Here's what's gonna happen with the FBI thing.

[YouDig]

They're gonna say that Hillary broke rule xyz and that it was very bad of her, rule xyz is a very important rule. Bad Hillary. And then they are going to say that despite breaking the very serious rule xyz, it doesn't rise to a criminal offense that can be prosecuted.

After that Berners and Trumpers will be outraged. And a bunch of not-a-lawyer-but-i-play-one-on-the-internet people are going to explain in great detail why the FBI is wrong and how everything is corrupt, and how a private email server is just as bad as a triple homicide.

And then Hillary will be the next president.

[anotherproletariat]

1. Nail it. nt

[brush]

43. Yes! And the report will be quietly released in a late Friday afternoon document dump . . .

when no one is in DC.

[Tal Vez]

2. You're very possibly correct.

We'll have to wait and see.

[Bob41213]

3. IMO, the FBI is gonna say something different.

The DOJ may say what you say there but I suspect the FBI is going to have enough to recommend indictment on serious charges. The DOJ may wash things under the rug and plead down to some things like you mention.

And then it will linger and be out there that she got a sweet deal because she's above the law and it will continue to damage her candidacy.

[cheapdate]

55. The FBI is an agency of the DOJ. They report to the US Attorney General.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. No sale.

She may not be indicted, may not stand trial, may be nominated, may be elected. OTOH, She may be indicted, may stand trial, may not be nominated, may not be elected.

There are no facts, only interpretations. Friedrich Nietzsche

Your interpretation differs from the interpretations of others.

[Dem2]

12. Wow, your opinion varies

Such a novel concept.

[aspirant]

5. FBI will say Hills broke the rules fom a-z

and laws from m-z and recommend criminal indictment.

Then the Hills supporters will pretend to be legal scholars and claim it all to be conspiracy theories.

[kimbutgar]

6. The email thing is bogus

She is a busy woman. Between being a US Senator and the Secretary of State. She probably had some techie set up her server and email and got ensnared in another made up stupid feigned outrage by partisan opponents. Both Powell and rice both had similar situations and no one is talking about indicting them.

I am a Bernie supporter but this is a bs story that will not deter me from voting for her if she is the nominee in November.

No way in hell would I ever vote for trump the goblin.

[Hoyt]

9. +1000000.

[YouDig]

11. The fact that Powell and Rice had private emails they used to conduct business is the clincher.

Well, one of many clinchers. Another is that there weren't any classified files on the server, except for retroactively.

But if you indict Hillary for having a small number of retroactively classified documents on private email, then you basically have to indict a whole bunch of other people too, including Colin Powell.

Think about Petraeus, who intentionally shared actual classified material with a women he was having an affair with, and who he knew had no clearance. For that, he got a misdemeanor. Hillary's not going to get anything more than a slap on the wrist.

Politically, it could hurt her but there's no legal case.

[nc4bo]

16. Own private server with which she conducted State AND personal

Business.

The emails really don't mean alot of shit on their own but when tied to her personal server and obvious attempt to hide whatever it was she was doing, takes it to a whole 'nother level of slick n slide.

You Dig?

[yourout]

21. Either they are paid to not care or they are to _______ to.

Anyone tech savy that looks at what she did and says it was ok had better find a new job.

[brush]

91. Don't think she did it. She's many things but not an IT guy.

This was from '09 to '12. Even now many non-tech people have little knowledge of servers or even that emails are not that secure. They rely on IT people to make it all work.

[louis-t]

58. And what was her purpose?

What did she hope to accomplish? To intentionally put classified email on a private server? To hope some terrorist would find the info and attack our country? To give the info to her secret lover-oh wait, that was Petraeus. Was she making money off of doing it that way?

[karynnj]

20. Rice did not even USE email for SD work and Powell did not have a private server

He did screw up in not making sure his email on his private account was archived with the State Department. However, the line to his desk was put in by the SD IT and he very publicly used the computer on his desk attached to it. The SD network was an intranet and you could not send email outside the department.

Do you honestly think it would have been harder than having her Chief of Staff meet with the IT people and ask them for a State ID and information on how IT worked in the State Department? It was harder doing what she did.

Not to mention, she was confirmed several days before Obama took office. Kerry seemed to have no problem doing it correctly.

[yeoman6987]

75. Except rice and Powell didn't keep a private server in the basement of their house

Oh darn you forgot that nugget.

[DrDan]

7. berners and trumpers are always outraged. Regardless of the FBI outcome, conspiracies will abound.

[LAS14]

8. Sounds right to me.

[yourout]

10. You might be right about everything but the next president part.

[asuhornets]

13. "a private email server is just as bad as a triple homicide." LOL!!

[Triana]

14. Yep.

But even as a Bernie supporter I don't see this email thing going anywhere. I expect nothing to come of it therefore - no outrage from me.

[B Calm]

15. Breaking rule xyz sure blows her strong on national security propaganda!

[Idontthinkso]

67. yes it does

[gordianot]

17. There will be outrage might as well have it now and get it over with.

Hillary Clinton will get the nomination she wants and shatter the glass ceiling and not get cut immediately but watch out what you wish for Trump will be able to run on pure rage the key to his success. I will hope to survive the next 4 years with my immediate family. Strong negatives for Legislative branch will spread to the Executive Branch with the hope in 4 years for relief. Maybe at least a centrist status quo Justice will be nominated for the Supreme Court nominated by Hillary Clinton. In 8 years 2024 people will be able to to look back on 2016 as a period of relative peace and tranquility.

[morningfog]

18. You have no understanding of the FBI.

[Aerows]

19. Well if that is what you wish to hold the standard of our government to

I hope to all that is holy that you cannot vote in our country.

We have some rough spots, we have some blind spots, but never let it be said that the American people don't get angry as hell when people in high places and of immense wealth and power break the rules while getting away with it. Al Capone got taken down, Nixon got taken down, and the worst travesty in our history is that Bush got away with it.

If you honestly believe the American people are in the market for another Bush to cover up crimes for, your finger is in the wrong test water. The water is at a boil.

[frylock]

22. This is the opinion of a paid troll.

Full stop.

[barrow-wight]

24. Is there proof of such an accusation?

If not, I think it's pretty rude and dismissive of you to attack people this way.

[Doctor_J]

27. At least as much as the op

[barrow-wight]

30. This paid troll crap is the stuff I will miss the least.

14 more days!

[frylock]

31. Oh, fuck me.

[barrow-wight]

38. So everyone's a paid troll to you, huh?

14 more days and no more pictures of broccoli.

[frylock]

40. No, not everyone. Just the paid trolls.

[warrprayer]

63. ...

[randome]

26. Or a truly clever troll would accuse others of being a troll.

Hope your post gets hidden. I voted for a hide.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[frylock]

37. Yeah, bro. I've been trolling for 14 years.

Just biding my time. See, here's the thing, when the Hillary campaign announces that they are investing money to pay people to troll message boards, and then a message board is flooded with new accounts parroting the same messaging, it doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out what's going on. People can play stupid if they want.

[randome]

41. You choose to see things in the worst light.

Paying people to "get the message out" is not the same thing as trolling. Of course some might take it to troll levels but that's on them. There is nothing at all wrong with using the Internet as an advertising medium.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[frylock]

42. Well, sadly, getting the message out is trolling when you hire trolls..

to get your message out. The originator of this OP has done nothing but troll since jump.

[YouDig]

56. You really think that, don't you? Like you truly believe I am getting paid by David Brock.

[merrily]

57. There is nothing wrong with an ad that is clearly an ad. An ad posing as a sincere poster, however,

is, at best, in a much grayer area on the continuum of right to wrong.

[randome]

76. It doesn't even need to be an 'ad'. It doesn't need to be someone 'posing' at all.

Just someone who explains Clinton's position on an issue. We have spokespeople all the time for that. Do you really think the Clinton campaign would announce this expenditure knowing they meant 'trolls'?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[merrily]

77. A message someone pays to have disseminated is an somewhat of an ad.

As I posted to someone else today, sources like the LA Times began speaking of the project in terms of trolling as soon as Brock announced it.

Of course, trolling can be in the eyes of the beholder. I used to think a good number of posters here trolled every thread Pitt or Manny put up, for example--one or two line, nasty responses that were the font equivalent of jerking one's knee after being hit with that little hammer thingie docs use. However, I'm sure some people found them to be... um, I don't know how to finish this sentence because trolling was the only thing I saw in those posts.

[barrow-wight]

39. He managed to squeak by with one vote.

No matter, in 14 days, that's all she wrote.

[randome]

44. Not a single comment from those who voted to "Leave it".

Which can be interpreted, perhaps, as "I'm a Sanders supporter so I don't care about the TOS."
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[frylock]

48. I'm sure they were in agreement with me.

[warrprayer]

52. I commented!

$ee #32!



Seeing things in the best light!

"We're surrounded? The bastards won't get away this time"!

[barrow-wight]

69. Pretty much.

[joshcryer]

74. Alertable jury.

While I agree with the poster it's still a disruptive insult, adds nothing to the conversation, and even if true, has no influence on the common damn sense of the post.

That jury needs its price revoked.

[frylock]

46. Wait, I thought it was 8 days?

Thank goodness we have a full 14 days. Oh, thank you, kindly new poster!

[frylock]

49. Fascinating.

[barrow-wight]

51. 14 days :)

That's the amount of time you have to come up with an insult more creative than paid troll.

[warrprayer]

32. Jury results coming

I excused myself because I think you are right, but calling a troll a troll is a tos violation.

[joshcryer]

73. I wish I got paid to post common fucking sense.

But you're probably right.

[TCJ70]

23. Rules, schmules...am I right?

Good grief. Do you have no standards?

[AgingAmerican]

35. The handy dandy Transparency page highlights an individuals level of standards

When the 'forced vacation' software is switched back on, half of Hillary's supporters will disappear, that one included.

[Doctor_J]

25. Another Bottom Line post from camp She's Not Quite A Criminal

Although I am glad the hillarians are coming to grips with she is at best an entitled scofflaw who thinks rules are for little people, and at worst corrupt on an amazing level.

[AgingAmerican]

29. Criminal: BAD

Just plain ol' incompetence: GOOOOOD!!

[AgingAmerican]

28. Doesn't have to rise to criminal offence to show INCOMPETENCE

If the FBI says what you claim they will say, she will resign in disgrace.

[rock]

33. I dig

and think you're right on. Possibly, the FBI will say that rule xyz is not all that serious and certainly not a crime, but otherwise I agree with your assessment.

[Vinca]

34. Maybe, but the IG report was worse than most people predicted and

Guccifer has made a plea deal so I wouldn't put anything off the table.

[ucrdem]

36. They'd take her out completely if they could.

There's nothing nonpartisan about any of this. They took out my Dem mayoral candidate the day before the election and we got stuck with a RW nobody from nowhere. They've done it other places too. So now their target is Hillary but they've met their match and they'll go down before she does.

[Ash_F]

50. OK let's say that best case scenario has a 95% chance

How about the 5% chance it doesn't go that way?

[ucrdem]

54. I think she would just have to work around it

like Bill worked around his impeachment.

[Ash_F]

59. Impeachment is based on congressional votes

The FBI's determination is decided by the lead investigator and their direct supervisors. Not the even the head of the FBI can veto it.

If it even gets that far(still has to pass DoJ) it is a bad bad situation. The entire D ticket will suffer.

[ucrdem]

62. I didn't say it would be easy or good, and I don't see it happening.

We're not talking about the mayor of Bugtussle ND so basically I agree with the OP. I was just rolling with your scenario.

[Ash_F]

65. I don't know what the odds are that she will dodge all charges, but it is not 100%

Not worth it. There is an entire national ticket at stake.

[ucrdem]

66. No candidate is perfect and they could probably do worse to Bernie.

So there's that.

[Ash_F]

68. We don't know if Bernie is being investigated by the FBI

We know Clinton is.

The establishment could have literally run any other Dem, if Bernie was so unacceptable, and they would not be in this mess.

....except maybe Mcauliffe

[ucrdem]

72. Any D is going to get this treatment and as infractions go this one is penny ante.

So I see no reason to change horses.

[seekthetruth]

53. Yep.

And within about a year and a half we'll be in another fucking war.

Congrats....I guess....

[Idontthinkso]

60. yep

[spin]

61. I suspect exactly the same thing. Even if the FBI has the balls to recommend...

that Hillary be indicted the DOJ will sit on it and Obama will eventually pardon her.

The rule of law doesn't apply to people like Hillary. It applies to the "little people" like me. I had a security clearance for decades before I retired and if ever in that time frame it would have been discovered that I mishandled classified information, I would have been in deep shit. Real deep shit.

That fact is one of the main reasons that our nation is in the mess that it is. High level government officials, both Democrat and Republican, can get away with egregiously violating the law and know they will never have to face prosecution.

The bottom line is that we no longer live in a well functioning representative democracy where the rule of law applies to all. We are rapidly becoming a banana republic.

[ucrdem]

64. We're talking about email here, not hitmen taking out rivals with tommy guns.

Come on now.

[spin]

81. What I am talking about is how in recent decades...

high level officials in our government don't worry about breaking the rules or the law as they are above the rule of law.

It's probably always been that way in our nation but it seems to be more common today than in the past. As I pointed out it doesn't matter if the administration is Republican or Democrat.

[ucrdem]

83. Okay fair enough but how many Secretaries of State are given grief

for 6 years straight for mishandling their freaking email?! It's completely absurd. There's really a crazy double standard going on here, partly because she's a she and partly because she's a Dem named Clinton who might be president. And yes I understand the need for following procedures but it's not like she accidentally nuked Moscow.

[spin]

84. If it was just private email about yoga classes and her daughter's wedding ...

it would be irrelevant and the FBI would not be interested in the least.

The problem is that a large number of the emails are considered classified, some at birth. The FBI is investigating how such emails ended up on her dark server and who had access to them.

We will know just how serious this if and when the FBI recommends an indictment or when the results of the investigation are leaked. We will likely know the results if the FBI finds her totally innocent or if they feel she negligently mishandled classified email.

I find myself wonder why it's taking so damn long. That leads me to suspect that this may be even more serious than rumored.

Time will tell.

[ucrdem]

85. The problem is a) she wasn't an employee and b) she's no longer there.

And it wasn't a military position so she can't be disciplined or have her pension docked. I suppose she has some kind of SoS pension that could be garnished which would probably strike the nation as Martha-Stewart-in-chains peevishness and garner symapthy but any harsher disciplinary measure would/will seem wildly vindictive and garner even more sympathy which I don't think is the effect I think Mr. C is trying to achieve.

[YouDig]

70. Do you realize that if she had used a state email account, it would also have been

against the rules to send classified info? Classified info doesn't go by email, period.

As a practical matter, it sometimes does, because there's a grey area, and sometimes one department says it's classified and another doesn't, and sometimes things are retroactively classified like in Clinton's case. But the privateness of the server doesn't make this a violation of policy, it would be a violation even with state.gov.

For it to be a crime it has to have intent or be grossly negligent. It was obviously neither. The two previous Secretaries of State also used private email accounts. Do they go to prison too? What this is about is a big beaurocratic mess in the way classified info is handled and also in the state department's IT. It's inevitable that with a big organization someone is going to send some email with information that they didn't know was classified, but somewhere someone else said that it was.

There's even cases where info is marked classified when it can be found in newspapers. All "classified" means is that someone with the authority decided to stamp "Secret" or "Top Secret" or "Confidential" on a piece of paper. If someone in the bureaucracy decides to stamp "Top Secret" on a piece of paper that says "Christmas is December 25", then technically that becomes classified information. And then everyone with a Christmas party is violating state secrets.

[spin]

78. That may well be true but the FBI would not be investigating her today...

if she had simply followed the rules.

[YouDig]

80. They wouldn't be if her name wasn't Clinton.

But she knows her name is Clinton, and she knows that she gets extra scrutiny. She shouldn't have done it.

[spin]

82. I agree with that. She was obviously planning to run for president. ...

It was foolish to unnecessarily create the possibility of another major scandal. She survived the Bengazi mess well. She was well on her way to winning in a landslide.

Even if the FBI doesn't want to indict her, she has lost the trust of many voters which will make this election much tighter.

[uponit7771]

86. No one believes any of this

[spin]

90. It does seem a fairly large number of people feel Hillary might have ...

done something seriously wrong. There are a lot of important investigations for the FBI to work on. Why waste so much time and money to investigate Hillary?

[joshcryer]

71. And the IG report inoculates her...

...since it proves it never came up to cyber security, and though warnings went out they were shot down by the bureaucracy.

Nothing more than a bureaucratic snafu.

[eastwestdem]

79. You forgot to add that following all this, the BSers heads will explode. nt

[EndElectoral]

87. When did you talk to Comey?