What happens if Clinton is our nominee and she gets indicted on Criminal Charges ?

[berniepdx420]

Does it mean a President Trump or President Cruz

We should as a Party really consider this issue before it is too late

[Gomez163]

1. As long as she doesn't get "indicted" we're golden.

[winter is coming]

2. A better question would be, "What are the superdelegates going to do

if the FBI recommends charges between now and the convention?"

[Vote2016]

53. So many are lobbyists in fact or lobbyists in effect that it won't matter- they will deliver the

product they sold.

[redstateblues]

78. you ,like so many of you comrades, don't know what the super delegates are

[Vote2016]

80. Anyone with access to the Internet knows what and who the super delegates are.

[CoffeeCat]

56. These are important, serious questions

And our party should be discussing these questions openly.

Many people do not understand the basics--like why sending classified and Top Secret information from a homebrew, unsecured server is a bad thing.

They know the Clinton talking points and nothing more.

They are fools.

[Cobalt Violet]

73. Just a recommendation would be a disaster for the general.

Even if they don't charge her. If they recommend charge this she needs to withdraw from the race. I hope it's resolved soon.

[pkdu]

3. Spellcheck is your friend. But even it cannot stop you posing stupid questions. Nt

[BillZBubb]

8. It is always the most mentally limited people who want to be grammar police.

Even with misspelled words, the post was clear.

Evidently, that cannot stop you from posting stupid responses.

[redstateblues]

79. too bad there's no stupid check!

[djean111]

4. My first thought - she will never be "my" nominee.

And yeah, I think she would be happy to see President Trump or President Cruz, if only she could say she won. I get the impression she believes she has fixed everything.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Maybe she'll say, "Just stop it!" followed by "I'm not a crook!"

[farleftlib]

23. LOL, good one.

Impeachment, a Clinton family tradition.

[berniepdx420]

26. /

[FreakinDJ]

32. DUzy Award

[CorkySt.Clair]

9. You will be the nominee

Stay frosty.

[berniepdx420]

14. laugh out loud ! Do you prefer a Pres. Cruz or a Pres Trump if she's indiCted

[CorkySt.Clair]

15. I'll be voting for you

Fuck those GOP clowns.

[berniepdx420]

21. and I you! Deal?

[CorkySt.Clair]

22. Deal

[HooptieWagon]

10. Unfortunate for her the FBI can't be bought off like superdelegates.

And a black cloud of corruption hanging over a Clinton GE campaign is going to cause a bloodbath downticket.

[FreakinDJ]

33. Indeed - a "Blood Bath" for the Down ticket Candidates

[Gothmog]

11. Why Hillary Clinton is unlikely to be indicted over her private email server

Here are some facts for the silly conservatives to ignore https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-hillary-clinton-is-unlikely-to-be-indicted-over-her-private-email-server/2016/03/08/341c3786-e557-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html

“There are plenty of unattractive facts but not a lot of clear evidence of criminality, and we tend to forget the distinction,” American University law professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert on prosecutions involving classified information, told me. “This is really just a political firestorm, not a criminal case.”

Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly — absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions.

There are two main statutory hooks. Title 18, Section 1924, a misdemeanor, makes it a crime for a government employee to “knowingly remove” classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”

The State Department released 52,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s emails as part of a court-ordered process. Here's what else we learned from the publicly released emails. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
Prosecutors used this provision in securing a guilty plea from former CIA director David H. Petraeus, who was sentenced to probation and fined $100,000. But there are key differences between Petraeus and Clinton.

Petraeus clearly knew the material he provided to Paula Broadwell was classified and that she was not authorized to view it. “Highly classified . . . code word stuff in there,” he told her. He lied to FBI agents, the kind of behavior that tends to inflame prosecutors.

In Clinton’s case, by contrast, there is no clear evidence that Clinton knew (or even should have known) that the material in her emails was classified. Second, it is debatable whether her use of the private server constituted removal or retention of material. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of false statements to federal agents is, as far as we know, absent.....

The argument here would be that Clinton engaged in such “gross negligence” by transferring information she knew or should have known was classified from its “proper place” onto her private server, or by sharing it with someone not authorized to receive it. Yet, as the Supreme Court has said, “gross negligence” is a “nebulous” term. Especially in the criminal context, it would seem to require conduct more like throwing classified materials into a Dumpster than putting them on a private server that presumably had security protections.

My point here isn’t to praise Clinton’s conduct. She shouldn’t have been using the private server for official business in the first place. It’s certainly possible she was cavalier about discussing classified material on it; that would be disturbing but she wouldn’t be alone, especially given rampant over-classification.

The handling of the emails is an entirely legitimate subject for FBI investigation. That’s a far cry from an indictable offense.

Ruth Marcus is hardly a Clinton supporter and these facts are consistent with the analysis posted elsewhere on this board that are not from Fox

[grasswire]

54. old article. nt

[artislife]

12. She goes to the big house?

She may get there anyway, from her own house.

[Gothmog]

13. ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today

There was not crime committed here. Dan Abrams (son of Floyd Abrams) has some good analysis here http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499

In the Wall Street Journal, Judge Michael Mukasey seems to be arguing that because this all just feels wrong and even criminal-y, Clinton should at least be charged with a misdemeanor. That is, of course, not how the law can or should work. In fact, Judge Mukasey learned the hard way that misstating the law when discussing the case against Clinton can be hazardous. Judge Mukasey also echoed the conservative talking point that the case against Clinton is eerily similar to the charges against former general David Petraeus: "This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information." Except that it is nothing like that case. Apart from the possible charge, there are actually few or no similarities from a factual perspective as the lead prosecutor in the Petreaus case explained in an op-ed in USA Today:

"During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest level. . .

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as 'top secret' and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither. Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, 'I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don't have it on it, but I mean there's code word stuff in there.' When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly."

In the law, intent can be everything. Petraeus clearly knew he was violating the law, but based on what we know today, there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time. Even assuming for argument's sake she created the server to keep her emails out of the public eye, that is in no way remotely comparable to the Petraeus case. Efforts to contrast the two cases fall flat factually and legally....

To be clear, none of this means Clinton won't be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know. It's also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown. But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.

Dan is a good lawyer and this is a good analysis of the law on this issue

[Gothmog]

16. Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

Here is a good legal analysis as to why Hillary Clinton will not be indicted http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … shall be fined … or imprisoned.”

The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.

The statute also provides a definition of what constitutes classified information within the meaning of the subsection described above: “[C]lassified information, means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for … restricted dissemination.”

Again, the most important words are the ones I have italicized. First, they indicate that the material must have been classified at the time of disclosure. Post hoc classification, which seems to characterize most of the classified material found on Clinton’s server, cannot support an indictment under this section. Second, information no matter how obviously sensitive does not classify itself; it must be officially and specifically designated as such.

Lesser penalties are provided under 18 USC 1924 which provides that an officer of the United States commits a criminal violation if that person possesses classified “documents or materials” and “knowingly removes such … materials without authority and with the intent to retain such … materials at an unauthorized location.”

Prosecutors would also encounter stumbling blocks if they charged Clinton under this law. First, it is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.

But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer......

Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.

There will be no indictment

[BillZBubb]

27. That's not objective at all. In fact it ignores statutes that make careless handling a crime.

Willful or not.

Since Hillary has now lawyered up, the chances of a indictment have risen. It's still not highly likely, but it is a significant risk nonetheless.

The FBI wouldn't have spent this much time and resources on this if their wasn't prima facie evidence of a crime. The fact that they are progressing to interviews suggest a case is being built.

To blindly write this off as no big deal is just as foolish as claiming an indictment will happen.

[Gothmog]

41. A key word in the Clinton email investigation: 'Knowingly'

Here is a good explanation as to why the silly but funny hopes of the conservatives that the FBI will find a criminal violation by Hillary Clinton are so funny http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-clinton-emails-legal-20150908-story.html

Hillary Rodham Clinton's use of a private email server while secretary of State may have been risky and politically unwise, but many experts in national security law predict it will not lead to criminal charges, based on what is known so far of her handling of classified government material.

That's because even a misdemeanor charge for mishandling classified information would require proof that Clinton knew she was keeping government secrets at "an unauthorized location."

Clinton has repeatedly said that she did not knowingly send or receive emails that were marked classified, and that her use of a personal email server — while not "the best choice" — was not illegal or unauthorized.

But these lawyers also caution that much remains unknown about Clinton's unusual email system and they say the Democratic front-runner remains vulnerable, both politically and legally, because of the ongoing FBI inquiry and a newly energized Republican-led House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others.

That investigation appeared to be going nowhere, but it gained new focus in late February when GOP staffers learned for the first time why they had received only a handful of State Department emails to or from the secretary of State. They had not been told until then that Clinton had not used the State Department's email server and instead relied exclusively on a personal system....

Stewart Baker, who served as top national security lawyer under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, said it does not appear based on what is known now that Hillary Clinton committed a crime when she used a private email server.

"It was a bad idea, a serious lapse in judgment, but that's not the same as saying it leads to criminal liability," he said. On the other hand, the continuing inquiries could turn up damaging evidence, he said, including the possibility that foreign governments tapped into her emails.

"This investigation has a way to go, and it will keep drip, drip, dripping away for a long time," he said.

The knowingly standard is not an easy standard to meet in this case.

[BillZBubb]

17. If she is the nominee and gets indicted, we are screwed. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

If she is indicted before the convention, she'll either suspend her campaign (which I doubt she would without being forced) or the super delegates will take matters into their own hands.

If she wins the election and then is indicted, she'll be impeached.

None of those scenarios are good for Democrats. The best scenario is that the FBI clears her ASAP, preferably before the convention. We don't need this lingering.

[artislife]

18. I actually love this image

He may not have been my Grandma's saint, but he has a pure heart. So I think it suits him.


Hills?

[BillZBubb]

28. Oh come on! Hillary doesn't have cloven hooves!

[artislife]

34. *snort! nt

[jwirr]

19. Or even worse indicted and found guilty? If we are so worried

about getting a Democratic WH then yes this should be considered.

[Punkingal]

20. We're screwed, that's what happens.

[Gothmog]

24. Republicans know Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted. They just can’t say so.

Here are some facts for the conservatives to ignore or not be able to understand https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/04/11/republicans-know-hillary-clinton-is-not-going-to-be-indicted-they-just-cant-say-so/

So for instance, David Petraeus got charged because he showed top secret documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it). But there’s no evidence that Clinton did anything even remotely similar. That’s why, when Politico’s Josh Gerstein examined prior cases similar to this one, he concluded that an indictment is highly unlikely. As Gestein writes:

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules, as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

.......But if you’re a Republican pundit, you know that the idea of Hillary Clinton being led away in handcuffs is just too tantalizing for your audience to resist. And so when the Fox News Sunday panel (consisting of two conservative Republicans and two objective reporters, which is their idea of balance) had the chance to weigh in, the conservatives — Karl Rove and The Post’s George Will — expressed the proper degree of faux outrage at Obama. What’s most interesting about their comments (here’s the transcript) is that neither one of them even tried to make a case that Clinton should be indicted. Instead, they both brought up former IRS official Lois Lerner, to argue that the Obama Justice Department engages in cover-ups of criminal behavior. They implied, without saying outright, that the Justice Department would never issue indictments that would damage Democrats (such as Hillary Clinton).

For the most part, the Clinton email story has been a disappointment to Republicans. They were desperately hoping that the emails would reveal some kind of ghastly malfeasance on Clinton’s part, some smoking gun that would make all Americans realize that she should never be elected president. When that turned out not to be the case, they pinned their hopes on the idea that she would just have to be charged with a crime eventually. I have no doubt that people like Will and Rove now understand that that isn’t going to happen either.

But having gone this far, they need to keep up appearances, and they also know that just talking about her emails serves to convince people that something scandalous must have happened. So they are laying the groundwork to argue, if and when she doesn’t get indicted, that it must only be because Barack Obama’s corrupt administration quashed the investigation and hid the truth from the public.

And down where the conservative rank and file get their information — the talk radio rants, the right-wing blogs, the breathless chain emails — these two contradictory ideas are both widely circulated. Clinton is about to be indicted, and Clinton won’t be indicted because the fix is in. The assumption in either case is that of course she committed crimes, even if no one can say exactly what they were. Because she’s Hillary Clinton, right? What more do you need to know?

[Gothmog]

25. Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath

There will be no indictment http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/waiting-clinton-indictment-dont-hold-your-breath

The fact remains, however, that such a scenario is pretty far-fetched. Politico’s Josh Gerstein took a closer look today at the legal circumstances, and the reasons Clinton’s foes shouldn’t hold their breaths.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but – in nearly all instances that were prosecuted – aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form.

Politico’s examination seems to have only been able to find one person who sincerely believes Clinton will face prosecution: former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R), who was a prosecutor and a Justice Department official before his partisan antics made him something of a clownish joke.

Among more objective observers, the idea of Clinton facing an indictment seems, at best, implausible. This is very much in line with a recent American Prospect examination, which reached the same conclusion.

TPM’s Josh Marshall published a related piece in February, after speaking to a variety of law professors and former federal prosecutors about the Clinton story. “To a person,” Josh wrote, they agreed the idea of a Clinton indictment is “very far-fetched.”

[northernsouthern]

37. Your sources are very biased.

I was reading and then I realized it was WaPo and Maddow? Not cool. My understanding thus far is that she may have used a person to forward copied top secret emails to her for security. She unlike the others that used private emails, she used a whole private server, and then deleted tons of the emails ahead of time, some of which have turned up and are work related. I am not sating that anything will come from this, but it will be back on the airwaves general election non-stop. many of these stories gloss over the private email server and compare it with private emails. Not sure how they set up their private emails to only forward on to government servers though. But is sounds like we are only getting half truths from all sides right now.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

29. We get "educated" how an indictment is actually a good thing.

And that it isn't a real indictment but a security review indictment.


I don't think she will be indicted.

[berniepdx420]

31. NO NO.. the FBI does not conduct Security Reviews... this is a Criminal Investigation

[Gothmog]

35. DOJ: No, We Weren't Asked To Launch A Criminal Probe Into Clinton's Emails

The original report from the NYT on which this story was based was changed and this thread is based on a false and misleading premise or claim. The DOJ has confirmed that there is no criminal probe into the Clinton e-mails http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/doj-no-hillary-clinton-criminal-inquiry

The U.S. Justice Department said Friday that, contrary to media reports, it did not receive a request to open a criminal investigation into how sensitive information was handled in Hillary Clinton's private emails.

The New York Times reported Thursday that two inspectors general asked the Justice Department "to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state." The language of that report originally cast Clinton as a target of the requested probe, but notably was changed after Times reporters received complaints from Clinton's presidential campaign.

The agency now says that it what it received was "not a criminal referral," but a request related to the potential compromise of classified information, according to Washington Post report Sari Horowitz:

Sari Horwitz ✔@SariHorwitz
The Department of Justice now correcting their earlier statement & saying the referral regarding Clinton emails was not a criminal inquiry.

Sari HorwitzVerified account
‏@SariHorwitz
Correct from DOJ ept has received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information. It is not a criminal referral.”

Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the top Democrat on the select House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, also rejected the notion that the inspectors general of the State Department and intelligence agencies asked for a criminal probe into Clinton's email account

.

[grasswire]

57. why is it that you never provide dates for the material you quote? nt

[Gothmog]

62. You are welcome to read the material by going to the links

[msongs]

30. what happens if bernie pitches over dead if he is the nominee? good for him its never happened nt

[fasttense]

42. What happens if Hillary pitches over dead if she's the nominee? There is only 6 years between them.

The odds are Not likely for either one. And Raygun (who I had hoped would pitch over dead when he was president) never did even at the ripe old age of 78.

[Faux pas]

36. If they're gonna indict

they should do it now so she can get out of our way!

[grasswire]

58. she could get out of our way today

...and should do so. The playing out of this new Clinton psychodrama on America is producing far too much stress.

[riversedge]

69. It is only stressing some Sanders supporters and RW. Hard to tell the difference

between the two many days.

[grasswire]

70. truth is truth and should have no allegiance to party in America.

Those who want to live like people did in the Soviet Union, where even certain words could not be said, and no criticism was allowed of leaders ought think twice about where that takes us.

TRUTH shields us from TYRANNY.

And I will never apologize for being brave enough to face it no matter who is affected.

[Faux pas]

74. So true!

[Maru Kitteh]

38. What happens if all the pigs fly north for the summer? How will you

get your bacon for breakfast? Oh well. I guess you'll have to try something else.

[berniepdx420]

39. some light reading for you if you wish to be informed

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5497-what-are-the-differences-between-the-civil-and

[Lil Missy]

40. Your concern is noted.

[berniepdx420]

44. Sleeping on the job I see.. you will be the of the most surprised when you wake up and see a

Pres. Cruz or Pres. Trump..

[Lil Missy]

49. I think you are the one who is going to be surprised.

[Lil Missy]

43. You seem to be "concerned" often.

I think you are just trying to stir shit.

[berniepdx420]

46. see my above post.. and here's some reading for you

https://law.lclark.edu/live/news/5497-what-are-the-differences-between-the-civil-and

http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/

[Gothmog]

45. There was no criminal referral

The claim that there is a criminal referral here is really sad and wrong. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913

Reuters: Inspector General Referral Is Not Criminal. Reuters reported on July 24 that there was "no criminal referral over the Clinton emails":

The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to the private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral. [Reuters, 7/24/15]

AP: U.S. Official Said That Request Of DOJ "Doesn't Suggest Wrongdoing By Clinton Herself." The Associated Press quoted an anonymous U.S. official who noted that the referral did not implicate Clinton in any wrongdoing:

The New York Times first reported the referral. The Clinton campaign said Friday that she "followed appropriate practices in dealing with classified materials." Spokesman Nick Merrill said emails deemed classified by the administration were done so after the fact, not when they were sent.

One U.S. official said it was unclear whether classified information was mishandled and the referral doesn't suggest wrongdoing by Clinton herself. [Associated Press, 7/24/15]

Wash. Post: Officials Say Clinton "Is Not A Target" Of FBI Probe. The Washington Post reported that government officials said Clinton is "not a target" of the FBI's investigation:

Hillary Rodham Clinton's attorney has agreed to provide the FBI with the private server that housed her e-mail during her four years as secretary of state, Clinton's presidential campaign said Tuesday.
..

The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target.

The FBI's efforts have included contacting the Denver-based technology firm that helped manage the Clintons' unusual private ­e-mail system. [The Washington Post, 8/11/15]

The GOP and the Conservatives are so scared of Hillary Clinton that they are making crap up and hoping that their lies will hurt Clinton.

Facts here do not support the GOP silly claims

[jmg257]

64. (pssst - that's from August of last year...loooong investigation since then. LOTS of new facts too!

[Gothmog]

66. No there has been no new developments other than Fox News idiots speculation

The chances of an indictment are very slim at best http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/06/benghazi-fabricator-demands-hillary-clinton-ind/207808

Media Reports Have Repeatedly Confirmed That The FBI Probe Is Not Criminal In Nature And Is Not Targeting Hillary Clinton

Washington Post: FBI Probe Is "Focused On Ensuring The Proper Handling Of Classified Material." Hillary Clinton "is not a target" of the FBI investigation, which is "focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material." From The Washington Post's August 11, 2015, report:

The inquiry by the FBI is considered preliminary and appears to be focused on ensuring the proper handling of classified material. Officials have said that Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is not a target. [The Washington Post, 8/11/15]

NY Times: Hillary Clinton "Is Not A Target Of The Investigation." In an August 14, 2015, article, The New York Times explained that Hillary Clinton is not a target of the FBI's investigation into her private email server. The Times wrote:

Law enforcement officials have said that Mrs. Clinton, who is seeking the 2016 Democratic nomination for president, is not a target of the investigation, and she has said there is no evidence that her account was hacked. There has also been no evidence that she broke the law, and many specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information in her account was probably of marginal consequence. [The New York Times, 8/14/15]

CNN: Clinton "Has Not Personally Been Declared The Subject Of The Investigation Into Her Emails." Recapping an August 19, 2015, interview between CNN host Chris Cuomo and Donald Trump, CNN.com noted that Clinton "has not personally been declared the subject of the investigation into her emails":

Cuomo countered that Petraeus knew the information was classified and intentionally passed it along, but there has been no indication to date that the Justice Department believes Clinton intentionally shared information she knew was classified. She has not personally been declared the subject of the investigation into her emails. http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/donald-trump-chris-cuomo-cnn-interview/[CNN.com, 8/21/15 ]

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

47. She won't. This is like saying BushCo *should* go to jail. Not happening

[SDjack]

48. Hillary will woman-up, withdraw from the race, and endorse Bernie. And that is

what Bernie will do if he is disqualified.

[FreakinDJ]

50. I disagree - Hillary would gladdly take the Democratic Party down with her

Some one as Egocentric as Hillary and the "It's My Turn" campaign knows no bounds

[grasswire]

59. I am afraid that you are right.

And she will put the blame on everyone else, including the voters.

[Vote2016]

51. Hello President Cruz, goodbye reproductive freedom, progressive taxation, and voting rights

[berniepdx420]

52. .

[dana_b]

55. she loses n/t

[cui bono]

60. She's going to lose the GE either way. n/t

[Gothmog]

63. If you are silly enough to really believe this, then open Irish brokerage account

You would get great odds http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-winner

[cui bono]

65. Actually, I misspoke. I don't believe she will be in the GE. n/t

[Gothmog]

67. You can also buy an option contract on that silly belief

Predictwise has here at 93% to be the nominee. That would equate to a great return if you are silly enough to buy an option contract http://predictwise.com/politics/2016-president-democratic-nomination

[ViseGrip]

61. Bernie will be there....the letter already went to Comey...

[Gothmog]

68. Clinton emails continue to be non-scandal, disappointing Republicans

This non-scandal is also disappointing sad Sanders supporters who have wised up and know that Sanders will not be the nominee absent an indictment https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/04/clinton-emails-continue-to-be-non-scandal-disappointing-republicans/

Now let’s be honest. When this story broke, Republicans were desperately hoping that we would learn that some criminal wrongdoing or catastrophic security breach had taken place, so they could then use that against Clinton in her run for the White House. But that turns out not to be the case. So the next best thing from their perspective is that there’s some vaguely-defined “scandal” that the public doesn’t really understand, but that voters will hold against her if you just repeat the words “Clinton email scandal” often enough.

They may have gotten that. I’ve certainly seen plenty of voters quoted in press accounts saying some version of, “I don’t trust Clinton, ’cause you know, that email thing.” I’m sure 99 percent of them couldn’t tell you what they think Clinton actually did that’s so awful, but they know that there was something about emails, and it was, like, a scandal, right?

In recent weeks, I’ve had a couple of liberal friends and relatives ask me, with something approaching panic, “I just heard that Clinton is about to be indicted. Is that true?!?” The answer is no, but they heard that because it’s something conservatives say constantly. Tune to to talk radio or surf through conservative web sites, and before long you’ll hear someone say that the Clinton indictment is coming any day now. Donald Trump, with his characteristically tenuous relationship to reality, frequently says that she’s about to be indicted or that she won’t be permitted to run for president because she’ll be on trial. It hasn’t happened and it won’t happen, but that isn’t going to stop them from saying it.

Finally, there’s a phrase you should watch out for when you see this issue discussed: “Drip, drip, drip.” Sometimes it’ll be a Republican partisan using it, but more often it will be some pundit explaining why the issue is important. What “drip, drip drip” means is that despite the fact that there was no crime and no security breach, the media will keep discussing the story as the investigations continue, and that will cause political difficulty for Clinton. “Drip, drip, drip” is this controversy’s version of, “it’s out there,” meaning, “there isn’t anything scandalous about the substance of this matter, but here’s how we’ll justify talking about it as though it actually were something scandalous.”

I don’t say that to justify Clinton’s original decision to set up the private server. She shouldn’t have done that, not only because it was against department policy, but also because she should have been extra careful, knowing her history, to make sure she minded her Ps and Qs on everything like this. She should have known that once she started running for president there were going to be FOIA requests and lawsuits and investigations of everything she did as Secretary of State. So yes, that was an error in judgment. But it wasn’t a crime — and it appears that no bad consequences for the country came of it — so we shouldn’t treat it like it was.

[Thinkingabout]

71. She is not going to be indicted. If before the convention she

Could relinquished her delegates to someone of her choice. If after she is in office the VP would take over. In other words, if the question is will Sanders be the nominee, no, won't happen.

[berniepdx420]

72. haha... love the way you craft your bull s***

[arely staircase]

75. She would still win. nt

[restorefreedom]

76. my guess is she will not step aside

she will trott out the 'innocent until proven guilty", "i will beat this", blah blah. she wants this so bad she can taste it, and dws and the corrupt supers will not replace her.

but indictment or no, if a recommendation is made, its trump in a landslide. if no recommendation is made, many will think obama fixed it for her, so it will still be trump, but perhaps not a complete blowout.

lets face reality. Hillary nominee means a trump administration. its that simple.

[redstateblues]

77. Bernie's only path to the nomination. Pathetic