2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNo excuse for Clinton’s flouting of email rules
Well, this is the truth, there really isn't.
Make sure you read that caption under the photo. True story. Drip drip.....
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)I didn't. This is about Hillary.
Care to add anything to the story?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Cleared would mean the case would be done, it isn't at all by any means
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)We are about to nominate a candidate under Federal investigation who has refused to interview with the State IG and the FBI. We would be destroying Republicans for behavior like this but suddenly it is okay. Whether Bernie was to take the nomination or they dropped in another candidate is irrelevant. Democrats lose any moral high ground with this one.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)you want?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)is whether or not charges will be brought against her or against those around her.
You do realize that she doesn't have to be indicted for this to kneecap her chances in November, and ours with her?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)its law now.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)because only one person, to our knowledge, has ever dared to operate a private, uncertified communications channel for all official agency business on which classified information was frequently traded with complete disregard for secrecy laws and the known risk of disclosure.
This isn't normal, even for heads of agencies.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)and dealt narrowly with Departmental regulations and policy, finding that HRC violated many, many rules. The State Dept IG report didn't touch on violations of classified information law, at all.
Are you thinking ahead in an inverted time warp to your own fictional version of the forthcoming FBI report? Or, do you just enjoy making stuff up and being contrary? She was "cleared." Ha, ha - very amusing.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)that emails are still not being copied and hand over every-time one
is created.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)that applies to most of that which presents a real restriction to any prosecution of Bush-era violations. That's an important practical, as well as legal difference.
There is another difference, one of degree as well as whether the offenses can be prosecuted. The destruction of records crimes of Hillary, I think, is secondary to her disregard for normal procedures of protecting classified information from unauthorized disclosure. The continued use of her Blackberry hooked up to an uncertified private server for all of her official communications, after being expressly warned about her unsecure handheld, is a new low in wholesale disregard for information security rules.
But, far more serious is her violations of Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act. Her private server contained over 2,200 messages and attachments containing classified information. She, herself, not only sent 104 of these classified messages, but encouraged others to do so, as well, in spite of laws that make it a felony to fail to report the observed mishandling of classified materials by others. Perhaps most legally significant, are 22 emails containing information that originated with other agencies previously classified at the Top Secret/SAP level, and five have been identified to reveal the identities of intelligence officers.
No Secretary of State or other high government official has ever mishandled classified materials on this scale, and none is ever likely to again.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)empty of classified info. No laws were broken and that most of the
government was not following rules. Hillary has been singled out
for political reasons.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Whether or not those are criminal violations is awaiting another report.
It will be leaked in October. It will claim the FBI wanted to prosecute. Whether or not that is actually true. And the media will have a great time talking about it at length.
It's like you guys have completely forgotten how Republicans operate.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)and its been law since 2014: So Hillary was only single out of for
a political attacks: and reports about the FBI have proven to be
false: from the report Hillary was one of the least offenders.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)information security and emails.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)them.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)in them. The FBI cannot bring charges of any kind:
hughee99
(16,113 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)as her running mate. At the time...before all of this garbage...I saw that as a powerful winning combination. Some felt that was the reason for his invitation to DC as housing Secretary.
Pretty sure that's a non-starter now. He's squeaky clean and young enough to wait around...maybe for president. Now that's a ceiling I'd love to see broken...and he has the childhood poverty/1st generation Hispanic background along with impressive educational credentials to bring a strong dose of honor and duty and ethics into national politics.
ETA: Strong and lifelong Leftish politics, as well.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)entire, nigh spotless, political career on the altar of HRCs, um, record.
That was then. Are you sure about now? If you have a link, then I'll believe it and be sorely disappointed. I doubt you are in his inner circle.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 9, 2016, 11:11 AM - Edit history (1)
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Process, and whether they feel they can take over...the script just writes itself. And they'll have no say in anything...given the uber-scripted Clinton Group. Talk about an automaton.
As opposed to those in The Bubble, the political world absolutely knows. It's not an emotional event. It's business...and the business will be just like Bill v. 2.0 At least had one good term before the Impeachment hit. Of course, he'd been doing it for decades and had been able to squelch any whistleblower.
Hillary does not have those advantages. She is not a charismatic politician. She comes in with strong negatives, a history of "creatively interpreting" issues. The excuse is stupidity, at best. Her net unfavorability ratings are only equalled by Trump. That's not good news, in case you were wondering.
And, the Republicans are so ready for her. They did not hate Bill. They liked him...he helped them with their agenda. Well, until Monica.
They hated Obama because he was black, and did a lot of damage to his campaign and subsequent election, but he was squeaky clean and a great politician and a great man. He has a special place in Black History, as well as US History.
But there is something dreadfully "special" about their hate for Hillary. I don't get it, but it's there in spades. Then there's Mark Cuban as VP being floated out there...OMG is all I can say to that.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)you, based on your naivete and declarations of Real Truth. Bill was marginally good with the Republicans...the Establishment, if you will. He was probably their second choice for President.
But the Monica scandal allowed those who disliked him and didn't trust him (Slick Willie) to make his last term was shameful and miserable for most of us. Him, not so much, I'm sure. He mostly brushed it off...as Hillary is trying to do. She just doesn't have the BS skills he has.
Now we have the road paved ahead of them...whether it works or not is, frankly, irrelevant. It's all in the playing out of it. His was libido...hers is years of hatred and the hubris that makes for stupid actions...likely begun in earnest when she "stepped out of line" and tried to get through an unpopular health care plan...as a spouse. I'm sure she made a lot of enemies with that, but I wasn't that politically engaged at the time.
Since then...they've been out to get her...plain and simple. And she's given them much fodder to chew on and make any administration look miserable. The Clinton Shuffle is winding down, even if she does become president.
This is not one-dimensional...sorry to say.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)If the corporate media and the Republican Party are willing to overlook Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq and the lies he told to make it happen, not to mention his use of torture and other war crimes, I'm willing to overlook the fact that Hillary used a private email server. Whatever damage Hillary did to national security (if there really was any at all) pales in comparison to Bush destabilizing the Middle East and ruining our position of moral authority in the world.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Such an inspiring candidate.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Even she can't shield them from that.
I wonder what her legal bill is, for herself and her aides on top of the salary and benefits of these folk. Good thing she and Bill have those speeches to fall back on. A DC lawyer defending in this situation...I don't know, maybe $1,000 an hour? Deep pockets and shady situations create sky high rates. Just a guess. Anyone else know the fee?
randome
(34,845 posts)smh.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)What's troubling me is, if HRC went to that length to obstruct FOIA requests as SoS imagine what she will do if POTUS...
lack of transparency was and is an issue with me concerning Obama when he campaigned and didn't follow through...
we KNOW what HRC did as SoS so.. if she follows similar path, POTUS could and would be much worse...
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Look, the Watergate scandal hit in May 1972 - 6 months prior to the general election - and Nixon won in an historic landslide.
Things will turn out for Hillary just as well as they did for Nixon, so relax.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)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.
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.
(more)