is a charter member of the vast right wing conspiracy. He doesn't belong on DU.

Truth of individual statements in no way proves a theory - it's a ridiculous defense and leads to an instant eye-roll from most people who've seen it 10000000000 times on the internet.

by labelling them as "right-wing nut job" territory. Not everything a winger spouts is absurd or based on lies. When someone goes after the source and not the actual material, they either can't or won't address the material. From an IT standpoint, from a security standpoint, Clinton blew it. Crying "right-wing conspiracy" won't change that.

So, yes, I'll put my money where my mouth is.

Or are you betting that because you think that the FBI will make an exception for Hillary?

Always has been. She knows jack shit about servers and couldn't possibly be indicted for "ignorance". These are rules set up by the government, not criminal laws that apply to all citizens. People need to use their heads here and stop believing the right-wing spin on this.

Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

These are NOT criminal laws that the average citizen must adhere to, it IS the intent that is important here - and you already know this so you're being deceptive.

3:30 - "There is something called 'Gross Negligence' under the Espionage statutes. If you mishandle classified information: don't store it properly, send it to people aren't entitled to have it, put it on a private server in a home, send it to somebody who doesn't have a security clearance. That is called 'Gross Negligence'. That does not require any intent other than the intent to do the act of actually compromising - you don't have to have any evil intent or anything. In some of the espionage statutes, you have to knowingly - what they say 'knowingly' compromise information, know that you're doing something that's bad. So, both of those are at play in the Hillary Clinton e-mail server investigation."

There was clearly no gross negligence on her part, nor did she 'knowingly' compromise information.

These are much higher bars than are achievable in this case.

Cuz the BENGHAZI! crowd is surprisingly similar to those on the left who thought Cheney or at least some Bush lackey would be held accountable for lying us into a war that had consequences 6 trillion times worse than this little BENGHAZI! escapade.

She like CIA Director Petraeus is bound by it and can be prosecuted under its terms. She isn't just the general public, that is true. But she is indictable for mishandling classified materials under 18 USC 793 (e) and/or (f), that is clear.

Which is what? A 1 in 1000000 chance if one looks at these sorts of cases historically?

Petraeus was indicted under 793 but pled down to a lesser charge 1524. CIA Director Deutsch was referred for prosecution in 1997 under these same felony charges but the AG sat on it until the very last day of Clinton's Presidency, when he was pardoned. Those two cases are the precedent. Either way, she will not be allowed to actually run for President.

Please. I know disqualification seems like a nice convenient way to be done with her, but I've never in my life hoped for such a thing - who want to win by disqualifying one's opponent? That's not cool.

by heads of agencies or former heads. There are very strong factual and legal parallels. Sorry if this burst your bubble.

That those who were panning this Benghazi crap have now latched onto it as a last resort. Nobody here would admit that, but many on reddit have flip-flopped on this and it's embarrassing and insulting to one's intelligence.

You need to get a grip and do some more reading before you post on these matters. It makes you look foolish.

/thread

BENGHAZI!!

But sadly they just aren't listening.

You are right BTW

you need to read more about this matter

I guarantee you she won't be indicted and that the only people here who are pushing this are (exclusive) Bernie supporters (I support Bernie) looking for a way around the polls not being favorable at this time. It's laughable and makes people lose a tremendous amount of respect for those who are so obsessed with winning that they post Free Beacon and other RW sources of BENGHAZI! hogwash.

Many people believe that Nixon was clean, too.

Would be a bad way to get the nomination. It brings up questions of legitimacy, which would be messy.

My main concern, however, is what if Hillary were nominated and then indicted and, subsequently disqualified. Where would we be then? Up the trump creek without a paddle.

There is way more ambiguity in every aspect of this, from the big picture to the small details, than Joeseph DiGenova would like to admit, including the fact that we're talking about the US Secretary of State, whose job inherently involves communicating with her staff and advisers about sensitive matters of diplomacy and foreign policy.

Nothing will come of this, other than a report on improving communication practices at State.

Agreed.

Multiple audits done after Hillary left the State Dept by the IG appointment by Obama and Kerry were scathing in regards to Hillary's performance. Facts

But the CIA was the originating agency for many of the most highly classified materials. She didn't have the legal power to declassify and release those she didn't create. She had a duty to keep CIA materials secure but didn't. Open and shut case.

no emails released so far have been found to have contained material that was unambiguously and unequivocally classified by the CIA at the time it was sent.

Some emails have been retroactively classified. Others contained material that was widely reported in the mainstream press, etc.

There's way more ambiguity than "open and shut".

"24:17 - "We know that if Bryan Pagliano was granted statutory immunity there would have to be {a grand jury}. And we do know that subpoenas have been issued to third parties and in order for those to be issued there would have to be a grand jury." "

Nobody was granted statutory immunity. If Pagliano was the IT guy, they offered him a deal that said nothing he said in his interview would be used against him. According to the New York Times, defense lawyers routinely demand that their clients are given this immunity before they are interviewed. Such agreements happen all the time.

There doesn't have to be a grand jury. If subpoenas were coming from a grand jury then the witnesses would be going before the grand jury. Immunity was granted by the IG's office.

The IG's office also told the Times that they expect to have their investigation finished by May. There is no way they could know that if this were before a grand jury.

"26:00 - "Actually, its just the reverse. There are federal employees all over this government, and former federal employees, who have had their clearances revoked, their jobs taken away from them, and who have gone to prison for compromising a single piece of classified information by not storing it properly, by leaving it out on their desk over night, by giving it to someone who wasn't authorized. This happens regularly. In fact, Mrs. Clinton, is being given the benefit of the doubt because she is such a famous and important person both as a former First Lady, a former United States Senator, and a former Secretary of State. She is being accorded a kind of deference in the investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department, which would not be accorded to a common citizen."

Federal employees are going to prison all over the place? If that were true we'd hear all about it.

If this case was about somebody less important, it wouldn't have been investigated with anything like the intensity this case has been.

31:47 - "This server was set up to do exactly what it accomplished. It was designed so that no records would exist at the State Department, so that when Freedom of Information Act requests were filed there, the answer would be 'We have no records'."

Over half the E-mails were sent to recipients whose E-mails were logged. How does diGenova explain that?

44:50 - "It is now beyond any doubt that there is a criminal investigation of the conduct of Mrs. Clinton in placing a private server in her home."

There is doubt. Many say that the investigation is only to see if any of the information fell into the wrong hands.

More there too, but Joseph diGenova is a propagandist. He's not a biased commenter, he's an outright liar who has a long history of saying anything possible to harm the Clintons.

Right wing bullshit on DU. It's the same with every single poster here who does it.

Find some right wing bullshit that fits your confirmation bias. Post it. Get called out. Play the victim (don't attack the messenger, bro!). Get called out again. Double down. Rinse. Repeat.

On a Democratic site.

and factually correct on nothing, she will be exonerated, again. This kind of crap sounds like it comes from Trump supporters.

You are going to get roasted because your source used to say bad things about Bill Clinton back in the lewinsky days and is therefore a "hater".

his statements pertaining to this investigation. In fact, it appears that he is ahead of the curve on the subject and is merely a 'canary in the coal mine'.

… on these specific points. So, am I now a "right-wing nut job", MADem?

My degree isn't in law, but it is in computer science. So, *I* do have some expert qualifications on this topic.

Maybe you'd better do just a little homework before you drag out that "kill the messenger" stuff.

Check his bona fides. Some "messengers" have credibility. Others are simply water carriers.

I cannot find a flaw in his arguments. And, shooting him down as a messenger doesn't help discredit those arguments.

It is my experience that even despicable people are capable of reading, observing, and occasionally discerning the truth. So attacking the messenger is too convenient a response when one does not want to hear the message.

Is it me, or do many of the smilies around here seem forced? A tiny bit desperate?

not the only one saying this.

.....here is why all Democrats should pay attention to what he says.

This telegraphs precisely what is going to happen should Hillary win the nomination before the FBI submits its report and PRECISELY what will happen in the general election and EVEN MORE PRECISELY what will happen should she become POTUS.

We have a choice here, folks.

We can nominate someone for whom the Republicans have a blood lust to destroy just because of her history. The country will be ripped apart; there will be no peace in the land. Our needs will be ignored. Our people will suffer even more than they are now suffering.

OR

We can nominate someone who has no baggage; someone who is not under federal investigation, and never HAS been under criminal investigation; someone who is seen kindly and favorably by nearly two thirds of the electorate.

Even if there is no criminality in the Clintons, there will be no peace for us all.

Skrillex?