2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary is the focus of an FBI criminal investigation and will be brought in for questioning in the
next few weeks if not sooner
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Response to grossproffit (Reply #1)
Post removed
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Gothmog
(144,890 posts)This is what is being posted on Freerepublic
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)that one of their DEMOCRATIC primary candidates is under FBI investigation for sending all of her State Department email on a homebrew, unsecured email server that President Obama didn't know about.
What she did is unprecedented. No public official has ever set up a server in their basement. Brian Pagliano her IT guy who set up the server has been granted immunity by the FBI.
Tell me the part again, about how this should remain only a right-wing concern!
You'd have to be stupid to not pay attention to this bombshell that is happening in our own party.
Who gives two shits what the Republicans think? It's our party that will be most affected by this!
840high
(17,196 posts)Gothmog
(144,890 posts)I still love the Malkin material posted on DU by a sanders supporters with the claim that the analysis of a non-lawyer trump supporter who could not get into law school was the definitive work of the issue of the e-mails. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1625920j It is evidently okay to post Freeper materain on DU if such material attacks Hillary Clinton
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)But seems to be a spam post with no links or details. Plus no reason to think much of it with no new deets.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)nt
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)running to be the President. Your threshold for spam is quite low... not all OP's are breaking news and require links. Your assertion that there is no reason to think much of it seems quite unfortunate since she is running to be the damn President.. amazing
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)All a certain group has done all day is attack with smears and conspiracies all day, The number of times cr@p about the Pope and 1040s have come up boggles the mind. I liked the fact we hold back on this, it gives us the high ground, it makes me proud of us, and it inspires me to make gifs and such to fight for our guy. Let the other team lose their souls, we have no need of their corruption to win. If something happens with the FBI, it happens.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)key words.. currently and criminal
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Posting this is just pointless since it is not any thing new. You are just spamming a known issue. It could have merit, many things point to a fact that she has broken rules, done some bad things, Obama tossed her under the bus a little, but I am just saying until there is something new let it be. Reposting old stories is the HRC forte not our.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)other people don't find it incredibly important that she is currently under an FBI criminal investigation..again... amazing
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)But you are making our party look as bad as theirs if you just spam stories with nothing new to them. That kind of seems a bit bot-ish.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)important to Progressive Democrats that we do not nominate someone who is currently under an FBI criminal investigation.. I couldn't get a job at McDonalds if I were under an FBI criminal investigation... and your shading me for stating to the DU readers that Hillary is under an FBI criminal Investigation...
just move on out of this thread and don't click on it next time
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Perhaps you should read my other responses on this thread before you go all foil hat on me... or check out my other threads...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511750271
Or check out my two hidden threads on my transparency page.
If you have an issue, stop responding to me.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)that I find very important ... I don't appreciate it.. and asked nicely that you do not click on the Thread anymore.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)If you want to spam a known issue, then perhaps title it, nothing new, but I figured for some reason the people on this forum may have forgotten that HRC was being investigated and I felt like bringing it up again. You posted it like you knew, unless you have a source saying for sure it will be out in a week then there was no point. Whatever you have the freedom to post waht you like, but you make us look bad when you post it this way.
Response to northernsouthern (Reply #19)
berniepdx420 This message was self-deleted by its author.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Like he said, if you don't agree . . .well, don't agree, but it doesn't look "bad" for the party when someone expresses a concern like this. It's called "vetting", get used to it.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)I do not like spam attacks with no basis, this was not a new attack, it was not a question, it was presented as news, but was not. That is why I was annoyed. As I have said.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)making the party look bad.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)I just get paranoid of empty posts lacking sources or more. I could see Wolf on here trying to stir something up for a good news story now that he knows it can get viewers.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)For the good of the party.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Democrats need to be thinking long and hard about what is going to happen from now through November.
The FBI interview coming up at any day.
The Republicans plan to release their final Benghazi report about July 18 (during the GOP convention)
Two likely contested and chaotic conventions.
The possibility of an indictment of Clinton. Perhaps even a Watergate type situation if the FBI recommends charging her but Obama's Attorney General will not.
If Hillary is the nominee, she will be attacked as never before and many millions of people will turn out to vote AGAINST her. Plus she cannot, on her own, generate enthusiasm that turns into GOTV among progressives, young people, and independents.
If Hillary should be elected, Republicans will have impeachment papers filed on Inauguration Day, and there will be hell for us all as we are dragged yet again through a Clinton psychodrama.
Be prepared.
mcar
(42,278 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)By Berners. So, actually no you are in fact not better than that.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Now , go in peace, please.
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)brush
(53,733 posts)still_one
(92,060 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)still_one
(92,060 posts)As I said, flame bait
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Enlighten yourself.
still_one
(92,060 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)head..sand..
still_one
(92,060 posts)after Tuesday
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Computer consulting? Interior decorating? Bake sales?
Because what they ACTUALLY DO is INVESTIGATE CRIMES.
And they've already given Hillary's tech guy "Immunity from Prosecution" so just whose crimes do you think they are investigating?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Tell it to the FBI.
840high
(17,196 posts)still_one
(92,060 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)FRIDAY, APR 15, 2016 01:12 PM PDT
The equation for a Hillary defeat is adding up: Her FBI probe plus Bernies huge gains in national polls should wake up Sanders skeptics
Bernie Sanders is almost tied nationally and ahead of Clinton in three Democratic primary polls
H. A. GOODMAN
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/the_equation_for_a_hillary_defeat_is_adding_up_her_fbi_probe_plus_bernies_huge_gains_in_national_polls_should_wake_up_sanders_skeptics/
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Investigation... the FBI ... not the Congress... wake up man
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Like it means something -- "criminal."
It means nothing at all without an indictment. Almost no legal expert thinks she did anything "criminal" here. Ergo, you're just jerking of.
She's not a criminal and it's not a
"Criminal investigation" as opposed to some other kind of "investigation." It's just investigation. There is no evidence of any criminality in the public record anyway.
You people are playing ugly because you're losing.
And it's costing you undecided voters. I was one.
In New York. Bernie Bro screaming and misogyny convinced me to support Hillary. Congratulations.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)investigation by the FBI. She just hired a Criminal Defense attorney.. head.. sand
What are the differences between the civil and criminal justice system?
https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5497-what-are-the-differences-between-the-civil-and
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)when and if she is charged with a criminal offense.
But you folks just so enjoy saying "criminal" next to her name. Reminds me of another party, I can't think of their name just now.
She had a server in her house. You act like she robbed a bank. There will be no criminal charges. I am quite sure of it, along with virtually every legal expert with any experience in this area of law.
Your sneering vituperative misogynystic hatred of her is your blind spot. It will cost your candidate this election. Millions more voters have already decided so.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The FBI has prima facie evidence that a crime or crimes were committed. That's what they are investigating. The fact that they are doing in person interviews implies that they have found, in the emails, what appears to be solid proof. The interviews will be held to either confirm or refute that conclusion.
You are sure. You shouldn't be. Until the FBI announces their recommendations, we are all in the dark including the many experts your side has dredged up.
I'd guess the likelihood of an indictment is at most 1 in 4. That is not low enough to ignore. The fact that Hillary now has a criminal defense attorney on the case has upped the odds against her.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)That's pretty amazing.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)No, I just vote based on my gut feeling.
Keep thinking that.
Ideology without a practical governance strategy is not policy.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)And you need to do some actual research. It is only the pro-Hillary talking heads who say there is nothing to see here. Professionals in the intelligence field are freaked out by what she did. This included former Attorney Generals, the head of the DIA (defense department equivalent of CIA) to name a couple off the top of my head.
I listen to all sources even if they may be on the right. I don't listen to their opinions, but when they talk facts, I listen. And most of the information is coming from the right because the left just wants to blow smoke to cloud the issue for one of their own. But you can't argue with the facts.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)But be careful on ignoring what is known. She has done some things that are not by the book ok, it wasn't just using a personal email, it was that combined with a server, along with attempts to get around protocol for convince, and deleting a huge number of emails...she did break some rules, but it could just be minor things. So all sides should hold off until we know some facts.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)someone who could be indicted... do you just want to hand the Presidency to Trump or Cruz.. it is immensely important that we let everyone know she is the focus of a current FBI criminal investigation... that in itself is disqualifying to be our nominee
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)In her job as SoS she HAD to deal with Classified information, that's what you do at that level. And she did it all out in public from her personal server.
People who aren't HILLARY, lose their jobs and careers for leaving only ONE classified message unprotected. She did it her whole career as SoS.
And those 22 messages they talk about, were at the top level of the TOP SECRET classification of security.
This is important stuff and she just casually ignored what they told her and what she signed in her oath, and did whatever she wanted for "convenience".
Oh, nothing to see here, they're just picking on her. . .. blah, blah, blah.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)From waht I heard there are issues, but the think is unless they are huge, all that means is we lose the primaries since many are shielded about Hillary from the constant republican fishing expeditions. They have made many fans numb to actual facts.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)LOADS of information there and what you see is that partisan talking heads say everything is good but every person who is in the intelligence field says it is outrageous.
Do some research instead of coming here and pretending to have an informed opinion so that you can preach to others what they should and should not be concerned with when you don't know anything about it.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Your battle is not here. I did it, that is why I was quoting it. My issue is spam posts presented as news, with out any. The OP does not know the information for sure, the anytime meme has been on for these last few months. I do not condone it when the HRC camp does it and I am not a hypocrite so I call out our own crew too. It is my right, this is general. Perhaps you should read my posts and my ones that were hidden before you accuse me of something.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)A group of very knowledgeable people is working on the Clinton Scandal Timeline. It is now up to nearly 162 pages of documentation and media coverage. Here's a link to the work group, where you will find information and links enough to satisfy your thirst for knowledge.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280158157
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)Some links! Thank you.
(but that still does not change the OP is not citing news)
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)go and look at them.
And again, Dude, like I said, you made your point that you don't like empty threads, probably 4 or 5 times now. I got it the first time.
And yet, despite the MANY people who think this is an important topic for consideration and want to talk about it, you can't let them decide for themselves if THEY want to talk about it.
I would think that if YOU are only one voice or maybe one of only a few who DON'T want to discuss it, and all these other people do, why don't you go to another OP and discuss what YOU think is important and let US discuss what WE think is important and stop trying to tell us what is important and what is not?
Oh, and this is not the "breaking NEWS" thread, it's the primaries DISCUSSION thread. If you want news, maybe you should to there so you would be happier.
I don't need to read all your posts, I see what you are doing right here, right now.
delrem
(9,688 posts)Lay off.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)We are facing a dangerous moment, potentially. This summer is going to determine whether we are a nation of laws, or a nation of justice for SOME.
And if the FBI reports evidence to indict but Obama's Attorney General will not do so, then we are off to the races in a Watergate type situation. The FBI is already angry at Obama for inserting himself into the narrative.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)part of the conversation about who we should have as our nominee.
Bernie can't.
But we can.
Forget the stuff about the transcripts. She's using them to chum us all. Watch her smirk when people obsess over the transcripts.
The real corruption lies in the server scandal and in the money laundering through the Foundation.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Unbelievable.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)She LUVS it when people focus on the transcripts.
I say we urge people to drop that.
Focus on the Foundation and the Canadian "charity".
Have you seen the working group thread developing a Clinton Scandal timeline over in the Bernie forum?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)CompanyFirstSergeant
(1,558 posts)....including myself....
....have been investigated for security clearances.
Very routine, actually, it's required for quite a number of military jobs.
Being under investigation for improper handling of classified information would have been cause for disqualification.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)the President. I just don't understand the kid gloves being used here. This is not the highly partisan Congress but a Criminal FBI investigation..
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)It is only the partisan talking heads who are saying it's no big deal.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Renew Deal
(81,844 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Along with her impeached and wandering ex- president hubby.
Being the first female president will pale along side the other "firsts".
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...and all so unnecessary.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)any news of that?
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)As they near the end of the investigation, the agents are preparing to interview several of Clintons closest aides, and perhaps the candidate herself, according to the sources
RandySF
(58,447 posts)Or did you pull this out of your ass?
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)OP with plenty for you to read and obfuscate.
RandySF
(58,447 posts)Your ass.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)integrity .. you should research that..
grasswire
(50,130 posts)must have been a blast FAX from HQ today.
"Ask for links constantly."
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)incredibly important..
Do you prefer a pres trump or a prez cruz.. if she is indicted.. this is a game I am unwilling to play
WhiteTara
(29,692 posts)and this is not LBN, the article is from March 31 and was posted and discussed a great deal, when it first appeared. Thanks
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)thanks for that...
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Gothmog
(144,890 posts)The original report from the NYT on which this story was based was changed and this thread is based on a false and misleading premise or claim. The DOJ has confirmed that there is no criminal probe into the Clinton e-mails http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/doj-no-hillary-clinton-criminal-inquiry
The New York Times reported Thursday that two inspectors general asked the Justice Department "to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state." The language of that report originally cast Clinton as a target of the requested probe, but notably was changed after Times reporters received complaints from Clinton's presidential campaign.
The agency now says that it what it received was "not a criminal referral," but a request related to the potential compromise of classified information, according to Washington Post report Sari Horowitz:
Sari Horwitz ✔@SariHorwitz
The Department of Justice now correcting their earlier statement & saying the referral regarding Clinton emails was not a criminal inquiry.
Sari HorwitzVerified account
?@SariHorwitz
Correct from DOJ ept has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral.
Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the top Democrat on the select House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, also rejected the notion that the inspectors general of the State Department and intelligence agencies asked for a criminal probe into Clinton's email account
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)She's done some illegal and unethical things and they will come out. Primarily jeopardizing national security so she could use her SOS position to funnel money into the Clinton Foundation. How low!
K & R
Gothmog
(144,890 posts)The claim that there is a criminal referral here is really sad and wrong. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913
The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral. [Reuters, 7/24/15]
AP: U.S. Official Said That Request Of DOJ "Doesn't Suggest Wrongdoing By Clinton Herself." The Associated Press quoted an anonymous U.S. official who noted that the referral did not implicate Clinton in any wrongdoing:
The New York Times first reported the referral. The Clinton campaign said Friday that she "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials." Spokesman Nick Merrill said emails deemed classified by the administration were done so after the fact, not when they were sent.
One U.S. official said it was unclear whether classified information was mishandled and the referral doesn't suggest wrongdoing by Clinton herself. [Associated Press, 7/24/15]
Wash. Post: Officials Say Clinton "Is Not A Target" Of FBI Probe. The Washington Post reported that government officials said Clinton is "not a target" of the FBI's investigation:
Hillary Rodham Clinton's attorney has agreed to provide the FBI with the private server that housed her e-mail during her four years as secretary of state, Clinton's presidential campaign said Tuesday.
..
The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target.
The FBI's efforts have included contacting the Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the Clintons' unusual private e-mail system. [The Washington Post, 8/11/15]
The GOP and the Conservatives are so scared of Hillary Clinton that they are making crap up and hoping that their lies will hurt Clinton.
Facts here do not support the GOP silly claims
deathrind
(1,786 posts)But it is just a sideshow distraction according to some...nothing serious...it only the FBI.
senz
(11,945 posts)unfortunately, I hadn't fully woken up, but I was surprised to hear it, since corporate-owed NPR is very pro-Hillary. There had been some movement on the investigation, not quite an indictment, but some legal move advancing it. Sorry I can't give more.
It must be out there on other news sources ...
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Not go to the interview with the FBI?
She could go in shackles, then.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)oh and hey Bernie was invited to a Global Conference on Social & Political Injustices.. where he had a 5 min face to face with the pope..
See we can hold two or more thoughts in our heads.. not too difficult.. give it a try
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Worse, you're starting multiple threads on the same subject. How many times do you need to say 'Clinton will be indicted' before your wish comes true? It must be more than it is to make Beetlejuice appear.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...and you're too smart to deny it.
still_one
(92,060 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)bigtree
(85,971 posts)...I've seen enough stupid.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)and they will sure chop down a ton of big tree's .. wake up ..don't let your allegiance blind you to the facts
Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)As a fellow Oregonian, Bernie supporter and fan of the 'bis, I salute your efforts!
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)Ganjacon is tomorrow too, not sure if you're interested but you seem like you might be!
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)interested indeed...
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)At the very, very, very least it'll be a humongous public scandal.
Bernie has been overly fair enough not to even mention it, and for that she shows her gratitude by accusing him of smears and negative attacks. That tells you all about who she is, right there.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)If I was a Hillary supporter, I'd want to get this all aired out among ourselves, you should hear how THEY talk about it.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)..was talking on television about how happy they will be to run against Hillary because of her weakened status.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)There are many videos that are very good. You may not like that it is Fox who did most of them, but you can at least get the information from them because the MSM is not touching this. You may not like the hosts on Fox, I don't either, but they do have former Attorney Generals on and people like that and they can tell you details about it. You don't have to listen to their conclusions or opinions, but they do present the facts that have come out.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...where we are gathering documentation and media coverage into one long document. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280158157
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)if the FBI report states: Insufficient Evidence, it
will be bad enough, because perceptions of
illegal doings will succeed in her losing the GE.
840high
(17,196 posts)good for her.
Gothmog
(144,890 posts)That premise is wrong but I am happy that the Sanders people are beginning to realize that the math is against Sanders.
Gothmog
(144,890 posts)This non-scandal is also disappointing sad Sanders supporters who have wised up and know that Sanders will not be the nominee absent an indictment https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/
Now lets be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. So the next best thing from their perspective is that theres some vaguely-defined scandal that the public doesnt really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words Clinton email scandal often enough.
They may have gotten that. Ive certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, I dont trust Clinton, cause you know, that email thing. Im sure 99 percent of them couldnt tell you what they think Clinton actually did thats so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?
In recent weeks, Ive had a couple of liberal friends and relatives ask me, with something approaching panic, I just heard that Clinton is about to be indicted. Is that true?!? The answer is no, but they heard that because its something conservatives say constantly. Tune to to talk radio or surf through conservative web sites, and before long youll hear someone say that the Clinton indictment is coming any day now. Donald Trump, with his characteristically tenuous relationship to reality, frequently says that shes about to be indicted or that she wont be permitted to run for president because shell be on trial. It hasnt happened and it wont happen, but that isnt going to stop them from saying it.
Finally, theres a phrase you should watch out for when you see this issue discussed: Drip, drip, drip. Sometimes itll be a Republican partisan using it, but more often it will be some pundit explaining why the issue is important. What drip, drip drip means is that despite the fact that there was no crime and no security breach, the media will keep discussing the story as the investigations continue, and that will cause political difficulty for Clinton. Drip, drip, drip is this controversys version of, its out there, meaning, there isnt anything scandalous about the substance of this matter, but heres how well justify talking about it as though it actually were something scandalous.
I dont say that to justify Clintons original decision to set up the private server. She shouldnt have done that, not only because it was against department policy, but also because she should have been extra careful, knowing her history, to make sure she minded her Ps and Qs on everything like this. She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment. But it wasnt a crime and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it so we shouldnt treat it like it was.