Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

leveymg

(36,418 posts)

22. That's a grey area that hasn't been tested. She could fire a lot of security officers until one

Reply to Oilwellian (Reply #21)

Tue Mar 22, 2016, 08:45 AM

Mar 2016

grants her clearance, I suppose. Think Saturday Night Massacre that lasts 4 years or more.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

psst, about that imminent indictment . . . [View all] ucrdem Mar 2016 OP

You and Snowden agree on one thing. leveymg Mar 2016 #1

As far as I can tell she outfoxed the VRWC and this is all about butt-hurt. ucrdem Mar 2016 #2

The fox has been cornered and the terrier is digging it out. leveymg Mar 2016 #5

Well I'll give you credit for getting to the bottom of the butt-hurt. ucrdem Mar 2016 #6

I'm not the one who has to worry about the contents of the report. leveymg Mar 2016 #7

I suspect it will be a long wait. ucrdem Mar 2016 #8

Unlike Petraeus, Clinton did not "knowingly" store or share classified information in violation BlueStateLib Mar 2016 #10

Your link is from Aug 2015. We know now that that isn't true & RiverLover Mar 2016 #14

And, most importantly, HRC herself sent 104 emails containing classified materials. leveymg Mar 2016 #15

She'll also lose her security clearance Oilwellian Mar 2016 #21

That's a grey area that hasn't been tested. She could fire a lot of security officers until one leveymg Mar 2016 #22

All classified retroactively. Funny how you all leave that out. upaloopa Mar 2016 #27

Why couldn't she just log into her email from a protected PC? Fawke Em Mar 2016 #32

I don't think Obama will pardon her but I do believe a deal might be negotiated Samantha Mar 2016 #3

Pardon her for what conviction for what crime? ucrdem Mar 2016 #4

Don't need a conviction leftynyc Mar 2016 #9

Okay but at least Watergate was a break-in. That's a crime. ucrdem Mar 2016 #11

Hillary is not going to be indicted leftynyc Mar 2016 #12

Onward to bathroom-breakgate . . . film at 11 ucrdem Mar 2016 #13

Here's the applicable felony statute, Executive Order violated, and even a lesser included charge leveymg Mar 2016 #16

"to be used to the injury of the United States" ucrdem Mar 2016 #17

You misread that - intent to do so is expressly not required in (e) and (f). Go back and you'll see leveymg Mar 2016 #18

Neither e nor f are any more relevant. ucrdem Mar 2016 #19

Again, you are misreading or purposely obtuse. leveymg Mar 2016 #20

Because not only is there no intent and no harm, it provably PREVENTED harm. ucrdem Mar 2016 #23

That's no defense for Hillary. leveymg Mar 2016 #25

A person can only be pardoned if they have been convicted of a crime, I think Samantha Mar 2016 #35

What does one have to do with the other?? nt B2G Mar 2016 #24

About the FBI's ability to crack a locked I-phone. leveymg Mar 2016 #26

The FBI has already recovered most of what it needs from the server. eom Fawke Em Mar 2016 #33

No but some... hrmjustin Mar 2016 #28

Silly. tazkcmo Mar 2016 #29

I'll agree with this. Fawke Em Mar 2016 #34

Real bad. tazkcmo Mar 2016 #36

No, his legacy will be just fine because Clinton didn't commit a crime. geek tragedy Mar 2016 #37

The lack of logic by Hillary fanatics is unbounded. BillZBubb Mar 2016 #30

What does that have to do with an unsecure private email server? Fawke Em Mar 2016 #31

. ucrdem Apr 2016 #38