It's NOT a right wing smear.

[panader0]

The number of posts I see calling the investigations into the HRC e-mails and the
Clinton Foundation "right wing smears" are demonstrative of the self deception of the
HRC supporters. Willful ignorance is what it is. Please HRC supporters, open your eyes.
Crimes were committed. Whether or not she is indicted remains to be seen. But the full
extent of this crap has yet to be revealed. It will get worse for HRC.

[jillan]

1. The director of the FBI that is investigating these charges is an Obama appointee.

He is a republican, but our Democratic President appointed him to his current position.

'nuff said.

[Demsrule86]

3. Oh please

Plenty of GOP type FBI guys...stringing it along on orders of McConnell most likely. Nothing will come of it.

[jillan]

12. You can say Oh Please all you want. It doesn't change the fact that she IS under FBI investigation.

[Demsrule86]

71. By a Republican

who is dragging the process out to help his GOP buddies. She did nothing wrong.

[leeroysphitz]

77. lol Another VAST right-wing conspiracy? Poor Hillary just can't catch a break, can she? n/t

[Demsrule86]

83. the only thing new

is gullible Bernie supporters post this crap.

[JudyM]

86. It's gullible to ignore facts. 1 fact is DOJ has announced that FBI is preparing a referral to them

for prosecution, targeting her use of the private server.

But you refuse to chew on that because you can't swallow it.

Face the truth. Don't be like a climate change denier. This is real and she's going down.

[politicaljunkie41910]

97. Oh so just where is that referral you referred to?

In your HEAD??? Because no one but you know anything about it. If and when the DOJ makes a referral for prosecution against HRC, I guarantee you, everyone will know. We won't have to check with JudyM on DU to verify it.

[JudyM]

107. Sweetheart, DOJ made that statement in a court filing nearly 2 weeks ago. Where have u been?

[politicaljunkie41910]

108. So If the DoJ made a statement that they were preparing to indict someone two week ago

particularly, HRC, than you should have that link bookmarked and ready to go. So where is it?

[JudyM]

116. You don't read carefully. Referral is coming to them about her use of the server.

I don't have it bookmarked, but Google is your friend. It was a filing with the FOIA court, if that helps.

[TipTok]

96. That's just false on its face...

Just based on facts reported to the public.

The question will be who takes the fall and to what level.

Someone will take a hit. Likely not her though. It pays to know all the right people.

[floriduck]

103. I'd like to refer to this comment as left wing. But I decided neoliberal wing is more appropriate.

There are no left or center wingers representing Hill.

[Demsrule86]

119. You don't get to decide that

The arrogance of the Bernie supporters is limitless it seems.

[floriduck]

134. I already did. If you can make your opinions known, others can too. nm

[brush]

129. Stop praying. I ain't gonna happen. No Hillary perp-walk in cuffs. No Bernie nomination.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[amborin]

20. you are impugning some investigators who, by all appearance and evidence, seem to have integrity

[Demsrule86]

74. Republicans don't have integrity

And this could have been wrapped up long ago...they have nothing and just want to cause trouble. It is no accident that a GOP is involved in this...lots of Bush supporters and Clinton haters in the FBI. In the end, they will say there is nothing to indict...and then Congress will hold hearings to try to continue the smear campaign...seen this play before. Desperate Bernie voters breathlessly fall for GOP shenanigans...because sadly their candidate can get the nomination no other way...Bernie lost the primary...Well, it won't happen; the GOP will continue to beat this dead horse...but Bernie will be done in less than a month ...and I am so ready to not have to think about Bernie who I consider has become a Trump enabler.

[840high]

45. Comey is a decent guy.

[ContinentalOp]

56. LOL, so this Republican pig is a "decent guy" and "has integrity"

While Hillary is the evil corrupt republican. Gotta love that Sanders logic!

[840high]

64. Don't put words in my

mouth. Comey is a decent guy.

[timmymoff]

68. We were struggling on whether Hillary actualy is a democrat.

Considering she now seeks money from Jeb Bush mega donors and Ted Cruz's. She has a ton of class , sadly it is all low. Ridiculous supporting someone courting GOP money and influence. You are damn right there needs to be a purity test because this woman will sell her soul for a potato chip.

[Demsrule86]

78. No he is not.

I can not imagine Obama made this guy head of the FBI

http://americablog.com/2013/07/obama-fbi-nominee-james-comey-not-good-guy.html


&quot a) in charge, and proudly so, of a “terrorism” case that began with a detention without charges, continued with made-up and spurious charges, and ended with a conviction won against an American whose treatment during confinement (on the American mainland) turned his brain to jello;

(b) general counsel for a defense contractor while it was busy hushing up a whistleblower who exposed $24 billion contract that they were building vessels for the Coast Guard, on a $24 billion contract, that buckled and leaked on the high seas;

(c) as of three months ago on the board of a bank, in charge of cleaning up their reputation after it paid a $1.92 billion fine for laundering drug money from Mexico; and

(d) the man who, as former FBI agent Colleen Rowley pointed out this morning in The New York Times, “sign[ed] off on most of the worst of the Bush administration’s legal abuses and questionable interpretations of federal and international law. He ultimately approved the C.I.A.’s list of “enhanced interrogation” techniques, including waterboarding, which experts on international law consider a form of torture."

[pdsimdars]

93. Well, and then there are the Inspector Generals of both the State Department and the Intelligence

who were referring it.
Like one guy said, if it's a conpsiracy, then the Obama administration, the FBI, both Inspector Generals, the NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX are all in on it. So everyone is in on the conspiracy except Hillary Clinton. If it sounds implausible that's because it is.

[Demsrule86]

2. It is too a right wing smear

And I have no respect for Bernie Sanders supporters who report breathlessly about it from questionable sources like Fox and even worse sites.

[panader0]

6. Is it a right wing smear to report facts?

Please wake up. The FBI is taking this very seriously, as they should. Crimes were committed.
The e-mail scandal will pale in comparison to the Clinton Foundation investigation.

[Demsrule86]

11. No fact just opinion

This is going nowhere. They just want to string it along...the guy is GOP after all...and the posts I have seen...the links are disgraceful for this site or any site really.

[panader0]

15. Now the FBI is right wing---LOL

[ContinentalOp]

58. When has the FBI ever not been right wing?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here! Suddenly Sanders supporters think that the whole system is hopelessly corrupt, except for the saintly FBI, bastion of progressive values.

[KPN]

63. Odd. That's how we feel too -- exactly!

[Peace Patriot]

67. Are you calling President Obama a liar?

A week ago, he called a reporter into the White House for a one-on-one interview, and, in response to questions about the FBI investigation, stated, repeatedly and emphatically, that, "THERE HAS BEEN NO POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON THE FBI INVESTIGATION. FULL STOP." In response to the reporter, he repeated, "THERE HAS BEEN NO POLITICAL INFLUENCE ON THE FBI INVESTIGATION. FULL STOP." And again. And, I think, a fourth time.

So, you are saying there IS political influence? Where is your evidence?

Now, I would not condemn you for calling Obama's statement into question. I have to tell you, it made me wonder what's going on, that he felt he had to say this so emphatically. And, granted, Washington DC is a viper's nest of "political influence."

But there is no evidence that Obama was lying, and no evidence that the FBI is conducting its investigation of Clinton in any improper way or with any political motive.

The only direct participant in the investigation, that I know of, who may have a political motive is AG Loretta Lynch, who is a Clinton supporter. It may comfort you to think that she may intervene for political reasons, to protect Clinton. But I guarantee you that, if that happens, Lynch will regret it. It is a potential Watergate "Saturday Night Massacre" situation that could ruin her career. Also, the CIA and NSA are evidently concerned about Clinton's actions. Their sensitive documents were mishandled by Clinton and very likely exposed to foreign government hackers (according to former NSA Director and CIA Director Michael Hayden, who went public with it yesterday). If they want this sort of thing stopped--and we have every reason to believe that they do--they could do a number of things that could upend her campaign.

Your candidate is in trouble. It does no good to be in denial about it. And it especially does no good to rely on Clinton campaign assurances that this is nothing. The FBI Director, also yesterday, said that this is NOT a "security review" (as the Clinton campaign has alleged), and that there is no such thing as a "security review" at the FBI. This is an investigation, as in "Federal Bureau of Investigation." Meaning, they investigate potential crimes.

My scan of a lot of information about this case points to Clinton vulnerability on violations of national security laws and protocols, violation of FOIA laws and obstruction of justice. She may also have endangered an intelligence agent in the field (by mentioning the agent's name in an insecure email).

Apart from Clinton's legal liability, there is the question of, do we want this kind of incompetence in the White House and as commander in chief? Clinton wasn't even competent enough to protect herself by permanently wiping all copies of her emails. This may be a political question. It may not bother you or other Clinton supporters that she's not smart enough even to protect herself. But it bothers me, and I'm sure others. She reminds me of Nixon, who hung himself on his own hubris.

[Fawke Em]

110. You should retweak this and make it an OP.

Do you have the links to the Hayden comments? I'd like to read that.

[Demsrule86]

118. Let's see is this the links you sent...did not get them...

You expect me to take Hayden...the right winger seriously...really come on...


"Wiretaps of domestic communication[edit]
In May 2006, USA Today reported that, under Hayden's leadership, the NSA created a domestic telephone call database. During his nomination hearings, Hayden defended his actions to Senator Russ Feingold and others, stating that he had relied upon legal advice from the White House that building the database was supported by Article Two of the United States Constitution executive branch powers (in which the President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed&quot , overriding legislative branch statutes forbidding warrantless surveillance of domestic calls, which included the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Previously, this action would have required a warrant from a FISA court. The stated purpose of the database was to eavesdrop on international communications between persons within the U.S. and individuals and groups overseas in order to locate terrorists.[17]

Trailblazer[edit]
Hayden also championed the Trailblazer Project, a "transformation" project with a large Information Technology component. The project was criticized by several NSA staffers for not including privacy protections for US citizens and for being a waste of money. The critics included Diane S Roark, of the House Intelligence Committee, NSA workers Thomas Andrews Drake, Binney, Wiebe, and Loomis, and others. Hayden severely rebuked these critics. Several quit in protest. After investigations by the NSA inspector general, the DOD inspector general, and Congress, Trailblazer was shut down.[15]"

Oh he is also for torture...sorry terrible link ..waste of time this is a bad guy.

[Demsrule86]

80. Yes it always has been

You guys support a guy who is a very bad actor...and was associated with some of the worst of Bush abuses.

[TwilightZone]

19. "Crimes were committed."

That's an opinion, not a fact.

"The e-mail scandal will pale in comparison to the Clinton Foundation investigation."

Another opinion.

You sure have a funny definition of facts.

[creeksneakers2]

27. There is no Clinton Foundation investigation

The attacks on the Foundation also don't hold up to scrutiny.

[panader0]

36. There is.

[creeksneakers2]

59. Who is investigating? Where?

[grasswire]

38. link?

I don't think you've got anything to back up your statement.

[creeksneakers2]

62. http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/04/30/twenty-plus-errors-fabrications-and-distortions/203480

[Fawke Em]

112. The FBI subpoened some of their records last fall.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

If you want to learn more, you can start reading here: http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Foundation_Timeline_-_Part_1

Follow up here: http://thompsontimeline.com/The_Clinton_Foundation_Timeline_-_Part_2

[creeksneakers2]

124. You are right

There was the subpoena from the State Department. The State Department investigation at least of the E-mails is over, so its probable nothing came from the subpoena. I don't see anything about a subpoena from the FBI.

The timeline is extensive. While I don't agree with some of it, particularly the repeated references to accusations without any proof, it does supply lots of information and has given me many leads while looking at this.

I can't get the Washington Post story because I've maxed out for the month.

[Demsrule86]

79. no facts

just smears.

[Fawke Em]

115. I just posted two links to a shit-ton of facts.

But you won't read it.

[RazBerryBeret]

30. "Breathlessly"??

well that's weird and dramatic.....

[Demsrule86]

121. I kind of liked it...

But I can just picture you guys...all hunched over the computer in a lather because some rightie gave you another dose of false hope..hehe.

[RazBerryBeret]

132. oddly...

I'm not hunched... I don't listen to "righties", Definitely not in a "lather" whatever the hell that is.... false hope is questionable. But only one side seems to be so incredibly full of drama, even from the beginning. But it's ok, most of us are enjoying the entertainment factor.

[840high]

47. It's all over the net. Overseas, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. There is not one thing you wrote any fair person could take exception to.

[Demsrule86]

120. Thanks for this

I try not to insult anyone. I like a spirited discussion.

[pangaia]

131. Breathlessly, breathlessly....I get tired just reading that over and ovet

Whew....

[StayFrosty]

4. They are

When we have posters hoping and praying for an indictment it devolves into a right wing smear

[jillan]

14. How is the FBI investigation a right wing smear? It's not a smear, right wing or any kind, it's fact

[CoffeeCat]

17. The only time I've seen that kind of language

about "hoping" and "praying" for an indictment. I've never seen anyone say they are hoping for an indictment. No one has said it in this thread except for YOU.

We're posting and sharing information because this is a serious issue within our Democratic Party.

Discussing news regarding our front runner and the FBI investigation that has been ongoing for a year, is normal.

What's not normal is trying to bully people into shutting up, because you don't like the subject matter. If you want to sit in the dark on this issue, fine. Why do you have to attempt to denigrate good Democrats who are concerned what an indictment could do to our party and this election?

An indictment sure as hell wouldn't help Bernie. HRC would never release her delegates to Bernie. What happens then? Or should we just not talk about it because you don't like it?

I don't see how any Demicrat burying their head in the sand like an idiot helps our party. In fact it hurts our party if we aren't prepared--because some of the possible outcomes are pretty catastrophic.

[pdsimdars]

95. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^

Very well said. They are delusional.

[pdsimdars]

94. So you're saying that the posters here are right wing? I think you are in denial.

[Lizzie Poppet]

111. Um...do please map out just how that follows, logically.

[CoffeeCat]

5. "It's a right-wing smear!!!" is a Brocking point

said by Hillary supporters who want us to remain silent about this very serious subject.

It's normal to want to discuss and try to understand this very complex issue that affects our part and our election.

James Comey sure as hell seems to be taking it seriously.

[Jackilope]

60. "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"

That has been a Clinton go to line for years when people dig too deep or unearth something on them. The victim card runs wild in their deck.

[msongs]

7. "crimes were committed" - pray tell us what crimes were committed? nt

[panader0]

13. Secret server to bypass FIOA laws--that's just the beginning.

Lying about it several times. Pay to play SoS vis a vis Clinton Foundation. Really, c'mon. Wake up.

[msongs]

28. what crimes were committed? which legal codes are those violating? got some sections to cite? nt

[grasswire]

39. educate yourself

the material with all its legalese is right here on DU.

[silvershadow]

126. +1 nt

[silvershadow]

128. That's what the FBI investigation is for. nt

[CoffeeCat]

34. Hillary Clinton violated the NON-Disclosure Agreement

Last edited Fri May 13, 2016, 09:40 AM - Edit history (1)

that she signed when she became SOS, in 2009. She agreed to follow the rules in the NDA and agreed to the punishments if she did not.

HRC agreed not to disclose classified information that is marked or unmarked. The NDA specifically states that all classified information can only be shared with a "recipient that has been properly authorized to receive it."

Sid Blumenthal did not have a security clearance. Several of the emails that she and Sid swapped have been redacted in whole or part. Blumenthal also named an undercover CIA agent in one of the emails to Clinton and she forwarded that email to two staff members. Naming a CIA operative surely is passing classified information.

She also told Jake Sullivan, "If they can't, turn into non-paper w no identifying heading then send non-secure." HRC was clearly directing Sullivan to remove classified markings and send via non-secure channels. Surely, that's illegal. It also shows intent to send classified materials over open channels.

Also, the FBI directed HRC to hand over all work-related emails. HRC didn't. That's obstruction of justice and evidence tampering. Blumenthal had to hand over all of his emails to/from Clinton and when compared with what Clinton handed over, it was apparent she hadn't done so. The emails she didn't turn over were about Libya and security in Libya. Sounds work-related to me.

Possessing that server and sending all STATE correspondence over it, violated laws pertaining to the proper handling of classified information. Her server wasn't even encrypted the first three months. No security at all. That server violates Title 18, US Code 1924--the part of the law that would pertain to is, "Whoever becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information and knowingly removes such documents without authority and with the intent to retain such documents at an unauthorized location shall be fined or improsoned for not more than one year or both."

By failing to use a .gov email address, her emails were not copied/backed up as required by the Freedom of Information Act. So that's another law broke. She also violated the Federal Records Act.

There's a lot more, but that's what I've been able to gather based on what we know she did and the facts regarding the laws regarding classified information, the proper handling of classified info, the NDA Clinton signed as well as FOIA and the Federal Records Act--all of which are available with a simple Google search.

[highprincipleswork]

69. Thank you. That's a good bit of research. Unfortunately a very long and seemingly valid list.

[COLGATE4]

89. Even assuming she violated the NDA (not a foregone conclusion

by any means) it has no bearing on whether she is guilty 0f any crime. That would have to be separately proved. The NDA doesn't prove or make her guilty of anything.

[CoffeeCat]

125. Here is a copy of a standard Classified Non-Disclosure Agreement that Clinton signed in 2009

VERY CLEARLY the standards of behavior regarding the handling of classified information are spelled out in this NDA. Also spelled out--are punishments for violating those standards--and that laws governing the NDA regulations. Some of those punishments mentioned include fines, jail time and/or both, as well as stripping of a security clearance.

Here is a PDF link to a Classified Non-Disclosure Agreement that Hillary Clinton would have signed in 2009. This is the standard form.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/new_sf312.pdf

[COLGATE4]

133. Her having signed the NDA is not in and of itself evidence of

anything. All of that has to be proved. None of it has been.

[840high]

50. You can't be serious?

[sadoldgirl]

8. Sorry, but all you will get is denial and

rationilizations, instead of open ears. Those have
been clogged for too long a time.

[Zynx]

9. I only trust non-Fox and non-National Review coverage of it.

The more shrill posts about it are very likely not well-founded. Speculating on the contents of a secret investigation is fairly pointless and the bulk of impartial analysis points to no crime and no indictment.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. There is plenty of that actually

[Zynx]

18. That also doesn't reference Bush appointees or other right-wingers?

Quite little, actually.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. The problem you have is that for the CIVIL case

Judicial Watch is the plaintiff. CREW started it, but JW is the plaintiff, so if you are writing a story on the CIVIL case, you have no choice but to refer to JW... it is that simple. And they do have a case under FOIA, from all I have read.

The FBI investigation is a whole different critter, and it is a criminal enquiry. That one, is at the investigation before referral phase. For civilians this is where they get to decide do we have enough to refer this to the justice department for an indictment? This is not even a preliminary hearing at the Federal Court before a judge. It is way before that. Though I have a feeling that a grand jury has probably been empaneled, and no, they rarely reveal this.

The Foundation, if there is any to that, it is not even that far along. That one I am kind of ignoring for the moment, because it is essentially at the you going to the cop and telling him or her there was a robbery up the street. And the cop MAYBE taking a report.

For reference, we are covering a simple case here, (in comparison to any of these that is a simple criminal case), from the time of that case starting, the incident, to the end of the trial, we are looking at two years. These things are a marathon, not an episode of law and order.

I admit, covering courts, helps...

[St Aug girl]

26. I agree. Grand juries are totally confidential.

You cannot even disclose that you are asked for records or asked to testify.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. And that is the case for very good and solid reasons

mostly to protect the jurors

[grasswire]

41. and the JW case is under the supervision of a Clinton appointed federal judge.

Emmet Sullivan.

Hillary happened to tick him off recently, incidentally.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. One rule I have learned from watching courts

never, ever piss off the judge. They truly rule their court rooms like petit dictators, some more obvious, some less. But never, ever piss off the judge. Not a good move. Do you have more info on that one? I really enjoy reading about pissed off judges.

[grasswire]

44. I will look for it.

He's mad because of the difficulties in getting the emails from state department in dribs and drabs.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Ah intramural games

this is even better... a federal judge vs the state department. Trust me the latter is going to lose in the end. But that is not good for her... that judge is going to be in a nasty mood.

Time for more popcorn.

[grasswire]

53. from last August

there are multiple news outlets reporting that. It isn't specifically Hillary named in this, but the emails are hers, and the state department is protecting her.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422713/state-department-asks-judge-extension-gets-one-hour-joel-gehrke

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Thanks and that is going to lead to a few fights

[Dustlawyer]

90. Sound advice!

[cry baby]

10. What crimes were committed? nt

[LonePirate]

21. Considering the OP accuses other DUers of willful ignorance the crimes committed line was laughable.

Reporting or discussing news related to the investigation is not a right wing smear. I do agree with the OP on that. However, there are numerous DUers, like the OP who have already issued convictions based on simply their gut feelings and partisan hatred. Now, those types of posts and the related motivations for them, are certainly akin to right wing smears.

[panader0]

32. Bullshit--I issued no convictions. Laws were broken.

The FBI will decide who was responsible. It may be one of HRC's aides. Pull the wool over your eyes
if you wish, but this is NOT going away. If HRC is the nominee, and the shit hits the fan before November,
the Democrats are screwed. If HRC is elected and then the shit hits the fan, the Democratic Party takes a
huge hit for years. The best possible scenario for HRC is the stain and smell, even if not indicted.
It's not going to be pretty. I am 65 and have voted for Democrats at all levels all of my life. I'm frankly
worried for our party.

[St Aug girl]

25. Go read the Politico article about the latest Comey

round table plus the comments. You will find validation for your position and many comments that recite the crimes committed and the appropriate Code provisions. The comments are fascinating.

[msongs]

29. comments are opinions. nt

[CoffeeCat]

42. Yes, but laws are facts

There is a great deal of information out there.

The problem is that the MSM has disseminated the information in a very disjointed way. However, if you research EXACTLY what Clinton did (based on articles from WAPO, the NY times, AP, Reuters, Bloomberg and CNN) you get a clear picture of what she did and when.

Then, you can research the laws. I found a copy of the NDA she signed. I also found info about the laws governing classified info, the FOIA and the Federal Records Act.

You can also read about the emails between her and Blumenthal.

There is a great deal of info about the fact that she did send classified AND Top Secret info over that private server. The Inspector General has all ready stated in a report that Clinton sent information that was "born classified", meaning that it was originated by Clinton and it was classified. This is how Clinton gets away em with saying, "I never sent information that was marked classified." It wasn't marked because she generated it and it would not have been marked.

In the initial batch of 30,000+ emails that she turned over to the FBI, 2,000 were deemed classified. 22 were designated "Top Secret", which means the information "was so sensitive that it could not be released without putting the United States in grave danger." Jan 29, 2015, three days before the Iowa Caucus, this info was released to the public via the State Dept.

Those are just a few facts.

[silvershadow]

130. Well my opinion is I will not vote for a person under a cloud of

suspicion. Are you refuting she is the subject of the investigation now?

[840high]

52. Another one - you've been

living in a cave?

[truedelphi]

57. You might read CoffeeCat's reply number 34.

That would give you an idea of what is going on.

Oh and it is should also be noted that Barack Obama the President was Hillary's boss in terms of her tenure at State Department. She disobeyed the President as he or one of his staff had indicated she was to stop getting advice from and having policy discussions with one Mr Blumenthal.

[pdsimdars]

98. Yea, nobody wants to keep writing this stuff over and over and over. . . . .

it's out there. go read.

[cry baby]

104. You keep reading and believing what Woodward and DiGenova say. I will wait to label

Hillary a criminal until the investigation is done and the "crimes" have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Seems most people in this country have the right to be proven a criminal....due process and all...remember that premise? Woodward and DiGenova don't. Fox News doesn't. Maybe you and many on this Democratic board don't.

At this point, opinions on emails, who they went to, what they were classified at the time, etc. are just that...opinions. It's just very convenient for some to deem these things "crimes" before the investigations are finished.

[Maedhros]

105. There are a number of statutes that were potentially violated, which carry criminal penalties.

Also, based upon other similar situations, the DoJ went after the perpetrators very, very aggressively (e.g.Tom Drake):

https://theintercept.com/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/

When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. Fascinatingly, one of the most vocal defenders of this Obama DOJ record of persecution has been Hillary Clinton herself.

[cry baby]

109. "Potentially" is the operative word regarding H. Clinton.

I appreciate the link. The Intercept is a very interesting website. I can imagine, however, that the writers there are not going to be joining the Clinton bandwagon even if she is proven to be innocent of these "crimes" some here speak of.

[Maedhros]

113. The Intercept was pointing their ire more at the Obama Administration than at Hillary, IMO.

Tom Drake's prosecution was a steaming pile of bullshit. He eventually settled for a misdemeanor, which was a huge win for Drake and and embarrassment for the DoJ.

The point being: we can't simultaneously condone the Obama Administration's draconian persecution of whistleblowers and journalists, then turn around and excuse Hillary's actions with regard to her personal server. It underscores the double-standard that exists in Washington: low-level employees have the book thrown at them, but the Party favorites get a pass for the same bad behavior.

In the current context we're running into a different double-standard: when a Democrats does something horrible, we excuse it. When a Republican does the same thing, we wail and gnash our teeth.

Here is a great example:



When Bush did it, we hated it. When Obama did it MORE, we loved it.

[cry baby]

114. Please don't include me in the "we" that thinks it's ok under Obama.

But comparing how Obama treats whistleblowers and journalists has nothing to do with what server Hillary chose to use. It wasn't against the rules that were in place at that time for her to have her own server.

I agree that there is probably a double standard with the low level vs the high level people because that's human nature...not excusing it but just understanding it.

If Drake's prosecution was BS and he was all but exonerated, why then would Clinton need to be treated harsher than Drake and his misdemeanor? Would that be the double-standard in reverse?

And if she has committed a misdemeanor, should that preclude her from being the dem nominee?

[Maedhros]

117. I'm not on a witch-hunt to put Hillary in prison.

However I am a security professional, and it is painful to watch people put up posts about how what Hillary did was innocuous. It was not - it exposed classified information to a very, very, very shoddy security environment. I investigate these kinds of incidents for my employer, and we would have fired someone who did something similar. I'm as critical (or more) of the Obama Administration for allowing this to happen than I am of Hillary for doing it. In my opinion, both share the blame.

[beedle]

123. Completely agree

I used to work in Computer security as well, but that was back in the early 90's (back when they used 'Multi Level Security" Operating systems - ie. OS would not let you send things to anyone with a lower security level than your own, and you had to explicitly set your security level to the lower level of the recipient before doing so ... all with an audit trail.)

But even today, for most companies of any significant size, you have to take annual refresher courses and tests to make sure you understand a variety of common legal and security issues that could negatively affect the company.

For instance I have to take annual refresher courses and tests on business practices, another one on security practices ... these refreshers go over the rules (old and new) to make sure you don't pull the kind of bullshit that corporate owned politicians do on a regular basis.

If I were found to have taken money, even if it were something as minor as a personal sponsorship for the softball team I play on once a week, from someone that was a client, competitor, or government agency without first clearing it with at least my manager, I would be in danger of being fired ... if I were to act like your average politician there would be no question I would be jobless in a second.

If I went to my boss and even asked if I could install an email server in my basement for business work (let alone do so without asking) I would be terminated so fast it would make my head spin for weeks.

It astonishes me how the email server is not instant cause for being drummed out of the 'business of government' ... in any other business it would not even be questioned, security would would have dragged her butt out of the 'building' the second it was learned of the server.

Only in the corrupt world of Washington politics could there be any question that this was not a firing offense.

I really don't understand it. Any other line of work and there wouldn't even be an after thought, she's be fired, gone, black-balled from the industry as extremely stupid or extremely corrupt.

[procon]

22. Listen to your sad self.

First you're screeching that "Crimes were committed", oh, the horror!

Then you admit, "Whether or not she is indicted remains to be seen." Oops, can't be both.

Here, have a nice fork, you're done.


You're right on one thing, however, it probably will get worse. There are a lot of other conspiracy nuts out there who will be looking for a new theory to gnaw on when their Birther gig is up, and it won't be too hard to move from racist rants to sexist spiels.

[panader0]

33. The FBI may find some other staffer at fault. HRC may skate. But laws wre broken.

[procon]

46. You have lost all credibility.

You're mixing fact with fiction and conflating opinion with quantifiable certainty whilst looking for validation, but you have nothing in your show and tell but a collection of half baked internet heresies.

[MADem]

35. Didn't BERNIE say that no one cared about her "damn emails?"

No wonder he's losing--his supporters don't listen to him.

[panader0]

37. Laugh it up. Let's see what happens.

Democratic front runner under FBI investigation--hillarious

[MADem]

40. Oooooh! Such drama! Don't pull a muscle carrying Gowdy Doody's water, now!!

You really let it all hang out in this thread, didn't ya? Not even subtle!

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Except that this is not congress anymore

unless somebody forgot to tell me the FBI and the DOJ are now part of the legislative branch. Thanks for the information. I really learn new stuff on DU every day.

[MADem]

51. Ooooh, "sarcasm!"

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Oh my you meant that for real

okie dokie, will leave you to whatever.

[Thinkingabout]

61. Okay, LW or RW smears is just that a smear.

[highprincipleswork]

65. Look, first of all, does what she did seem right to you, or do you just not care, as long as the

person is on your team and "winning" at something?

Because supporting someone in that way is no more honorable than supporting someone like Donald Trump.

[pdsimdars]

99. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^

[MFM008]

66. SO if its OK to go along with these investigations

It will be OK and you will be great when she is cleared of all suspicions?
It wont be the last hopes of Sanders supporters as they swirl down the drain?

[synergie]

70. Wow, the sheer number of times BSers post this stuff apparently without knowing

very much about what started this all, really speaks to a lot of projection on your part. Not even RWers are engaging in the amount of self deception that BSers are, it is indeed willful ignorance

Please open your eyes and your ears, and learn that when the FBI says they cannot find any evidence of any crime being committed, that crimes were not committed.

It will get worse for you if you keep up the false hopes and deny the reality that the hopes of some BSers, Fox News, Jane Sanders and Donald Trump and his supporters, are simply not going to come true.

Save yourself the disappointment and accept reality.

[CoffeeCat]

88. The FBI never said what you are saying

"Please open your eyes and your ears, and learn that when the FBI says they cannot find any evidence of any crime being committed, that crimes were not committed."

The FBI never said that. Twice, in two separate articles, anonymous, unnamed sources said that, "Scant evidence could be found."

First, the FBI never said that. Never. Secondly, it's a stupid quote. This person doesn't know. What in the hell does "scant" mean, anyway? Scant is not none. It was a stupid quote from someone who was shooting their mouth off about an ongoing FBI investigation. For all we know, it was Bill Clinton.

Talk about "false hopes" that you accuse Bernie supporters of having. You're the one engaging in false hopes if you think that Hillary Clinton didn't violate laws. She did. You're engaging in false hopes when you fail to see that this is a very serious situation that could upend our entire party.

What happens if the FBI finds evidence of criminal wrongdoing? Our party will be thrown into chaos. This doesn't help Bernie. Clinton would never release her delegates to Bernie. So, what then?

Are we just supposed to sit around and not talk about this because Hillary supporters can't handle it? You get a sad, so the rest of the Democrats in our party who are extremely concerned about a year-long FBI investigation into our frontrunner, need to shut up and obey. Who do you people think you are?

You're suggesting that we play along as Hillary sycophants. It's crazymaking.

[grasswire]

101. please link to some proof of your assertion.

A link, please to the FBI statement you cite.

[seabeyond]

72. Waiting, waiting, waiting, and still nothing. Like the other witch hunts against Clinton.

[Demsrule86]

82. If Comey had anything

he would have done it....just dragging it out for maximum damage to Clinton...for his rightie buddies. Pres. Obama, I love you, but why did you appoint this guy? He is the worst of the Bush administration's bad guys.

[seabeyond]

143. So how about if I do not buy the immenent indictment and call

To burn her at the stake?

[randome]

75. Right wing smears, left wing smears, it's still a circle of jerks.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

76. Oh, you mean their new "Brietbart" meme? Pathetic

[jack_krass]

81. Thank you! pointing out HRC's corruption and lawbreaking is NOT right-wing, or smearing

To imply otherwise implies that only Right wingers are against corruption against lawbreaking and following rules. *Nothing* could be further from the truth!! It's Amazing how they try to twist things isn't it!

[apcalc]

84. No crimes were committed.

please post this crap on some republican site.

[randome]

85. The crime of not being Bernie Sanders. It's in the Constitution, look it up!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[fasttense]

87. Why was so much classified information allowed to be distributed

Through an unsecured server for so long? That is the real problem.

Where was the FBI when this was happening?

Why weren't they fixing this before it was a problem?

Some really lax procedures that should have been corrected.

[asuhornets]

91. She can handle it...

She been dealing with this crap for 25 years and still standing.

[wendylaroux]

102. but why asshornet has she been dealing with this for 25 yrs? bad luck?

[wildeyed]

106. No, Richard Mellon Scaife and his ilk.

They spent million trying to ensnare the Clintons. Edwin Starr spent millions more of government money on the partisan witch hunt. There was witness tampering, too. Nothing but the Lewinsky thing ever stuck, and that just made Bill more popular, in the end, since it was clear to anyone who was there that they were being persecuted. It is bearing fruit now, because "progressives" who don't read history believe the smears are God's honest truth and parrot them over and over and over

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/15/us/almost-2-million-spent-in-magazine-s-anti-clinton-project-but-on-what.html

[GReedDiamond]

135. Edwin Starr...

...WAR

Didn't know Edwin worked for the Govt.

Sorry, I could not resist.

[wildeyed]

136. And I LOVE that song too!

GOOD GOD Y'ALL!

My bad. But worth it to here that oldie but goodie again.

[GReedDiamond]

137. I'd much rather hear some Edwin Starr, any day any time...

...than any kinda blathering outta Kenneth Starr!

Kenneth Starr is good for ABSOLUTELY NUTHIN!!

[wildeyed]

138. SAY IT AGAIN!

[Rebkeh]

92. It's absurd, really

The same tactics the conservatives use on their base are going to fail on progressives, for the most part. For example, we tend to handle nuanced thinking better and don't get ourselves stuck in either/or thinking.

If you are for ___, then you are against ____.
If you are not with us, you are against us.

If you are for Bernie, then you are against Obama.
If you are for Bernie, then you are against racial progress.
If you are for Bernie, then you are against feminism.

Or this one, which is especially insidious:
If you are for Bernie, you are against equality... or something along those lines.

It's strange until you realize that it sets people off, it angers them and that is the goal.

It's bait.

I'll pass.

[Autumn]

122. Her supporters are not big on personal responsibility. She put herself in this position and

Obama's FBI is hardly RW unless Hill supporters think Obama appoints RW smear merchants.

[puffy socks]

127. Oh please. If crimes were committed how come she hasn't been arrested?

" Please HRC supporters, open your eyes.
Crimes were committed. Whether or not she is indicted remains to be seen."


What "crimes were committed" Are you an FBI agent assigned to this investigation?

[puffy socks]

141. Then you dont get to say "crimes were committed" because its a LIE!

They've spent over a year looking at her system ...while you pray for an indictment so Bernie can be the nominee.

Show me the crime the FBI stated she committed ..as the OP claims. or admit the author just pulled it out of their caboose.

[puffy socks]

144. My 1st post was a respinse to the original OP

"Please HRC supporters, open your eyes.
Crimes were committed. Whether or not she is indicted remains to be seen. "

Try reading the original OP next time. I even quoited it in my original post.




"but hey you tell me why it has gone on for year(s) if Clinton did noting wrong. "

so if someone is investigated for years it automatically means they did something wrong?
cute... and here I thought they had to find actual intent to commit, or an actual crime committed. Silly me reading the law and believing it.
That fits right up there with " if you say anything enough times fools will believe it."


Goebbels would be so proud!

[puffy socks]

146. I said she didnt break the law. She admitted her mistakes, which is more than anyone can say for

Sanders. Mr. Second Place..." the election was rigged! ... no wait its duuumb! , no its Rigged! I just wanna wiiinnn!! Won't the SDs please just side with me and go against the popular vote?!! --even though we argued earlier when we thought we had the popular vote that that would be bad?'



We need an indictment to save our campaaaaaaignnn!


Second Place Bernie vrooom all the way to the convention to be stomped like a grape.... I can't wait!