Two reasons why I don't think Hillary's going to be indicted.

[politicaljunkie41910]

Here's why I think Hillary is not going to be indicted. This morning I was watching Morning Joe and 2 things were said that convinced me that Hillary will not be indicted.

1. There was a guy, Adam Goldman, from the Washington Post discussing the article in today's WP about Hillary's computer guy's immunity. He stated that the case was winding up and that he was doubtful that Hillary would be indicted. He further stated that everyone familiar with the case believes that what General Petraues did was much worse than anything they are accusing Hillary of doing, and Gen Petraues ended up pleading guilty to a misdemeanor. FTR, Hillary is being represented by the same attorney who represented Gen Petraeus (the WP guy didn't say that but I have read this elsewhere.) and there is no way Hillary, a lawyer in her own right, and her legal counsel who represented Petraues is going to stand by while she's indicted for something that wasn't even 'marked' when Petraeus got away with just a misdemeanor for knowingly passing approximately 8 classified documents to his mistress during pillowtalk. Also even though Petraeus was the CIA chief at the time his affair was disclosed, his affair with Paula Broadwell began while he was still an Army General and Commander of ALL U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. As a military officer he could have been charged and jailed for simply having sex with a woman who was not his wife, as can all members of the US military. Adultery is punishable under the UCMJ (and every soldier and even Federal Government Civilians are informed of this prior to being deployed overseas) and as the highest ranking military officer in charge of ALL U.S. and NATO forces he deserved to be held to a higher standard than the men who were under his command.

2. Mark Halprin the Bloomberg News prick that hates Obama was on (as he is most days) when Adam Goldman said what he did about Hillary, Halprin just muttered something to the affect agreeing that it was winding down and agreed that it was less likely that Hillary would be charged with anything. Though, about a month ago, Halprin had made an announcement on Morning Joe, in response to Joe S making a statement that he had heard that Hillary's investigation was wrapping up, Halprin stated that his contacts inside the DoJ were telling him that Hillary was going to be indicted soon. Cokie Roberts who was also part of the discussion panel immediately jerked up and chimed in and said, that she had heard no such thing from her many contacts inside the DoJ. Steve Ratner, the Economics Expert aka the Chart Guy, also immediately chimed in and stated he hadn't heard anything like that either. Besides he said, there is a protocol that the DoJ must follow, and to date Hillary Clinton hasn't even been interviewed by the DoJ. He said there is no way that an indictment is pending if they have not even interviewed her. Cokie Roberts agreed. Halprin immediately grew silent and didn't say another word. I said to myself, he just pulled that sh!t out of his behind to make himself sound big and I reported that here then. This morning Halprin was damn near silent on the subject.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. No matter what she may have done, she won't be indicted

because she's Hillary.

[politicaljunkie41910]

16. No she shouldn't be punished because she didn't originate the document.

[Press Virginia]

19. That's irrelevant.

If she didn't report the receipt of the information to her unsecured server, which retained that information, she has committed a crime.

It is unlawful to retain classified information outside a secure location and it's actually punishable by up to 3yrs in jail.

[RufusTFirefly]

51. Besides, it's her time

I'm sure the grand jury will understand.

[RobertEarl]

2. Anyone of us would be in jail already

She's too well connected and powerful to be served justice.

[MaggieD]

5. For what?

Everything that they found was classified AFTER it was emailed between state department employees and her. What is the crime you imagine?

[RobertEarl]

9. For anything

Even if they caught her with a bag of pot in South Carolina she'd walk. Duh!

Anyway, the FBI is on the case. If she suddenly quits to spend more time with her family, it would be wonderful, right?

[Control-Z]

23. Wrong.

So tired of this crap. So tired.

[RobertEarl]

26. I know

But she is in favor of busting people for pot!

I would imagine 5 years in jail in SC, depending on who your daddy is.

[Control-Z]

30. I hadn't heard that.

I'd like a link.

[RobertEarl]

32. Google is not your friend?

There are a lot of people in jail for a bag of pot. If this is news to you, I don't know what to say. Just smh.

Oh, yeah, Hillary is against legalizing pot. Did you know that? What do you know?

[Control-Z]

36. Your claim.

You provide the link. What hillary has said is that she would like to have research done.

[RobertEarl]

40. That would be cool, eh?

She can ask her 'no inhale' husband?

Or just inhale herself?

Nixon, whose SOS is Hill's BFF, had a commission that reported that pot should be legal. He refused to google any more than that and it's been down hill ever since. Busted!

But then one would have to know some history to grok that, eh?

Go back and read your first reply to me here and inhale that as my final answer.

[Control-Z]

42. So you won't be backing up

your original claim. OK.

Have a good night.

[Press Virginia]

21. Ummm no it wasn't.

The IG made it clear, last summer, that 2 emails in the initial sample were TS/SCI when originated and were not retroactive classifications.

[MaggieD]

39. Link?

Thanks.

[Press Virginia]

44. Here

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article28519741.html

[snagglepuss]

34. The other day an OP by someone with much experience dealing with classified

material stated "Everything is born "classified"". Very insightful discussion about Classified material.

[jfern]

45. The information is classified even if unmarked.

[politicaljunkie41910]

10. Not me and I doubt that you would either. There is a reason that classified material is marked.

Classified material is marked as such to prevent an unintended disclosure. The person initiating the document is responsible for making sure that it has the appropriate markings. Hillary saving the document to her server, while it might not have been authorized, is no different than me saving a document to my hard drive. I would not be going to jail because someone sent me an unmarked document that later was determined to be classified, and neither would you unless you are a fool or someone who just happens to like jail.

[RobertEarl]

15. Think of it as some kinds of porn

They find it on you server? You're busted.

There is no excuse for her to have US secrets on her personal server. The FBI is looking into it. The question is will justice be served?

[politicaljunkie41910]

18. No I won't, because it is not porn, and depending on what the circumstances are, some types of porn

will send you to jail, so the two are not equatable.

[RobertEarl]

20. I know

Top US secrets are much more liable to get our agents killed.

Or more money going into the wrong hands.

No wonder the FBI is making a federal case out of this situation. If it was nothing the FBI would have dropped it long ago.

[pkdu]

52. Best reply to a know-nothing of the day...but you could have added..

[Press Virginia]

24. Yeaaaah...you'd better tell the government to revise its own NDAs

Which explicitly say the signee is responsible for the safeguarding of all classified information, marked or UNMARKED, that they have access to.

The IG already shot down the retroactive classification argument when he confirmed 2 of his initial sample contained TS/SCI information at the time it was sent

[Cleita]

11. Exactly. As a former FLOTUS and SOS, she's in the same club as the

Bush, Cheney and Kissinger war criminals. They can't be touched.

[RobertEarl]

17. It's sad isn't it?

I like to think Bernie will alter that present scenario.

[politicaljunkie41910]

22. Bullhockey. But as a lawyer she knows the law and she ain't going to jail over BS

and neither would you. This is still America, not Russia. Give me an example of someone who went to jail having done nothing and I'll show you someone who has a fool for a lawyer.

[smiley]

31. ...

http://www.biography.com/people/rubin-carter-9542248

[d_r]

55. ...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ex-alabama-governor-get-a-raw-deal/

[Press Virginia]

37. Storing classified government information outside a secured area

Is actually a felony.

Send me an e-mail with TS information, I'm not at fault. However, if I retain that information, which belongs to the government, it's punishable up to 3 years for each and every document

[politicaljunkie41910]

46. So if someone sends you classified information accidently what do you do with it?

If you return it to the sender, you're now guilty of sending classified information via an unapproved channel. And if you simply delete it, it's not really gone, you just can't see it. but it could still be there. I know the answer already though I wouldn't disclose it here. I just was responding to your simple statement that you can't keep it, which doesn't deal with the real problem of what to do with it for right now.

Besides I know that I have received tons of email that at times filled up my inbox and I had to move it to my archive files before I even had a chance to read it in order to be able to receive new email that I may be expecting. So it is not unusual that someone may send you something that you haven't read yet, and you could discover it only later. Hillary has said many times that the State Dept has totally separate channels for sending regular email versus classified email, and I believe her.

[Press Virginia]

48. Do you have your own server which stores

the e-mails you send and receive?
did you save the e-mail anywhere?
Are you a civilian without a clearance?

Then you delete it.

If you work with classified materials and receive it via unauthorized methods, you are required to report the breach to your security officer or the appropriate agency security officer for instruction.

In her latest batch of e-mails she requests to have something forwarded to the NY Times, unless it is classified. That shows that she was aware that she was receiving sensitive information via her e-mail. Furthermore, the SAP info is maintained on a secure network....how did it get on her server?

[MaggieD]

3. Well not unless they also intend to indict Rice and Powell

And create some new laws to apply retroactively. People that think she will be indicted are living in a dream world. They are letting their hate do their thinking instead of their brain.

[Arazi]

4. Petraeus was forced to resign. What will HRC do?

Frankly, I do NOT want to see her implicated. It has disastrous effects on down ticket Dems and I'll be furious if a HRC scandal mars Obama's legacy

[MaggieD]

6. The cases have zero in common

[Arazi]

8. Yet it's the comparison the OP makes

[politicaljunkie41910]

27. I made the comparison because the Washington Post reference I made mentioned Petraues.

The difference is that Petraues knowingly gave classified information to an unauthorized source, whom he also happened to be having an affair with. If you can't discern the difference or understand what I said having gone to such depths to make it as clear as possible, than I can't help you.

[Press Virginia]

38. Both HRC and Petreaus retained classified information in a nonsecure manner

So there's that

[politicaljunkie41910]

14. As I said, Petraeus' affair began while he was a General and the Commander of US and NATO forces.

Also adultry is a crime punishable under the UCMJ. We're talking jail time. That is the reason I suspect he was forced to resign. There is no sex of any kind allowed for soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. As the highest ranking military man, Petraeus had to be held accountable for his actions since I'm certain that there are soldiers who have been punished for having sex in Afghanistan.

[DebDoo]

7. He'll take all the blame

The IT guy asked for immunity so that he could take all the blame. Hillary won't be indicted.

[snagglepuss]

43. that's not how immunity works. People only get immunity if they are able

to implicate others. The question is who has he implicated.

[Press Virginia]

50. Exactly

The campaign might say, publicly, they are happy he's cooperating but I better there is some ass puckering happening

[Hoyt]

12. That's not what Sanders' supporters want to hear. It's their best way forward.

[hill2016]

13. they could

interview her in front of a grand jury.

Just because she's not been interviewed doesn't been she won't been indicted.

[politicaljunkie41910]

33. If you bothered to read the OP, it was stated that it's DoJ policy to interview a person before they

are indicted. I didn't make this up, I just reported what others who make their living reporting the news had stated.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Its not like its a real crime, like the pot smoking DWS votes to send cancer patients to prison over

[DCBob]

28. Yes, agreed for another reason.

They need evidence that she willfully and knowingly sent/received classified emails on her personal server. As far as I know that has not been established. Just mistakenly or accidentally doing it would not be a crime.

[lovemydog]

35. Will the FBI release a statement saying the investigation is over?

It seems incredibly unfair in our country where one is innocent until proven guilty that these 'rumors' of 'investigations' are used to smear via innuendo. And I really believe I would say that about anyone, right or left wing or centrist or corporate or who I like or dislike.

[quickesst]

41. I predict great outrage...

..... and disappointment for many here at Democratic Underground when their dreams of an indictment really are.......just dreams.

[LuvLoogie]

54. The Revolution is like a 6 and 8 team hoping to back in

To a wildcard berth.

[quickesst]

59. Yep...

.....odds not looking too good for them.

[Motown_Johnny]

47. The appearance of impropriety should be enough to disqualify her for President.

"Not Indicted" is not the standard that our party should be setting.


Trump has already been trying out his "She is being protected" attack line and he will have a couple months to refine it before really needing to use it. If she is questioned by the FBI, or anyone else for that matter, then she is going to be hammered with it day and night.


With this hanging over her head, she never should have run.

[politicaljunkie41910]

49. Says you. So what is the appearance of impropriety that you alledge?

She was the Sec of State before the policy was changed by the administration. Yes the policy did change and yes other Sec of State had private servers. FTR, the Office of Personnel Mgmt's server was hacked by the Chinese and information on tens of thousands of employees was stolen. The IRS' server was hacked and thousands of taxpayer's data was compromised. While her use of a personal server was not within State Dept protocol, who knows, data on her personal server may have been more secure than on the State Dept server. While I'm not justifying her breach of protocol, she is the one who answers for that. But I can identify with the fact that if you're Sec of State, you're busy and sometimes Sh!t Happens.

[tularetom]

53. When the president does it.....

I think he was right, and its not just presidents. We have a clear double standard in this country.

But regardless of whether or not Clinton gets indicted for this, half of Americans believe she did something criminal. And theres still the whole business of pay to play at the Clinton Foundation and the muddling of business between the foundation and the Clinton state department.

[Persondem]

56. Good post. Thank you. K & R nt

[Peace Patriot]

57. I don't trust any of the "players" in this article...

...and certainly not the CIA...er, WaPo, nor "Morning Joe."

I don't necessarily believe Hillary did anything wrong in this instance, though we don't have much info. I do think I sort of understand what they're talking about. Hillary herself was responsible to properly identify the classification of documents. They are "born classified." Whatever she wrote, whatever she received. She was the top authority in that agency. That's part of her job, to be responsible for her own docs or docs she's using re classification. If they remained on the secure server, fine. But she apparently copied & pasted and removed some header (the "born classified" classification?) to her personal, insecure server.

It sounds all very technical and like something where you could make mistakes easily, especially if you're very busy (although, for ordinary people, mistakes are not permitted, apparently).

Anyway, I think that whole part of it is absurd.

I'm more interested in

1. WHY is the FBI pursuing this?
2. How does the CIA view her candidacy?
3. Does the CIA now have control of the 'TRADE SECRET' code in all our vote tabulation systems?
4. Why is Robt Kagan now in the picture (founding Neocon/PNAC--endorsed Hillary last week)?
5. Kissinger (pal of Hillary's, war criminal--a player in whatever's going on)?
6. Somebody blackmailing somebody? One group blackmailing another?
7. The import of the Saudi/Clinton Foundation arms deal in this context?

I'm afraid that most Hillary supporters think this campaign is all about feminism, and I think they're wrong. I think that maybe the feminism that has drawn them all in--and in which they sincerely believe--may be a mask for something else, perhaps devised by David Brock, of the cold snake eyes--Hillary's 'Karl Rove'--to create a sort of "Matrix" campaign, (i.e., somewhat illusory).

I followed the Valerie Plane events very closely, and there are "wheels within wheels" at work between the CIA and the Neocons. I think actually there was a war going on between them, mostly behind the scenes, circa 2005-2006 (with Rumsfeld resigning in late 2006, just after the Dems won Congress). I think Rumsfeld was pushed out (not voluntary) by the CIA, Bush Sr and military brass, cuz they didn't want Rumsfeld-Cheney to nuke Iran (too much $$$ interest in China, which was getting its oil from Iran).

So that's what's making me wonder about Kagan. What on earth is doing in Clinton's campaign and nascent administration? And where do these various agencies and actors stand, as to sabotaging or promoting her campaign? Also, there's Obama (where does he stand with these actors/agencies? What is he thinking?)

You see, I think this investigation is very weird in several ways. It reminds me a bit of the Fitzgerald investigation (re outing of Plame) which went as high as Cheney's aide Libby (fell on his sword, jailed briefly) but stopped dead there and shut down (after which Rumsfeld resigned and all talk of nuking Iran went away).

Well, I'm just looking at visible pieces right now, and asking questions. There are some things about this investigation that are very odd. It is strangely timed--right in the middle of a presidential campaign with a candidate being a potential target. It is being handled in an odd way with the public--bits and pieces coming out, making Clinton look dubious or incompetent or criminal, then the threat seems to go away, then it comes back. And they're going to be doing this all the way into May?

Still could be they're just going to dismiss it (just doing due diligence) but it could be they're after something we can't see--a transaction, an entanglement, something that compromises something or somebody, or some use that Hillary was putting the private server to, that was criminal or involved others in crime (big powerful others), or to create a backchannel to somewhere around CIA or military?

IF this IS a serious investigation (not just classified protocols), esp. if it involved national security, or war between powerful rival groups, they WOULDN'T TELL US anything much that is useful to truly understanding it. We'd have to guess from bit and pieces, and watch on-going visible events closely as to motives or goals.

With Kagan involved, I have to suspect that a war is being planned. Is it the same sort of scenario--CIA against the war plan, Neocons trying to make a comeback and ride Hillary into the White House (as they did with Bush Jr)? FBI still has Comey as head, who opposed Neocons forcing AG (on his sick bed) to sign torture authorization (or was it spying authorization? --can't recall). He doesn't like Neocons (reportedly anyway).

It's interesting that Rep. Tulsi Gabbard quit her DNC spot and came out for Sanders, and her reason is her FEAR OF WAR. That's what she said. She's an Iraq vet and concerned about more U.S. interventions. Could Neocons be planning to subvert Kerry's peace initiative to Iran, get more easily into Iran now, and blow up something, start a war, destabilize that country, too, and--I don't know--establish a military protectorate over the whole ME?

That is certainly a goal of PNAC--to directly control the whole region. And I don't imagine that those bastards give up easily. They have a Project. For. A. New. American. Century.

I don't know yet if I'm just spinning webs, or I'm on to something. Running the USA is not just about winning a campaign and satisfying ambition or political goals. Certainly we learned that from Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. The prize is UNCONSCIONABLE POWER. And the path to that kind of power is fraught with seeable and unseeable dangers and temptations.

If there is such a PNAC plan, what is this investigation for? A CIA or FBI control on Hillary? Use of the 'TRADE SECRET' code in the voting machines to award her the presidency or deny it? Hillary apparently is a member of some 'Democratic' version of PNAC, which meets with the Neocon group. How deep is she into this Evil Empire ideology?

And are Hillary's probably fairly innocent, core feminist supporters just a sort of window dressing to draw more women into support for their war? They do tend to approve--or rather simply to ignore--a lot of rotten and warmongering things she's done. She can do no wrong. Everything is a sexist attack.

One other thing: Susan Sarandon spoke recently about fear in Hollywood among women she's tried to recruit for Sanders. They say they support Sanders but "fear coming out of the closet," fear "being shamed". Whatever is that about? Connected to the "alpha" girl clubbiness and thoughtless snark we see here?

[silenttigersong]

58. Very Intelligent questioning

I have wondered if it could be blackmail,or some clever agenda by the Clinton's ,to control the media .

[KoKo]

60. Did you see this: NYT 2 Part Investigative Report?

Its a very long read. But, the video at the beginning is well worth the watch before reading. The only coverage of this investigation that I've seen was on "Democracy Now" yesterday where Amy Goodman interviewed one of the two reporters. That also is an interesting watch.

Just to give you a clue (if you've not read it) the investigation shows a side of Hillary as SOS that is concerning to "some entity" in our government questioning Hillary's judgement and conduct and putting out a warning. I know NYT still has the taint of Judith Miller and the fake WMD claim. But, it doesn't mean that they don't have a few reporters who might have other connections who might have valuable information that the public needs to know before she is elected President.

--------------

Hillary Clinton,‘Smart Power’and a Dictator’s Fall--NYT Investigative Report: Parts 1 & 2

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=1