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
In reply to the discussion: Newly released FBI documents shows Petraeus disclosures less damaging than Clinton emails [View all]Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)118. I realized last night that the last time Clintons were president
we ended up with 8 years of GWB. Progress?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
168 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Newly released FBI documents shows Petraeus disclosures less damaging than Clinton emails [View all]
leveymg
Jun 2016
OP
It worked for Richard Bruce Cheney et. al. and now you embrace it too-how sickening.
bobthedrummer
Jun 2016
#121
It is sickening that people , wittingly or unwittingly, enable Trump.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#131
To some extent .. but if someone is posting negative article after negative article
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#30
No, this is the speculation of a layperson who does not understand the legal concepts
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#66
No I specifically left the definition of layperson in my previous reply to you.
Separation
Jun 2016
#140
One poster who has been beating beating this dead horse has already been flagged.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#33
She can't be "exonerated." The State Dept has already found she broke dozens of regulations. The
leveymg
Jun 2016
#67
I started to compile a list when the IG report came out, but didn't get even half way through.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#134
This has nothing to do with Sanders...it has everything to do with the Dem Party...
tex-wyo-dem
Jun 2016
#71
Still a lot of bitter sore losers ... guess it will take a while to get over it n/t
SFnomad
Jun 2016
#159
With 2,200 classified emails over an uncertified server, including 22 TS-SAP, that is not damaging?
leveymg
Jun 2016
#7
It was released by unauthorized people in emails to her. It was a felony for HRC to not report them.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#13
Yup! Hillary had a legal obligation to fill out spillage reports on quite a few emails
NWCorona
Jun 2016
#17
We've been through this before, you can site code section over & over, doesn't make it a violation.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#18
Please ask your interlocutor why he won't accept my "loser leaves DU" wager.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#26
The acts fit the statute cited. The facts are well-known. She violated the law.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#29
You guys' interpretation of law and circumstances are wrong. I get how badly you want it to be true.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#49
So how are those "guys'" interpretations wrong? Maybe you could be more specific...nt
tex-wyo-dem
Jun 2016
#54
Read law, but not looking for a way to pin something on Clinton. My guess, Obama would not endorse
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#111
You just keep getting wilder with BS. Read what poster told you below -- No Intent, No Indictment.
Hoyt
Jun 2016
#115
I've said for a long time that I don't expect DOJ to actually indict her. I do believe the FBI
leveymg
Jun 2016
#93
"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#104
Actually, if you read the FBI warrant application, she had a security clearance, and she was author-
leveymg
Jun 2016
#23
I read the issue with providing classified information to his lover (security clearance or not)
DCBob
Jun 2016
#27
It doesn't really matter if either of you guys stay or go. The larger questions are:
jonno99
Jun 2016
#52
His AG, Loretta Lynch, will not indict now, even if the FBI recommends it to her.
amandabeech
Jun 2016
#96
I'm not sure if the President can pardon absent a trial or even an indictment.
amandabeech
Jun 2016
#107
The Presidential power of pardon is part of his Article II powers. He can pardon anyone, some argue
leveymg
Jun 2016
#112
1) your headline is FAKE 2) and as usual your "spin" doesn't match the article.
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#39
This isn't LBN. It's analysis of a news article and a document. I didn't "fake" anything.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#73
Of course this isn't LBN. Doesn't make your headline any less fake. Nor does it make
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#89
We already know a vast number of facts the FBI will confirm because the State Dept, CIA and NSA have
leveymg
Jun 2016
#95
The stuff under the *** doesn't appear in the article at all...interesting.
sharp_stick
Jun 2016
#61
Pathetic. Why is it that you can't point to a single factual assertion that is any way in error?
leveymg
Jun 2016
#83
honestly, projecting "reading comprehension issues" on to others is not a winner for you.
emulatorloo
Jun 2016
#101
As I continue to say, if you have a problem with facts, correct me. Since you don't, that's telling
leveymg
Jun 2016
#108
Your article guts and disproves your amusing theory on the need for culpable mental state
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#68
Well, I guess I'm safe then. The FBI report certainly won't "clear her of any illegal
leveymg
Jun 2016
#98
Your analysis is totally wrong yet again-this article guts your theory that no mens rea is required
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#53
Petraeus was convicted of violating Sec. 1924, which requires specific intent. He was charged w/793
leveymg
Jun 2016
#77
The Libertarian candidate for vice president and former director of the criminal division of ...
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#78
When all you have is an animus toward Hillary Clinton and a failed candidate the whole world....
DemocratSinceBirth
Jun 2016
#90
The Espionage Act is not a strict liability law and so no indictment will be forthcoming
Gothmog
Jun 2016
#97
That is entirely about Sec. 1924, which requires intent, but in Sec. 793 "gross negligence" applies
leveymg
Jun 2016
#123
Again, the officials who actually decide these issues disagree with your vox.com "expert"
leveymg
Jun 2016
#129
I'll repeat what I said to a couple people above. This isn't LBN, it's analysis of an FBI document
leveymg
Jun 2016
#79
so did that woman who slept with Petraeus steal the recording? Article says he recorded it and it wa
Sunlei
Jun 2016
#63
Wall street crimes are a boogeyman, single payer is a unicorn, & FBI investigations involve a fairy.
think
Jun 2016
#106
+1 I'm never buying into that NEW DEMOCRAT/Clinton cult again, Voice for Peace
bobthedrummer
Jun 2016
#120
No actual damage isn't a defense under the Espionage Act. Those who raised it were convicted.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#133
I understand your point on the DUI. That's true, it's against the law to drive under the influence.
napi21
Jun 2016
#139
It is against the law, however, to place classified information on an uncertified server.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#158
I've been here a decade longer than you, and fully intend to remain for another decade. Delete yours
leveymg
Jun 2016
#138
Welcome to the Brave New World of blogging. No ink-stained wretches, just greasy keys,
leveymg
Jun 2016
#147
So you think the emails about drone strikes were the only ones on her server?
pdsimdars
Jun 2016
#165