They are investigating her!! Why doesn't Obama shut it down????

His or her thoughts are important to me.

What gives you a right to shut him or her down by claiming there's something wrong with what was written?

You are entitled to your opinion. It is democratic to share it.

The one you expressed, in my opinion, served to denigrate what a fellow DUer wrote.

You simply want to suppress those who are warning you about something you would prefer we all ignore. I call that stupid.

This is not the 1990s

In the 90's, The Republicans had a special prosecutor named to investigate the Clinton's. He was a moderate prosecutor named Robert Fiske. Turns out, the Republicans got wind that Fiske was coming up empty so the had him fired and replaced by a man named Kenneth Starr.

Starr was a staunch Republican and a member of the Federalist Society. A group whose main goal is to flood our judiciary with Republicans to serve as a pathway to seize power. Starr investigated the Rose Law firm, Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Fosters death and every other Republican conspiracy theory.

After two years and millions of taxpayer dollars spent, Starr, like Fiske before him, could find no illegal behavior. Desperate, Starr violated Federal law by contacting the prosecutors in an unrelated Atlanta case involving a woman named Paula Jones. That led to Lewinski. Starr had to settle for a sex scandal because two investigations exonerated both Clinton's. This is just a replay of the 1990's except this time some Democrats are cooperating with the effort.

I agree with you about Starr but this is different. The issue isn't simply "Was it marked classified?". It's about the handling of Sensitive Information, marked or not and her actions caused sensitive information to placed at risk by using what essentially amounted to a Hotmail account.

There have been many threads on this subject but some of her supporters continue to think that if a piece of email wasn't marked "Classified" or "Top Secret" then it can be sent over unsecured channels and stored in an unsecured server in a friggin' bathroom closet. Guess what? It can't be. There are rigid rules and regulations governing the handling of SENSITIVE INFORMATION no matter if it's "marked" or not. That's where the investigation is at.

Sensitive information was most certainly mishandled. That much is very clear. You can choose to ignore this fact. The FBI nor the security establishment will not. The only real question is will Sec Clinton be held responsible?

... mishandled all the time.

Funny how Snowden "mishandling" information is OK and its cool he's not investigate but Clinton doing something similar to her peers should involve the FBI.

Whatever, more wingerish shit

You mean the guy that's been in a foreign embassy for how long now? You mean the guy that's facing espionage charges here?

Again, mishandling sensitive information is not wingerish shit. Luckily for her, Sec Clinton is one of the Beautiful People and Snowden is just a Prole.

... people who think mishandling an email or two in the end should involve the FBI and openly support such on a so called progressive board.

Not me, you. They are not the same. Snowden leaked clearly marked classified information and is facing the conscequences of that now. There is no real investigation going because Snowden himself admits to doing what he did. Sec Clinton has moved the goal posts a few times and currently it sits at "No laws were broken." and that's just not true.

"people who think mishandling an email or two in the end should involve the FBI and openly support such on a so called progressive board."

Good attempt at deflection. She herself may not have mishandled "an email or two", it's much bigger than that but I don't expect a Sec Clinton supporter to accept this. As for openly supporting an FBI investigation, I don't see support (but I don't support Sec Clinton) I see worry that this has the real potential of handing the WH to the GOP depending on the findings and timing of the report.

As for progressives, Madam Secretary is no progressive in spite of what she may say this week or next as she'll claim just the opposite later. So why should she get support from progressives at all?

Unless of course you believe you can invite him to your next family picnic without incident. Rethink that one for a minute.

... the Chinese gov but people here outright support him not facing the music at the family picnic or anyone where else.

Its best to read someones position I'm clear on this.

FBI for emails but sanctuary for outright theft of data.

Like conservatives the Sanders squad overt hypocrisy make their cries of revolution or whatever sound like noise

lives at risk.

and put it on the Internet. That evidence included a picture of Bill Clinton's private parts. This was done so that all of the people around the world could view the shall I saw personal part of Bill Clinton. In other words, this was Starr's humiliation of the man who was our President.

I was stunned by this. I thought one day Bill Clinton's daughter will grow up and check out the impeachment proceedings on the net, and she will see this evidence.

I could no longer be affiliated with the acts of the Republican party. Just didn't want my name associated with anything it did. And so I left and became a Democrat. Once I was here, I discovered this was where I should have always been.

Sam

Their fervent hope is that Hillary gets indicted, that way Sanders gets the nomination. Since he won't win it the honorable way, through pledged delegates and popular vote, any crooked way will do. Including suggesting that super delegates switch to him, even if Hillary is ahead in the pledged delegate count.

Democracy? What democracy?

about what might happen with respect to candidates depends on the timing of any possible charges. The article points out that IF it were to happen at or after the convention where she was nominated, the doors would open for another candidate besides Sanders to be selected.

So this is not a Clinton hit piece, it is only gaming out all possibilities for people to consider.

DNC or no DNC.

Could be time to start all over again anyway.

... or infested ...

... depending on your preference.

That should tell you all you need to know.

Actually, I think most of her supporters know it too.

You do realize any criminal charge against her will kill the party in November?

Wake up, the FBI is investigating this and they would not be doing so without some evidence that a crime may have occurred.

I do not hope, I fear.

Not every criticism of her (many) shortcomings is the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy, you know? It could be the result of ... oh, I don't know ... HER SHORTCOMINGS?

When he can't beat such a "flawed" candidate with such "shortcomings"?

from the 90's. It was funded by crazy millionaires like Richard Mellon Scaife. They charged the Clinton's with drug running, multiple assassinations including Vince Foster, lesbianism and on and on. Anyhow, I ran across a familiar saying the these vicious Republicans used commonly in the 90's. It goes like this: IF HILLARY GETS INDICTED, WILL AL GORE BECOME THE VICE PRESIDENT ?
CONGRATULATIONS.

I'd expect Al Gore or Joe Biden to become the nominee

platter', indeed...

All I know is if it is after Clinton reaches the delegate threshold it won't be Bernie

You have some inside knowledge the rest of us don't possess?

Please share so that Bernie supporters aren't assuming a democratic process proceeds at the convention if things go south wrt to the investigations pursuant of criminal charges, indictment etc.

If Hillary secures enough delegates to win and had to drop out that her delegates will vote for Bernie on the floor of the convention.

Is there something we don't know about this process they could legally ignore the electorate who voted for Bernie? The fall out from a move like that would be completely disastrous for the party.

1968 all over again.

Her delegates are pledged to her. If she drops out they can vote for anyone they choose at the convention. The person doesn't even have to be someone who sought the nomination.

Bernie could lobby her delegates but her delegates are free to pick their alternative to Hillary and I don't think that will be Bernie.

and indeed, the general election by completely disregarding voters who supported Bernie?

In other words, willingly choose to throw the election to Drumpf or Cruz by ignoring the vast numbers of Democratic voters, which would all but guarantee the results to be the lowest turn out ever in history, thereby another landslide to the Republicans. That seems awfully short sighted to me.

just sayin'. not a good idea.

Why would they choose the person who lost the primary instead of going for someone they would consider to be a stronger candidate?

that's been a huge head scratcher in the first place. I know why I'm supporting Bernie, and by the way his candidacy isn't as weak as you want to think in terms of actual citizen voter support. ("Delegates" are not who I'm referring to).

But for the life of me, I do not understand, given the circumstances surrounding her potential legal problems why on earth the party elite didn't put forth another, stronger contender for the primaries.

mind boggling.

consider BOTH the HRC voters and the Bernie voters. The question might be is there anyone who could make the people who voted for Bernie and those who voted for HRC happy enough to come out strong in the general election.

I think that would be incredibly tough. First of all, there might be HRC supporters arguing that an indictment is NOT a conviction and that if the nomination is taken away she suffers a permanent punishment - even if she is found not guilty of everything ... and remember that until someone is convicted they are presumed innocent. Second, if HRC concedes for the good of the party that she will not be the nominee if she is indicted, there will be Bernie voters who would argue that it should be him as he came in second.

What a way for the new person to start a general election! I think this would be impossible even for Joe Biden.

UNLESS, HRC in opting out for the good of the party endorsed someone to get her votes making the case for why she or he should lead the country. If that person got all Clinton's delegates by the assumption that she had won the nomination already, that person wins the nomination. A case could be made that that person has stepped up for the good of the party and that Clinton had unselfishly given up her chance to be President. Would Democrats follow? Would it matter who? Biden has name recognition. Warren is liked by both Clinton and Sanders supporters -- when she is not a competitor to them -- and for people who want a woman President, she would be that. I don't see Clinton naming Sanders - there is a real gap on too many things.


Now, back to reality - no indictment on Clinton, the possible indictment of some aides and the story hanging over her head when no Republican will say "I have had enough of your damn emails." If there is an indictment, I don't know how HRC would respond or how her delegates would respond if she wanted to continue in spite of it. However, if there is an indictment and she fights on with the support of the delegates she already won, we will have to defend a nominee under indictment. I really don't want to say "innocent until proven guilty" as many times as I would have to. As I think this more likely that the HRC endorsing a replacement idea, I really really hope there is no indictment.

she'll be indicted by the public vis a vis Reich Wing Media pundits and the GOP's functionaries, pols, and gop voters. And it will be the 90's White Water all over again, and this will be during the General into the1st term if she's allowed to "win" it by TPTB.

I don't understand why her supporters want to go through this nightmare again. I just don't get it.

Why oh why did they not make another choice for the "mainstream" candidate?

Why such early endorsements and cheerleading for the nightmare that is sure to unfold just as night follows day.

At one point, I assumed that Obama and others knew the full extent of everything and made the judgment that it was not a problem. Lately, I wonder if the Clintons simply have so much power that everyone took the easy way out and deferred to her.

to describe this thinking defies all manner of common sense and I'm at loss for words fitting polite conversation.

But here we are.. and it looks like to many I'm chasing unicorns and rainbows for supporting Bernie, donating to the campaign on my fixed income.. I'm tapped out though can't donate anymore until next month if there's still a campaign going. I hope there is. and even though hope is all I have, I'll do all I can to keep it alive, despite the odds.

She endorses and transfers delegates they go to him on the first round.

On the other hand, what is not to like about more political instability. Yay!!!

By the way, neither convention will be brokered since neither will reach the third round. And you can put the dream of Biden, or whoever to sleep. Now if an indictment comes after the convention, good luck democrats in November. I mean it

hoping the opponent will be indicted.

Sid

It seems to me...

They have hated her for over 20 years anyway.

Which is more likely to happen than being indicted for email issues.

Unless there is a photo or video of Sec Clinton sending an email clearly marked "Classified" in blinking neon, she will not be indicted. She's too rich and powerful to be indicted. Only lesser people face that possibility.

Problem is, it doesn't really matter. No indictment equals privileged rich person justice system and a (Non HRC "devotee&quot voter backlash. Indictment equals poor judgment and stepping down as nominee.

Take your pick.

That report will exonerate her from any criminal wrong doings. That will be the end of it..... with the exception of the RW kooks who will claim a conspiracy to let her off the hook.

At a minimum, there was a violation of government rules and regulations covering the handling, sending and receiving of sensitive information. That's not a RW conjure. A low level employee in the campaign will be held responsible and be sacrificed. See Abu Grhaib.

Its my understanding this issue of mishandling classified information is a common problem among high level federal officials. If they charge Hillary with something they will need to charge thousands of others. They simply are not going to go there.

That's a felony. Look up 18 USC 793 (e) and (f). That is a statute, not a rule or agency regulation. You're still using a campaign talking point that was debunked last August when the CIA identified materials on her server that was TS/SAP classified. That's a fact, Bob.

Im sure you knew that already but are desperate to keep this fake scandal alive.

Look it up yourself, Bob.

You look it up.

On my cell phone. But will repost the language later.

But no matter what the FBI report will be final say on this matter. They will decide if there was anything that rises to the level of a criminal act worthy of an indictment. I am convinced they wont and that will be the end of it.

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

She never had "unauthorized possession, access or control. That part is out

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Gross negligence is an impossibly high legal standard to prove. It's not ordinary, garden-variety negligence. Rather, it's akin to wilfully and wantonly doing something with total disregard for the consequences. This won't work here, either.

That seems so obvious that almost anyone can grasp that. Almost anyone.

Setting up a private communications system and using it exclusively for Department emails also seems to be gross negligence, at least. Again, almost anyone can and should be able to grasp that part of the felony statute as well.

As a practicing attorney for more than 25 years I've had quite a lot of experience dealing with statutes and will tell you that her placing it wherever she placed it does not magically turn it into an 'unathorized possession'. And as I already explained to you, gross negligence is such a difficult legal standard of proof that it is rarely even attempted. Gross negligence is negligence that is far more egregious than ordinary negligence and implies wanton and wilful misconduct with no regard for the consequences, extremely difficult to prove. BTW, 'Seems to be' isn't really a very good legal argument.
.

Decorum, please.

that (s)he is a colleague.

and you're wrong.

of decorum for responses on DU. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'll be sure to check with you on my future responses.

SMH

Read it and come back and tell me how hard conviction is in the cases where officials have taken classified materials home and proceeded to place them on unsecure devices. I can give you some other, more recent, cases of convictions for that, as well.

The Economic Espionage Act (EEA) outlaws two forms of trade secret ...
[PDF]The Protection of Classified Information: The Legal Framework
https://www.fas.org/.../crs/.../RS21900....
Federation of American Scientists
by JK Elsea - ?2013 - ?Cited by 9 - ?Related articles
Jan 10, 2013 - see CRS Report RL33502, Protection of National Security ..... classified information.59 Violators of the Espionage Act and the Atomic Energy ...
An Explainer on the Espionage Act and the Third-Party Leak ...
https://www.lawfareblog.com/explainer-espionage-act-and-third-party-le...
May 22, 2013 - (For useful background on the Espionage Act, see this CRS report.) The Espionage Act is only one of numerous anti-leaking and -disclosure ...
CRS: Criminal Prohibitions on the Publication of Classified ...
www.cfr.org/media-and.../crs.../p23621
Council on Foreign Relations
Dec 6, 2010 - This report will discuss the statutory prohibitions that may be implicated, including the Espionage Act; the extraterritorial application of such ...

That's what I thought.

PM me with your bar credentials and we'll talk.

I will assume that you read at least one of the reports on Espionage Act case law I identified for you.

Do you still insist:

1) intent to harm is a prerequisite to 793 (e):
2) that she had lawful possession of the documents on her server: and,
3) it's too hard to prove this sort of gross negligence under (f)?

When you get your law degree and pass the bar call me and then we'll talk about legal issues

You haven't made any statements that would indicate any particular knowledge, accurate or erroneous. You may have been practicing real estate law for 30 years, and unless you have researched this subject matter, you know next to nothing about this matter. Have you done any research? I don't see you've even read the statute and analyzed it correctly. So, why should I talk to you?

Just more ad hominem attacks, evasion of discussion of the facts and law, and verification bias.

Omniscience is rare these days!

As for me, lol, she's not going to be indicted and the whole thing is noise.

and timing will be a determinate if it does (pre convention or post convention). Anyone claiming surety of outcome is speculating. Trump becoming president by default would be a nightmare.

on republican lies and propaganda.

The dumb ass republicans threw everything they had against Hillary in a 11 or 12 hour marathon Congressional witch hunting session right before the primaries started.

Did you miss it?

At the end they looked like fools.

They got nothing, they never had anything, and they never will have anything except bald faced lies.

I just hate to see the cheer leading for republican lies and propaganda on a democratic board. SMFH

be preferable nothing comes out of the investigation, it's no guarantee yet.

"investigating" Hillary for DECADES.

Have they found anything yet?

So the FBI is now a tool for the GOP to witch hunt? Under a Democratic president?

I guess you have to clutch at any straws available eh?



Who’s On Track For The Nomination?

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats/

What has decades of republican horse shit "investigation" of Hillary yielded?

How many indictments? How many convictions in a court of law? How much jail time?

ZERO on all counts!!

Because its all right wing BULLSHIT!

to go through this because of your candidate. She brought it on herself.

... BENGHAZI!!!!!11!!!1!

Oh my.

to change anything before they lower the boom.

I think it's pretty safe that the TPTB will put a response package in place.

It may not do well, but it won't be chaos.

It's like watching a speeding driver headed for the cliff and with friends and onlookers standing on the side of the road cheering & yelling: "go faster"!

Bizarro world.

Including the scenario of impeachment.

...the AG comes to her lawyers with the evidence and asks what she will plea to....there may be nothing else she can offer than to step aside.

Can you imagine the hell for the party if she refused?

The fault for all this (aside the fault for the Clintons and her aides) lies with the DNC elites who have pushed her onto the voters.

If you think she WILLFULLY shared top secret info, your as stupid as a Trump supporter. And who cares if she wins by 2 points or 11? SHE WINS. God people get realistic.

"Democrats insist there's virtually no chance that Clinton will be indicted over her server."

Should read:

"SOME Democrats insist there's virtually no chance that Clinton will be indicted over her server."

indict Hillary and her successors. Think one was from the Examiner.

is a GOOD thing, an incredible stroke of luck!

Her foreign policy is a human rights DISASTER, with blood on her hands all over the globe.


I don't care if the end benefit goes to Bernie Sanders or NOT--

she is simply, totally UNACCEPTABLE,
and almost anyone else will do.

announcement in LBN.

Sorry folks, there's no there there, but hey don't stop believing.