WAPO: scant evidence against Hillary, no indication of grand jury, claims by Guccifer dismissed

[wyldwolf]

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules.

FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter. And in recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.

The involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office is not indicative that charges are imminent or even likely. One official said prosecutors are wrestling with the question of whether Clinton intended to violate the rules, and so far, the evidence seemed to indicate she did not.

There is no indication a grand jury has been convened in the case.

U.S. officials also dismissed claims by a Romanian hacker now facing federal charges in Virginia that he was able to breach Clinton’s personal email server. The officials said investigators have found no evidence to support the assertion by Marcel Lehel Lazar to Fox News and others, and they believed if he had accessed Clinton’s emails, he would have released them — as he did when he got into accounts of other high-profile people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/federal-prosecutors-in-virginia-assisting-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/05/05/f0277faa-12f0-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

[George II]

1. I don't think anyone in this country is surprised.

[mythology]

24. No, but there are a number of people here who are desperately hoping for an indictment

[BlueCaliDem]

30. And they're having the SADZ now.

I knew from the start there's no there 'there'. Just more Republican attempts to smear a Clinton since they've got nothing but losers on their side - and the biggest one just won the title of the presumptive nominee. Bwaaahahaha!

[pat_k]

2. No "intent to mishandle" found. Unfortunately, there are other factors.

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

Nathan Sales, an associate law professor at Syracuse University, disagrees with Lowell's and others' assessment. "Many scholars and lawyers think it's unlikely. I'm actually kind of in the minority on this," Sales says. "But, based on what we do know so far, I think there is a not insignificant chance that a grand jury could look at the facts and say, 'Actually, she may have violated various laws protecting classified information.'"

Sales points to the Petraeus case in particular, noting that the former CIA head did not, in the end, plead guilty to charges related to sharing classified information with his mistress and biographer, but rather to those related to him keeping the information in a desk drawer inside his home. "The conduct that is being investigated [in Clinton's case] — keeping the documents on an unclassified server — that's kind of the digital equivalent of locking it in your desk drawer, which is ultimately what did in General Petraeus," he says.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/what-should-we-make-of-the-hillary-clinton-indictment-speculation-20160503#ixzz47pDlWWxL

[Demsrule86]

18. Nathan Sales...worked in Homeland under Bush...writes for the national review quite often.

Wrote pretty much the same story a while back...rightie with an agenda. National Review is a right-wing rag. Always check your sources unless you want to mislead or something.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421896/criminal-or-not-hillary-clintons-e-mails-are-national-security-risk-nathan-sales

[pat_k]

21. I appreciate the info on the source.

Thanks!

[politicaljunkie41910]

19. I know how badly Bernie supporters want their own reality,

but those dirty little things, we call FACTS, just keep getting in the way. The FBI, the people who are investigating the case, have found no evidence of any "intent to mishandle". Sorry that the facts keep getting in the way.

And for those who want to keep comparing this to Gen Petraeus' case, Gen Pertraeus intentionally gave classified files to his mistress (an unauthorized person) during pillowtalk. The fact that they settled on a lessor charge would seem to me that they spared him from the embarrassment that he had coming. Gen Petraeus' affair actually began when he was the Supreme Commander of all US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Simply having an affair as a military officer was grounds for court martial while in the military. All troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were instructed that any sex of any kind while in Iraq and Afghanistan was subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). I know this because I worked for the DoD and we sent civilian government employees over there and they were briefed before they were deployed than anyone caught having sexual relations of any kind while there, even civilians, could be prosecuted under the UCMJ. Gen Petraeus as the highest ranking Officer and leader of all Iraq to have violated that order would have had to face some disciplinary action for violating the rule against NO sex, and for having an affair which is punishable under the UCMJ. I know that his conviction was while he was the CIA Director, but during their investigation of his giving classified documents to his mistress, it came out that his mistress was present and the affair was ongoing while he was still in the military. The fact that they let him plead guilty to a lessor charge was obviously a face saving mechanism, but I'm sure that there were stipulations which came with it, which the world will never know.

[pat_k]

22. Thanks for the insight.

[NWCorona]

3. Just who are these unnamed officials? nt

[questionseverything]

27. the article admits she broke laws/just wether she did knowingly

[ucrdem]

4. OMG

we're rooned!

[AgingAmerican]

5. I am hearing that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one of the 'anonymous officials'

Can you confirm otherwise?

[procon]

7. Adjust your tinfoil, then the voices will go away. nt

[AgingAmerican]

8. So you cannot confirm otherwise?

[Adrahil]

9. Can you confirm you didn't make that up right now?

Jeebus.... just let it the fuck go.

[AgingAmerican]

11. Breaking: Confirmed!

[Adrahil]

12. That's what I thought.

[AgingAmerican]

14. Do you have inside info on just who these alleged 'officials' are?

If they even exist?

[Adrahil]

16. No. I'm sure the WaPo just made them up. Expect an indictment tomorrow.

[AgingAmerican]

17. The WaPo is just repeating CNN

I suggest you look there

[Adrahil]

20. Clap your hands!!

Maybe the indictment fairy will come.

[Waiting For Everyman]

10. This too: "Anne Gearan and Adam Goldman contributed to this report."

Both are big Clinton cheerleaders on MSNBC and elsewhere. Hmm, I wonder what they contributed?

The only facts in this article are what were already known, the rest is opinion by anonymous sources -- the typical spin we have seen all along. It means zip.

When the FBI reports in, the credibility of all these spinners will be shot forever. That will be an added plus, weeding out the liars from those who are objective.

[BootinUp]

6. Yawn, because it is so NOT surprising. nt

[CorkySt.Clair]

13. meanwhile back in Bernieville

[oasis]

25. Lol!!

That about sums it up.

[grossproffit]

15. Oh dear. Do we have enough buckets to catch all the tears that will fall?

[morningfog]

23. Good. I hope these leaks are accurate and this gets wrapped up soon.

[Press Virginia]

26. Now it's gone from US officials to FBI officials

to agents and prosecutors

[Aerows]

28. You don't have to have malicious intent

if you get behind the wheel after you have been drinking for it to be a crime.

[w4rma]

29. So, Clinton's defense has morphed to: She broke the law, but she didn't understand that law. (nt)