2016 Postmortem

elehhhhna

(32,076 posts)

154. the buck stops offshore

Reply to demwing (Reply #40)

Sun May 22, 2016, 08:41 PM

May 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

161 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

If the FBI has the 30,000 emails that Hillary had deleted from her server, and just ONE [View all] rateyes May 2016 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #1

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #6

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #10

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #12

It might be about the emails if Ferd Berfel May 2016 #46

She violated several felony statutes. That is already plain leveymg May 2016 #58

so what does this mean for the future? Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #73

Not everything is what it seems. dchill May 2016 #78

No its not glitterbag May 2016 #102

Sidney Bloomenthal wasn't classified. HooptieWagon May 2016 #104

She not only received it, she stored it. Which is illegal Press Virginia May 2016 #105

Not only would they be facing charges, there wouldn't be a need to have a year-long Fawke Em May 2016 #132

Zactly Press Virginia May 2016 #156

you think that people are going to pay attention... grasswire May 2016 #114

Catch up glitterbag May 2016 #126

IF you are new to intel (whatever You mean by that).... grasswire May 2016 #129

here's my bottom line glitterbag May 2016 #131

still showing your ignorance. grasswire May 2016 #147

Hmmmm glitterbag May 2016 #149

I work for a cyber security company. Fawke Em May 2016 #133

lot of hubris in that one. nt grasswire May 2016 #148

Just because you chose to ignore this doesn't mean it went away. frylock May 2016 #35

Just because glitterbag May 2016 #103

She doesn't have to be a traitor to have broken the law Press Virginia May 2016 #106

you are the one introducing the word traitor to this discussion. grasswire May 2016 #115

GOOD ANSWER! dchill May 2016 #76

This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #83

You're going to be apoplectic when she's indicted Press Virginia May 2016 #107

good points. grasswire May 2016 #2

Personaly, I think if indictment is recommended notadmblnd May 2016 #8

Just because your side can invent your own reality doesn't make upaloopa May 2016 #17

I feel sorry for you, sincerely. nt grasswire May 2016 #18

I feel sorry for you, sincerely. demigoddess May 2016 #32

Loads of information. frylock May 2016 #36

LOL. grasswire May 2016 #39

That's what I think NJCher May 2016 #30

Reading RW smear Hillary stories leaves you in a Bernie Bubble way of thinking--> riversedge May 2016 #4

ha hahahah NJCher May 2016 #31

Cause it's her turn, damnit! notadmblnd May 2016 #5

I'm glad I was nowhere near HRC on the day... grasswire May 2016 #7

afaik, blumenthal was sending her info, not vice versa ContinentalOp May 2016 #113

True, but she's under obligation to classify it and notify the U.S. Intelligence Community. Fawke Em May 2016 #135

What I find disturbing is the incredible arrogance cali May 2016 #9

reckless grasswire May 2016 #19

II'm assuming you're from California. Fantastic Anarchist May 2016 #125

Nope. I'm from Vermont. cali May 2016 #152

Oh, okay. Fantastic Anarchist May 2016 #157

The Law is for the little people--not the Oligarchy. NewImproved Deal May 2016 #151

Hillary has planned plausible deniability as she removed herself from NWCorona May 2016 #11

and she is trying to shield them from testimony.. grasswire May 2016 #20

Yup! That's why Mills walked out to confer with legal during the FBI investigation NWCorona May 2016 #70

Hillary 2016 - The Buck Stops Over There! demwing May 2016 #40

Great slogan! tazkcmo May 2016 #84

the buck stops offshore elehhhhna May 2016 #154

As has been stated it doesn't matter if she knew, which she did. It's still a crime. onecaliberal May 2016 #57

That thought just occurred to me too - I don't think it will work at all. Merryland May 2016 #65

Look, they can't prove intent, she's not going to be indicted. Forget that and move on. Shrike47 May 2016 #13

there is no requirement for INTENT in the law here. grasswire May 2016 #21

I'd like to check that out. Can you cite to the statute? onenote May 2016 #25

writing by DU member leveymg on HRC exposure grasswire May 2016 #28

This 'legal analysis' is done by a non-lawyer who clearly doesn't understand COLGATE4 May 2016 #62

Oh? Do tell. hellofromreddit May 2016 #87

Yep. Why do you doubt it? COLGATE4 May 2016 #90

I don't doubt it. I'm curious what the difference is. hellofromreddit May 2016 #91

There are some good sites out there that can COLGATE4 May 2016 #92

You guys are always so full of it. hellofromreddit May 2016 #93

Full of what? Too lazy to look it up for yourself? COLGATE4 May 2016 #101

you have been trying to discredit leveymg for a long, long time here. grasswire May 2016 #94

No insult at all. This is pseudo legal analysis COLGATE4 May 2016 #100

constantly belittlling. grasswire May 2016 #110

Actually, I do understand the law. And I have no patience COLGATE4 May 2016 #124

You don't post anything here on DU that indicates you understand the law. grasswire May 2016 #137

Aside from 26 years as a practicing attorney, not much else. COLGATE4 May 2016 #141

I said you don't post anything except criticism of others here. nt grasswire May 2016 #145

I post criticisms of one particular poster who pretends COLGATE4 May 2016 #158

I don't see you pointing out the "misinformation" and providing correction. nt grasswire May 2016 #159

This has been covered ad infinitum by another attorney COLGATE4 May 2016 #160

I know the difference and both are criminal. Fawke Em May 2016 #138

If you know the difference then you understand my point COLGATE4 May 2016 #140

Oath glitterbag May 2016 #134

you are revealing yourself as uneducated about this matter grasswire May 2016 #136

note the word "OR" in the first sentence of the code you cite. grasswire May 2016 #42

If you're suggesting "knowingly and willfully" applies only to "communicates" onenote May 2016 #55

Secs. 793 (e) and (f) are like DUI. You don't have to intend to violate the law leveymg May 2016 #61

So, are you a lawyer, or an FBI agent? rusty fender May 2016 #117

time for you to catch up. grasswire May 2016 #119

Lololol! rusty fender May 2016 #120

You're just embarrassing yourself. grasswire May 2016 #121

You don't have to be an attorney or an FBI agent Fawke Em May 2016 #139

Answer: Because of ill informed people, passing of CNN soundbites as "news". A certain demographic insta8er May 2016 #14

it's just a deflection. grasswire May 2016 #22

Because Trump is Hillary Insurance RufusTFirefly May 2016 #15

yes, I would not be surprised at a Biden/Warren swap out. grasswire May 2016 #24

Plus Whitewater... when that finally comes in she is toast! tandem5 May 2016 #16

And Bridgegate...oh wait, wrong person...but I'm sure she was somehow involved. nt eastwestdem May 2016 #68

Pray, baby, pray. randome May 2016 #23

well, its not really actual democrats taking that game IMO litlbilly May 2016 #26

But the Republicans did it too... scscholar May 2016 #27

Wrong of course. None of the had a private server in their home. BillZBubb May 2016 #59

It has become increasingly apparent that... k8conant May 2016 #29

Wouldn't the very existence/ set-up of the server constitute a violation/crime? AzDar May 2016 #33

No. tandem5 May 2016 #41

that's a deflection. grasswire May 2016 #43

No, the question was regarding whether the existence and usage of private email was against the law. tandem5 May 2016 #47

she had a private, unsecured server. nt grasswire May 2016 #48

That's right she had a private email that she used. Unsecured is relative as a number of tandem5 May 2016 #50

do you not understand the difference between a server and an email provider? nt grasswire May 2016 #52

I'm a computer scientist. I understand the concepts involved with this discussion. tandem5 May 2016 #54

Then why do you push a false narrative? Fairgo May 2016 #66

What false narrative? And what in particular did I claim that's not true? tandem5 May 2016 #67

The one that follows your questions Fairgo May 2016 #69

I'm not being hostile or negative, but I don't understand your response here. tandem5 May 2016 #71

As a fellow scientist Fairgo May 2016 #72

Maybe we differ on our respective interpretations of how she handled sensitive information. tandem5 May 2016 #82

Sounds like a hypothesis, Fairgo May 2016 #86

You're wrong here. Fawke Em May 2016 #142

Again whether or not she transmitted secret/top secret information via tandem5 May 2016 #155

That ignores Obamas executive order from the first week in office in 2009, IdaBriggs May 2016 #95

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids! tandem5 May 2016 #97

Apologies - December, 2009 IdaBriggs May 2016 #98

You forgot a link tandem5 May 2016 #99

Wow - did you seriously post a Rush link? IdaBriggs May 2016 #108

yeah it was satire. tandem5 May 2016 #109

Not funny. It looked like you were implying that knowing this stuff IdaBriggs May 2016 #111

No it most certainly is not funny. tandem5 May 2016 #112

Watergate dragged on for 19 months Califonz May 2016 #34

Because the other candidate scares us. barrow-wight May 2016 #37

one thing that bothers me that no one talks about much. Punkingal May 2016 #38

Yes. grasswire May 2016 #45

I talk about it, but most people are ignoring it for some reason Hydra May 2016 #49

Frankly, I wonder how he can support her. Punkingal May 2016 #51

I just hope he doesn't get dragged in legally. grasswire May 2016 #56

I wonder why he let the Inspector General position stay empty so long eom trudyco May 2016 #128

I do not know. grasswire May 2016 #130

I've heard he does, and the feeling seems mutual Hydra May 2016 #63

Oh really? Rove ran 3 million WH emails thru a private (RNC) server... farmbo May 2016 #44

Where do you think she got the idea? And NO ONE believes the IdaBriggs May 2016 #96

That makes it OK, then? Fawke Em May 2016 #144

And how many were Classified? yourout May 2016 #153

When the indictment fairy and workinclasszero May 2016 #53

Government Finds Emails With David Petraeus That HRC Didn’t Hand Over antigop May 2016 #60

Lawsuit Uncovers More Hillary Clinton Emails Withheld from State Department antigop May 2016 #64

Unclear what will happen. But the use of the email server was due to paranoia andym May 2016 #74

I guess most of the world's hackers could access her server Rosa Luxemburg May 2016 #80

Yes, if hackers knew where to look (there are a lot if servers out there) then andym May 2016 #85

It wasn't secure at all. Fawke Em May 2016 #143

I read that article, and its clear that much more could have been done andym May 2016 #146

No. That is a limited hangout. grasswire May 2016 #118

Paranoia can lead to law breaking andym May 2016 #122

i thought they already discovered work-related among them? anyone know? sure I read this amborin May 2016 #75

We already know that emails were sent to David Petraeus that were not included... lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #77

and there were others that were not included in the "official" dump. nt antigop May 2016 #88

Rumor has it the Russians have many of them AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #79

Well, your thesis is not true. You're confusing DOD with State. They're not the same. MADem May 2016 #81

The deleted email pdsimdars May 2016 #89

Post removed Post removed May 2016 #116

'Why?' Becaussseeee ----------------------------- HILLARY!!!!! John Poet May 2016 #123

A very good question. Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #127

I think being a Hillarian doesnt actually mean your a Dem laserhaas May 2016 #150

She handed over 30,000, but had 31,000 that are also being divided up... MrMickeysMom May 2016 #161