= new reply since forum marked as read
No mention of 18 USC, Section 2071 though. Rather a superficial analysis I must conclude, but of course that was the entire point.
As I posted elsewhere, even if things get far enough to potentially implicate her, I think she probably gets off on "plausible deniability." The article linked here almost says as much, in the section where it italicizes "knowingly and willfully" and points out that that's the most important part.
So the content doesn't surprise me... but the placement does.
Imagine if this were posted on Hillary's campaign site, with the headline, "Here's why I will not be indicted." Absurd, right? The mere appearance of such a headline on her site would be a disaster. But here they have put it on David Brock's site, which, considering the relationship between Brock and the campaign, is barely one step removed from being on the campaign's own site.
Honestly, I think if there was no "there" there, the "pushback" wouldn't be so "legitimized" by being publicly put forth by basically a campaign spokesperson. In the last debate, Hillary took the more sensible path against the question of indictment, basically saying she wouldn't even dignify it with an answer. And sure, I wouldn't be surprised if there were "behind the scenes" working of the press to privately put forth the kinds of things mentioned in the article at Brock's site. But for a campaign spokesperson to publicly put this kind of stuff out there makes me think they're more concerned about this than they have let on.
And the article itself isn't so great for Hillary, either. For example:
IOW, even if the SOS does not adequately safeguard sensitive information--even if it causes harm!--that's not necessarily criminal as long as it wasn't marked as such, so someone could essentially get off on that technicality. Even if that's true (which has been debated elsewhere), *that's* the person we want to elect?
Or how about this one:
So it is the responsibility of the individual sending the material, not just to properly classify it, but to confirm they are sending it to an approved, secure address (i.e. not to send it to "an unapproved server"
? Seriously, wouldn't one assume that the one and only address you have for reaching the SOS would be an approved and secure one? If it isn't, whose fault is that?
Really, some of these lines in her "defense" don't really make things sound so good for her, either. Heck, even "plausible deniability," while a perfectly good legal defense, is not exactly "the buck stops here."
Response to bravenak (Reply #4)
I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt.
It's the hope that "peace" means that one won't get upset at the continuation of the RWNJ spewing. 
Mind you, I've been observing the RW smear machine at work against both Hillary and her husband for years. Of course, they've failed MISERABLY, and will continue to.
But heads are gonna roll, sooner or later.
...to counter these newest FBI leaks.
Gee, do you think the FBI didn't like being told they weren't going to recommend indictment?
deleted by the dishonest David Brock site.
In short, this exclusive legal premise "whoever knowingly and willfully" is shallow and flawed with respect to the wide number of criminal laws Hillary is exposed to. It overlooks the word "negligence" appearing five times in the executive order she signed off on in her nondisclosure agreements and it ignores that same word coming up in the criminal laws linked in those same nondisclosure agreements.
It also overlooks definitions of intent like in Title 18, sec 1924 "knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location" That's what CIA Director Deutch agreed to plead guilty to for having classified material on his home computers.
When 2,100+ emails are found to have classified info in them and a number of those were NOT classified retroactively (ie with phrases like "Sudan Intel" or "extremely sensitive" , the denial of knowingly becomes a very improbable stretch to accept and the balance of the phrase "intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location" is very difficult to refute.
And it ignores the other federal laws where whether knowing the information is classified or not doesn't enter into it.
If it was so easy to dismiss Hillary, they would not have bothered as many as 150 FBI agents and the two Inspector Generals who called the FBI in to look at this after reviewing it for a couple of months, for a year or more.
Things happen for a reason. You don't get that many law enforcement people gawking at something like this for that long if all of them have figured out as quickly as this law professor (probably working for the Clinton campaign) that there is nothing to see here.
This is just the Clinton campaign working the media to deceive the American people like they always have.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Meanwhile, back in the real world... 
I've seen this movie before. It was called "All The President's Men".
Only this time, the guilty politician won't get elected to get impeached. She's going down, and Dems with a grain of sense aren't going with her. That would be most of them.
*They* would be in trouble for knowingly transmitting classified info to an unsecured email account belonging to the Secretary of State.
were being fooled by the right wing. Right wingers have been at this game for decades. It's sad to see democrats get tricked by it though. They should know better, but I guess they don't.
Response to bravenak (Original post)
You always know with such certainty all of the subjects you posts, that I cannot stop believing that you must be....Miss Cleo!
