but still guilty, right?

Lets face it, there are a lot of republicans posting on DU pretending to be something else

LOTS

MEME = others saying this, the Hillary haters, the GOP, etc.

and even a lay person should know that. The Scooter Libby case would be an apt comparison. Or the theoretical cases against Colin Powell or Condilezza Rice for similar email set ups.

This is what the Hillary haters and GOP are saying

Best wishes.

for GOP

Lots and lots of posers here at DU. Lots.

still under investigation.

This "nothing to see" leak is probably coming from the Obama admin, in response to the FBI leak of interviewing Hillary's aides.

Who do you think we'll hear from next? Grassley or a fresh round of FBI leaks?

... made for counterintelligence purposes."


https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

If this has garnered me the enmity of those people it is one of the proudest amount of my life.

Either way she should be only allowed in the White House with a tour group.

You might be interested in this:


http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

By Richard O. Lempert, Professor of Law, University of Michigan

What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.

if there was anything to this.

read the article

Plus, I have seen no proof. No proof.

they have found scant evidence.

From whom? What are their sources? This is speculative opinion being passed off as news.

Obama, Lynch, and others are not commenting on facts. Period.

The rest, she could produce when requested -- as she did.

They didn't even bother looking in other .Gov email accounts for any emails Hillary might have sent out.

One of the reasons discovery was granted.

"...scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules..."

"...involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely."

I tried several times to view the comment section but I can't view them for some reason. Anything interesting?

Even if haters just gotta hate.

Laws were either broken or they weren't. Her intent is irrelevant, save perhaps during sentencing.

There would never be an official statement regarding an active investigation. So file this under yet another "opinion" article that conveniently uses "unnamed sources".

I will live with the final determination of the FBI and Justice Dept. but I am not going to entertain agenda driven horseshit.

Otherwise us proles might pay attention.

The likelihood of an indictment is not zero. The chances may be tiny, but factors other than intent may come into play.

Never crossed my mind. That just seems beyond absurd to me.

She knew she'd be running for President again. I don't think she would have deliberately done anything that could have raised questions in 2016, which is why I've always assumed that this server business is not her fault but the fault (intentional or not) of whoever set the thing up. She's not an IT professional and someone of her generation who doesn't know computers probably wouldn't even have known what questions to ask.

I've always thought that, while this looks bad, she wouldn't have deliberately skirted the law, and now that she is almost certainly going to be Trump's opponent I genuinely hope that this turns out to be less than what has been reported. I've always supported Bernie and will always prefer him, but I don't want to watch Trump become the most powerful person in the world. (Ye gods, it just sunk in that that is truly an actual, albeit remote, possibility. What a prospect.)

Promoting the idea that there was some sort of malicious intent is in itself a malicious act.

This to shall pass.

Good this is finally coming to an end.

...again. In response to the recent FBI leaks about aide interviews and the Guccifer story.

I'm sure we'll have a fresh set of contradictory FBI leaks soon.

It was never a real scandal.

I guess secretary of state is as far as she goes.

...so many people still have orgasms over Hillary's email "scandal" story. Nothing will come of it.

And if you do I'd be careful as discussing the case you are working on is most likely not something a FBI agent would want to do. Even more so with such a Highly powerful vindictive person of interest.

I'm sure Hillary remembers too.

Bill pardoned CIA Director Deutch on his last day in office for having classified information on his home computers, just before he took a plea deal. Guess what else? He also used the same computers for personal and classified information. Look it up.

"according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter." seems to be a very broad meaning. and being familiar with the matter would include someone that use to work for Clinton. If it came from someone working on the case they would said someone familiar with case. But they said someone familiar with the matter. Basically they could of talk to guy who defended Petraeus in his case. He would be familiar with someone being malicious or not. This article is about as hard evidence as the Fox interview of that Hacker. So why take WaPo at face value when you don't take that other article on the issue.

We call that "conformation bias". Read the actual sources on the matter;

You are underlining parts of that comment and are just focusing on that as it is proof. But whole comment including parts you underlined was said by "U.S. officials familiar with the matter." Which could mean anything. Try and spin this all you want it does not change what they printed on in the article. Who is source I am saying. a US Official could be anyone working for State Dept that actually does not know about case. And you are one guilty of "conformation bias" because I don't think this article proves one way other anything about her email other than some random person said something and we have no idea who or what he/she is.

And I have never thought she did it malicious intent. Even if she was doing it to keep them close in order to keep others from seeing some damaging email that is not a malicious intent.(an "intentional" wrongful act against someone without a justified excuse)

", according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
" So some U.S Official said it. But what official we have not idea if he/she actually knows. You are one taking it at face value I am not. I will wait and see what the FBI says when it is time. Anything else is just people guessing.

i.e. the Dep't of Justice. A reasonable individual would not read into tis that the Washington Post is relying on info from Clinton insiders.

You are one reading into it. If it was a Dept of Justice why is the source not cited as US Official from Dept of Justice. If it was then someone at WaPo needs to learn a bit about how to cite a source. If something is written one way and you have to explain that oh no it actually means this then you are one reading into it.

I have it, on good authority, that it is the 2nd floor janitor's dogwalkers sister. It's ironclad.

This is a big dent in the zeal to see Clinton indicted, and you're trying to salvage whatever you can from this turn of events. I get that, but no one's buying it.

Brushing up on my dictionary skills...

they had to alert on and then block a political cartoon that would look completely normal in n2doc's morning line-up. The poster might just as well have drawn a picture of that other "prophet" where zealots post, because they took a 6-1 hide.