It is one thing to say its unlikely, but there is 0%> chance it does. Otherwise why would FBI be spending 12months investigating if there is nothing there?

I think non indictment is more likely outcome. But this individual thinks its 0% likely. My gut and the betting markets seem to think its 33% chance of indictment.

But actually you didn't.

For example if there were wall-street transcripts that Bernie was hiding because it was too damaging, I would not think it was good idea of him to be running for president.

Taxes

Apples and oranges

Is at the same level as a candidate that knowingly broke security rules and may have compromised national security and lied constantly about it?

Ok

And, the media are smart enough to know there was no crime for which she could be indicted. That's why they haven't suggested it.

I'll sure be glad when you guys won't be able to post this delusional shit anymore. Soon ....

they keep trying to push her down.. and she keeps bobbing back up.. after that 11 hours of testimony and the republican inquisition fell apart.. I knew then.. if she made it all the way .. she would be unstoppable.. she was not my first choice.. but she keeps bouncing back

The FBI investigation is not an inquisition. There is prima facie evidence that Hillary committed a crime or crimes. If the FBI recommends indictment, she won't bounce back.

indictment.. yes she screwed up.. but indictable.. then they will have to go back and indict Powell.. and Rice.. not seeing it

She put all of her personal and work email on a private server. Nobody had ever done that. She didn't have permission and had been warned about security, but did it anyway. In Powell's case everyone at State knew and was OK with what he was doing. It was when email was just starting to be popular and Powell was trying to get the Department to adopt the technology.

You won't read about an indictment until it happens. The FBI will not speak about the case until a determination is made. There are now too many grounds for indictment to simply dismiss this. Even the IG report, though it didn't address criminality, stated Hillary broke the law. The FBI knows that too.

It's not the same situation at all.

.

Rice and Powell weren't exchanging classified information with an uncleared aide the POTUS forbid them to hire. And most important, Rice and Powell weren't trying to duck FOIA filings that might expose a billions of dollars quid pro quo money-laundering operation.

at the thought of an FBI "reccommendation of indictment:"

The FBI doesn't do that. Grand Juries indict.

No wonder Sanders fans have such trouble getting themselves properly registered to vote. Learn the damn process!

Of course only grand juries can indict.

My wording was that FBI at the end of its investigation, can take the case to the justice department for them to pursue legal avenues.

You avoided the question, if this happens (indictment), what are your thoughts on who should the dems run against Trump.

Where would the prosecutor come up with unbiased Grand Jurors? They'd have to draft a bunch of Trappist monks. Maybe a flock of penguins.

Ain't gonna happen.

But if Hillary had to drop out for any reason, her place would be taken by the person to whom she released her delegates, most likely Biden or Kerry. It wouldn't be Sanders.

Maybe you need a civics lesson?

If Hillary drops out before the nomination, Bernie Sanders will be the Democratic nominee. It won't matter who she wants it to be. If she is forced out after the nomination, the shit hits the fan and the Democratic nominee loses, no matter who it is.

I've worked for a prosecutor and served on a federal grand jury. It's hard enough to seat a petit jury when a well-known person is the defendant. Seating a larger impartial grand jury for a candidate for President would put most of the lawyers I know under their desks in the fetal position.

I find it a little--off-balance, shall we say?--that so many who claim to be Democrats are eager to see our best hope of defeating Trump in prison or fatally ill.

It would upset me considerably more if I thought they actually were Democrats.

You just don't see it yet.

The FBI, working with a team of prosecutors from the Department of Justice conduct the investigation. The FBI and the prosecutors determine if sufficient evidence exist to warrant an indictment. Their findings go the Attorney General who will make the decision on whether to pursue an indictment.

What we are talking about is this: If the FBI and the prosecutors working with them recommend to the AG to pursue an indictment, Hillary is finished. Period.

If the DoJ prosecutors working with the FBI split from the FBI on the merits of an indictment, someone in the FBI will make that public. Then the DoJ will be accused of a cover up. And Hillary will be badly hurt. There will be a congressional investigation and it will get very messy.

So, yeah what the FBI does is the key here. Their findings are what matters. What the DoJ decides is secondary.

it seems more and more unlikely. This is from May 25:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/watchdog-faults-hillary-clinton-email-practices-at-state-department-1464188308

There has been no indication a grand jury has heard evidence from anyone in the matter—a necessary step before the consideration of an indictment.

They have yet to interview the person of most interest.

When that happens, we will know which direction this will go.

to bring before a Grand Jury.

And talking to Hillary is unlikely to change that.

(And a Grand Jury is part of the investigation process. It doesn't have to wait till all the interviews are over.)

If you there are multiple players, and the person of target is A, you don't talk to A first, especially when A is high profiled politician with the best lawyers in the country.

You talk to everyone else first, and then with all the facts, you interview that person from position of strength as you may only get 1 chance with that individual. Here is how recent AP article described it.

of the investigation -- before the "target" is interviewed.

But the FBI has never said that Hillary is a target. That was your word.

Not sure if FBI needed any as they have had access to all the material

That your only hope is not that the will of the people is heard but that your opponent faces misfortune.

If people knew she had a good chance of being indicted, they may have had second thoughts about her electability.

The opponents misfortune has been brought on by her underhanded actions. Our misfortune is that the party's nominee will be under criminal indictment and lead to a disaster on election day. You are willing to take that risk. Many of us are not.

The possibility exists, and we'll all have to deal with it if it does. But putting the question that way to Hillary Clinton supporters is just a provocation to piss people off.

would that please you? what if she steps aside and says "In consultation with the DNC, I have decided that my good friend Debbie Wasserman Shultz will step in and continue this campaign."

Are you trying to drum up business for them?

I voted for Hillary in the primary and will vote for her in the Presidential election. I think the chances of the FBI recommending an indictment is very unlikely. If they did, then Hillary should step aside.

harm. You are dreaming if you think that might happen at this point.

'expert' posters conflate gross negligence (the standard to be met) with orginary negligence, not understanding the difference between the two. All those prongs have to be met and they won't be.