2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumExperts Agree Clinton Indictment "chatter is just plain ridiculous"
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." As reported by Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall, law professors and former federal prosecutors have told him "to a person" that the chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea and that "on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous -- a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness":
[div style="background:#ccccee;border:1px solid #000000;" class="excerpt"] As a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.
Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.
So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views. (TPM, 2/1/15)
ABC News: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her." In a February 1 article, ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media outlets hyping the claim that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. Abrams added that "there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time":
(more)
seaotter
(576 posts)Hillary should pull out f or the good of the nation. But, alas, she does not care about anything but her own ego and income stream.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Meanwhile, on the other end, the-career-politician-running-for-prez has little accomplishments to show for except decades of govt salary.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)SunSeeker
(51,658 posts)BreakfastClub
(765 posts)smiley
(1,432 posts)get used to it.
Actor
(626 posts)That is no reason to be afraid of them, as long as we ALL show up and vote for the nominee, we will be fine.
smiley
(1,432 posts)Actor
(626 posts)isnt to one degree or another.
But I understand the process
smiley
(1,432 posts)But I understand your mission.
Actor
(626 posts)To never not only vote for a republican but to always, with every fiber of my being, work against them
smiley
(1,432 posts)I can't in good conscience once again muster the energy to vote for a candidate I don't trust, and that I don't believe has my best interest in mind. I have no problem returning to a registered Indy.
This primary election has zero credibility as far as democracy is concerned IMO. If the establishment wants Hillary, they'll do whatever it takes to make it happen in the GE too. Democracy isn't even an issue anymore. It's kabuki theater. Plain and simple.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)wyldwolf
(43,869 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)potential felons as suspects. Guess who is a potential felon in this case?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But really just another flavor of Kool Aide.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)A sane voice in a sea of madness.
angrychair
(8,732 posts)Which mean it was built and written based on information from well over a month ago.
These articles say very different things and this is not going away:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271387-fbi-director-i-am-closely-involved-with-clinton-email-investigation
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/271194-final-batch-of-clinton-emails-released
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VW2DG
http://www.npr.org/2016/02/27/468366616/investigation-into-clinton-emails-continues
Why is she so willing to drag the Democratic Party through this, especially if she thinks she will be the nominee? Is it worth it? Why not address it head on and clear the board before running for office? Why make your entire potential time in office about you and your legal problems???
Arazi
(6,829 posts)tokenlib
(4,186 posts)The GOP went after Bill on less...
Obama's people wouldn't allow an indictment...
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)mcar
(42,371 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Recoverin_Republican
(218 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)You do realize it's May, right?
dubyadiprecession
(5,720 posts)Feel the Burn!
Botany
(70,567 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Botany
(70,567 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)you gonna believe?
Botany
(70,567 posts)Last edited Fri May 20, 2016, 08:04 AM - Edit history (1)
But please keep doing the republicans work for them.