2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThere is no way Hillary will be indicted. No. Way.
Even if a dozen CIA assets were killed because of classified information that got out due to her email set up. Even if Putin got hold of vital state secrets. No way.
(And before you snarl at me Hillary supporters, I'm not saying she did that- obviously).
It's different for people with money and power. And it's way different for a former first lady, SoS and U.S. Senator.
I would literally bet my life on it.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MisterP
(23,730 posts)the FBI does *not* like her, and this goes to the top
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)That's just as bad as leaking classified information.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)What if they build a strong case and the DoJ just sits on it? I have seen this plenty of times in county government.
I would not blame them for being pissed.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...but does not refer it to AG?
That's also a possibility, but would likely invoke revolt in the FBI ranks.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Also I don't know if Comey needs to be involved or if he even has veto power. Usually it is lower ranking supervisors who approve cases to the DoJ.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)
longship
(40,416 posts)I mean, after all the House investigations, etc.
But there are no indictments coming.
I would bet a few beers (all I can afford) on it.
I am just not too sure that that will make any difference in November. And that thought is not very comforting. (Trump!)
cali
(114,904 posts)
There's already enough information to indict you or me but not anyone as powerful and connected as Sec Clinton and most Americans understand this. It's also why it won't matter.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Can the system dominated as it is by the classification is next to godliness Prime Directive really tolerate that without imploding? I think not. They've had since March last year to put succession planning in place. We will see that seem to unfurl as if spontaneously before the Convention.
So sorry to all those who supported her and Bernie Sanders, but what we've been watching has been Kabuki Theatre. Before she is indicted, she will be pardoned. That's how these things are done, if CIA Director John Deutch is precedent.
antigop
(12,778 posts)anyone can put up a private server and run their emails through it.
I would think the intelligence community would be livid.
eta: If it plays out as you say, I really don't think she would go voluntarily. I think her feeling would be that she could weather the storm. (IT'S HER TURN!!) I hope I'm wrong.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Such a deal would require that she forfeit the nomination and any future public office, but she will be given some say in who her delegates go to. Can't see any other way this can play out.
antigop
(12,778 posts)Some of these issues surfaced during Hillary Clinton's time as secretary of state. It's a bigger problem now that she's the leading presidential candidate, and it would be critical if she gets to the White House.
Well, gee, where has Bloomberg been all this time?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)She's going to be mortally wounded but still walking toward the White House gate. The party bosses know what that likely means - President Trump. No, I can't see them taking that extreme a risk, not even for her.
They will have to replace her and that will be confirmed at the Convention. There is really no other option.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I honestly don't think she's real well anyway.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)...and all of this mess. It just isn't media that we here want to recognize. Tonight I watched FOX for half an hour. The panel was two Democratic insiders, one of whom had been Bill Clinton's pollster, and another who had worked as a strategist for Jimmy Carter. They were actually speaking the truth just as we see it discussed here on DU. About her risk, and about the attacks on Bernie, and about how Bernie is the candidate who can win the GE. They almost whispered the fact that Bernie is polling fifteen points ahead of Trump.
Here on DU, there is censorship of half of the national discussion.
antigop
(12,778 posts)
madville
(7,412 posts)and wins the election. They would subpoena the FBI investigation documents and call all the witnesses, etc, would probably eat up a decent chunk of her Presidency. Of course the Senate would never convict but it's not going to end suddenly even if she wins.
longship
(40,416 posts)Given the recent US House history and the GOP's delusions, what you suggest could come to pass.
We need to take back the House. (I think we may very well have the Senate this time.)
madville
(7,412 posts)and 2018 is set up to be terrible for Congressional Democrats, especially if Hillary is in the White House. The 2018 Senate races are something like 26 Democratic seats and 7 or 8 Republican seats, very likely Republicans retain or take back the Senate in 2018 and increase their House seats.
Txbluedog
(1,128 posts)It has been gerrymandered to where there is very, very little chance of the democrats winning the house
hellofromreddit
(1,182 posts)Hillary is right that she's held to a different standard. She is wrong to insist that she's the one on the short end.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)any serious evidence that she has done anything that merits indictment. I concede, however, that I have not carefully studied all of the relevant law and information about her emails and server.
merbex
(3,123 posts)The same man who gave us this testimony~
[link:<iframe width="420" height="315" src="
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Predictions are useless. We can't be sure of many variables.
PufPuf23
(8,791 posts)probably not bet my life.
I would like to see Clinton supporters argue why her server and archive arrangement were other than exceptional and how the arrangement was to benefit anyone other than Clinton and Clinton insiders.
Some of the emails released by WikiLeaks have some stank, specifically those with Blumenthal.
Also would like some Clinton supporter response to POTUS Obama saying Libya was likely his biggest mistake as POTUS while Hillary Clinton regards Libya as positive.
The post Gaddafi death clip of Hillary Clinton is a short course on why Clinton is unfit to be POTUS or CIC.
senz
(11,945 posts)No wonder she feels free to leave U.S. secrets unprotected and flout FOIA regulations.
No wonder she can set up weapons deals between arms manufacturers and third world countries with huge payments to her family foundation greasing the skids and no questions asked.
No wonder she can make secret speeches to the biggest banks in the world for millions of dollars.
No wonder she's so free and easy and above the law.
No wonder our government is hopelessly corrupt.
If U.S. law can't touch this person, then I hope the FBI leaks the truth and/or Anonymous does what they can with it.
Then perhaps the court of public opinion, at least, can deal with her.
2banon
(7,321 posts)She's part of the Ruling Elite Class, now. As we know they rarely if ever face justice no matter the degree of overwhelming evidence.
However, she could be hurt *politically* IF significant results from the on going investigations were to be found but I'd be seriously shocked if that were to happen despite whatever gets uncovered.
I did find it interesting however, that DiFi came out with her statement the other day.. sort of jaw dropping.. (why would she do that at this time?)
just more intrigue, is about all I see so far.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)was not made the other day. It was from 2015 and just posted the other day.
2banon
(7,321 posts)obviously totally out of context with the moment in the campaign.
again, thanks for that correction.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)I saw that thread the other day and just happened to click on the piece and saw the date.
rozdeep
(29 posts)andym
(5,444 posts)surrounding classified information and freedom of information. Let's see what the FBI director, a Republican, concludes. If there is even a recommendation to indict, she will be in trouble. If she's the nominee and if a recommendation to indict comes after the convention, her VP candidate could become the nominee: One reason I hope she picks Bernie or Elizabeth Warren for VP (IF Clinton is really the nominee). We will see. It's really difficult to tell what the real situation is from the pundits who continue to spin the facts to suit their agendas.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I have been loud and clear I neither want nor expect an indictment. It's terrible for Democrats on every level.
That said, after reading Paul Thompson's timeline its pretty clear she's in deep legal trouble. I really think Comey will recommend indictment, Lynch will decline, and that black cloud will follow Hillary Clinton all the way to defeat in November.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)And possibly resignations from within the Justice dept. She's more likely to appoint an independent prosecutor if the FBI recommends indictment.
That prosecutor will then take months to hire staff, examine all the evidence, and reach their own conclusions. Either way, we're going to be talking about this for months.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)again IMO the only question is will this person know ahead of time or will it be a surprise?
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)The delusions. The hallucinations. The hours upon hours upon hours wasted on conjuring up this nonsense.
It's much better to step away from the furious pounding on the keyboard. Get some fresh air. Enjoy Spring! Smell the fresh flowers. Talk a stroll. Volunteer at a pet shelter. Volunteer at a Food Bank. Volunteer at a Summer Sandwich program for kids who go hungry once school is out.
Do something...anything to help. Please?
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)It seems the intel elites are pretty upset about that.
840high
(17,196 posts)BootinUp
(47,165 posts)myself.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)So Comey will likely find that she violated her security clearance, and explain the many ways she did that which entail a violation of federal law, but will stop short of calling for indictment. The report will conclude that decision is one the Attorney General must make.
It is up to us to dissuade her from any notion she might have that she can continue to seek the White House under these circumstances. Lord knows the GOP would love to run against an unindicted co-conspirator.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)scary it would be if the far left ever got too much power in this country. As Krugman recently wrote, the truth has a left-center bias.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)It's her campaign's signature approach to argument.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)source, I wouldn't have to question your motives.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)But, in lieu of something worth linking to - Paul Thompson's Timeline, which contains hundreds of mainstream articles and reports is a notable exception - I will continue to examine facts and the law and draw my own conclusions. You are free to do the same. But do argue from facts and the law, not what someone else tells you about them.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)must rise to the level of deliberate intent. I happen to share the Presidents faith that they will not find that to be the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is other evidence suggesting that Hillary Clinton will not face FBI charges for her use of an unsecured email. In an extensive review of similar cases, Politico concluded that Clinton’s case did not meet the same level as other more egregious breeches of national security.
“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.”
The report cited experts on national security law who agreed that intent is important for the FBI. While Hillary Clinton may have been careless in her use of an unsecured email server to send classified material, she lacked the intention to commit wrongdoing, they argued.
“The law treats the intentional disclosure of one piece of classified information to someone not entitled to receive it far more seriously than the accidental communication of dozens of pieces of classified information to people who were not supposed to get it,” American University law professor Stephen Vladeck said.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2991830/hillary-clinton-fbi-investigation-hillary-will-likely-avoid-indictment-and-obama-may-be-rigging-the-process-to-help-her-out/#kxBiKM7BpBJ2eQw7.99
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)It's not OK at my house.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)And remember, the FBI has expanded its investigation of the server to include the possibility of the Foundation being the facility for inappropriate coordination between donations from foreign entities and favors granted by the State Department under HRC.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)As to your second claim, stop reading, listening, eating RW garbage.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I am not in the habit of advocating censorship. Examination of words to discern truth and discard misinformation is within my wheelhouse.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)easier to call everything negative about Hillary rw garbage.
kaleckim
(651 posts)Give a single damn issue that Sanders supporters take that places them far outside the mainstream. There isn't one. Is the public then "far left" or are you just once again talking (right wing) nonsense?
"As Krugman recently wrote, the truth has a left-center bias."
Can you or the liar Krugman provide some examples on this silly claim? Give a few examples. Should be easy, a hanging curve ball.
Krugman and other economists of his ilk said things in the 1990s about NAFTA and "free trade" that have proven to be utter drivel and completely wrong. The "far left" economists that Krugman has been attacking (and in this election cycle, lying about) were right, he was wrong. He believes in something called the "loanable funds" model of finance and the monetary system that doesn't exist in reality. A reality based economist, Steve Keen, pointed out that monetary systems have operated in radically different ways for centuries now. He viciously attacked Friedman (a Clinton supporter mind you, and someone that used the exact same model and assumptions that economists like Krugman use) this election cycle in totally dishonest ways, and you should research what Galbraith (one of the economists Krugman has dishonestly attacked for years now) and Bill Black (the guy that was in charge of prosecuting the S & L crisis), among many others said about his behavior. I find it comical, given that and tons else I could say, that someone that has strongly pushed the "Berniebros" lie (proven to be a lie and dishonest propaganda by actual journalists like Greenwald) would try and claim a monopoly on truth.
You chose a corrupt candidate to back, and her corruption may, and should, bite her in the ass.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)portrayal of his chances to win the primary, his statement about the Nevada violence, etc.
In the last 10-15 years, he has a done a very good job of defending himself and taking down nonsense from the right.
I would say other economists that criticize Krugman only wish they had his reputation and handle of the facts.
As to your request for positions of Sanders that are outside the mainstream. Let me answer it this way. When you have to resort to calling everyone else in politics corrupt and bought to explain your policies, that MEANS you are pushing some outside the mainstream stuff BY DEFINITION.
kaleckim
(651 posts)that was all a damn lie. Nice way to start a post, by lying. He's lied this entire damn election cycle. He lied about the Berniebros thing, he horribly lied about and slimed Friedman, and he's embarrassed himself this election cycle. Have a look:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/04/paul-krugman-crosses-the-line.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/04/krugman-kinda-sorta-retracts-a-key-part-of-last-fridays-sanders-over-the-edge-op-ed.html
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/01/krugmans-cowardly-attack-on-david-dayen-over-krugmans-misrepresentation-of-sanders-financial-reforms.html
"I would say other economists that criticize Krugman only wish they had his reputation and handle of the facts."
You would say this without knowing any of those economists, or what they've said, so who cares? Sometimes people are well known because they say things that benefit powerful interests. Maybe this is news to you. Should we delude ourselves that if someone like Krugman isn't right wing that his ideas and world view don't benefit powerful interests among the status quo? Most progressive and radical economists with integrity could give a damn about being on Meet the Press. Many of them would be perfectly happy to change economics away from neoclassical nonsense and would like to play a part in creating a more equitable and sustainable economic system. Herman Daly, Michael Hudson, Joan Robinson, Elinor Ostrom and Michal Kalecki are all far more important to economics than Krugman, and I'd bet most people in the general public don't know any of them. Them being less known doesn't have anything to do with their contributions or ideas.
"As to your request for positions of Sanders that are outside the mainstream."
Stop embarrassing yourself. How does your response back up your claim of "far left". Personal conduct has nothing to do with where someone is ideologically. Sanders is right in the middle of popular opinion on the issues. Clinton, the DNC, and the Republicans are not.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)there is plenty of evidence and witness statements about what went on in Nevada. I have no desire to argue it with you or debate whether it was violence or unruly behavior or whatever. It looked and sounded BAD to most observers that aren't partisans.
The day someone really catches Krugman in a lie and can support it, would be very interesting to me. At this point he has a much better record of truth telling than the Sanders campaign. Embarrass myself? More like interrupt the DU Sandersfest with some unwelcome opinion and information.
no evidence, just a bunch of lies/claims that no one has proven. Politico, NPR and many other outlets have now come out and admitted that there was no evidence of that. You are a liar, and anyone that has said there was violence lied too. Besides, their behavior wasn't bad. They were pissed at a horribly undemocratic process, and notice that the corporate media is not interested in the process what so ever. Good for people standing up to indefensible and corrupt people, they didn't look bad, despite the week of lying propaganda by people like yourself. The Democrats recently yelled "shame" at the Republicans for their anti-LGBT legislation. Were they acting horribly? The Trump protests in Chicago and Cali were a thousand times more confrontational, and I seem to remember Clinton supporters cheering that on, since it was against Trump. I'd ask you to connect these things logically, but you can't.
"The day someone really catches Krugman in a lie and can support it, would be very interesting to me."
Head slap. I have given you examples in my damn posts, which you could research if you were interested. I also provided links with lots and lots of facts to back that up too. Those article are really good and are from a highly respected economics blog. You seem to think that sticking your head in the sand allows you to ignore stuff and that no one will notice. Maybe you didn't realize this, but others can see our little back and forth.
BootinUp
(47,165 posts)Quick take? If the authors really want to make attacks stick on Krugman, they better keep practicing. I found the material to be lacking in convincing understandable arguments.
kaleckim
(651 posts)I didn't post them for you, since you're already gone logically and emotionally. Others will read our exchange, I posted it for them. You didn't address anything in particular for good reason. Reply if you want, I'm done.
brooklynite
(94,601 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)get preferential treatment? I'm shocked. Not.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)I do not look forward to the Kabuki theater in the offing. From Whitewater to Vince Foster to Travelgate to Monika to Benghazi to email to ... It will not end. But damn, it'll be hella entertaining.
[font size="1"][center]“Two things only the people anxiously desire — bread and circuses.”
"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.[/center][/font]
dchill
(38,505 posts)Never do that.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Handing it over to his lover. He had actual binders of classified intel. All for his biography.
And he got a slap on the wrist.
Clinton did not under any circumstances even come close to what Petraeus did. She may have used bad judgement, yeah, that's what it's called whenever she does anything and everything. But there was no willful or intentional act there.
If Petraeus got a slap on the wrist, literally a misdemeanor, then what does Clinton get? Nothing more than an admonishment of her judgement. This isn't about money and it's not really about power, either. We still have this thing called a jury trial. Put Clinton in front of one and try to prove she intended to release state secrets. No laws were broken.
berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)Patraeus lover had clearance. That wasn't the crime. The crime was taking documents out of controlled facilities. Hillary did much worse than that by having ALL of her state communications flow through a private and unprotected server.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)It's different for people with money and power. And it's way different for a former first lady, SoS and U.S. Senator.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Once the official reports are out, there will be a demand that she be treated like any other citizen would be under these circumstances. If a serious indictable offense is found, which there will be, her career is over.
Spiro Agnew.
Richard Nixon.
Both of them were untouchable too, or so they thought.