doing KKKarl Rove's dirty work.

And it's tolerated here at Democratic Underground.

evidence that HRC had intent to violate the law. Both the WaPo and CNN reports used virtually identical language:

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have found evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules

security agreement. That's enough to knock her out of the race. Or it would surely be in a saner world.

You will find more there.

And it seems you may be surprised. We will see.

Power corrupts

There's always hope for that! Or White Water! Or Vince Foster!

C'mon, you mean the indictment isn't going to be handed to her at the convention?

well...when they are finished in Hawaii. Just a few more payments and they are SURE they can wrap up that investigation.

Great defence only for some

means only a little, not very much. A small bit.

.

Or should we call you Limbaugh?

We are (ostensibly) democrats on this board. That she chose to take us all out on that limb with her is on her...

she is very slow to realize a mistake when one is very obvious to the rest of us. It took her more than 10 years to realize her Iraq War Vote was a mistake when most of us realized it was a mistake within the first year after that vote.

Insight and sound decision making is not one of Hillary's strong points. The democratic party demands that we don't expect that from our presidential candidate. We need to keep our expectations realistic and incremental, not in line with the unicorns and rainbows we hope from out government.

Lets lower our expectations so that we aren't disappointed.

The part that grinds the gears of most people who actually understand the classification system, is the sure and certain knowledge that virtually anyone else would have been squashed like a bug for what she did and what we know about in the public sphere.

It makes no difference to them that this is a batshit crazy proposition.

take us all out on that limb with her, and much discussion about how she didn't have the grace and dignity not to do so. Nothing of the sort you are describing. As it stands Bernie is on his own path, and has indicated his preference for all the votes to be counted.

In fact, I have seen a significant amount of gloating over the prospect.

And yes, I am painfully aware that, judged by their posts on DU, a lot of people on this board are not Democrats.

unless she is truly guilty of wrongdoing. At least I hope not.

but her supporters still don't see her as inept and think should be disqualified from ever holding public office of any sort again.

I totally don't understand anyone who could support Hillary Clinton. They are obviously worlds apart from me in their beliefs and what is important to our country. The only thing anyone can say in support that I might agree with is "well, at least she isn't Trump". Yeah, that's true but we still have a pretty shitty presidential candidate!

Yeah Wall Street and more bullshit wars! woohoo! that's the spirit of the democratic party I support!!

For example, the difference between manslaughter and first degree murder. The damage is done - whether death of a victim or exposing national security matters to hackers.

Intent goes to state of mind.

Take pedophiles, for example. They never have malicious intent because in their minds, they LOVE all their little victims, whether children enrolled in football camps or underage teenage masseuses earning a living on the Lolita Express.

On edit: And in response to another post in this thread, "knowingly and willfully" in no way, shape or form equate with "maliciously".

So at this time, no decision about any of this has been made.

I doubt there was malicious intent either. There was just callous disregard or incomeptence

Different standards apply, just like the difference between civil & criminal

so therefore she's incompetent".

So that means you don't like Hillary? Hmmm...

By this standard, there have never been a Presidential candidate who wouldn't have raised concern in one way or another.

Secure information is concerning.

It's okay if the incompetence is, oh I didn't know how to use a tablet when I first saw one.

But following your IT's security protocol should be a requirement of anyone seeking that position. It's not hard.

So is absence of foreign policy experience and absence of a reasonably articulated economic policy.

But for some reason we keep rehashing the server.

... Which is to start the usual narrative of exonerate on and victims status.

Different rules and standards for different folks.

All about who you know and who you will owe when you are on top.

State Department Cronies leaking information of an investigation they are NOT privy to and are possibly guilty of withholding information in a FOIA request

Excellent source

A counterattack by Clinton allies against negative stories that have come out recently.

It's not a coincidence it came out the day after the hacker and FOIA stories.

One of the penalties for putting national secrets at risk through gross negligence is disqualification from running for office.

a callous disregard for the proper handling of classified material. I do not think she had malicious intent. What's that got to do with election rules?

To give anther example: If a person is distracted with fumbling for a cigarette while driving and crosses the center line and kills somebody, they can be charged with negligent homicide even though they had no intent to kill the person or even any intent to cross the center line. That's what negligence is. Wrongdoing without intent.

educate yourself a little bit before jumping into a subject you know absolutely nothing about with ridiculous pronouncements like that.

Negligence can also mean that someone who has a legal responsibility for something does not fulfill that responsibility through carelessness or inattention. So an adult who is responsible for a small child but is not paying attention to the child because they are intoxicated could be charged with negligence if the child ran out in the street and was hit by a car even though the adult had no intent for the child to get hurt or to run out on the street.

Or a government official who has a sworn duty to protect classified information could be charged with negligence if they allowed classified information to be stored in an unsecured place through carelessness or inattention to the rules governing classified info. No intent is required. I believe the standard is gross negligence which just means greatly negligent or very badly negligent so the government official would have to have been extremely careless or inattentive to the rules for handling classified material.

If Hillary had her aides send emails to her private server with classified info transcribed or summarized from the classified system so she didn't have to walk to a different part of the building to the secure room to read the classified documents herself, she is guilty of gross negligence. That is a clear, gross, disregard for the rules of handling classified info. No two ways about it. We don't know if that happened but it is one of the possibilities where she would be guilty of gross negligence without having any intent to illegally disseminate classified materials. She would just have done it for convenience.

Hopefully that will clear it up for you. If not, you might look up the word negligence in the dictionary or let me know and I will try again.

attorney for more than 26 years and I've just now heard explanations and definitions about Negligence that I've never seen or heard in any court I've ever practiced in. Did you stay in a Holiday Inn Express?

Once you've got Negligence down pat, then move on to what gross negligence is and isn't. And why it's such a difficult standard to prove that it's only infrequently brought. And no, it's not 'my' definition.

Are you a public defender by chance?

ordinary prudence (a term of art) would not do" or "failure to do something that a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would have done". What you don't understand is that this shoebox definition is only a point of departure. What those words mean in terms of their application in real life is dependent upon 100's of cases which have been litigated over the past 200 years or so and where each case has added to just what those terms mean when they are applied to a real life court case. That's why our system is based on case law. And why that simple definition requires professionals to consult a hornbook which has (if memory serves) well over 1000 pages explaining each little twist and turn before jumping up and saying that 'such and such' is negligent.

Gross negligence is an entirely different animal. It is generally understood to be an offense of a much higher degree, usually described as "wanton or wilful misconduct" or a "reckless disregard to the results of the action". (To be wilful, there first thing that has to be proved is that there was scienter, the legal term for intent.) And, just like simple negilgence, the definition is only the starting point. Decisions taken in hundreds of prior cases will determine just how it should be applied, if at all. And gross negligence is the standard that would have had to have been violated in order to find Hillary guilty in the e-mail kerfluffle. And that's virtually all attorneys who have looked at this have stated that Hillary will not be indicted.

good explanation. With Clinton it would have to be a reckless disregard to the results of the action. I can't imagine she had any willful intent. I understand that gross negligence is a very high bar. Since no one in the public knows exactly what she did yet, it may be a little early for all the attorneys to say Hillary will not be indicted. I never said I thought she would be indicted. And I would only want her indicted if she truly committed criminal wrongdoing. I just said that if she was I thought it would be for gross negligence. But due to your good explanation I will certainly temper my opinion.

Thanks again.

prepared only for the 20-second sound byte version which, while satisfying is usually incorrect. From every credible legal analyst I've read on the subject (and with which I agree) I think there is little to no chance that she will be indicted.

They have to prove it and if they say they meant no harm they get off free.

She fucked up. She's a war loving money hungry fuckup and a sneak. And a liar. Like her creeper husband.

Look up phyrric victory.

Surely where there's smoke there's fire.

"...scant evidence..." [she] "...intended to break classification rules." In other words, she broke classification rules (and therefore the law), but the evidence is lacking to prove intent, a requisite in certain other laws. For ordinary citizens, this would likely be the difference between losing ones job vs going to prison.

Nothing here mentions the other issues besides the "classification rules", things like having the server in the first place or avoiding FOIA requirements.

This is still a big risk for all Dems. Depending on timing, this could still be a nightmare for all of us.

Intent is everything regarding mishandling of classified information. I believe the words "knowingly and willingly" are in the regulation. Just making a mistake is not breaking the law. This was always a ginned up fake scandal.

while never having any intent to do so. The issue is you're supposed to know better and be careful. It is also part of your training as a govt employee or military member. You know that you can get into trouble if you dont take proper precautions.
"Making a mistake" IS breaking the law in many different circumstances.

They are likely not relevant to this specific situation.

Their hopes being dashed right in front of them.

But give it time and one of her minions will be charged with something. I know nothing will happen to Hillary, regardless of what is found. She's just like trump when he said he could shoot someone in the street and not lose support.
I prefer my candidates to be a little more honest and less incompetent. And thats the choice here; either she's lied about the reasoning behind the whole issue, or she was not bright enough to know NOT to do it, even after being told not to by the State Dept!!
Hell, she already lied when she said she was done with elected office and wouldnt run for anything again.
If she were a republican, I think a lot of opinions here would be different. I use the "republican filter".
The Dems are just lucky that the GOP is so stupid that they run the only person disliked MORE than her!!

Some secret sonar equipment was in the background. No malicious intent but he got in big trouble. I don't remember for sure but he may have been arrested and charged with a crime for just an innocent mistake like that.

Here is the story..

I remember a single selfie photo sent to his girlfriend. I guess it's possible the story I read was an inaccurate version of this story.

Sorry, your hopes for something, anything to come out of this are likely to be fruitless. She followed the examples of her predecessors and then set in motion the process of getting the State Department's computer systems upgraded to the point that they would be secure enough to be trusted for email. But no amount of truth will ever be enough to convince the binary thinkers.

"...no amount of truth will ever be enough to convince the binary thinkers."

You speak the truth!

Her predecessors weren't routing 100% of their e-mails through a personal server kept in their basements.
The upgrade of State's IT infrastructure began under Powell.
State's e-mail system security is meaningless when her e-mails resided outside that system.

are first made "off the record". Perhaps you meant "unverifiable" rather than "irrelevant."

But it is worth at least paying attention to the leaks and evaluate their truth as more information becomes available. I often find them more useful rather than irrelevant.

disproved.

A lot of off the record comments are also made to deflect attention away from the subject matter. In this story the only thing that was new was that now we know that the FBI has interviewed people close to Hillary (some more than once). We still don't know at this point if the FBI thinks there is a case or not?

I will use your response every time I come across a post bashing Hillary based on speculation, innuendo, wishful thinking, etc., and not containing any concrete evidence.

Are you with me?

Welcome to DU, enjoy your stay... BTW, What kind of pizza do you like?

I'm a 53 YO man and I thought that one was presumed innocent until convicted of a crime.

A one post wonder wanders in and convicts, several times, someone who has not even been charged with a crime. And you choose to defend them.

Not sure what system you support, but it obviously isn't the justice system as laid out in American legislation.

On edit: Troll has been dispatched, which I had nothing to do with. Still think defending it was clever of you?

mentioned the small fact that, in our system of law one has to be proven guilty of something and convicted first.

willlingly are in the law for a reason, cupcake. Now go toddle back to free republic and whine to your pals.

You and the rest of the freepers are going to your asses kicked by the Clinton's AGAIN. You sure aint' fooling anyone here.

Hillary is the safer choice. Just a little bad judgement until the next episode.

that resulted in more than $1 trillion wasted, more than 5,000 American lives lost, and so many Iraqi civilians killed that the DOD didn't even bother to keep track.

Yup, just a little bit of bad judgement there. Nothing too serious....

NOT.

Even if Hillary had voted against the IWR or if she hadn't voted at all, the result would have been the same. Bush & Cheney wanted their Iraq War and NOTHING would have stood in their way. NOTHING. As it was, Hillary was scarcely the only Dem who voted for it.

I had a very difficult time forgiving her that. But I forgave Kerry in 2004 and so I could certainly forgive Clinton in 2008. BOTH Clinton and Kerry have made up for their 2002 mistake by their outstanding service to the nation - and the world - as US Secretary of State.

Bernie voted correctly in 2002. What has he actually done since? When asked about his foreign policy, he continually brings up his vote on the IWR. But he leaves out other votes where he was as pro-war as anyone else. And he has literally nothing to say about what his policies will be.

One vote - however good it was - does not a foreign policy make. Bernie doesn't have a clue.

It isn't to be excused because nearly everyone else made a poor decision too.

The same logic could be applied to the Nazis and their following of Hitler. The made a bad decision right? But so did the rest of them so it is just fine. They should not have hung all of those war criminals after the Nuremburg Trials.

It would be one thing if she supported the war in its onset and then quickly changed her tune when it quickly became obvious that it was a mistake, but it took her more than a decade to do so. The evidence was right in front of her face and she still couldn't see it until 2015 that Iraq was a mistake - more than a decade after it was apparent to nearly everyone else!

Speaking of not having a clue, Hillary has no clue of the pain she inflicted on the people of Iraq or the military members that her vote sent over there. Remember the speech where she claimed that the Iraqis received the best gift anyone nation could receive, the gift of freedom? As a guy who deployed to Iraq as an Infantry Platoon Leader, I saw first hand what the freedom I gave the Iraqi people looked like and it wasn't the sort of thing that would make you feel especially patriotic.

Anyone who ever supported that war on Iraq should be automatically disqualified from ever holding public office again - with no exceptions. Hillary's stance on Libya and Syria while she was SOS is just more evidence that she is prone to making piss-poor decisions regarding foreign policy. Then, again, look at the company she keeps. I don't even have to post photos of her, her husband and the bush family being all chummy. That, in itself, is unforgivable.

I'm a totally disabled veteran that was produced by that war on Iraq and I take the actions of anyone who supported that war very personally. I joined the Army in 1997 as a stupid kid believing that we had learned our lessons from Vietnam and other conflicts and that our military would be used as a tool for good - to stop genocide and to make the world a better place (as was evident to me in after the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord where NATO took over the failed UN mission in Kosovo). Politicians like the bushes and Clintons took advantage of my good nature and sent me into harms way for their misguided views and because the vote, at the time, was the politically expedient thing to do for their careers.

Hillary might have some foreign policy experience, but it is filled with a record of making the wrong decisions.

Sad to see the BS supporters are now trying the bullshit theory of an illegal act that isn't illegal. "If she is about to get indited, she should resign and let Bernie win" rhetoric.... And then yeah Vince Foster, whitewater? really.... hey how about the Kennedy and Lincoln assassinations? those too.....

Not proven, there must be fucking evidence before being indited. There have been some retroactive emails deemed classified after they were sent and finished. Both Powell and Rice did the same. Your argument is mute. This has become a GOP punchline and now seems the Sanders groupies are jumping into Trey Gowdy's shitwagon...

investigated. But there is plenty to worry about.

The whole Clinton meme of no documents marked classified is a legalistic dodge meant to distract and mislead. This isn't about classified documents being attached to emails sent to Hillary's private server. You can't send a document from the classified server to a server outside the classified system. This investigation is about whether Clinton and/or her aides wrote emails containing classified information outside of the classified system and even outside the government system.

So far we know that yes indeed they did write 2,200 emails that investigators have deemed contained classified info when they finally had a chance to examine them. What we don't know is whether some or all of that info was classified at the time it was written or if some or all of it was retroactively classified. All we know is the investigators declared it classified when they saw it.