2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumExperts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous."
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." As reported by Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall, law professors and former federal prosecutors have told him "to a person" that the chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea and that "on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous -- a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness":
[div style="border:1px solid #000000;" class="excerpt"] As a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.
Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.
So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views. (TPM, 2/1/15)
ABC News: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her." In a February 1 article, ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media outlets hyping the claim that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. Abrams added that "there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time":
(more)
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)he calls for Bernie to be responsible and stop feeding the right wing's propaganda machine. Not to drop out -- to stop giving aid to the enemy.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Seriously?
Set up as a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization, MMfA was founded in 2004 by journalist and political activist David Brock as a counterweight to the conservative Media Research Center.[4] It is known for its aggressive criticism of conservative journalists and media outlets, including its "War on Fox News."[5][6]
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)to point out the facts. This comes from David Brock's Media Matters. They SUPPORT Hillary Clinton. What would you expect it to say? Do you really think it would be critical of Hillary? Hello?
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Repugnant does. to say because of someone's preference in candidate that therefore nothing they say can be trusted. that's just dogmatic proscription of a source. same kindof thing they do in USSR/ or russia now.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)I've got better things to do with my time. You have fun now with your "fact filled" article.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)most effective site on the internet at pointing out how the Corporate media presents (or doesn't present) news to please the GOP. Most of the content of any Media Matters article is excerpts from articles that have appeared in the media. The MM article usually shows a web-stie or two which actually did present the news item without the RW bias. M$M usually slants the news, or leaves details out that would contradict the GOP propaganda on that matter or news item.
YOu can't point out any facts that have been misrepresented by MM because it hasn't happened.
Republicans prefer the GOP Alternate Reality as presented on FOX News network.-- which has been shown multiple times to be frequently wrong on factual matters.
840high
(17,196 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Media Matters is at odds with the GOP's Alternate Universe (the inverse of reality, which is needed to make their many excuses and screwball theories sound reasonable), which Republicans continue to chant endlessly (keep repeating the lie and many people will begin to think it's the truth just because they have heard it before).
IF you can show an example of Media Matters presenting a distortion of the facts or a biased presentation of an issue you are welcome to present your evidence --- for review by others , to see if your claim is valid. Otherwise you are just engaging in a baseless criticism of Media Matters.
Got any evidence to support your "criticism" (implied)? or are you going to be just another typical GOPer protecting your Alternate Reality?
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)You are just repeating what your 'oracles' tell you to think... O'Reilly and Varney of Fox..LOL
Fox's Varney And O'Reilly Lash Out At "Hate Site" Media Matters
Fox Hosts Proclaim Media Matters Is A "Propaganda" Outlet For Highlighting Fox News' Lies
http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/10/09/foxs-varney-and-oreilly-lash-out-at-hate-group/206085
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Like another person who "evolved," I don't believe a word he says.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts).. has proscribed that site too, huh? LOL!!
Most of the content in MM articles is comprised of excerpts from M$M articles and internet articles which MM uses to make a point about how M$M tries to shape news coverage to please the GOP. They often include articles of the few internet sites that cover a subject so as to include the relevant facts giving readers an accurate picture of the issue or situation under consideration - which MM includes to contrast with the slanted presentation so often given by Corporate media.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-wages-of-derp-are-derp-lots-of-it
Here's the reality. Who knows what we will learn in the future? And this has nothing to do with the political impact of the "emails controversy". But as a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.
Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.
So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views.
As I've said, the political calculus and potential political damage is a different matter altogether. There is little doubt that this whole on-going controversy, along with stuff in the background about the Clinton Foundation, have hurt Clinton badly on public estimations of her honesty and trustworthiness. But again, on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous - a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness.
(more)
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)IF you can't point out specific cases of your proscribed site slanting information of twisting facts you are showing yourself to be a dogmatic, zealot. IOW a Repugnant by another name.
Perhaps you are one of those Republican "for" Bernie ... promoting the candidate you prefer to run against.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)...State Dept IG
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf
IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security
officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the refe rral was to notify security
officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive
that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not
make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The
IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to
the appropriate IC security officials.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this scandal is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but its not something a prosecutor would take to court.
[font size="3"]
Its common that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel whos now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.
There are always these back channels, Smith explained. Its inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables. People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldnt, but they do.
Its common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isnt used, said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldnt normally lead to criminal cases.[/font]
(more)
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)history of pointing out Fox News (cable) lies ... (but let's not forget the Factchecker's who have documented that fact too.)
840high
(17,196 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)tell me I watch O'Reilly - I don't have cable. Permanent ignore for you.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Come on, bro, don't try to play us into believing this is a serious/unbiased/reality-based evaluation.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)they are definitely not impartial observers in this race specifically for specific reasons and favor a specific candidate to the extent that they'll just make up whatever the hell they like as they are accountable for it to no one.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Catholic Church quit with the List of Proscribed books. If you can't make a case against some part of the CONTENT of the article you have nothing to offer worth reading.
BTW, the MM article content is mostly articles from other cites, such as TPM, ABC News, the National Law Journal.
You really should read the OP in question before you make an assessment of it.
bornskeptic
(1,330 posts)Judicial Watch has a knack for finding favorable judges.
2. He earned a strong reputation opposing the Clintons: In 1997, he fined the government more than $285,000 because Ira Magaziner, a top healthcare advisor, lied about the composition of a task force. The fine was overturned on appeal in 1999. Lamberth also allowed Judicial Watch bulldog Larry Klayman to depose everyone from George Stephanopoulos to famous fundraiser John Huang in suits against the administration that most judges would probably have thrown out as frivolous, according to Washington Monthly.
https://newrepublic.com/article/77203/who-royce-lamberth
merrily
(45,251 posts)When the shoe is on the other foot, though, pointing out the patently obvious bias of the source makes one a Republican. o.k.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Democrats are far less likely to do that than Repugnants. Democrats are inclined to go after the accusations, or claims being made and show them to be invalid or at odds with the facts. Repugnants attack the source far more than they try to prove the point being made is wrong.
merrily
(45,251 posts)source shame, deflect, change the subject and so on. I can't be bothered with them.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)cite articles by WorldNutsDaily, Newsmax, Washington Free Beacon, Investors.com, Fox News, NY Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc etc.
P.S. Media Matters was part of the pushback against the Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004. Since Bernie supporters are now Swiftboating Clinton, no wonder they don't like Media Matters.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And given the daily bombardment of rightwing sources we get from Bernie fans attacking Clinton, it's rather fitting that the biggest anti-Swiftboating website on the left is displeasing those most eager to enable Swiftboating because they think, rather pathetically, that it's going to help them in a Democratic primary campaign.
I know what side I'm on, and I also know what side people who hate Media Matters but like Rupert Murdoch's media empire are on.
840high
(17,196 posts)should you.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)*crickets*
840high
(17,196 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)If he happens to agree with me about something, oh well.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)thesquanderer
(11,986 posts)Yes, Media Matters is a Hillary support site. But look what they are proudly quoting:
That sentence is a double-edged sword for Hillary. Sure, "very, very low" chance of indictment is primarily positive for her. But not-so-hidden within that sentence remains the fact that "low odds" means something is unlikely but not impossible. So the same sentence that is putting a positive spin on things is, simultaneously, an admission that, she actually could be indicted.
The fact that this is a lead line on a Brock PR piece is kind of astonishing in its way, admitting in effect that, while it may be unlikely, the fact is that we do need to be prepared for the possibility--even if a small one--that Hillary will be indicted. This might not be news, but it is not something you'd expect to be even slightly legitimized on Brock's site.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Perhaps you watched Say Anything a few too many times? I get that. I'm a fan of Cusack and a friend was once married to Skye. But, geez. don't take the title literally!
Now that you brought it up though, just for the heck of though, tell me more about media matters, which does seem to be the source of the headline I edited for accuracy.
Member since: Wed Mar 3, 2010, 05:25 PM
Number of posts: 4,480
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=255779&sub=trans
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)David Brock, who works for the Clinton camp, is issuing articles that laugh off the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton.
That is...beautiful.
Media Matters is a PR arm of the Clinton camp, providing rapid-response articles to hot issues.
The big reveal is that the Clinton camp is putting a real effort toward playing defense on this issue. Obviously, their campaign is devoting resources to counter the damage.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)with Republicans simply because they point out that the source at your link works for Hillary?
hrmbaja
(59 posts)Call posters who disagrees with Clinton about anything Republicans.
merrily
(45,251 posts)and you're exactly like a Republican. Or even fail to fawn to when a story like the opening post is posted.
Because left is identical to right and "Democrat" is a synonym for "Republican." That's all been very clear on DU for years.
Response to merrily (Reply #19)
Post removed
reformist2
(9,841 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)So keeping secrets is now progressive-leftist job one. Fancy that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Is that your claim?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)that it is high time for the FBI to conclude
its investigation and, if there is a case, to get
it to the JD in no time.
This should not become the biggest scandal
during an election year!
grasswire
(50,130 posts)LBN tonight...Hillary's personal interview with FBI may come in days or a few weeks. FBI Director has finished examining the evidence.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)are hanging on to a last hope. I pity them.
#feelthemath
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)at DU disappointed.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)and retroactive classification. He's not exactly the best one to base your opinion on. 'Cause he's going to ask those experts about retroactive classification instead of retroactive marking.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)It's getting pretty darn long.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=144296&sub=trans
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's such an improvement.
Now, back here in the reality-based community, that retroactive-marking vs retroactive-classification is an extremely important legal distinction, and the fact that Josh keeps refusing to understand the difference is problematic if you're going to trust his coverage on the subject.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)are the ones who are disrespecting this place. If every person who willfully cites rightwing slime outlets to attack Democrats were to get the heave-ho, that would constitute a major improvement.
In terms of showing willful misplacement of classified material, retroactive marking vs classification is a minor detail.
Keep on clapping.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Oh wait...you can't.
Instead, I've been citing Clinton's own defense on the matter where she and her staff conflate retroactive marking and retroactive classification. And I've cited Josh Marshall's failure to understand the difference.
Golly, that's exactly like quoting Drudge.
If Clinton was government peon #23647, she'd already be indicted by now for this. But since she's Clinton, there's people like you insisting there could not possibly be anything wrong here.
She fucked up. The security on her server was utterly abysmal. She absolutely violated FOIA, which is why the fuckers at Judicial Watch now get to comb through her emails. And at a minimum, she violated the regulations regarding the handling of classified, meaning at a minimum she could never hold a clearance again. Whether or not it's prosecutable depends on how much negligence she demonstrated.
From what has leaked, it looks like a lot of negligence. We'll see if the investigation shows any mitigating circumstances.
Utterly and absolutely wrong. If it is retroactively classified, she could not have been negligent and thus can not be prosecuted. If it was retroactively marked, then she could have been negligent and can be prosecuted.
It is an extremely important distinction. And anyone who doesn't understand it or downplays it is as uninformed on the subject as Drudge.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)And no, Petraeus is not the same. Nor did Sandy Berger do anything in the same zip code.
Curiously, you write:
If Clinton was government peon #23647, she'd already be indicted by now for this.
But then write this:
From what has leaked, it looks like a lot of negligence. We'll see if the investigation shows any mitigating circumstances.
So you really have no idea, other than the (false) claim that someone can be prosecuted for "a lot of negligence."
You should leave the legal punditry to people with legal educations. Or know how to do basic legal research.
This case torpedoes your rightwing nonsense theory that she can be thrown in jail under the Espionage Act:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/312/19/case.html
Good luck to you all getting Clinton prosecuted under that standard.
Clinton's partisan enemies on the right and extreme left are the only ones peddling this Indictment Fairytale.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Here's a treatise on some of it. It's UCMJ, but similar enough to civilians.
http://www.jamesmadisonproject.org/files/Navy%20Litigating%20Classified%20Cases/Chapter%20Five%20-%20Other%20Cases%20Involving%20Classified%20Information.pdf
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
Government peon would be prosecuted if there was any possible way a prosecutor could spin some negligence.
For Clinton, the bar is going to be higher because she's famous and thus is treated differently under the law. They'll have to show significant negligence and may attempt to wiggle out of prosecuting her based on "not enough negligence".
That difference is the mechanism by which Clinton gets treated differently than a government peon.
Our current classification system came into being in 1947. That 1941 precedent was under the previous system, which allowed more ambiguity. Which was one of the reasons we created the uniform system in 1947.
There is no honest question about whether or not the information was classified at the time - even the State department has given up on that claim. So it really won't be had to show Clinton had reason to believe the information would cause injury/advantage.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)1) you cited a Navy handbook. Hillary Clinton is not subject to the UCMJ.
2) that material explicitly states that negligent mishandling cases usually result in additional training, not judicial punishment
3). You failed to find a single example of someone being prosecuted for what Clinton did.
Whiff.
4). The classification system did not amend that statutory language. Ergo, the case is still controlling. That is how this law stuff works.
5) prosecutors would have to show that Clinton knew that sending those emails would damage the United States. That is an impossible standard here.
Sorry, you and the other Hillary Haters and your law degrees from Google are out to lunch on this.
lakeguy
(1,640 posts)those 30k emails she deleted. Clinton foundation, donations and agreements made after those, and whatever else turns up? that's how they got Bill.
even though i don't support HRC i don't want them to find anything because it will be hell on all D's come election day. but to ignore the possible damage here is just plain stupid. she should have kept all that shit completely separated but apparently didn't have the good judgement to do so. it was a selfish and stupid move. especially considering what they did to her husband.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Its always been a fake scandal.
paulthompson
(2,398 posts)Did anyone notice the date? February first. Needless to say, a lot has been revealed since then.
I had a strong feeling before I even clicked on the link that this would be a David Brock/Media Matters thing. Sure enough it was. That's what he's paid to do, catapult the propaganda.
blueintelligentsia
(507 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Welcome back, Paul!
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Recycled old news to put out new fires.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)k8conant
(3,030 posts)"there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time":
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I'm not saying I think Hillary will be indicted, but I can't take anything 'published' by that site as objective.
madville
(7,408 posts)"Experts who work for or support Clinton all agree indictment chatter is ridiculous".
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/30/clinton-controversy-no-comparison-petraeus-column/71421242/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/08/21/clinton-email-state-server-column/32042775/
madville
(7,408 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 31, 2016, 08:15 PM - Edit history (2)
In most of the articles you cited either the author or the cited sources or both are current or past political campaign donors to Hillary Clinton lol. That's why I said "either work for or support" in my post above.
Most of those sources are biased in some way. This website is easy to use if you haven't checked it out before:
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I would accept their analyses over this or that random internet poster.
If you believe your analysis is superior to their analyses there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion, but please "keep hope alive."
I am supremely confident she won't be indicted and am willing to wager on it. I even have some ideas that don't involve money.
P.S.
That is incorrect. Neither Dan Abrams or Richard Lempert ever contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaigns, ergo:
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/
-John Adams
madville
(7,408 posts)But that doesn't change the fact that these are mostly just Hillary supporters supporting Hillary and there's nothing wrong with that. They're just biased opinions and shouldn't be presented as facts is what I'm pointing out.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Neither Mr.'s Lempert or Abrams ever contributed to Hillary Clinton as you stated, ergo:
-madville
That is incorrect. Neither Dan Abrams or Richard Lempert ever contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaigns, ergo:
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/
http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/qind/
P.S. That site disallows hyperlinks. I welcome you or anybody to go to the site you linked and put in the gentlemen's names.
madville
(7,408 posts)Neither Abrams or Lempert are Hillary donors, that's why I didn't limit to just the authors
Honestly though, I messed up and didn't click on or read the Lempert article, I'm glad you pointed it out because I went back and read the whole thing. I agree with most of his assessment that rules and laws could have been broken but an indictment of Hillary is unlikely because the rules apply differently to people at that level than others. But the people that were sending her the classified info (I take that to mean her aides and Blumenthal) could be in much more serious trouble.
The source cited in the Abrams article that has been donating to Hillary this year is actually pretty funny if you know who it is , mainly because it doesn't make much sense.
I edited my post above to say "most" instead of "all", thanks for the catch.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Blumenthal is a private citizen so if someone sent him classified information they have legal exposure not him. That's why the publisher of leaked classified information legal exposure is limited though the leaker's legal exposure is great.
B2G
(9,766 posts)None?
Then they are the ones 'chattering'.
grntuscarora
(1,249 posts)because the "experts" have been right-on-the-money this entire primary season--with pinpoint predictions like Trump would implode, Bernie would bust, etc.
Oh, wait.
revbones
(3,660 posts)How about a real source please?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)LonePirate
(13,417 posts)Why are people dismissing that source?
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)Lans
(66 posts)I don't know if there is any danger for Hillary since I'm not from the FBI but quoting a site which is being funded by her Super PAC is just sad. Can I quote some conspiracy theory sites here - they have tons of articles about the Clintons I can post here. I think both conspiracy fantasies and David Brock don't have a place here unless its to laugh at them, while being somewhat concerned with the people buying into the bs.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)I don't give a fuck what David Brock thinks.