of the OP?

[BreakfastClub]

1. She's not going to be indicted. It's a right wing fantasy. nt

[FourScore]

3. Okay. How do you know that? What are you basing it on? And...

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 01:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Why then the extradition of Guccifer and the immunity for Pagiliano? Especially the immunity.

[emulatorloo]

10. Because the only ones saying 'she will be indicted' are on Fox News

And sites that believe Fox News is a "truth-teller"

Fox is just speculating about what the want to happen, and pretending their speculation is fact.

IMHO Bernie didn't make it a campaign issue because he knows fox is full of shit and lies about Democrats.

There is no one outside of the FBI and maybe some other govt agencies who know exactly what is going on, and they aren't talking.

[FourScore]

13. That's not true. We know an awful lot.

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 06:11 PM - Edit history (2)

1. We know that classified information was knowingly de-classified (per Hillary's request to her aides) so that it could be sent via her server.

2. We know that there are numerous times when the Clinton Foundation received money from a donor and within a couple of weeks, a state dept contract was awarded.

3. We know that she deleted 30,000 emails and claimed they were about yoga, Chelsea's wedding and emails to her hubby (even though he has publicly claimed he doesn't use email).

4. We know that dozens of FBI agents are working on the case.

5. We know the hacker who accessed her acct has been extradited to the US. ON EDIT: GUCCIFER DID NOT HACK HILLARY'S ACCT - HE HACKED BLUMENTHAL'S, AND THAT'S WHERE HE READ SOME OF HILLARY'S EMAILS, INCLUDING SENSITIVE ONES.

6. We know the man who set up the email has been granted immunity. Look that up - immunity is only granted by the FBI when they need the person's testimony to build a case. That is the only reason it is granted.

7. We know that some of her aides worked for the Clinton Foundation while being employed at the State Dept.

These are all facts that have been published in the MSM during this investigation.

[emulatorloo]

21. My point was only right-wing media are pushing "she will be indicted" meme

Yes we have learned some things in MSM.

[FourScore]

35. The question is, how do you know she WON'T be indicted?

I think the silence from the media is mysterious and disconcerting. I have wondered throughout this election if the powers that be aren't setting things up for a Trump win. I am very worried about that. I don't believe for a second that the coverage they have given Trump has just been given to increase their ratings. I think it has been to increase his exposure.

[Cal33]

73. If, as you say, the Republicans want Trump to win, they won't wait till

after the GE, because then Hillary's V-P would become president.

They'd indict before the GE. My question is, if Sanders has already
lost the Primaries to Clinton, would he then be reinstated as the
Democratic candidate? Are there laws on this point?

Or do you think the Republicans would indict Clinton still earlier, while
Sanders is still in the race in the Primaries?

Anyone of the above doesn't look like a sure thing for the Republicans,
since it looks like Sanders has a good chance of beating Trump.

[FourScore]

117. I have heard that the DNC will ask Biden to replace Clinton. n/t

[tex-wyo-dem]

129. The DNC would be crazy to replace Clinton with...

Biden or anyone else besides Bernie. Although Biden is well known, he did not spend one day campaigning, has not built a campaign apparatus or anything. The Dems would lose badly.

[JudyM]

137. Winning may not be as important to the Makers as maintaining the "status quo cash flow" as I see it.

[Cal33]

197. Yes, that could be a good reason for the Establishment Democrats to prefer

having a Republican as president. They'd also be living up to their name of
Republican-lite."

[Cal33]

213. Thanks for the info. It seems the DNC would prefer to have a Republican than Sanders

for president. It's sad.

[emulatorloo]

115. If she were going to be indicted, Biden would have jumped in

I have a feeling Obama is in the loop on this investigation. If there was any evidence suggesting Clinton would be indicted, Biden would have been told to get in and Hillary would have been told to get out.

[FourScore]

118. I'm not so sure. It is too late for Biden to "jump in".

I have heard, though, that the DNC will ask Biden to replace her if she is indicted.

[emulatorloo]

120. I meant he would have jumped in way back when

[FourScore]

122. I don't think we knew as much then as we do now.

Everyone saw it (including myself) as just another Benghazi thing.

[emulatorloo]

123. INMO Obama would have known

Take care and have a great day

[angrychair]

151. No, he is not "in the loop"

As that would be a crime. This is a federal investigation and is strictly need to know. It does not work the way you imply.

[emulatorloo]

156. Ok n/t

[2banon]

155. I kinda have a feeling your instincts are correct that Obama is in the loop.

However that then presents a whole set of other questions with regard to their strategy, for me.

Which brings us back to square one: Why on earth did they trot out HRC with all of this looming ahead. As much as I understand the TPTB yanks the strings for their own agenda to maintain status quo. this strategy does not fit into that scenario for me. I can't square it with the idea of handing it over to ass clowns on the repukes train.

[winter is coming]

159. Do you really think anyone could have stopped her from tossing her

hat in the ring? For some people, the Clintons are the Party, a state of affairs we may soon come to regret.

[2banon]

163. That's a good point, and yes I have thought of the fact she's been campaigning since 2000.

So, yeah your point you make here is spot on.

[FourScore]

168. Someone pointed out to me last night that the Clintons are the most powerful, political family

in the world right now.

I think there is a lot of truth to that.

[2banon]

176. When I learned of one of the Rothschilds close ties, that's the moment I "got it".

That pretty much explained everything imo.

Dollars to donuts the Clinton Foundation is untouchable in the most darkest sense of the word, if you get my drift.

[Gothmog]

203. "Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike

These charges are really funny. The so call beyond top secret information is material in news reports http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes. Those who sent the emails were not involved in directing or approving the strikes, but responded to the fallout from them, the official said.

The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground. For example, U.S. officials with security clearances have been warned not to access classified information leaked to WikiLeaks and published in the New York Times.

“Even though things are in the public domain, they still retain their classification level,” the official said. “The ICIG maintains its position that it’s still ‘codeword’ classified.”

The State Department is likely to persist in its contention that some information the intelligence community claimed was “top secret” because it related to North Korean nuclear tests was actually the product of “parallel reporting” that did not rely on classified intelligence products and so should not be treated as highly classified, the official said.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/hillary-clinton-email-server-top-secret-217985#ixzz3xvQpGCwW

E-mails discussing material in the Washington Post are not top secret or SAP.

Thank you for the laughs

[grasswire]

34. we know that she employed Sid Blumenthal...

...as a close advisor despite Obama having banned him from advising her.

We know that Blumenthal was feeding her faulty intelligence on Libya while he himself was ginning up private business, and that she then pressured Obama to attack in Libya against the advice of his other advisors.

We know that she transmitted intel that was copied from NSA transmissions.

We know that for the first three months of her server, it was NOT secure. During that time, she traveled to Asia, and national security experts assume that she was hacked there by foreign interests.

That's just a bit of it.

[Agschmid]

71. #5 isn't factual.

[FourScore]

119. Please elaborate. What is not factual about it? n/t

[Agschmid]

134. Gucifer did not hack Hillary's system.

You acknowledged that down thread.

[frylock]

143. Correct. Guccifer hacked Blumenthal's system.

[FourScore]

146. HA! I've got two #5s in that list, so I was looking at the wrong one!

I'll go in and fix that. That's what I get for typing in the middle of the night.

You are correct about Guccifer not hacking Hillary, but rather Blumenthal. I should probably change that, too.

Thanks for the correction.

[jfern]

58. Bernie didn't make it an issue, because he wants to run an issue based campaign

He said it's up to the FBI to figure out, not that it doesn't amount to anything. He sees no need to politicize the FBI investigation. It's not like it would affect whether they indict her.

[jg10003]

216. It was Drudge who first told of Monica Lewinsky. Anyone, even Fox, can be right sometimes.

[FourScore]

233. Exactly. n/t

[thesquanderer]

56. re: "Especially the immunity"

I believe you are correct that immunity is only offered if they expect the person's testimony to help build a case against someone... but in this case, we do not know who the someone is. It is not necessarily Hillary herself. She may not be the only person whose actions are being investigated.

[CorporatistNation]

192. The FBI And It's Head (Comey) And ALL Of Its Agents Will Be The Laughing Stock Of The World If They

...Fail to provide, and quite soon a completed report and recommendation that is beyond refute either for or against indictment.

A letter published on DU recently by the head of the society of retired FBI agents called for the appropriate and ethical decisions to be made regarding Hillary Clinton. Said decision should be made prior to the DNC Convention I would think. The analysis of the evidence at hand by very astute legal and law enforcement scholars offer objective evidence that Hillary has "something to worry about " and is depending once again on political "grease" to slide her by this one.

The question is for many... how hard are you willing to SQUEEZE YOUR NOSE TO VOTE for Hillary who objectively other than "being historic," is a dramatically flawed candidate who again objectively has well documented trust issues among voters of ALL registrations.

[Gothmog]

202. Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server

Here is a good legal analysis as to why Hillary Clinton will not be indicted http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … shall be fined … or imprisoned.”

The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.

The statute also provides a definition of what constitutes classified information within the meaning of the subsection described above: “[C]lassified information, means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for … restricted dissemination.”

Again, the most important words are the ones I have italicized. First, they indicate that the material must have been classified at the time of disclosure. Post hoc classification, which seems to characterize most of the classified material found on Clinton’s server, cannot support an indictment under this section. Second, information no matter how obviously sensitive does not classify itself; it must be officially and specifically designated as such.

Lesser penalties are provided under 18 USC 1924 which provides that an officer of the United States commits a criminal violation if that person possesses classified “documents or materials” and “knowingly removes such … materials without authority and with the intent to retain such … materials at an unauthorized location.”

Prosecutors would also encounter stumbling blocks if they charged Clinton under this law. First, it is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.

But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer......

Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

There will be no indictment

[Samantha]

8. Have you read any of the emails between her and Blumenthal?

Just wondering.

Sam

[840high]

36. Go read the email exchanges

between her and Sis.

[leveymg]

85. The FBI Report will find she violated the terms of her signed security agreement. That is

Last edited Mon May 2, 2016, 02:14 PM - Edit history (3)

essentially the same as a finding she violated one or more federal laws referenced within it. While the Bureau can make a recommendation, it is up to the Attorney General, by way of the US Attorney with jurisdiction, to decide whether to convene a Grand Jury -- or, if that has already happened, and the GJ has voted to indict -- to actually unseal the indictment.

I think it is entirely possible that an indictment will not actually be issued, provide that HRC cooperates with an out of court agreement to release her delegates once she reaches the magic number. In the end, Obama will pardon her, anyway, just as Bill Clinton did his former CIA Director, John Deutch.

Here is Hillary's Security Oath and the statute it references, 18 USC Sec. 793. Go ahead and read it.

1) Hillary signed this document on 01/22/09:

?w=500&h=262

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-05069 Doc No. C05833708 Date: 11/05/2015
! I RELEASE IN PART I
B7(C),B6
---------------------------------1REVIEW AUTHORITY:
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Barbara Nielsen, Senior
Reviewer
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN Hillary Rodham Clinton AND THE UNITED STATES
1. lntending to be legally bound. I hereby accept the obligations contained In this Agreement In consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards or Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits unauthorized disclosure of lnformation in the Interest of national security; and unclassified Information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided In Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1A(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified lnformation special confidence and trust have been placed in me by the United States Government .
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security lndoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this Information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified Information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will not divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it, or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) 1'9SJ) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that lf I am uncertain about the classification status of Information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the Information is unclassified before I may disclose It, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this may result In the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation by me may constitute a violation, or violations. of Untied States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641. 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50,
United Slates code. and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing In the Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation..
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations. and emoluments that have resulted, wiII result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation of classified Information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement
6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement Including, but not but not limited to application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of Information In breach of this Agreement.
1. I understand that all classlfled information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classffled materials which have or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or- that provided me access ID classifled Information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Sections 793 and/or 1924, § 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.
8. Unless and until I am released In writing by an authorized representative or the United States Government.. I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified lnformation, and at all times thereafter.
9. Each provision of this Agreement is severable. If a court should find provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain In full force and effect.

Sec 793 (e) and (f) linked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[2banon]

97. I've wondering if an "October Surprise" is the intended agenda.

It is curious why the media doesn't seem to be interested to date, don't know which conclusion to draw from the FBI investigations, other than an October Surprise scenario.

My sense is that this story will continue to be buried one way or the other, as I fervently believe the Establishment Elite which includes those involved with the Clinton Foundation et. al will not allow the Justice Department to take any action which would jeopardize their financial and power center interests.

[ymetca]

127. Bingo!

Even if Comey resigned and made a big stink about it the MSM would paint him as a nut and only the far right would believe him.

"We have become the tools of our tools."

Building the perfect beast...

[bobthedrummer]

133. The Clintons, James Comey, federal investigations, Loretta Lynch, Maggie Williams-where have WE

heard about all this before?

Castle Grande (Wikipedia entry)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Grande

[2banon]

167. interesting quote. I like that, where did it originate?

[Ferd Berfel]

138. Agree - I've said many times here that

when they lower the boom - it will be AFTER it's too late for the Dems to do anything about it.
.......and she (We) lose.

And that will be the coup de gras for the neo-demo Party

[Gothmog]

204. Laypersons are so silly when they try to understand legal concepts

Your attempt at analysis is simply wrong but fun to laugh at. You seem to delight in being wrong and I am really having fun laughing at your posts. First, Petraeus' binders were marked classified and Petraeus knew that the material was classified. This is from the document issued connection with his plea deal https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/03/petraeus-factual-basis.pdf

Between in or about August 2011, and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and thereafter intentionally retained such documents and materials at the DC Private Residence and the PETRAEUS Residence, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials. ....

Between in or about August 2011 and on or about April 5, 2013, defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS, being an employee of the United States, and by virtue of his employment, became possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, and did unlawfully and knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at unauthorized locations, aware that these locations were unauthorized for the storage and retention of such classified documents and materials;

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924

This document is interesting reading and turns in large part on Petraeus' knowledge and intent issue despite the fact that he signed multiple NDAs. There are no strict liability laws where one can commit a crime without mens rea or culpable mental intent. In this case, the general had that intent and still only got a probated sentence. The e-mails in question were not marked as top secret and under the law, the government will have an impossible burden of showing that Sec. Clinton knew that the material was top secret.

Here is a good explanation of the law that is written for laypersons by the Congressional Research Service https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf

18 U.S.C. Section 1924 prohibits the unauthorized removal of classified material by government employees, contractors, and consultants who come into possession of the material by virtue of their employment by the government. The provision imposes a fine of up to $1,000 and a prison term up to one year for offenders who knowingly remove material classified pursuant to government regulations concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States, with the intent of retaining the materials at an unauthorized location....

In light of the foregoing, it seems that there is ample statutory authority for prosecuting individuals who elicit or disseminate many of the documents at issue, as long as the intent element can be satisfied and potential damage to national security can be demonstrated.

The execution of a NDA does not relieve the government of the burden of proving intent.

Remember that the Special access material being discussed are e-mails discussing New York Times articles about droned. Material published in the NYT is not classified and no DOJ attorney will be silly enough to bring an indictment based on that claim.

Keep up the good work. Your posts are really funny. Lawyers enjoy it when laypersons make obvious mistakes on legal questions

[leveymg]

217. Unlike 1924, Sec 793 (e) and (f) don't require a showing of intent.

The truth can be an annoyance, but you will eventually get over it.

[Gothmog]

218. Your attempts at analysis are really sad and weak

There are laws that make it illegal for laypersons to practice law and your analysis shows that these laws are necessary. You can not have a criminal violation without some form of intent. Here is a very simplistic explanation that even a layperson might be able to understand http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html

Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as "mens rea", which is simply Latin for a "guilty mind". In other words, what a defendant was thinking and what the defendant intended when the crime was committed matters. Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to commit a crime.

To give an example, imagine two drivers who end up hitting and killing a pedestrian. Driver 1 never saw the person until it was too late, tried his or her best to brake, but could do nothing to stop the accident and in fact ended up killing the pedestrian. Driver 1 is still liable, but likely only in civil court for monetary damages.

Driver 2, on the other hand, had been out looking for the pedestrian and upon seeing him, steered towards him, hit the gas pedal and slammed into him, killing him instantly. Driver 2 is probably criminally liable because he intended to kill the pedestrian, or at least he intended to cause serious bodily harm. Even though the pedestrian is killed in both scenarios (the outcome is the same), the intent of both drivers was very different and their punishments will be substantially different as a result.

Careless versus Criminal

Carelessness is generally referred to as "negligence" in legal terminology, and generally results in only civil, not criminal, liability. However, at some point general carelessness turns into something more culpable, and some criminal statutes have heightened negligence standards such as criminal or reckless negligence. For example, it may be simple negligence to leave items out on your sidewalk that cause a neighbor to fall and hurt themselves. It may be more than simple negligence, however, if you left out a chainsaw, some knives and flammable material on your sidewalk, resulting in your neighbor's serious injury.

Intentional versus Unintentional

Intentional harmful behavior is often criminal, but unintentional harmful behavior comes in two basic forms. The first is "mistake in fact" and the second is "mistake of law".

Mistake in fact means that, although your behavior fit the definition of a crime in an objective sense - you sold illegal drugs for instance - you were unaware that what you were selling was in fact an illegal drug. For example, if you gave someone a bag full of white powder in return for some money and honestly thought it was baking soda, then you are mistaken as to a fact that is critical to the crime. As a result, you likely lack the necessary mens rea or mental intent necessary under a drug law, because you never intended to sell an illegal drug, you intended to sell baking soda (note that almost no one will believe you honestly thought baking soda could be sold for that much money).

Mistake of law however, will almost never save you from criminal liability. Almost everyone is familiar with the phrase that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", and that's exactly how the law sees it. Perhaps in the above example, you did know that what you were selling was cocaine, but you honestly thought that it was legal to do so. It doesn't matter. It may seem slightly unfair that the person who was essentially dumb enough to believe that the white powder was baking soda gets off, but the well intentioned person who honestly thought it was legal to sell cocaine doesn't get off. The justification for having no tolerance for ignorance of the law is that allowing ignorance of the law as a defense would discourage people from learning the law and seriously undermine the effectiveness of the legal system.

- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html#sthash.OLHaBt76.dpuf

This not an area for strict liability. For example the Petraeaus case involved a ton of proof of actual intent to release material that the general knew was classified.

Thank you for the amusement.

[leveymg]

219. The Espionage Act isn't "most crimes." It's particularly draconian

and has always been controversial among legal scholars. But it is the law. You are right, most federal crimes do require a showing of intent as does the lesser charge under Sec 1924 to which Petraeus was allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor charge. However, that may not be an option in this case with Hillary. Kind of ironic isn't it?

[Gothmog]

221. Again, thank you for the laughs and the proof that laypersons are bad at legal analysis

There is not strict liability under that law. Laypersons are so cute and adorable when they try to understand legal concepts

[leveymg]

242. Repeating yourself, over and over. But, you are having unintended effects.

Your persistent trolling has caused me to examine a few original insights and refine the argument. Thank you for goading me into keep working on this. Also, you're double-licking this thread. Brilliant, Gothmog! You're a gift.

[Gothmog]

245. Again, laypersons are amusing when they attempt and fail to understand legal concepts

Your attempts here are great proof as to why the laws that make it illegal for laypersons to practice law are needed. Thank you for the amusement

[leveymg]

246. You are a 24/7 white noise generator. Keep licking the thread.

[Gothmog]

205. You are Wrong again

It is fun watching laypersons attempt to understand legal concepts. There has to be a culpable mental state which is called mens rea. The are no strict liability crimes and your attempt to claim that there is one is amusing but wrong.

In the real world, one looks at similar cases. Here there is no proof that Clinton knew that the material was classified at the time. In similar cases where there absolute proof that the defendants knew that the material was classified, there are some interesting results http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

The FBI won't make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.

In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (“Highly classified,” he told her — so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.

Here's a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.

The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.

This isn't to excuse her conduct; it's just a diagnosis of the way the law works.

Laypersons are amusing when they try to understand legal concepts

[underthematrix]

2. LAWD! The stupid is real

[FourScore]

5. I find it stupid to ignore an FBI investigation. I am trying to understand why this is being ignored

Insulting comments are not helpful.

Dozens of FBI agents are working on this. The FBI does not perform "security reviews". They investigate criminal activity.

[emulatorloo]

11. Current number being bandied about is 12 agents.

[FourScore]

15. Link? I believe you, I just have had trouble finding an exact number.

The 147 or whatever the number was has been debunked, but I have seen that "dozens" are still working on it. I'd like a real number.

BTW, I believe you. I read somewhere that they usually employ about 12-20 agents for terrorist crimes.

[emulatorloo]

18. I apologize, I don't remember where I read it. Was from an article around time 143 was debunked.

Was from a recently retired FBI who was familiar with the investigation. Was said in Response to Comey's saying there were 50.

[tex-wyo-dem]

130. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that...

The number of agents actively working on the case has varied over time depending on the amount of evidence to review, workload, etc. I'm sure it peaked when all the emails had to be reviewed (over 100 agents during that time is probably realistic).

[winter is coming]

170. +1. I never thought 140+ was 140+ FTEs in the first place.

It's probably the number of agents who spent any time on the case, ever, whether they put in two days or a whole year.

[underthematrix]

19. This is what is posted at

HRC's website https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

This is what she will have to defend if there is a discrepancy, which is why I thought this is the best link.

I think the email issue is total bullshit.

[FourScore]

30. As I understand it, the issue is not just "emails", it's the private server.

The Clinton campaign loves to combine these, and they of course are connected, but the issue is the open server. In the past, Powell and other state dept employees have used private email, that is true. The difference is that Clinton used a private server to conduct State Dept work. That's how Guccifer hacked it.

Apparently, Hillary asked her staff to de-classify emails so that she could receive them on her blackberry. That is a federal crime and shows intent. Do we know if this is true or not? Why grant immunity to someone if it is not true?

Many of the emails she claimed were private were deleted. The FBI wanted to see them first but could not retrieve them. Apparently, they found them on the cloud. I believe this had to do with the small company in Colorado that she hired to back up her server, but I'm not certain. We shall see if they were really all personal. We don't know that yet.

What about the pay-to-play charges that have been widely written about in numerous media outlets, even prior to the FBI investigation?

[underthematrix]

60. I referred to the emails because they came across her private server.

Hillary says in the link provided that her private server has not been hacked.

Hillary's staff cannot declassify documents. The State Dept has two email systems classified and unclassified. Hillary and her team were on the unclassified system. I've read some of the emails. Well actually a lot of them. One thread included an exchange between HRC, her staff, State Dept and someone in the tech section of Obama administration regarding accessing a public statement by Tony Blair. HRC and her staff were told they could not access a copy of the statement because it was still on the classified system and until it was moved to the unclassified system, they could not have it.

Top secret info is accessed in extremely secure locations and must occur in that location using hard copies. So HRC didn't have access to classified info via email because that's not possible.

I believe the FBI was able to retrieve her personal emails. Yes it's a small company in Colorado that provided support for her emails.

Also, remember that President Clinton still has his TOP Secret security clearance because he's a former president. This makes sense because former presidents often assist the current president with all sorts of sensitive issues. Both Republican and Democratic former presidents. The Secret Service would everything possible to protect a former president's communications. Since he also used the same server, I believe HRC when she says it was never hacked.

In the pay to play are you talking about the work of the Clinton Foundation?

[FourScore]

65. I take what her website says with a grain of salt.

You might want to read this article about how her staff may have tampered with classified documents:

How such highly classified information from both NSA and CIA wound up in Ms. Clinton’s personal email is a messy question that the FBI is currently unravelling. Don’t expect pretty answers. That her staff at Foggy Bottom treated classification as a nuisance is already apparent, and such guidance, which was flagrantly illegal, could only have come from “the boss.”

Just what a sinkhole of secrets the Secretary of State’s office was during President Obama’s first term, when Ms. Clinton occupied that chair, is frighteningly apparent. Allegations are swirling that her staff systematically copied Top Secret Codeword information off separate, just-for-intelligence computer systems and cut-and-pasted it into “unclassified” emails. This, if true, is an unambiguous felony. There is reason to be cautious about this claim, which is unsubstantiated so far, and would indicate a complex degree of intent: moving Top Secret Codeword information into unclassified emails is not simple, rather a multi-step process, and would leave an audit trail.

http://observer.com/2016/01/why-hillarys-emailgate-matters/

I have to go now and cannot google the pay to play. There is lots of info on that. Just google it. Some can be found here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511684967

[frylock]

149. Hillary has no way of knowing whether her private server was hacked or not.

[underthematrix]

161. You do realize HRC is married to a former president,

is a former FLOTUS and SoS. Of course she and the former president would be informed if they were hacked. They're not your Aunt Betty and Uncle Joe.

[FourScore]

169. Pleae explain how they would be informed. I didn't think hacking always left an imprint. n/t

[underthematrix]

177. This is something that would be handled by their technology team. A state dept employee working as a

contractor set up HRC's private server and monitored it. That would be the person to tell her.

[winter is coming]

185. Maybe that's why he pled the Fifth and got immunity. n/t

[underthematrix]

187. The 5th only refers to HIS actions

[winter is coming]

191. If he did (or failed to do) something, it probably wasn't his idea. n/t

[underthematrix]

193. It doesn't matter. He is responsible for his actions.

[winter is coming]

194. I didn't claim he wasn't responsible. But if he did something illegal, following

someone else's instructions, he's not the only responsible party. And it's not unusual for smaller fish to get immunity so they'll testify against someone higher up in the food chain.

[IdaBriggs]

235. The fact it was "one guy" is one of the red flag issues for all IT people.

Believe it or not, it takes more than updating your anti-virus software to keep data secure, backed up and protected from determined hackers, but Clinton apparently relied on "one guy" to do her bidding with no backup if he went on vacation or got sick, and no documentation to tell anyone what was going on in case he got hit by a bus or won the lottery. She just flat out ignored the people charged with keeping the data she was using "safe".

You can read more in this Washington Post article from March 27, 2016. I have excerpted a small bit for you.

How Clinton’s email scandal took root
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Few could have known it, but the email system operated in those first two months without the standard encryption generally used on the Internet to protect communication, according to an independent analysis that Venafi Inc., a cybersecurity firm that specializes in the encryption process, took upon itself to publish on its website after the scandal broke.

Not until March 29, 2009 — two months after Clinton began using it — did the server receive a “digital certificate” that protected communication over the Internet through encryption, according to Venafi’s analysis.

It is unknown whether the system had some other way to encrypt the email traffic at the time. Without encryption — a process that scrambles communication for anyone without the correct key — email, attachments and passwords are transmitted in plain text.

“That means that anyone could have accessed it. Anyone,” Kevin Bocek, vice president of threat intelligence at Venafi, told The Post.

The system had other features that made it vulnerable to talented hackers, including a software program that enabled users to log on directly from the World Wide Web.

Four computer-security specialists interviewed by The Post said that such a system could be made reasonably secure but that it would need constant monitoring by people trained to look for irregularities in the server’s logs.

“For data of this sensitivity . . . we would need at a minimum a small team to do monitoring and hardening,” said Jason Fossen, a computer-security specialist at the SANS Institute, which provides cybersecurity training around the world.

The man Clinton has said maintained and monitored her server was Bryan Pagliano, who had worked as the technology chief for her political action committee and her presidential campaign. It is not clear whether he had any help. Pagliano had also provided computer services to the Clinton family.

[frylock]

175. So does that mean they have supernatural powers to detect whether they had been hacked?

Do you understand how easy it is for a hacker to clear event logs on a compromised system?

[underthematrix]

186. You must watch a lot of TV

[frylock]

188. Yeah, I do.

I've also worked in the industry for over 16 years with experience as a Windows and Exchange admin.

[underthematrix]

190. Reading is much better.

[frylock]

199. I read a lot, too.

Currently reading Hubert Selby Jr's 'The Demon'. It's starting off rather slow.

[angrychair]

172. For clarity

She was using her own email server and her own email address (meaning your email address on her server would be something like [email protected])
She was using it to conduct state dept business which was forbidden.

A president's security clearance is not actually listed, the clearance for them and for their direct reports, does not give them access to anything they want but is on a strict need to know, is listed as "Yankee white".

They no longer have a "clearance" when they leave office but could be "read in" on a need to know basis.

[thesquanderer]

63. re: "That's how Guccifer hacked it."

My understanding is that Guccifer did not hack her server. He hacked into Blumenthal's email account, which is how he got Clinton's email address, but he did not hack into the server per se. That is, if Hillary's personal email address had been on gmail or any other provider, the end result would have been the same... the fact that her email account was located on her personal server rather than somewhere else wasn't a factor in what Guccifer did.

[FourScore]

66. Yes. You are right. I stand corrected. n/t

[thesquanderer]

103. Her defense at that link you posted is not exactly airtight.

Please see my post at http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511849873

[Samantha]

29. THE MSM does not report very much on this because they do not want the public to be aware

Fox News does cover it, and that is why some people have reported what Fox is saying, despite the fact it does not have a reputation for being "fair and balanced" as it likes to say. But if that is the only source one can find, many will go there.

It is a very, very serious issue. If the FBI does recommend she be prosecuted, that recommendation goes to the DOJ for action. It will chose to pursue or not. So of course the speculation as to the veracity of the investigation and the political influence thereon is overrun everywhere. At this point in time, people on the outside looking in can only use their best judgment to make a guess as to what will happen. People on the inside do have a good idea, but many are only leaking and dropping hints. The leaking has been very, very informative. Some of the leaked information is jaw-dropping.

It has been said that if the FBI does recommend an indictment and the DOJ does not indict, Comey and many FBI agents will resign in protest.

Washington of course always runs on rumors, but some people estimate that by the middle of May the public will learn whether or not an indictment will be pursued.

My personal opinion after all the reading I have done, is that Clinton if threatened with an indictment will seek to negotiate a deal. No facts, just gut talking. The deal would probably include surrendering her top secret security clearance (it is obvious that she has mishandled much secret and top-secret classified information) -- I assume she still has a classified security clearance but of course I do not know since she no longer is the Secretary of State. Still she could be consulted by someone on the inside for an opinion, and if that clearance were not still operative, that would be a problem.... So in summary, I think she would (or her lawyer would) in order to escape jail time, pay a huge fine, surrender her security clearance and that would preclude her from being President of the United States, so she would have to withdraw from the race. Now I have not heard anyone talk about negotiating a deal, that is just my gut feeling. The people who are talking say they believe she will be indicted or something like President Obama will cover for her and it won't happen.

I am probably going to get slammed for answering your question but what I have offered is just my opinion, and I thought you deserved an honest answer. If you want to know more, there is a lot of information accessible and you can make up your own mind what you believe until the public is given a statement. That is what I did.

But don't let anyone tell you this is just right-wing trash because the FBI does not spend a year investigating right-wing trash. It has accumulated a lot of information and evidence. But what decision will be made as to the direction in which this goes remains to be seen.

As far as I can see, there is no good outcome that will result from this either way.

Sam

[FourScore]

33. THank you Sam. I see it very much the same way. n/t

[scscholar]

154. Because if they actually had something...

they would have arrested her months ago. By not doing so, they have proven they have nothing.

[winter is coming]

158. Solid, complex cases aren't built overnight.

And if your target is someone prominent, you don't go off half-cocked.

[FourScore]

160. As long as there are multiple agents working on this case, which no one denies,

then that's not "nothing".

[Gothmog]

207. The Hillary Clinton top-secret email controversy, explained

Here is a good explanation of the issue that even some laypersons should be able to understand http://www.vox.com/2016/1/29/10873106/hillary-clinton-email-top-secret

This might seem unimportant. If it's top secret, then it must be really sensitive, right?

Not necessarily. A large proportion of documents that our government classifies are not actually that sensitive — more on that below. So the key thing now is to try to figure out: Were these emails classified because they contain highly sensitive information that Clinton never should have emailed in the first place, or because they were largely banal but got scooped up in America's often absurd classify-everything practices?

Obviously we can't know the answer to that for sure unless we read the emails. But one good way to make an informed guess is by asking whether the emails were classified at the moment they were sent or whether they were classified only later.

The reason this matters is that if they were immediately classified top secret, then that is a good sign that they contained information that is known as "born classified" — that it was information in itself obtained by classified channels or because it was generated internally by classified means. For example, if Clinton were emailing the secret US bombing plans for Libya, or sharing something that the French ambassador told her in confidence, that would be "born classified."

But if the information were classified only later, then that would indicate it was more banal, or that it was not classified for any reasons particular to the emails themselves. Again, see below on how a boring email could become marked as top secret.

According to a statement by the State Department, "These documents were not marked classified at the time they were sent."

In other words, they do not contain information that was "born classified," but rather fall into the vast gray area of things that do not seem obviously secret at the time but are later deemed that way — not always for good reason.

The e-mails were not marked classified when received and so later reclassification is meaningless

[Walk away]

4. Nice...

[sheshe2]

17. No, you need these hats....

More fashionable.

[FourScore]

24. Those are quite lovely, but not what I'm looking for.

C'mon sheshe2, certainly you realize the gravity of this situation. Just imagine - what if she IS indicted? Or if not, imagine if the FBI begins to disclose their findings?

[sheshe2]

26. Benghazi.

Benghazi.

Benghazi.

[Walk away]

32. I (heart) the internet fringe!!!

[Walk away]

25. SheShe! You should be Fashion Consultant to all of Bernie's Followers!

You have a flair!

[sheshe2]

27. Why thank you Walk away.

Such a nice compliment.

[Peace Patriot]

54. You ought to photoshop a tinfoil hat for FBI Director James Comey.

When he is told by the true powers-that-be in this country that Hillary Clinton is desired in the White House for her vast corruption, which makes her controllable, and her love of war and war profiteers, and he therefore will not be permitted to do his job--he may become a "conspiracy theorist" himself.

Do make him a real pretty hat. Maybe he could wear it as a sort of "dunce hat" at the White House Correspondence Dinner next year, and be the butt of everybody's jokes.

[ViseGrip]

6. I have always wondered what Obama and Bernie talked about at the White House

And let me tell you, if it were you or me, we would be gone from the media and public, if we were running for public office while under an FBI investigation.

It's absurd to say the least...and basically just fucked up.

[Peace Patriot]

64. Yeah, I've wondered about that Sanders/Obama meeting, too.

It was around the time Sanders was given Secret Service protection, but that wouldn't require a meeting--or at least not one advertised in the press. But this one had a press contingent waiting outside. I wasn't convinced by what Sanders said about it. His statement was very vague, and very unlike him. They didn't need to meet about Secret Service protection. They didn't need to meet about a national security briefing. That is done for serious candidates but not in the White House, that I've ever heard of, and not by the President himself. So what was that all about?

A chat about the issues? It seems absurd that either man--with their very intense schedules--would spend time doing that, at this point. TPP is a hot issue between them, but Obama's not going to bend Sanders on "free trade", and I'm sure Obama knows that. I can't think of any policy issue that would prompt such a meeting. Could have been a political meeting--say, Obama offering Sanders something (an important seat at the trade negotiations table), if, say, he would back off of Clinton (--if Obama likes Clinton, which is very dubious). But something like that. (Don't hit TPP so hard and I'll give you an important seat at the table, for the remainder of the year, to do what you can for labor and the environment with my, um, covert blessing?)

What could Obama have wanted to chat with Sanders about? Or, perhaps a better question: why would Obama want it to be known, by the public, by the press, that he was calling Sanders to the White House for a discussion? If Obama had wanted it to be secret, Sanders would certainly have honored that and he would not have been seen. Sanders brief meeting with the press didn't amount to anything. It gave nothing away--merely the fact that he was there.

I think that a potential Clinton indictment could well have been the content of that meeting. It could have been "you have a right to know." Or maybe more complicated. Clinton IS going to be indicted and I am going to back Biden for the nomination when that happens--"and you have a right to know."

I don't know. I am so utterly dismayed and disgusted by the prospect of a Clinton-Trump or Clinton-Cruz or Clinton-any Puke bunch of fakery and posturing in the fall, that I almost want Clinton to be indicted, just to make it interesting. I am so-o-o-o-o-o bored by Clinton, and so-o-o-o-o-o bored by any given Puke, that I will avoid it like the plague--won't watch it on TV, won't read newspapers, won't read or write blogs. It kills me to think about it. It makes me want to scream. How can we participate in such a "Matrix"-like illusion?

I admit it. Clinton's FBI problem is much more interesting than she or her campaign can hope to be. She is killing democracy by boring people to death. And I find Trump, et al, equally boring. None of them mean what they say. They're all putting masks on every day and lying about who they are and who they serve. The only interesting thing about Clinton IS her corruption.

Maybe it's just me. I was so-o-o-o-o looking forward to a Sanders administration upending Washington DC and casting all the money-changers out of the Temple! THAT would be fun--not to mention politically satisfying and a good and proper housecleaning! Sanders would simply sweep Trump or whoever out with the trash, and start scrubbing our Capitol City with baking soda and vinegar. And he would invite millions of us to bring brooms, mops and pails! And we would be so happy doing that with him!

[tex-wyo-dem]

135. Interesting post, Peace Patriot...

I had kind of forgotten about Bernie's meeting with Obama...interesting speculation, indeed. Do you remember, was the meeting before or after Biden decided not to run? If after, perhaps Obama wanted to meet with Sanders to fill him in and perhaps lend his support if Clinton was indicted. Might also explain why Biden has been throwing so much love Bernie's way as well.

[Pastiche423]

157. Bernie met with Obama January 27, 2016.

[2banon]

165. A Most OUTSTANDING post Peace Patriot!

Not the least of your most entertaining and erudite observations:

She is killing democracy by boring people to death. And I find Trump, et al, equally boring. None of them mean what they say. They're all putting masks on every day and lying about who they are and who they serve. The only interesting thing about Clinton IS her corruption.

Just love that bit. So spot on!

[HooptieWagon]

7. FBI is keeping a lid on an on-going criminal investigation.

They only hurt the investigation if they're leaking evidence before witnesses are interviewed.
IMO, Clinton is very liable for prosecution, along with others. However, the DoJ may decline to prosecute. Things could get ugly then, as there seems to be indications that agents working on the investigation will start leaking evidence to media if there's no charges filed. We can be certain that's blood in the water to Republicans, and impeachment charges filed if she's elected. I don't see that being avoided.

[ViseGrip]

9. Would you hire a lawyer for a 'fantasy'?

[FourScore]

16. You look silly. Do you have any substance to add to the discussion? Because Hillary will be

our nominee AND THIS IS PRETTY FUCKING SERIOUS!!!

[Kentonio]

105. No. If Clinton does drop out, then the only alternative is Bernie.

To parachute in a candidate who has had no part in the extensive primary and received no votes from the people would be completely undemocratic and would probably cost us the election.

[CoffeeCat]

240. My guess is Biden

with Bernie agreeing to the VP slot.

[Gothmog]

208. Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones

The theory for an indictment relies on Clinton knowing that the material was secret and not protecting it. None of the e-mails were classified at the time and were later re-classified. To indict Clinton you would have to find a DOJ attorney stupid enought to think that the e-mails about a story published in the NYT were protected The so-called "Top Secret" emails were all about NYT stories concerning drones and were in the public domain http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones

So just what was in those "top secret" emails that Hillary Clinton received on her personal email server while she was Secretary of State? The New York Times reports what everyone has already figured out: they were about drones. What's more, the question of whether they contain anything that's actually sensitive is mostly just a spat between CIA and State:

Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified “top secret.”

The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies. In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies.

....Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of “HCS-O” — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources...The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.’s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.

The whole piece is worth reading for the details, but the bottom line is pretty simple: there's no there there. At most, there's a minuscule amount of slightly questionable reporting that was sent via email—a common practice since pretty much forever. Mostly, though, it seems to be a case of the CIA trying to bully State and win some kind of obscure pissing contest over whether they're sufficiently careful with the nation's secrets.

It is not against the law to read and talk about articles in NYT Good luck finding a DOJ attorney stupid enough to bring a claim based on stories published in the NYT

[leveymg]

222. Wow, you are a font of disinformation, aren't you.

There were 1100 classified items found on her server. 104 were sent by HRC herself, with 22 that were linked up with TS-SAP documents originating with CIA and the NSA, many of the latter taken off a classified interagency system just hours before being sent across her uncertified server. These were clearly classified materials dealing with foreign government sources in Libya sent by Sidney Blumenthal. Under the terms of her classified information agreement Hillary had the duty to turn these over to security officers, but her response was "Keep 'em coming." The "innocuous" excuse isn't a legal defense anyway. She's toast.

[Gothmog]

226. Facts and the law scare you

I find that to be amusing. Laypersons are funny when they are confronted with facts and the law

[leveymg]

241. Interesting Rovian tactic you use there, Gothmog: reverse projection of your own

weakness onto the target of your trolling. You can stalk me all you want, buddy, all you're doing is kicking the thread and keeping me on topic. E for effort.

[Gothmog]

248. I understand the legal concepts involved

Your posts are really sad because you do not understand the concepts and keep on asserting things that would get you laughed at if you were in law school. Again, there are only a very few crimes that do not require specific intent such as statutory rape and DWI. The fact that non of the e-mails were marked confidential at the time will control the criminal liability here. All of the so called top secret emails were retroactively reclassified and many of such e-mails involve material such Clinton staffers discussing NYT article on drones. That is why people like Senator Feinstein have dismissed these silly claims http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.

In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.

At issue are a new batch of emails from Clinton's home server that have been flagged as containing classified information in a sworn statement to the inspector general of the intelligence community. The sworn statement came from the CIA, two U.S. officials tell NBC News.

Keep up the good work of proving why the laws that make it illegal for laypersons to attempt to practice law are necessary

[leveymg]

249. Your posts show no sign of understanding the issues. You post only cherry-picked mass media that

do not refer to the specific charge under 18 USC 793 Sec. (e) and (f). I have seen only one article that remotely begins to analyze its application to prosecution of HRC. Even that one is disingenuous. Can you find it? If you can, we can discuss it. I've been wanting to find the opportunity to take it apart. Thanks again for your help and inspiration.

[thesquanderer]

61. re: "Would you hire a lawyer for a 'fantasy'?"

If you're being questioned by the FBI about legal matters, I think you'd be crazy to not hire a lawyer, even if you're sure you did nothing wrong.

[floppyboo]

12. Regarding the MSM, today I was trying to remember Gruciffer's name

so did a google search. Had to go to mid 2nd page before I found a source that wouldn't be laughed off this site, till I found WaPo, and even then, it was very vague - short. There was a Forbes article also on page 2, but I don't know how to turn off my ad blockers...

Yup, definitely being stifled.

[FourScore]

22. It's remarkable, isn't it?

I can't understand why.

[antigop]

79. no, the media blackout makes perfect sense.

How many newspapers endorsed HRC?

[dlwickham]

14. FFS-the FBI doesn't indict

I really wish the nice people who keep posting this crap would at least get their talking points correct

[FourScore]

20. Okay, legal-whiz, please explain the process rather than insulting.

The fact that we don't understand the legal process doesn't mean the points of the case are wrong.

[dlwickham]

23. google is your friend

I'm not going to do your job attacking Hillary for you

[grasswire]

28. the FBI presents its evidence to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch (Clinton ties)

The Attorney General decides whether or not to indict. What would likely happen, if she should decide to do so, is that someone would take the evidence to Clinton and her atty and ask if she would like to make a plea agreement. If she were to refuse a plea agreement, then she would be charged and the wheels of justice would grind on. If the FBI recommended an indictment based on the evidence and the AG refused to do so, we would have a Watergate type situation. Chaos.

[FourScore]

39. Thank you! Actually, I knew all of that and wrote it in the OP.

I thought I was missing something. (Of course, my own shorthand post didn't help.)

[Samantha]

44. The FBI investigates and makes a recommendation to the DOJ

The DOJ makes a decision whether or not to pursue. That is President Obama's DOJ. I would like to say that what President Obama thinks about this is not going to be truly revealed until 20 years from now when someone writes an accurate bio. What he says publicly does not count. What he does privately, we will not know for years to come.

Sam

[FourScore]

46. I completely agree.

My own personal belief (which is really irrelevant) is that the Obama's hate the Clinton's. I read somewhere once that the Clinton's made a deal with Obama that they would throw their support behind him and that Bill would make a speech supporting Obama at the convention. In return, Hillary would get to be SoS for the first term, and in 8 years, Obama would give her his full support as President.

I have always wondered if Obama spoke to Bernie about the FBI investigation and the possibility of an indictment when he invited Bernie to the White House a few months ago.

[Samantha]

48. You are starting to worry me now -- this is exactly what I think

Everyone thinks President Obama and Hillary Clinton are buds. He despises her. I know this for a fact, but I cannot tell you how I know. I do assume that when he read those Blumenthal emails and realized that Hillary had been running a rogue state department on her own (he had specifically forbidden any Blumenthal involvement in his administration, yet there were Hillary's email to Blumenthal and vice versa on Syria). One of those emails also had the real name of a covert agent typed right out, and that is a HUGE never do that -- think Rove outing Valerie Plame, that type of thing).

President Obama had to be outraged when he found this out. Especially since Hillary had recommended Blumenthal's approach to Obama on Syria, which ended up in the huge blow up we now see. And remember recently when President Obama was asked what his biggest mistake during his Presidency -- Obama said Syria....

And I have been wondering also what President Obama discussed with Bernie Sanders when he pulled Sanders unexpectedly off the campaign trail to come to the White House. Bernie dropped everything and went to the meeting. The topic of the meeting was never revealed to the public. Could Obama possibly have updated Sanders on the investigation.

I can't believe you wrote what I have been thinking.

Sam

[winter is coming]

49. Slow your roll. IIRC, it was said at the time that Sanders' visit to the WH

had been scheduled months in advance and was about some unrelated issue. Could be spin, could be that many subjects were discussed. And Obama's biggest regret was Libya, not Syria, although Hillary didn't cover herself in glory there, either.

From what I've seen here and there (and not just at foxnews), I'd be surprised if the FBI doesn't recommend charges. What it comes down to is whether the DOJ would be willing to pursue them. It's a gamble either way for President Obama: if the DOJ proceeds, some would say that taints his legacy, but if they don't and there are leaks, he'll look even worse, IMO. I'm just hoping this comes to a head before the convention, because we'll be up shit creek in the GE if Hillary gets the nomination one week and an indictment the next.

[Samantha]

55. I did not hear that about the meeting being scheduled months in advance - but I heard nothing

and I am sorry about the mistake I made regarding his biggest regret.

I have said that along to a Republican friend who felt Hillary should be indicted but though Obama would tell the DOJ to make it go away. I was shocked and responded how could he think that when there would be such a public backlash if she just received a slap on the hand. He said there was an election ongoing and if it looked like she could win the nomination and subsequently the General Election, stopping Trump was all important. (His opinion, not mine).

So I asked knowing what was in the public domain, how could anyone be comfortable with Hillary being in charge with this Country's national security -- all politics aside -- how could anyone sleep at night? He simply said, "I don't know."

I feel the same as you - I don't know how the FBI could not recommend an indictment, but either way, there will be a negative backlash on President Obama for the points you mention. There is no easy answer here. There is only the right answer. The right answer to me is that she must be held accountable. If not, she will be making these same type of moves in the White House, and I don't think we can live with that - literally.

Sam

PS And this is why I personally think Hillary's lawyer will negotiate a deal. In another post I said this, stating I have no facts just gut talking, and the terms would not be made public. But I think Comey will insist she cannot have a classified security clearance any longer because of her total disregard of the rules and the dishonoring of her pledge, and for that reason she will not be able to hold public office of the nature she seeks. I think she will also get a huge fine and that will be it.

[thesquanderer]

62. re: "if the DOJ proceeds, some would say that taints his legacy"

Obama has had a remarkably clean administration. It would be ironic if the one "legitimate" scandal (as an indictment of his SOS would be) were, in the end, yet another Clinton scandal.

[2banon]

198. Obama's administration has got to be one of the cleanest admins since Carter.

if memory serves.

<sigh>

.

[thesquanderer]

201. I seem to remember George HW Bush having a clean administration.

Carter had Bert Lance and brother Billy, but all in all, a pretty clean administration.

[IdaBriggs]

237. That's not what I remember - TONS of criminal prosecutions.

Just as bad as Reagan. It came up as a discussion point under the Clintons back in the 90s about who had "more corruption drama".

Here is a link from 2005 - Reagan had 138 convicted staffers. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/157477/-List-of-Reagan-administration-convictions

[thesquanderer]

238. Yeah, Reagan's administration was a mess.

But I don't remember about HW.

[840high]

178. Hillary put Obama in

a terrible spot.

[IdaBriggs]

83. I've been thinking all of the above, too. nt

[farleftlib]

87. Ditto. I have believed this too for a long time now

The kind of dirty tricks the Clintons pulled on the Obamas during the '08 campaign are not
easily forgiven and never forgotten. Clinton went all scorched earth on him and I believe
the hard feelings will never go away. He didn't give her SoS because he trusted her but
because she wrested certain concessions when she finally conceded.

I find it totally feasible that they discussed the indictment issue when they met last year.
Obama was maybe feeling him out about whether or not he would use it against her during
the campaign and Bernie reassured him he wouldn't.

[2cannan]

101. Excellent points. nt

[winter is coming]

171. Actually, I think he named her SoS to keep her relatively content.

She got a position to use as a stepping stone for a future run. He, in theory at least, got a quieter life, only she done fucked it up with the private server. If he concludes that there's more to be lost than gained by trying to prop her up, he won't make any serious effort to impede an investigation. He's shot off his mouth about it a couple of times, but if you look at what he actually said, it's somewhat ambivalent: it gives him enough wiggle room to either support Hillary if shit comes out or shake his head in regret, while saying that no one is above the law.

[Gothmog]

206. There is no specific intent or mens rea here

Here is a good explanation as to why the silly but funny hopes of the conservatives that the FBI will find a criminal violation by Hillary Clinton are so funny http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State may have been risky and politically unwise, but many experts in national security law predict it will not lead to criminal charges, based on what is known so far of her handling of classified government material.

That's because even a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location."

Clinton has repeatedly said that she did not knowingly send or receive emails that were marked classified, and that her use of a personal email server — while not "the best choice" — was not illegal or unauthorized.

But these lawyers also caution that much remains unknown about Clinton's unusual email system and they say the Democratic front-runner remains vulnerable, both politically and legally, because of the ongoing FBI inquiry and a newly energized Republican-led House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others.

That investigation appeared to be going nowhere, but it gained new focus in late February when GOP staffers learned for the first time why they had received only a handful of State Department emails to or from the secretary of State. They had not been told until then that Clinton had not used the State Department's email server and instead relied exclusively on a personal system....

Stewart Baker, who served as top national security lawyer under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said it does not appear based on what is known now that Hillary Clinton committed a crime when she used a private email server.

"It was a bad idea, a serious lapse in judgment, but that's not the same as saying it leads to criminal liability," he said. On the other hand, the continuing inquiries could turn up damaging evidence, he said, including the possibility that foreign governments tapped into her emails.

"This investigation has a way to go, and it will keep drip, drip, dripping away for a long time," he said.

The knowingly standard is not an easy standard to meet in this case.

I am enjoying watching the conservatives keep on claiming that Hillary Clinton broke the law. Such claims are really funny. Keep up the good work.

Are you claiming that one can violate the law without having to prove any intent or knowledge? That is very funny

[IdaBriggs]

82. The FBI is working with DOJ lawyers, as confirmed by the Attorney General.

Do you need links or were you just trying to minimize the situation by pretending you didn't know that already?

[dlwickham]

89. Go back and read the OP

[IdaBriggs]

90. I am very familiar with the information. I am responding to your

comment "FFS-the FBI doesn't indict / I really wish the nice people who keep posting this crap would at least get their talking points correct" which attempts to imply this shouldn't be a concern because people reading about it don't know that the FBI makes a RECOMMENDATION to attorneys at the Department of Justice about whether there are grounds for indictment.

As I stated in my reply to you, the FBI is working with the DOJ on this case already, which is how the IT guy was able to get immunity and the hacker Guccifer was extradited here. This has been confirmed by the Attorney General in testimony to a Senate committee during a budget hearing.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?405232-1/attorney-general-loretta-lynch-testimony-fiscal-year-2017-budget (relevant testimony starts at 54:59)

SENATOR JOHN CARTER>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WELCOME. SPEAK TO YOU. HE SAYS I COME FROM A BACKGROUND OF WHAT'S THE HIGHEST TRIAL COURT IN OUR GREAT STATE OF TEXAS. AND HAVE COME FAMILIARITY THAT THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN OUR STATE. THIS LAST MONDAY, I DID WHAT WE CALL A TELEPHONE TOWN HALL. WE GET IN TOUCH WITH ROUGHLY 35 TO 50,000 AND LET PEOPLE GET ONLINE AND ASK QUESTIONS ON THE PHONE. WHEN WE GET ABOUT 10 OR 15 OF THE SAME PEOPLE ASKING THE SAME QUESTION, PICK THAT QUESTION. THIS QUESTION CAME UP. THIS IS A TOUGH ONE PEOPLE WILL BE SAYING IT'S POLITICS. I TOLD THEMLE I WOULD ASK YOU. T STATE DEPARTMENT STATED THAT THE E-MAILS SENT AND RECEIVED ON HILLARY CLINTON'S PERSONAL SERVER REFUSED TO DISCLOSE NUMEROUS E-MAILS AS THEY CONTAINED TOP SECRET INFORMATION. THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. IF THE FBI MAKES THE CASE THAT HILLARY CLINTON MISHANDLED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION TO PROSECUTE THE CASE. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY EFFORTS UNDER WAY TO UNDER MINE THE FBI INVESTIGATION AND PLEASE LOOK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN THE EYE AND TELL US WHAT THE POSITION IS. YOU ARE THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF THE UNITED STATES.

ATTORNEY GENERAL LORETTA LYNCH>> THANK YOU, JUDGE AND CONGRESSMAN CARTERER. WITH RESPECT TO THE INVESTIGATION INTO HOW INFORMATION WAS HANDLED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT, HOW THEY HANDLED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, AS I SEEM SURE YOU KNOW THE MATTER IS BEING HANDLED BY CAREER INDEPENDENT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS. FBI AGENTS AS WELL AS THE CAREER INDEPENDENT ATTORNEYS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. THEY FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE, LOOK AT THE LAW. THEY WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO ME WHEN THE TIME IS APPROPRIATE. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO COMMENT ON THE SPECIFIC INVESTIGATION AT THIS TIME. I WILL SAY AGAIN THAT THIS WILL BE CONDUCTED AS EVERY OTHER CASE. I AM AWARE OF NO EFFORTS TO UNDER MINE OUR REVIEW AT ALL.

The FBI does not spend resources investigating things it isn't interested in prosecuting. They investigate CRIMES. Having a party nominee being investigated by the FBI is unprecedented.

[dlwickham]

95. The FBI still doesn't indict though

[IdaBriggs]

100. The FBI makes RECOMMENDATIONS for indictment, and then the DOJ

decides whether or not to proceed. In this situation the FBI is NOT working in a vacuum because DOJ attorneys are already involved. There have also been assurances at all levels of leadership that the investigation is being run by career staff so none will have to worry about political retribution.

[dlwickham]

132. recommendations aren't indictments

[snot]

31. My worry is that the FBI is accumulating info only to gain leverage on her . . .

so they can control her whenever – the power their info confers might actually be more useful if/when she WERE Prez.

Gawd knows they've got nothing on Bernie.

[FourScore]

37. That's a pretty scary thought, but I just can't imagine it happening.

There are too many people working on this case, they can't all be colluding to commit such a crime - blackmail the President.

[snot]

38. Uhhh . . . have you researched how the FBI or CIA have tried to blackmail others in the past?

Knowledge is power.

There's a reason why these secretive agencies are collecting all the info they're collecting.

[FourScore]

41. That would be very scary. n/t

[Gothmog]

209. Hillary Clinton didn't break the law

In the real world, one looks at similar cases. Here there is no proof that Clinton knew that the material was classified at the time. In similar cases where there absolute proof that the defendants knew that the material was classified, there are some interesting results http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0330-mcmanus-clinton-email-prosecution-20160330-column.html

The FBI won't make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.

In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (“Highly classified,” he told her — so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.

Here's a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.

The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clinton's case doesn't clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.

This isn't to excuse her conduct; it's just a diagnosis of the way the law works.

Non lawyers are funny when they attempt to understand legal concepts

[grasswire]

40. You mean a la J. Edgar Hoover and his files?

That's a risk, yes. I don't think so in an Obama administration, but I sure as hell would be scared otherwise.

[snot]

42. Good lawd,

Obama has no idea, or he would not have filled his cabinet with TPTB.

[snot]

51. You think Obama controlls these agencies?

I'm not so sure.

[Samantha]

45. Comey is no J. Edgar Hoover (eom)

[winter is coming]

50. I'm not worried about that. What worries me is that

if the DOJ decides to pursue charges, I'm guessing that people will be pretty tight-lipped right up until indictments happen, and dog knows how long that will take. Paradoxically, we might learn of the FBI recommendations via leaks more quickly if the DOJ doesn't pursue charges, if the rumors that some agents will resign in protest and leak info are true.

[onenote]

43. Ummm.. the FBI doesn't indict anyone

Indictments are handed down by grand juries, and despite occasional rumors there is no concrete evidence that any grand jury is currently considering whether to indict Clinton.

But if Fox News says it, well that's apparently good enough for some on DU these days.

[still_one]

52. Thanks for bringing the thread down to earth.

[JoePhilly]

68. + 1

[IdaBriggs]

84. The FBI is working with DOJ lawyers, as confirmed by the Attorney General.

Do you need a link?

[onenote]

102. Did anything I say contradict that?

I said the FBI doesn't indict anyone (a direct response to the claim that the FBI is "about to indict" Clinton.)
I said that grand juries indict and that there is no clear evidence that a grand jury is currently considering whether to indict Clinton.

Do you dispute either of those statements?

[IdaBriggs]

104. The word the poster did not include was "recommend" with a (my perception)

mocking response from you implying there is nothing to be concerned about.

I am one of the concerned people who is waiting for the FBI to make a recommendation one way or the other.

The order of events in general is as follows:

1) Someone makes a report to the FBI about a possible crime. (Check - State Department staff did this.)

2) FBI investigates. (Check - began one year ago.)

3) FBI does preliminary consultation with DOJ. (Check - last year.)

4) DOJ provides support and guidance. (Check - DOJ attorney and unknown judge granted immunity; DOJ used resources to extradite hacker witness; DOJ provided subpoenas to collect "deleted" evidence from third party vendor with cloud backup.)

5) FBI finalizes report with witness interviews. (Check - numerous reports of "the email contained word for word classified data" from several intelligence agencies, with sworn testimony presented by the independent Inspector General to a key Congressional committee charged with oversight in these matters; announcement of cooperation from IT guy and hacker; scheduling of interviews with Clinton and staff; Clinton hiring of criminal defense attorney.)

6) After having worked closely with DOJ attorneys to verify whether facts and evidence support it (Check/ongoing), FBI submits formal recommendation to DOJ. (Still Waiting)

DOJ attorneys are expected to be able to get an indictment from a grand jury in cases involving cheese sandwiches as defendant, so it looks like Clinton is heading for an indictment.

IF SHE ISN'T, the precedent of government employees hiding government records from FOIA requests using private accounts and/or mishandling of classified information is flat out catastrophic to laws requiring transparency in government.

So yes, the OP and the growing legion of the informed are concerned and this doesn't take into account the leak that she is being investigated under PUBLIC CORRUPTION statutes based on the CONTENT of the deleted emails (which is assumed to involve Clinton Foundation "donors" and pay-to-play access at her State Department).

[frylock]

152. It's ham sandwich, not cheese sandwich.

Just wanted to correct that before another 10 replies trying to derail the conversation based upon bullshit semantics are posted.

[FourScore]

166. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POST IN THIS THREAD!!!

Thank you so much for putting it in perspective, IdaBriggs.

[angrychair]

183. Great post Ida

It's appreciated!

[Waiting For Everyman]

184. A very clear summary, thanks.

Any thinking person, especially Dems, should be very concerned.

Also there are 30+ civil cases active.

[Chan790]

47. The MSM can't report what isn't known.

The FBI are not amateurs. If they plan to indict Clinton or issue warrants, it's going to take place in a closed courtroom and nobody, not even Obama or Clinton, is going to hear a word of it until 10 minutes before they're issued. In fact, in order to prevent even the appearance of corruption, these things typically occur compartmentalized from even the AG. Lynch likely appoints a federal prosecutor or AAG and they never speak of it so nobody can accuse her of tainting or waylaying the investigation.

There is no reporting because there is nothing to report. Nothing solid or substantial or factual...just innuendo until they either clear her or drop the hammer. What little is known is not news...it's the shadow of news left for those of us watching to guess and interpret at the meaning of.

[Peace Patriot]

57. No, it's not all "shadows." The emails are being published (though redacted...

...on national security issues), as the result of a FOIA lawsuit that is in progress. That's why the NSA was called in by the FBI (and probably the CIA as well, though I don't recall for sure if CIA has been mentioned)--to evaluate the emails for threats to security. As the emails are released by court order, some have been redacted but a lot remains and there are certainly some very troubling contents--for instance, Clinton's determination NOT to restore the rightful, elected president of Honduras but to support the fascist coup that had occurred (leading to many murders of innocent people in Honduras, including, recently, Berta Caceres, a winner of the Goldman Environmental Prize), and, for instance, Clinton's correspondence with Sydney Blumenthal, who was getting a fat salary at the Clinton Foundation after President Obama had banned him from the State Department.

These things are not speculation and innuendo. They are IN the emails. And other facts are quite well known, for instance, the establishment of a private email server in her house was unprecedented behavior--and was both a risk to national security and a method of evading FOIA laws, security rules and review within government (as with Clinton's defiance of Obama on Blumenthal).

The basic facts of Clinton's pay-to-play--for instance, getting millions of donation dollars to the Clinton Foundation from the fucking Saudis, while approving big arms deals for them--are well known. The dot-connecting has been done on some of it (review of dates, actions, etc.).

True, the facts that are known are explosive and speculation is naturally rampant with known facts like these. I've done some myself. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes nor what is going to happen. It seems like a wildly volatile situation to me--could go one way or could go diametrically the other way. FBI may recommend indictment. FBI may be covering up--protecting this member of the rich and powerful from the consequences of her actions (and from the RW morons in Congress). Obama could have given her enough rope to hang herself, and is not unhappy that she did just that (some of her policies have given him very big headaches, which, it appears to me, he and Kerry are trying to remedy); OR, since he's with her on TPP and other corporate policies, and since he himself said that "we must look forward not backward" on the crimes of the rich and powerful (i.e., Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld), he may be trying to devise a way to prevent DOJ action, if the FBI recommends indictment. Either way, his legacy--thus far not tainted with this kind of corruption--gets tainted.

A complicated situation. Possibly a dire situation. A rather riveting and unprecedented situation--to have what appear to be very serious charges being investigated by the FBI in the middle of a presidential election, with one of the candidates--the Democratic frontrunner--at the center of the investigation!

I was just thinking of a scenario where she actually achieves her goal and gets inaugurated, and the next day the RW morons in Congress vote Articles of Impeachment! Can't you just see it? I can. They are perfectly capable of doing that. They are probably lusting to do that. And if the FBI dallies through November, they might well take matters into their own hands, and completely consume her four years fighting impeachment from day one.

I'm not sure if the CIA is on her side, and that would be very important as to whether or not she will be permitted to be elected. That's where the shadows are cast, it seems to me. I haven't believed for a long time that those who rule over us would let just anybody get into the White House.

So anyway, yup, speculation. It's an important part of being an American citizen these days. We don't know fuckall about the genuine conspiracies behind the scenes to keep us paying for corporate resource wars and in a state of paralysis and ignorance as to our own welfare.

[Chan790]

69. I wasn't referring to the emails or their contents...but the investigation...

that people want to complain isn't being covered.

It's not being covered because there's nothing to cover because neither DoJ or FBI is going to compromise an investigation by leaking to the media. So, we all get to sit here and make assumptions based on what little we can see behind the curtain as to what is going on in the investigation and whether Hillary or anybody else is going to be charged.

[Peace Patriot]

131. Ah! Sorry, I misunderstood you.

There has been so much garbage thrown around by Clinton supporters trying to obscure the fact that their candidate is the subject of an FBI investigation, that I bristled at any suggestion that there is "nothing there." There is obviously something there. But you are correct that we are being kept in the dark about it. Possibly for a good reason (FBI protecting their investigation, trying to keep it honest) but also possibly for a bad reason (cover up, protection of the Wall Street/war profiteer candidate of business-as-usual).

We surely have a RIGHT TO KNOW, at this point, while we are still voting on the nomination, and while we may be looking at having to defend an indicted nominee in the General Election, not that many months away. I mean, WTF? It's been a year. Are they waiting to see if, by hook and crook, she is able wangle the nomination, in which case their investigation goes away? (Surely they don't want Trump--too unpredictable.) Are they so entangled in political tugs-of-war, behind the scenes, that they can't decide what to do? Are they worried what she might be able to do to them if she does get back into the White House, this time with the power to punish? Are they protecting her from the RW morons in Congress?

Lots of speculative questions arise, due to the length of the investigation, and its running into the middle of an election year, with no end in sight.

[KoKo]

78. ...!

[jfern]

59. There is a high chance of indictment.

It does appear that laws were violated, but I can't say with 100% certainty that she'd be indicted.

Comey said that the DNC isn't the deadline. In fact, he's a Republican who donated to Romney, so he may prefer to wait until the Democrats are stuck with her. Now Obama could refuse to indict, but I think Comey is only going to recommend indictment if he has an airtight case, and so that will come out, and shit will hit the fan either way if he recommends indictment.

[Barack_America]

67. Shit will hit the fan even if he doesn't.

Trump has already used the scandal to paint the entire Democratic Party as corrupt and shielding her, after Obama's FoxNews interview.

[dana_b]

113. Obama said he won't get involved

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/barack-obama-hillary-clinton-justice-221770

She'll be on her own if she is indicted

[Agschmid]

70. In regards to your edit...

There isn't much in you OP of substance to respond to. Your source is "rumblings on the Internet"... The Internet is also rumbling about how trans people should not have access to bathrooms of the gender they identify as. I certainly don't agree with that, and I'd bet you don't either.

Rumblings on the Internet don't make anything reality.

That being said, yes there is an investigation, yes she could be indicted. She hasn't been yet, and if she is she would have to drop out.

It's likely Bernie could step in, and it's likely he would have support to do so.

But for now, don't believe everything you read on the Internet, most of it is... well... Bull.

[Vinca]

72. It doesn't matter if she's indicted or not. Either way it's bad.

If she's indicted, it's obviously bad. If she isn't, the Democratic administration will be accused of a cover-up. It's not going to be pretty.

[JudyM]

74. I believe the FBI may wait for the Supremes' ruling on the Bob McDonnell corruption case.

Oral argument is taking place today, as a matter of fact. The case centers on how narrowly public corruption/bribery should be defined. The issue under review is basically whether granting increased access or the like for donors is prohibited, or if the prohibition is more narrowly applicable only to more substantive "official acts."

Pro/con positions: "corruption must be narrowly confined to deliberate use of specific government action to avoid criminalizing political activity" vs concern that "the current system of campaign finance ... contributes to the corrupting of government officials who depend upon that system."
http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/04/argument-preview-political-favors-as-crimes/

It's fabulous that Scalia isn't on the court any more since he was the poster boy for conflicts of interest.

They'll hand down a decision by the end of June. It strikes me that the FBI would wait to see if the Court articulates a standard that would be applicable to Clinton, because that would limit or expand the scope of what they would indict her for.

[IdaBriggs]

91. That is an interesting take - thank you for sharing! nt

[JudyM]

96. Seems logical to me. The timing would allow the FBI about a month before the Dem Convention.

Under this scenario, they could be wrapping up the investigation and putting their findings together so they'll have the indictment ready to go "but for" the influence-peddling aspects, which they can rough out according to most likely S Ct holdings. Then they just polish it up once the decision's handed down, using the standard(s) and language of the ruling; this would probably take at least 2-3 weeks (including approval chain) so at best, unfortunately, the indictment rec. would likely happen right before the convention.

[winter is coming]

125. I think if they were ready to go right now, they wouldn't sit on their hands

until the end of June. They'd go ahead with whatever they have, and charges could be dropped later if necessary. OTOH, if they're still chugging away and the waiting time would be much shorter (say two weeks), I can see them holding off.

[JudyM]

140. Why wouldn't they wait if the entire standard for one or more of their main charges is about to be

defined? They would neither want the extra work involved in backing up and fixing, nor the public criticism that would surely come from DWS and all the established power that's watching this... It'd be far too messy, when there is no external justification to hurry the process (in their eyes, presumably). You don't give a case to Justice till it's solid and complete. This issue is likely too large to not wait out.

We'll see. But that's my bet.

[winter is coming]

142. The longer they wait, the more likely leaks become.

If it becomes known that they sat on their hands for months, they'll be criticized for politicizing the process by holding back, so no matter what they do, they'll be criticized. With the SC at 8 justices, a tie is all too likely in any case, which would kick the matter back to the lower court's ruling.

[JudyM]

144. Ok, winter is coming, that's a fair argument, too. We will see, and I hope you are right!

[winter is coming]

145. Actually, it's a nice point on your part that they might wait until after the SC

decision, and they very well might, if it's not a huge wait. We'll see!

[randome]

75. It's time you accepted the brutal truth: Fitzmas will never come.

You can scatter your posts with all the "I'm just wondering" or "What do you think?" statements you want, but it's clear to everyone here that you are rooting for an indictment. One that will never come.

How about this: instead of masquerading your distaste of Clinton as 'concern', why don't we let the process play out and discuss actual issues? You remember that word, right? 'Issues'? It used to be the sole reason Sanders supporters promoted him. Now it's just a sad discard in favor of scandal and accusations of wide-spread vote fraud.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[CoffeeCat]

81. You're the one spinning here

Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 10:35 AM - Edit history (2)

You are attempting to position anyone who is concerned about an FBI investigation that clouds our Democratic frontrunner--as someone with nefarious intentions.

All of you are singing from the same songbook--suggesting that any interest in this is conspiracy and that anyone who dares to ask questions is somehow flawed.

Oh please.

This is a topic that affects our entire party. It could upend the election.

Clinton's actions: Running all of her State activity on a homebrew, unsecure server; failing to turn over all evidence to the FBI; sending classified and Top Secret information via her server (that even the President didn't know about); naming a first and last name of an active CIA operative over that email server; instructing her aid Jake Sullivan, "Turn into non-paper with no identifying heading and send nonsecure"; Clinton's failure to turn over 15 Blumenthal emails that were NOT personal, but were sensitive communications about Libya and security in Libya.

These actions are more than troubling. This is just a portion of what we know that she did. These actions are a sampling of what has been reported by The New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.

As far as laws, you may want to look into:
---The NDA (C Form 312) regarding the proper handling of classified information that Clinton signed on January 22, 2009--when she became Secretary of State. She agreed to protect and properly deal with classified materials.
Possible violations specifically deal with:
---Title 18, Code 1924 "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials"
---Title 18, Code 793 (part of the Espionage Act) "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information."
---"Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send or store classified information on personal email." --Executive order signed by Barack Obama, Dec 29, 2009.

[randome]

94. There is only a 'cloud' because you insist on seeing one.

Sure, it could upend the election. So could a meteor. There is no evidence -none- than an indictment is forthcoming. What Clinton did is very similar -and in some instances identical- to what previous SOS's have done. You can talk about the private server all you want, there is no evidence -none- that any data was compromised.

The 'Turn into non-paper' item is just that -an item that has shown no evidence -none- that they were talking about classified material.

The 'failing to turn over all evidence' -well, she did, you know. Maybe not all in one full gulp but is the FBI complaining about this? No.

The 15 Blumenthal emails? Has a determination been made that she was trying to hide something? No.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[JudyM]

98. Um. The cloud is quite obviously around your head. Check the facts before you call em far fetched.

[CoffeeCat]

108. There are two Hillary email camps:

Camp #1--They don't know and they embrace their ignorance--while they position Bernie supporters are cruel, tin-foil hat wearing horrible people for DARING to ask questions about an ongoing FBI investigation involving Hillary Clinton.

Camp #2--They know an they're spinning--while they position Bernie supporters are cruel, tin-foil hat wearing horrible people for DARING to ask questions about an ongoing FBI investigation involving Hillary Clinton.

It's getting old.

I think a group devoted to serious people who want to discuss this issue, should be started. Not to bash. But to discuss news, information and facts related to the FBI's investigation of her server. This affects all Democrats.

[JudyM]

109. Great idea. Serious discussion threads get crapped up by those two camps incessantly. Nothing

useful to add to the discussion, just same old blah blah "you're like a republican making a big deal out of nothing" crap.

We'll see what happens after the Supreme Court rules in the McDonnell corruption case, I doubt we'll see anything from the FBI before then.

[CoffeeCat]

106. OMG, you are completely clueless on all points

I am starting to feel sorry for some of you. Almost.

Do you know that I have virtually ignored every Clinton scandal that has ever emerged? I have always sided with the Clinton's, including Bill's impeachment and through Benghazi. I looked into all of those scandals and found nothing. Given my degree in journalism and background in writing--I like to look into things. I found all of the Clinton scandals to be much ado about nothing. But this email server is different. Much, much different.

I personally do not enjoy this. My feelings about Hillary have nothing to do with this. There is strong evidence that she committed crimes. The FBI has leaked that 2,000 of her emails contained classified information; and that 22 of those emails were categorized at Top Secret--which means that if they were released to the public, would post "a grave danger to the United States. This is direct from the FBI that HRC send classified and Top Secret information over an unsecure server that even President Obama didn't know about.

So, we know she sent classified information over the server. You assert in your response, ""There is no evidence - none -that any data was compromised." You CLEARLY do not understand the law. It is illegal to TRANSMIT classified or Top Secret information over a vulnerable server. That is the crime! Whether or not there was a breach is irrelevant!

According to your logic, Hillary could print off Top Secret documents--leave them on a table at Starbucks for hours--and that's ok--as long as no one saw them. MISHANDLING is the crime.

And NO she did not turn over all of her emails. The FBI told her to turn over her server. She deleted 30,000 emails. Some of those emails were between her and Blumenthal and were about Libya security and sensitive issues. Fact is--she deleted and failed to turn over those emails. But the FBI recovered all of those emails.

And please! NO OTHER SECRETARY OF STATE SET UP AN UNSECURED, HOME-BUILT SERVER IN THEIR BASEMENT. What Hillary did is and was unprecedented. Colin Powell sending a few personal emails with his Gmail account is NOT the same as Hillary conducting all of her State business via an unsecured server. Do you get that? Do you get how serious this is?

OMG...Get informed. Maybe you are informed, but you consider it your duty to blow smoke for Hillary. If you aren't informed, I suggest you do your due diligence. Read about what she did. Look up the law.

It is not looking good for her.

[randome]

114. Sorry, it's not looking good for you.

I specifically said "...very similar -and in some instances identical..." Still doesn't make it illegal and that's where you trip yourself up. See post #99 below. You're the one with blinders on, a-hopin' and a-prayin' for something that you will never see.

If Clinton is indicted, I'm fine with moving onto the next candidate. It's you who have put all your eggs into one basket -Sanders. I can deal with anything that occurs between now and November. You, however, are clearly very, very upset that Clinton is on the verge of being our next President.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[CoffeeCat]

150. So you're suggesting

that conducting all State business on a homebrew, unsecure server that is secretly sitting in your basement, is legal?

I'm trying to have an honest discussion with you.

It's fairly obvious that I'd have better luck teaching drunk monkeys how to crochet.

[randome]

243. I'm 'suggesting' that Clinton is not a moron and that I don't understand all the technical details.

Nor do I understand every nuance of regulation and law regarding this.

And that no matter how much you want this to be true, nothing has happened and isn't likely to. You can keep on 'worrying' about this or 'showing concern' or whatever the hell you want to call it, but it's quite clear that the only thing driving these repetitive posts is hatred of Clinton.

Like I said, if she's found guilty of something, I have no problem whatsoever in saying, "Okay, let's move on, then." But since month after month after month and nothing has happened, the objective viewpoint, to me, is that nothing ever will happen and that anything that wasn't done strictly by the book is likely minor.

This entire email 'group prayer' you have going on is sick.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

[FourScore]

174. I see it exactlyu as you do, CC. And you haven't even mentioned the pay to play,

which, as I understand it, is the big enchilada in this investigation.

[FourScore]

173. Your post is enlightening, randome, but not in a good way.

With all due respect, it shows enormous ignorance regarding the facts. The thing is, I don't really blame YOU for that ignorance. The media is being willfully silent on this issue, which is why I started the OP. WHY are they being so willfully silent on it?

Your post scares me because I think how you view this issue is how most Americans view it. Trust me, (and I do not want to see Clinton get indicted) you are very, very wrong on all points.

Only people who are digging into this are finding answers, and those answers are very disturbing and only lead to more questions.

I don't really like Hillary that much. I REALLY don't like the establishment. However, I don't want to see her get indicted. I am afraid, though, that she will.

[beachbum bob]

76. FBI does not indict

[IdaBriggs]

80. Which is the DOJ lawyers are involved, as confirmed by the Attorney General.

Do you need the link?

[pdsimdars]

77. A lot of this thread is wayyyyy off. I tend to agree with chan790, no news until there is news.

That is, when the FBI releases their recommendations to the DoJ, there's really nothing to report but speculation so the MSM isn't focused. I mean, it takes more than speculation to tear them away from Trump, right?

But when the FBI makes a move, the MSM will light up.

I agree, there will be some indictments but whether it will be Hillary herself or just members of her inner circle, it's hard to say. BUT, SERIOUS issues were raised, at the core of it was having an unprotected, unencrypted private server on which you conduct ALL of your government business.
She spun it that "everyone else did it" , but no one in the history of the government has had a private server to do all their government work on. No one.

[lmbradford]

86. Well, I hope she is indicted...

I am sick of people that have money getting off scott free for their crimes. I don't find it trivial or wave off the fact that she mishandled classified information. My daughter is in the Air Force and crimes like these endanger her life. This is no laughing matter, it is astoundingly serious. This woman is a menace to this country, no, to the world at large, and I, for one, have had enough. THROW HER ASS IN JAIL and throw away the key. I cannot believe that members of this country are voting for her....for this travesty. (sigh)

[FourScore]

124. I actually do not hope she gets indicted.

I don't like her or what she represents. I don't like her dishonesty and I don't trust her a bit.

I am also very afraid of the "machine" that is putting her in office - the obvious election fraud, the media bias, the money behind her...

But I don't want to drag her, the party or the country through such huge trauma.

I worry that she will get indicted, though. Or, enough dirt will come out of the investigation to bury her politically. We're possibly looking at Trump for our next president. That scares the hell out of me.

[Punkingal]

88. I can only say how I would feel if the FBI were investigating me.

I apologize for being crude, but I would be shitting my pants. And if the FBI gave immunity to one of my employees, ditto. None of us know how this is going to turn out. We simply don't have enough information. That being the case, I can't say she will be indicted, or she won't be indicted. Neither can anyone else here who heaps scorn at the very thought of it.

I do know this: an FBI investigation is nothing to laugh at. Would any of you here laugh if an FBI agent showed up at your door today?

[DVRacer]

112. I would because most likely it would be my brother

He is stationed in Hawaii so I don't see him often enough.

[George II]

92. Don't you people understand? The FBI does NOT indict people!!!!!!!!!

Never have, never will.

[IdaBriggs]

107. The FBI is working with DOJ attorneys. The FBI recommends indictment or not

based on facts and evidence. There is a reasonable assumption that if the FBI makes a recommendation for indictment that the DOJ will follow it.

I realize this situation is complicated, but focusing on the fact that many people forget to include the "recommended" part does not mean Hillary Clinton is not currently under investigation by the FBI (who investigate crimes).

[FourScore]

110. Please re-read the OP. You are focusing on the absence of one little word.

Obviously, the rest of the OP talks about the DoJ's role.

Do you have anything else to add?

[George II]

111. The fact remains that the FBI doesn't indict people (I see you unceremoniously ADDED "recommending")

[FourScore]

126. Not sure what you mean by "unceremoniously". I fixed my error and clarified my edit.

Not sure what more I could do. I still think you are focused on a typo error, when the gist of the OP has serious content, which you choose to ignore.

[Gothmog]

210. The lack of culpable mental state renders the sad attempts at analysis false

I hope that you are aware of the concept of intent or mens rea http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-prez-clinton-emails-q-and-a-html-htmlstory.html

Can Clinton face criminal charges?

Law enforcement officials have said Clinton is not the target of any criminal investigation and so far, no one has produced evidence that she violated any law.

The FBI has received a "security" referral from the inspectors general and is looking at whether people who sent emails to her may have violated security regulations and whether they exposed U.S. secrets to potential spying by foreign powers. If Clinton received secret information from staff over her personal email, that may have violated security rules, but it might be difficult to show she knew any of the information was classified at the time she received it.

Even a relatively low-level misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location." But she could argue that she didn’t know the information was secret at the time.

There is no way to satisfy this requirement and so there will be no indictment. Laypersons are amusing when they try to understand legal concepts

[Waiting For Everyman]

93. That's a very good question.

My answer is, most of the disgusting mountains of money raised for political campaigns gets paid to the media. People do not stop and think about this fact enough. I think it's a fact that Sanders should point out more. It's obvious, but people overlook it.

A big chunk of all the fundraising from all the big donors gets paid to them. So when Hillary is out collecting the big checks by selling influence and exemptions from our law to these predator donors, the money she's raising goes to the media. They are 100% aware of this all the time. When there is a story about Hillary's glam high-ticket fundraisers, the media licks their chops just like Pavlov's dogs.

She is important to them, and they like her a lot, as you can imagine. Same for the other establishment (meaning pay-to-play, sold out) candidates including the Repubs and the down tickets of both sides.

Do you think the media want the system changed? Do you think they are desperate to have anyone but Sanders win the election?

There's your answer. They would put any criminal in the White House, including the reincarnation of Attila the Hun, rather than lose their cash cow of windfall profits which they never should've started receiving in the first place, in a business in which the government, whose elections they are raking in all this cash from, gives them a license to use the public airwaves! You can't get nuttier than that. It's like the government giving the media a gun to stick up the government with! There is absolutely no reason for this to be happening. And this stranglehold on politics by the media in turn enables this same media to create more politically corrupt power in elected office to pay the media even more... the vicious cycle goes on until THAT bubble pops sometime.

It's similar to what goes on with all the other dysfunctional sectors of our society, the dinosaurs feeding on all of us which should've been in the rear view mirror by now, like: fossil fuels, private health insurance, student loan financing, etc. And who are they? Why, they're big donors of course!!! See what a great thing they have going at the cost of the destruction of the remaining healthy sectors of society that are left? The whole thing is a viruent disease, killing us all. But will they stop at some point? NOPE. We saw that in 2008, didn't we? They will even kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, to get one more for themselves. This is who we're dealing with -- psychos, who we have promoted and elected all the way to the top of the pyramid of power. And we're poised to elect another one.

So the media's attitude is... shhh, don't talk about Hillary's little problem with the Feds. Just keep putting surrogates on shows to keep lying and saying it'll be ok.

The only problem with that: I don't think Comey is going to be bought off. And he isn't the only one who can leak Hilly's little problem in a way that will be taken seriously by the public. So let's see who among the players swerves first, in this game of chicken. We might as well watch the interesting show play out, since we're along for the ride with no choice about it.

I would bet the ranch on this though: one day in the near future we're going to wake up and there will be shit hitting the fan all over the place.

[2banon]

141. "It's like the government giving the media a gun to stick up the government with!["

In exchange for a bit of hype, shilling, soft ball questions, puff pieces, and breathless drama over tinsel and stardust or the time of day.

There's your answer. They would put any criminal in the White House, including the reincarnation of Attila the Hun, rather than lose their cash cow of windfall profits which they never should've started receiving in the first place, in a business in which the government, whose elections they are raking in all this cash from, gives them a license to use the public airwaves! You can't get nuttier than that. It's like the government giving the media a gun to stick up the government with! There is absolutely no reason for this to be happening. And this stranglehold on politics by the media in turn enables this same media to create more politically corrupt power in elected office to pay the media even more... the vicious cycle goes on until THAT bubble pops sometime.

and this bit goes straight to the heart of the matter:

They would put any criminal in the White House, including the reincarnation of Attila the Hun, rather than lose their cash cow of windfall profits which they never should've started receiving in the first place, in a business in which the government, whose elections they are raking in allE this cash from, gives them a license to use the public airwaves! You can't get nuttier than that.

[2banon]

148. This post in it's entirety ought to be an OP..

I'm dead serious.

I have no illusions about HRC getting "indicted". for the reasons you lay out so eloquently here. . FitzChrstmas remains burned in my memory and so it shall ever be. If any lesson was to be drawn from that event, the powers that be will never be held to account in the way that you and I would be. Not ever.

In this case I agree Comey is not to be bought off.. but I'm still skeptical that any of his findings will see the light of day, UNLESS he has a cynical agenda of waiting it out for an October Surprise scenario. I haven't studied Comey's tenure to the extent of his efficacy, only a passing awareness and sense that he seems to operate ethically. Which would rule out a cynical ploy of politicising legal proceedings by timing this just before the General, or anytime after assuming she's the presumptive winner.

If she loses, all bets are off in that regard.







.

[Waiting For Everyman]

179. Thanks, 2banon.

This is an election year that cannot be predicted linearly, as most people are currently doing, because it is shaping up to be the exception to all the rules we are used to. But I do see a parallel.

I've read most of what has been written about HRC's legal issues, pro and con, and I get the same feeling from this that I had about Watergate. That too, I was shocked to see at the time, was counted as a nothingburger by the press, by Nixon, and by the public for two years before the weight of continuing disclosures forced all of them to face the unavoidable realization that Nixon was indeed guilty and had to go, or face impeachment and most likely criminal charges. (Possibly HRC's desperation to be elected comes from the thought that once in office, she too could get a pardon, as Nixon did from successor Ford?)

In '72, the scandal was 5 months old when we went ahead and elected Nixon anyway, even though the criminal story was cooking in the background amid bold-faced blanket denials from loads of surrogates as well as the candidate, just as in this case. The age of this ongoing scandal this far into this election shows how much more jaded we have become, and how much deeper in denial we are, but this won't end well either.

To be fair though, it does take some time to face an ugly truth this big. This is actually bigger and worse than Watergate was (at least the part of it that was formally investigated).

I just may do you suggest. Thanks again.

[2banon]

196. I had forgotten that Watergate was first reported on two years before the election

I think I really only learned of the Watergate scandal at around the same time I learned of the Pentagon Papers publication in the paper. Two separate "scandals" but at the time I was more focused on my newborn.

She was three years old by the time Nixon resigned. and then there was the pardon, unbelievably. Ford brought in Cheney and Rumsfeld.

I think HRC's power connections maybe much more formidable than Nixon ever dreamed of having, and will protect her from any thing the Justice Department might discover, but I could be wrong.

It's going to be interesting, none the less.

I personally was not looking forward to experiencing another Scandalous Clinton Administration, but since so many of her supporters just can't wait to repeat the nightmare of the 90's, I've resigned myself to simply sit and watch on the sidelines with some degree of amusement, at least for part of the time.

[winter is coming]

225. Twenty-three sounds a lot more plausible than three. n/t

[2banon]

231. sorry, I don't follow? 23 what exactly (more plausable than 3?)

my daughter was 3 years old in 1974. What exactly are you referring to?

[winter is coming]

232. My apologies. I got lost and thought you were saying Hillary was 3 in '74.

This is what I get for reading DU while my own she-beast is talking to me.

[2banon]

234. gotcha. I was 24 in 1974. So am I older than HRC by a year? Never looked at her dob

[noretreatnosurrender]

236. Excellent Post

Thank you.

[Gothmog]

99. Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath

I am amused by the Sanders supporters and republicans praying for an indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

The fact remains, however, that such a scenario is pretty far-fetched. Politico’s Josh Gerstein took a closer look today at the legal circumstances, and the reasons Clinton’s foes shouldn’t hold their breaths.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but – in nearly all instances that were prosecuted – aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

Politico’s examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.

Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.

TPM’s Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. “To a person,” Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is “very far-fetched.”

[FourScore]

121. I have seen this over and oiver from the left, but there is no SUBSTANCE to their claim.

How do they explain the extradition of Guccifer?

How do they explain the immunity given to Pagliano?

How do they explain the top secret emails that were found on the emails she deleted?

How do they explain Sydney Blumenthal?

How do they explain the pay to play?

The list is long, and no matter where I look, I cannot find any argument that addresses these issues that contains substance from the left. It's just a constant patting on the head don't-you-worry-your-pretty-little-head condescension.

I need answers. I really dislike getting the news about this from the right wing media and Fox, but I gotta say, they're the only ones asking the right questions right now. Sticking our head in the sand and pretending this doesn't exist is STUPID!!!

[Gothmog]

128. No crime was committed except in the minds of fox news viewers

Since you are relying on Fox News and RWNJ sources, this is amusing

[FourScore]

164. Have you read any of the emails?

Basically, Hume is just saying, "Who's going to indict a presidential candidate even if they broke the law?"

Okay, so let's go with that. You don't think the Republican controlled House is going to go after her tooth and nail to impeach her once they learn about it? (If she can still get elected once it's all leaked.) Donald Trump is already pounding away at her for the investigation. This is going to be very bad for the democrats.

[Gothmog]

200. Yes I have read the e-mails

I also understand the legal issues There was not crime committed here. Dan Abrams (son of Floyd Abrams) has some good analysis here http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499

In the Wall Street Journal, Judge Michael Mukasey seems to be arguing that because this all just feels wrong and even criminal-y, Clinton should at least be charged with a misdemeanor. That is, of course, not how the law can or should work. In fact, Judge Mukasey learned the hard way that misstating the law when discussing the case against Clinton can be hazardous. Judge Mukasey also echoed the conservative talking point that the case against Clinton is eerily similar to the charges against former general David Petraeus: "This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information." Except that it is nothing like that case. Apart from the possible charge, there are actually few or no similarities from a factual perspective as the lead prosecutor in the Petreaus case explained in an op-ed in USA Today:

"During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest level. . .

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as 'top secret' and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither. Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, 'I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don't have it on it, but I mean there's code word stuff in there.' When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly."

In the law, intent can be everything. Petraeus clearly knew he was violating the law, but based on what we know today, 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. Even assuming for argument's sake she created the server to keep her emails out of the public eye, that is in no way remotely comparable to the Petraeus case. Efforts to contrast the two cases fall flat factually and legally....

To be clear, none of this means Clinton won't be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know. It's also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown. But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.

Dan is a good lawyer and this is a good analysis of the law on this issue

[Vinca]

162. I read somewhere that Guccifer has info in the cloud he's holding to barter for leniency.

Whatever it is, it must be juicy.

[Gothmog]

211. Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent.

They are retroactively reclassifying these e-mails http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913

The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):

The Justice Department said Friday that it has been notified of a potential compromise of classified information in connection with the private e-mail account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.

A Justice official said the department had received a "referral" on the matter, which the inspector general of the intelligence agencies later acknowledged came from him.

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said in a separate statement that he had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a "limited sample" of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the "security referral," acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information....

Officials acknowledged that none of the e-mails reviewed so far contain information that was marked classified when they were sent. But a new inquiry would prolong the political controversy Clinton is facing over her un­or­tho­dox e-mail system. [The Washington Post, 7/24/15]

See https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/criminal-probe-sought-into-clinton-private-e-mails-for-suspected-sensitive-content/2015/07/24/b90bf598-31f8-11e5-97ae-30a30cca95d7_story.html

[John Poet]

116. The elephant in the room is about to drop a great big TURD

on the Hillary campaign, so it appears...

[pdsimdars]

136. One interesting fact I heard . . .

Hillary says it's a security review. Some guy called the FBI to ask about that, the guy at the FBI said they only do CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.

That should remove all doubt. Hillary is under CRIMINAL investigation by the FBI.

[randome]

139. Are you fucking kidding? If "some guy" says it's true, you...you...LOL!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[FourScore]

147. It is true that the FBI does not do "security reviews", whether "some guy" said it or not.

They do criminal investigations.

[Gothmog]

212. To get Clinton, the DOJ will also have to indict Powell and Rice

Collin Powell did the same thing? http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/when-the-shoe-was-the-other-foot

The problem in this case is that Cillizza isn’t necessarily pointing to a hypothetical. Politico published this report in March: “Like Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State Colin Powell also used a personal email account during his tenure at the State Department, an aide confirmed in a statement.’

MSNBC’s Alex Seitz-Wald added at the time:

Colin Powell, George W. Bush’s first secretary of state, wrote in his memoir about how outdated technology infrastructure at the State Department led him to install a personal laptop in his office to use a personal email account to “shoo[t] emails to my principal assistants, to individual ambassadors, and increasingly to my foreign-minister colleagues.”

Powell, who served from 2001-2005, apparently did not keep a record of personal emails, unlike Clinton.

As best as I can tell, no one ever cared about the Republican secretary of state using a personal email account. It was, to borrow a phrase, a non-story.

Clearly, Republicans and some of Clinton’s media critics see an opportunity here. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), still hoping for some modicum of attention, has even begun telling people that Clinton might go to jail. I haven’t seen anything to suggest Clinton is guilty of any wrongdoing at all, but the probe is apparently still ongoing and we’ll see if anything of interest turns up.

But to suggest Democrats would pounce if the shoe were on the other foot doesn’t appear to be true. We already know how Dems would respond to a Republican secretary of state using a private email account: with indifference.

[FourScore]

223. Ugh. The issue isn't private emails. The issue is the private SERVER with classified info on it.

If this is all such a non-story, you might want to forward this to the FBI, because they're taking it pretty seriously with dozens of agents working on it.

So again, why is the MSM not reporting this correctly?

[Gothmog]

227. Your analysis is wrong as normal

Your understanding of the possible charges is wrong but funny. Having a server is not illegal. The only thing that Clinton could be charged with is the knowing failure to protect material that she knew was classified. The same charge applies to both Powell and Rice. If anything having a private server is more secured than what Powell and Rice used.

I have been following this issue for a long time and I actually understand the law here.

[Gothmog]

214. Condoleezza Rice Aides, Colin Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Emails

Here are some more facts for the silly conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rice-aides-powell-also-got-classified-info-personal-emails-n511181

State Department officials have determined that classified information was sent to the personal email accounts of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NBC News has learned.

In an interview with NBC News, Powell challenged the conclusion, saying nothing that went to his personal account was secret. Rice did not initially respond to an interview request.

In a letter to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy dated Feb. 3, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick said that the State Department has determined that 12 emails examined from State's archives contained national security information now classified "Secret" or "Confidential." The letter was read to NBC News.

Two of the messages were sent to Powell's personal account, and 10 were sent to personal accounts of Rice's senior aides, the letter said.

None of the messages were marked classified when originally sent, and none were determined to include information from the intelligence community, Linick said in the document....

Linick's findings will be seen as helpful to Clinton, because they show that past secretaries of state and senior officials used personal accounts to conduct government business and occasionally allowed secrets to spill into the insecure traffic.

[FourScore]

224. Agian, the issue is the homebrew server. They may have used a government server.

In any case, the FBI saw did not investigate them. They ARE investigating Clinton.

[Gothmog]

229. Laypersons are so cute and adorable when they attempt to understand legal concepts

The only potential law that Clinton could be charged is the knowing failure to keep known secret materials safe. That same charge also applies to Powell and Rice.

It is not illegal to own a server. The only thing that is illegal is the knowing disclosure of material that the person knows if confidential. None of the e-mails in question were marked confidential at the time and were later re-classified. The same analysis applies to Powell and Rice

[FourScore]

230. You might want to let the FBI know that they've been wasting their time and resources.

Since you've got this all figured out.

[Gothmog]

215. Powell, Rice received sensitive info through private emails

This is amusing http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/powell-rice-received-sensitive-info-through-private-emails

“But wait,” Clinton’s critics in the media and Republican circles protest, “what about emails that were later deemed to include sensitive information?” NBC News reports today that both of the Bush/Cheney-era Secretaries of State fall into the same category.

State Department officials have determined that classified information was sent to the personal email accounts of former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the senior staff of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NBC News has learned. …

In a letter to Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy dated Feb. 3, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick said that the State Department has determined that 12 emails examined from State’s archives contained national security information now classified “Secret” or “Confidential.” The letter was read to NBC News.

According to the report, of those 12 emails, two were sent to Powell’s personal account, while the other 10 were sent to personal accounts senior aides of Condoleezza Rice’s senior aides.

None of this is to suggest Powell or Rice’s office is guilty of wrongdoing. In fact, Powell told NBC News the messages in question include information that’s “fairly minor.”

There’s no reason whatsoever to believe otherwise.

The political salience of news like this, however, is that Clinton’s critics would like voters to believe she’s at the center of some damaging “scandal” because of her approach to email management. These new details suggest Clinton’s practices were fairly common, and unless Republicans and the media are prepared to start condemning Powell and Rice with equal vigor – an unlikely scenario – it’s starting to look like this entire line of attack lacks merit.

Or as the NBC News report put it, the new findings “show that past secretaries of state and senior officials used personal accounts to conduct government business and occasionally allowed secrets to spill into the insecure traffic.”

[frylock]

182. What is it that you think they do over there at the Bureau?

[840high]

180. Of course it's criminal.

[pdsimdars]

195. Not to the hillbots, it's RW smears to them.

[winter is coming]

220. Funny thing about gravity.

It exists whether or not you believe in it.

[Chezboo]

153. With a little help from her friends...

From back in December, after the October (NGP VAN) data breach, this article mentions something I totally missed - the relationship of NGP VAN founder, Pearlman, to Bryan Pagliano.

NGP VAN founder Nathaniel Pearlman has had a very close relationship with the Clintons, and served as chief technology officer for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign.

According to Pearlman's book “Margin of Victory”, when Pearlman handed over the day to day operation of then NGP to current CEO Stuart Trevelyan in 2007 it was due to Trevelyan's “political background and commitment that went back to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign war room … and a sense of cool competitiveness that blended perfectly with the NGP vibe.”

While working for Clinton, Pearlman managed controversial Clinton’s email server administrator Bryan Pagliano. In hearings about Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State Pagliano has refused to testify before the House Benghazi Committee, asserting his Fifth Amendment rights against self incrimination.

Pearlman has stayed close to Clinton since her last presidential bid. Graphicacy, Pearlman's graphic design firm serves Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta's think tank The Center for American Progress.



Article also mentions Weaver is confident that, "some of our data was lost to another campaign."

MORE here

Former Clinton employee owns company at center of campaign data scandal https://theoutsidernews.com/articles/2015/12/18/former-clinton-employee-owns-company-center-campaign-data-scandal

[840high]

181. Interesting. Thank you.

[840high]

189. Found this reader comment

on Huff:


Steve Wehrly · Seattle University
Can anybody believe that the investigation would still be going on if the FBI has found nothing? Plus, there are two tracks to the investigation, either of which could end Clinton's campaign: 1. the emails; 2. the foundation and Huma Abedin's work and pay (simultaneously) for the State Dept., Mrs. Clinton personally, the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton lobbying/PR firm. Is it even possible that Abedin's work in all four positions did not involve a conflict of interest and conspiracy? If either Clinton or Abedin tried to hide one incriminating e-mail, both would be liable to prosecution. Obama's entire Presidencial legacy will be shattered if he or Justice tries to cover up, to say nothing of the impeachment that will begin immediately if there's no indictment or if Obama tries to pardon Clinton, Abedin or anybody else.

[northernsouthern]

228. If she has done something wrong...

I hope they handle this professionally and above reproach. She is corrupt and is destroying the party. Many of us seem to no longer have values being fine with her cheating, paying for an army of false propaganda, spreading lies, racists narratives, using victims...our party needs a wake up call. We are the party for the people not for the figurehead.

[lmbradford]

239. Joe DiGenova on C-Span

He said that the grand jury has been working on this for a year at least and they are at the end of the investigation, crossing their T's. He also says that this isn't about emails or confidentiality, its about espionage. That Washington Journal video is very insightful and gives a lot of information that I didn't previously know.

[Demsrule86]

247. Do you know who Joe DiGenova is?

"Joseph DiGenova: Hillary Clinton Will Not "Be Able To Complete Her Campaign" After Indictment For Committing "Numerous Federal Crimes" With Private Email Use. On the January 5 edition of Courtside Entertainment Group's The Laura Ingraham Show, host Laura Ingraham interviewed discredited Republican lawyer and longtime critic of the Clintons, Joseph diGenova, who claimed that Hillary Clinton and her staff "have committed numerous federal crimes involving the negligence and improper handling of classified information" through her use of a private email account and server. DiGenova asserted that the FBI is "not going to be able to walk away from this," claiming that the evidence is "so overwhelming" and stating that the FBI would "revolt" and "intelligence community will not stand for" it if Clinton is not indicted"

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/07/right-wing-media-cite-discredited-republican-la/207839.


You think it is appropriate to post from this guy on a Democratic forum? By the way, this is the same guy who gave us the Benghazi myth about how US forces were told to stand down...the forces had not even arrived.

[Demsrule86]

244. What no link today?

We ignore the 'investigation' because we know no laws were broken and there will be no indictment. The only new thing is Democrats helping the right wing smear machine.