Mountains of evidence pointing to serious, deliberate crimes

[fbc]

Clinton voters are oblivious to the dangers. Polls show they no longer consider her “honest and trustworthy,” but they still don’t think she has committed any crimes. Countless Clinton supporters have told me, “These investigations won’t find anything. The Benghazi hearings proved it. This is simply a partisan witch hunt.”

They are half right. The Benghazi hearings proved, once again, that Congress has the investigative prowess of Homer Simpson. They are right that Republicans hate her. Divided as the GOP is, it is united in thinking Bill and Hillary are corrupt, self-serving liars.

But the GOP is not leading the criminal investigation. The FBI is. The bureau is not partisan, and it is not on a witch hunt. Despite the obvious risks of investigating the presumptive Democratic nominee during a Democratic administration, its agents are sorting through mountains of evidence pointing to serious, deliberate crimes.

link: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/29/hillarys_victories_mean_painful_legal_choices_for_doj_wh.html

The Benghazi accusations were nonsense from the beginning. This is different. There is substantial evidence that Hillary Clinton and members of her staff broke the law, repeatedly.

The whole "weren't classified when they were sent" defense means nothing if those email were then stored on a private email server after they were classified.

Clinton is in real trouble.

[Tarc]

1. Thank you for, once again, carrying the right-wing water for them

[revbones]

6. Wow. Head in the sand much?

The article states facts. The FBI is not an arm of the right-wing.

Sheesh.

[6chars]

19. The whole investigation only started bc of right wing

FOIA requests.

[revbones]

26. Might want to read up a bit

and even were it solely because of judicial watch (which it isn't), how it started doesn't matter if crimes were committed.

Or would you say that it's ok to commit a crime and you should not be prosecuted if you were only discovered by an opposing political party?

[dchill]

35. I can answer that.

It's OK. If you're HRC. These things must bow to the inevitable.

[6chars]

40. sometimes there is selective enforcement

like when everyone is driving 70mph, but they only pull over Hillary.

[A Simple Game]

63. I didn't know everyone in the Federal Government had their own servers

and handled top secret emails, otherwise your analogy isn't so good.

[Yavin4]

101. See Colin Powell.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-personal-email-secretary-of-state-115707

[Half-Century Man]

121. Charge him too

Charge Scott Walker as well.

All 3 kept secret servers to side step FOIA requests.

[ToxMarz]

165. The issue with Hillary is sending of classfied emails improperly

Not avoiding FOIA requests, Walkers appears to be to avoid them. I don't think Walker was handling classified information. Other than it pertaining to email, it is not the same. Colin Powell I haven't followed that much, but it seems also is about classified material.

[Half-Century Man]

194. I see it as a violation of the public trust.

Walker and Hillary both used personal servers to conduct private business, campaign business, and fund raising within the hours spent on the clock at their jobs.
Powell and Hillary both did the paperwork on security clearances (I signed em too 30+ years ago). They knew better.

[platitudipus]

155. Hillary uses that "other people did it too" defense a lot.

Speaking Transcripts - I'll show mine when everybody else shows theirs
Speaking Fees - Everybody else got money for speaking, why can't I
Private Email Server - Everybody else did it, why not investigate them too?

I'm not sure that's going to be a viable defense, but I didn't think 'affluenza' was either.

[arcane1]

233. And the "other people" are ALWAYS republicans n/t

[Jester Messiah]

197. With whatever respect may be due to the general...

This is a matter for the courts to decide.

[elljay]

81. Selective Enforcement

This defense usually fails and is difficult to prove. She would have to demonstrate that, of the pool of government officials who mishandled confidential information on their private home servers, the government targeted only her and thereby violated her rights to Equal Protection and Due Process. Good luck with that one.

[JDPriestly]

90. She still gets the ticket.

Maybe no jury will convict her. Maybe she won't be indicted.

Why in the world are Democrats willing to take a chance.

And then, why vote for Hillary?

A vote for Hillary says that our current campaign finance system if OK, that corruption is OK?

I cannot think of one good reason to vote for Hillary instead of for Bernie.

And no one on this website who supports Hillary has ever been able to state one coherently.

There simply is no good reason to vote for Hillary.

She is a risk to the Democratic Party and a poor excuse for a candidate.

And a vote for Bernie is a vote against Citizens United and the campaign finance corruption.

Vote for Bernie. Send the right message.

[pdsimdars]

99. Come on man, I have actually heard one clearly stated reason to vote for her

Many have said it would be a good example for their daughters to realize that girls can be anything.
I didn't say it was a GOOD reason, but it is clearly stated (over and over again in the Hillary group)

[ChairmanAgnostic]

127. I refuse to even read, much less wallow in that cesspool

Some of their antics have really turned me off.

[Punkingal]

105. ^This^

[NWCorona]

32. I didn't know that the right wing made her set up a bone headed server

Or that all that foreign money. It was Obama that made the Clinton's return that money not the Repubs

[pdsimdars]

89. Wasn't that how Watergate started?

Even if it didn't, that has nothing to do with it.
It may have been a dog that dug up the body but that doesn't mean no crime happened.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

180. How do FOIA requests lead to a criminal investigation by the FBI?

[Press Virginia]

184. And Watergate was over a botched burglary

sometimes its the little things

[Perseus]

67. Where was the FBI when Karl Rove deleted all those emails from a non-gov server?

I have a hard time accepting the objectivity and impartiality of FBI and CIA, they will investigate one but not the other, so explain how the FBI, or the CIA, which pretty much carried water for GW and Cheney, are not an arm of the right-wing?

[revbones]

68. The fact that you mention that as something that was wrong

should mean you also think it is wrong when Hillary does it.

[Beowulf]

95. Director Comey is as straight an arrow as it comes.

He stood up to Shrub on wiretapping and on the firings of US district attorneys. He's been passionate about DOJ and the FBI being nonpartisan. If the FBI recommends indicting Hillary and Justice doesn't. Expect Comey to make a very public fuss, perhaps even resign. If that happens, politically, it would be almost the equivalent of issuing an indictment.

[grasswire]

263. It will be epic, like Watergate.

There is no reason for us to allow her to represent the Democratic Party when she is so very flawed.

[Tarc]

69. Pay attention, son

The FBI is just doing its due diligence as required by law. But the push and the fuss and the screaming that it actually matters or was actually illegal is coming from the right-wing and a tiny core of desperate Camp Sanders folks, i.e. you.

[revbones]

73. Wow. ignorance of facts doesn't make them less true "son"

There are actually people in jail for less than what was done here. Google could be your friend. You should meet.

Information that is supposed to be born classified was mishandled. It was given to people without clearances. The receiving servers in some cases were hacked.

Even if it were all some giant conspiracy out to get your candidate, then the fact of having an active FBI investigation going on during the election should worry you. That you would willfully ignore the proven facts that have already come out and then attribute it to just part of a smear job is appalling.

[Tarc]

79. You can keep bleating, but no one outside of the GOP actually cares about this

Whipped-up Republican hysteria, is all this is. No one literally cares about what e-mails were on the server, please don't lie to yourself or to us and claim that State Department correspondence protocol was a pressing issue for you before hearing the word "Emailgate".

You "care" about this because it is a potential political chip to play. At least be honest about that, if you're unable to be honest about anything else.

[revbones]

82. Then why reply?

Just stick your head in the sand.

The fact is though, that were you to take any of those issues and replace the name "Clinton" with "Cruz" and you'd be foaming at the mouth.

[Tarc]

141. Why reply? To put you in your place

and make others actually see that your bullshit won't go unchallenged.

[revbones]

143. Ah. Doing an excellent job of it then I see. Carry on. But you could

probably sprinkle in some actual facts otherwise it's just bleating with your head in the sand.

[Tarc]

148. Again, you do not actually care about "the damn emails"

You just see it as a political chip to play, ironically choosing to play it when your own candidate finds it to be a waste of time.

So you're not doing this in Sanders name, but rather in the GOP's. You might earn a tad more respect if you'd just own what you're upto here...

[revbones]

150. Congratulations on your newly acquired mind reading skills

I care about the truth, and as someone that has dealt with classified materials and seen people go to jail serving time for less, I have a big issue with the mishandling of classified materials.

And really? Just because you disagree with my viewpoints, you'll label me as part of the GOP? That's a good one. I'm complaining about law-breaking so I must be a law-breaking republican.

Are you really ok when your team does it, but then try to chastise republicans if they do it?

[Unknown Beatle]

241. Let's forget about "the damn emails" then,

and look at other things Hillary has done.

Doesn't it bother you that she takes money from Wall St. will decrying that she will rein them in?

Doesn't it bother you that she won't release the transcripts to her speeches to Goldman Sachs? It's a lame excuse that she will release them when all others do. If she has nothing to hide why does she refuse?

Doesn't it bother you that she gets giddy when talking about death? She laughed when Gaddafi was killed.

Doesn't it bother you that she and Bill were instrumental in passing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, aka welfare reform, that affected women and children and increased poverty?

Doesn't it bother you that Bill passed a crime bill that dramatically drove up the incarceration rate and and as a defense of the bill Hillary called African-American young people "super-predators" and that they must be brought "to heel"?

Those are facts, pure and simple. If those don't bother you, then you've got your head in the sand.

[Tarc]

242. I can answer those

1. No, I have little interest in the "fight the big banks" dog whistle.
2. No, I have little interest in the "fight the big banks" dog whistle.
3. No, I was giddy too when Khadaffy bit the dust, as I'm sure the relatives of Pan Am 103 were as well.
4. No, welfare should be a temporary situation to get people back on their feet, not a years-long landing spot.
5. I did not agree with that at the time either, but no politician will ever satisfy you 100% of the time. I am glad to see that they both realize it was a mistake and have changed course.

[bread_and_roses]

252. How I love the "welfare bashing" I see around here these days

"No, welfare should be a temporary situation to get people back on their feet, not a years-long landing spot."

First, few people on "welfare" ever regarding it as some sort of soft "landing spot" as you imply - and a great many, if not most, went on and off as they found work. Unfortunately, most jobs that most people on "welfare' were and are able to get are both low-paid and totally unforgiving of anything like a sick child. Schedules are often also near-impossible for anyone who either has a child or who does not have a car. Among the many reasons that low-wage workers are in and out of work. There was plenty of data at the time to show this pattern, but Clinton chose to pretend it was all about "personal responsibility."

Furthermore, "welfare" did not then and does not now give anyone enough to live on. I live in NY, one of the more "generous" states regarding welfare. Nonetheless, it was not unusual then and is not now for the entire "welfare check" to go for rent, leaving nothing for anything else - not clothes, not toilet paper, not dish soap. Toilet paper and dish soap - also body soap and toothpaste - were among the most frequent items clients would ask me if I could find them some help to get. I don't know about you, but I don't call that a "landing spot."

Clinton's "welfare reform" also made it HARDER for people "to get back on their feet" by reducing their education options, for one.

http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2011/07/5-ways-new-yorkers-say-welfare-policies-fail-them/

#5 Full-time student? You still need to work 30 hours a week: Before the 1996 Welfare Reform law, 30,000 students who received benefits attended CUNY. Today, CUNY only has only 6,000 students who receive benefits The 1996 law limited recipients of cash assistance to one year of post-secondary education and began cutting off benefits for students unless they spent 30 hours a week working.

Additionally, the draconian regulations and penalties often mean that people are thrown even deeper into poverty if anything goes wrong and they break one of the "rules" - like losing a job because your day-care provider got sick, or terminated you because your schedule made you pick up the child late on too many times.

Since there is not and never has been adequate subsidized child-care for people on "welfare" these were the kinds of nightmare scenarios I saw when I worked in the field. And many more. I could go on and on.

There is no question that "welfare reform" caused untold pain, stress, hardship, and yes, actual hunger and cold and homelessness.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanf-cash-benefits-continued-to-lose-value-in-2013

As of July 1, 2013, every state’s benefits for a family of three with no other cash income were below 50 percent of the federal poverty line, measured by the Department of Health and Human Services 2013 poverty guidelines. Benefits were below 30 percent of the poverty line in most states. And, the TANF benefit level for a family of three with no other cash income is less than the Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom apartment in every state, nationwide.[1] In fact, in 25 states, TANF benefits cover less than half of the Fair Market Rent. When SNAP benefits (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps) are added to TANF family grants, families with no other income are still below the poverty line.

TANF provides a safety net to relatively few poor families: in 2012, just 25 families received TANF benefits for every 100 poor families, down from 68 families receiving TANF for every 100 in poverty in 1996.

I worked for years and years with people on welfare - both in the state system itself & for private NFPs. I could go on and on. But I won't. It's obvious around here that it is now OK to spout right-wing talking points and myths about people "on welfare."

[JTFrog]

93. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^ n/t

[pdsimdars]

104. Just like the climate deniers

The Clinton supporters turn a blind eye and REFUSE to accept facts that don't fit in with what they think. Denail ain't just a river in Egypt.

[Phlem]

108. Wrong, I do

And I'm a lifetime Democratic voter, son.

And by the way, ignoring facts has already been championed by the Republicans.

[Tarc]

140. You're in the wrong party

[Jester Messiah]

199. Maybe he's not. Maybe you are. n/t

[Half-Century Man]

156. No one cares???

So you condone crime?
Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton is a pro-crime candidate? The very public spokesperson for the "tough on crime bill" that put the hundreds of thousands of African Americans behind bars for minor drug offenses is nowabove the reach of the law? The one who (at least for this week)is fighting the "to big to fail, to big to jail" is to big to fail, to big to jail.

My personal main concern is hiring a public servant stupid enough, warped enough to attempt to sidestep the protocols set in place to monitor their performance and keep accountability to their employers (us). This exposes a level of personal failing and contempt for us that precludes any further employment.
That's just bad business practices; to promote those who have worked on company time to promote themselves over company interests. To use company resources for personal profit.

She is an unfit employee.

[Gothmog]

227. 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

[revbones]

231. Good. Guess they'll just ignore what they found so far

and wrap things up because one guy compared it to Petraeus's situation.

[Gothmog]

236. What have they found?

So far according to the experts like Dan Abrams, there is nothing there that is illegal.

You do realize that the so-called top secret e-mails were Clinton aides talking about articles published in the NYT. I hate to break it to you but discussing an article published in the NYT is not a crime except on the right wing websites.

[revbones]

240. I think you are mistaken

Abrams comments are a little dated given the current releases. Many were found to contain "operational intelligence" and have not been released to the public. Many contain information that is to be considered "born classified"

I hate to break it to you, but you can't discount everything Hillary does wrong as just being a right-wing smear job.

[Gothmog]

248. The operational intelligence are reports published in the Washington Post or NYT

The people classifying the documents are calling e-mails that discuss articles about drones published in the NYT or the Washington Post to be classified. This same level of classification stupidity was applied to e-mails from Sec. Powell's time as Sec. of State which is why he agrees with Sec. Clinton. http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/colin-powell-says-hillary-clintons-email-is-a-non-issue/23756/

Now that former Secretary of State Colin Powell has been dragged into the same private server email controversy that’s been thrown at Hillary Clinton for the past six months, he’s weighing in on the matter decisively. Powell is being accused of having sent emails that contained classified information from his own private server while he was in office, and he’s making clear that any retroactive reclassification is a non-issue. In so doing, he’s also absolving Clinton in the matter.

Colin Powell is now calling on his own emails to be released to the public so it can be clearly seen by all that he didn’t reveal any information which was classified at the time, and that his emails were harmless. “I wish they would release them so that a normal, air-breathing mammal would look at them and say, ‘What’s the issue?'” He also stated he believes the emails in question are still not classified, despite any retroactive reclassification.

Powell didn’t mention Clinton by name, but he didn’t have to. By stating his own emails that weren’t classified at the time are a non-issue, he’s also labeling Clinton’s emails that weren’t classified at the time as a non-issue. This is key because Powell is not only widely respected, he’s a republican. This weakens the arguments being made by some republicans that Clinton has done something wrong with her emails, because she’s now being absolved by one of the most respected republicans out there. NBC has more on the story.

Powell has agreed with Sec. Clinton on this issue because the documents being classified are not classified in any normal sense of the concept

[revbones]

249. I still think you are incorrect. The ones I read about are not related to drones.

[Gothmog]

250. Provide a link but I have been following this issue for some time

Nothing new has come out in a while but that has not stopped the RWNJs from predicting that Clinton will be thrown into jail without a trial on other sites. Claims are amusing. Again the FBI is not commenting and there are unattributed statements made from unnamed sources. The article in the OP is from a poly sci professor who is not a lawyer and makes some amusing sweeping generalizations that are inconsistent with the facts are reported.

Again, the so-called operational intelligence is weak at best. I trust Senator Feinstein on this issue http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-had-emails-on-server-more-classified-than-top-secret/

The top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, had a similar response, calling the story "nothing new."

"None of the emails that are alleged to contain classified information were written by Secretary Clinton. The question of whether she received emails with classified information has nothing to do with any action taken by Secretary Clinton," she said. "Additionally, none of the emails that were sent to Secretary Clinton were marked as including classified information, a requirement when such information is transmitted."

Feinstein said the inspector general was being used for "baldly partisan attacks."

You are welcome to rely on material from other sites but I tend to trust Senator Feinstein

[Gothmog]

232. Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones

The so-called "Top Secret" emails were all about NYT stories concerning drones and were in the public domain. There is no basis for an indictment for talking about articles published in the NYT http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones

So just what was in those "top secret" emails that Hillary Clinton received on her personal email server while she was Secretary of State? The New York Times reports what everyone has already figured out: they were about drones. What's more, the question of whether they contain anything that's actually sensitive is mostly just a spat between CIA and State:

Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified “top secret.”

The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies. In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies.

....Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of “HCS-O” — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources...The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.’s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.

The whole piece is worth reading for the details, but the bottom line is pretty simple: there's no there there. At most, there's a minuscule amount of slightly questionable reporting that was sent via email—a common practice since pretty much forever. Mostly, though, it seems to be a case of the CIA trying to bully State and win some kind of obscure pissing contest over whether they're sufficiently careful with the nation's secrets.

It is not against the law to read and talk about articles in NYT. Your wait for an indictment may be a very long one.

Heck even Trump has given up an indictment

[Half-Century Man]

125. Tell that shit to Chelsea Manning. nt

[merrily]

235. Comparing law with the facts of the case is how you decide something is illegal, not by "screaming."

And this is from the source cited in the OP, not the words of the poster:

Despite the obvious risks of investigating the presumptive Democratic nominee during a Democratic administration, its agents are sorting through mountains of evidence pointing to serious, deliberate crimes.

[John Poet]

78. Hillary is leading by a landslide

in the State of Denial.

[brush]

87. Not just there, in the Super Tuesday states too.

[brush]

147. Find reality quickly please. Super Tuesday is today and results will overwhelmingly favor Clinton.

[brush]

172. Please put the joint down and step away from the keyboard.

[Ferd Berfel]

133. SHe is leading with Low Information Voters

The people that mostly get their news from M$M (where there has been a Bernie Blackout since day one)

[Loki]

181. You really do live in your own little world.

Blaming Democratic voters as being "low information voters" is not how you win friends and influence people. Low information my ass.

[marew]

224. Exactly!!! n/t

[brush]

83. How much do you make doing this?

[revbones]

84. Doing what?

Pointing out the truth? Don't try to insinuate I'm some right-wing smear merchant because I posted an opinion contrary to yours.

[azureblue]

128. Ken Starr

is that you ?

[revbones]

129. David Brock

is that you?

[thereismore]

30. Well lokie here. I don't have you on ignore yet!

[Tarc]

65. Well lookie here, a Camp Sanders fellow who is unable to deal with opposing p.o.v.s

Enjoy the bubble.

[Phlem]

115. "Enjoy the bubble."

Really!?





you're silly. Bubble... Ha!

So what is it? Is Hillary going to pick a better SCOTUS? Cause the 1% is looking out for all of us?

That she really promises to "look into it" and tell them to "cut it out"?

Or is just personal affection for Bankers because that's the makeup of the Thirdway.

Or is it the the Thirdway and how they've pulled Democrats to the right?

Is it that her supporters in congress, specifically Harry Reid, are trying to promote Republicans?

Are you sure your in the right party?

Jeebus effing christ on a stick.

[Tarc]

134. Can you squeeze in a few more buzzwods and smileys in there?

You're running low.

[Phlem]

221. Typical, avoiding the issues.

I know right!? You've got nothing.

[azureblue]

138. well lookie here

another Ken Starr, Trent Gowdy, Darrell "Isis" who has been proven wrong time and time again, but yet they whack that dead horse again, thinking they can come up with something else to bring down Ms. Clinton.
Do you guys ever get tired of making fools of yourselves? Apparently not, been then you're probably not even aware that you're making fools of yourselves anyway.

This isn't about CLinton vs Sanders at all. It is about idiots like you who play fast and loose with reality, and keep hoping you can find dirt, even if you have to innuendo. lie and half truth your way to get it.

You don't give flying shit about the issues that face America at all. You don't want to address them, nor talk about why your candidate is better tat addressing the issues and what their plans are. All you want to do is fling shit. You have no solutions, just effin destruction, and it's assholes like you that put American politics in the gutter. You are the problem. Not Sanders. Not Clinton. You.

Get lost. Go crawl back under your rock.

[Half-Century Man]

162. No, We will be here forever.

Power doesn't get to do whatever it wants.
You might like being a slave to power but we don't.

[obamanut2012]

36. THIS

[fredamae]

37. Specifics? n/t

[Dustlawyer]

60. This is something that should at least be taken into account if you want a Democrat in the WH.

To be totally dismissive of the issue is setting us up for a possible catastrophe. You should never be so totally married to a candidate that you do not objectively consider not just the positives of your candidate, but also any perceived negatives as well.

[John Poet]

85. This reminds me of Iran-contra, when Reagan's backers

insisted the President could do no wrong--

and then they decided that criminal Oliver North was just a patriot-hero.

[tblue37]

88. Yep. I was taken n by John Edwards' populism, because I worried that Obama was too

cozy with banks and corporations. I switched to Obama during our 2008 caucus when Edwards didn't reach 15%, but I feared Obama would populate his administration with Wall Street guys and DLC alumni.

But I realized afterward, when Edwards' sleazy affair hit the tabloids, that we had dodged a bullet. Sure, IOKIYAR, but Dems can't get away with that sort of crap.

I feel the same dread about Hillary that I experience in retrospect about Edwards. That isn't a crown poised above her head, but the sword of Damocles. If it is going to fall, let it be soon, while the party still as time for a course correction! SCOTUS is too big a deal to risk.

[Loki]

198. So to you Hillary's negatives

are far more disgusting than any Repukes negatives? Really. I see that Texas flag as your icon. What Democrats have you supported in Texas, just wondering? I lived there in Houston for a very long time.

[Cal33]

91. What about all the dirty tricks against Sanders carried out by Debbie Schultz of DNC to

make him lose and help Clinton win? And Debbie stops at nothing. She behaves like
a Republican.

[green917]

130. you're kidding yourself

If the democratic nominee gets subpoenaed (much less indicted which is looking more and more likely), she won't be able to overcome the negative press even if she isn't guilty of anything (which is looking less and less likely)!think if John Edwards had been our nominee when that scandal happened.

[joeybee12]

171. Exactly...sometimes I wonder where I am when I read

so many baseless smears here.

[Loki]

206. We have been teleported to Free Republic

God what a bottomless pit of trash talk and idiocracy that place is. Wonder how many are receiving a salary for this?

[joeybee12]

214. Lots...

And lots are probably typing from overseas* just to stir this sh*t up.

[Lizzie Poppet]

191. Nice refutation of the article's assertions of fact.

Oh, wait...

[joeybee12]

212. Oh wait...allegations are facts...

Like I said, you can assert and allege something, and it's not a fact,...Fox Noise does that all the time...like I said, where am I?

[Lizzie Poppet]

215. Um...maybe look up "assertions" and get back to me, m'kay?

[joeybee12]

219. Not gonna bother...I dont' need to...thanks for playing...nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

223. Your response argues otherwise.

Nothing about my response to Tarc would lead a literate, rational person to think I was claiming that the OP essay was doing anything more than asserting facts (not proving them). Thus your response, implying that I was presenting the article's allegations as facts, reflects either ignorance of the meaning of the term "assertions," or (to give you the benefit of the doubt...sorta) a failure to actually spend a moment thinking about what you were either reading or writing.

But by all means, keep digging. It's illustrative...

[Phlem]

238. Oh you mean like when Hillary supporter Harry R. tries to promote Republicans

for positions that Democrats should have?

Nice display at not having a clue.

[rhett o rick]

259. That's kinda funny since Clinton joined the fucking right wing when we needed her the most.

Democrats were looking to her for guidance and she bowed before Bush of all people. She wanted the invasion. She is responsible for her support of the war that killed 500,000 innocent people. How can a Democrat over look that? Don't those lives matter? Don't bother with an answer. It's about domination isn't it. It's about power and wealth isn't it. The hell with 16,000,000 children living in poverty because we know that Clinton and Goldman-Sachs don't care. It's about power and wealth isn't it.

[cui bono]

261. Thank you for supporting a right-wing candidate

.

[Merryland]

2. I just hope she picks a decent vice-president

because if she wins, the Republicans will impeach and she will go down.

[Stallion]

12. You Probably Should Brush Up on How Impeachment Works

nm

[grossproffit]

55. Yeah, well, there's that.

[demwing]

177. Enlighten us...

[grossproffit]

16. Impeachment?

[Lizzie Poppet]

228. No way the GOP's corporate masters allow impeachment anyway.

Perfect scenario for them: GOP control of Congress, opposite party president who can put up a big show of opposing Congress on the 90% of bills that the oligarchs don't really give a fuck about...but everyone on the same page for the remaining 10% they actually care about. Plenty of political fighting going on to convince the peasantry that "so-and-so is fightin' fer mah rights" without any of it interfering with the "important" stuff.

Why on earth would an impeachment be permitted? Bad for business...

[FSogol]

3. Translation: Benghazi!

[fbc]

5. No, "the opposite of benghazi"

Benghazi was BS investigated by republican morons in congress.

As the article makes clear, this is serious evidence of crimes being investigated by the FBI.

[FSogol]

8. SSDD.

[Gary 50]

112. Silly liberals. Don't you realize Hillary can do no wrong?

[Loki]

193. And what wrong with being a liberal?

Now you don't like liberals?

[Lizzie Poppet]

230. I've been meaning to ask Debbie Wasserman Schultz that...

[wryter2000]

76. You nailed it.

[brooklynite]

4. From the author who brought you: "Obama´s Shameful Refusal to Attend Scalia´s Funeral"

Any port in a storm...

[revbones]

9. Attack the messenger, ignore the facts. Just another day for Hillary supporters. n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

110. Post bullshit from right wing hacks,

cry foul when called out.

Just another day for BernieBros.

[revbones]

114. Call something they don't agree with "bullshit" Good job. You win.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

116. It is bullshit.

You are posting lies and speculation from RW sources. You are happily DEFENDING that.

I can't wait til primaries are over.

[revbones]

119. What RW source did I cite? Do tell.

[revbones]

120. Dispute it with facts then please.

Don't waste your time if you truly consider it bullshit as you said, but you don't win arguments just by yelling and dismissing facts.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

123. RW sources should not be here.

And you haven't cited facts. Lies, speculation, yes. Facts? No.

Hillary is not going to be indicted. All of this is bullshit stemming from Benghazi and Judicial Watch (RW crazies) FOIA requests. Classified AFTER THE FACT is not a crime. The fact that you're jumping on it is VERY telling.

Why do you insist on RW sources? Is it confirmation bias?

[revbones]

126. What RW sources??? Please tell me.

At some point, you may eventually realize that facts that are negative for your candidate can't all be lumped together as right-wing smear jobs. Some may actually be facts and true.

Dismissing them out of hand like that doesn't help the party or country, let alone the discussion.

The link in the original post was from realclearpolitics.com. A site cited often by Hillary supporters for various articles. By discounting this one, don't you also discount any positive Hillary stories from that source as well?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

135. The author you cite in your OP is a RW hack.

Not the site, the AUTHOR.

The same author who chided Obama for not attending Scalia's funeral. The same man who is opposed to an Obama Library. A fucking RW hack, and you're promoting him. And doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down!

Any port in a storm.

[revbones]

146. What author did I cite? Are you sure you have the right person?

And regardless of author, you're not able to dispute any of the facts in the article are you? How is what you're doing any better than what you claim the author is doing?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

175. Nevermind. Thought I was arguing with the OP.

My mistake.

[revbones]

179. Look at the original post and see who posted it. HAHAHAHAHA

[Dr Hobbitstein]

183. I already edited and fixed it when I realized.

You were just defending the OP for posting RW garbage, not the poster of said garbage.

[revbones]

196. Still misrepresenting things

Couldn't just apologize or own up to the error, still need to get a dig in on me huh?

I was defending facts. Facts don't lie. I don't care who says the truth, as long as its the truth.

That's the difference here. You (and a lot of Hillary supporters) have acquired the ability to somehow live in a new reality where if someone you don't like says the truth, then it instantly becomes untrue. This seems to occur even when the person you don't agree with is only repeating something someone else said.

No, facts are facts. You don't get to discredit them just because you don't like the person that repeated them.

[Loki]

216. Wow, they went there.

Shaking head........the smell of desperation is pretty strong and by this evening I expect the butt hurt to be of major proportions, probably in massive meltdown mode.

[randome]

7. All these last-second attacks by RealClear, HuffPost, Newsmax, Goodman, Greenwald, etc...

...pfft! What a waste.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[revbones]

10. Again - Attack the messenger, ignore the facts. Just another day for Hillary supporters. n/t

[randome]

13. What facts? The article is 99% 'what-if' scenarios.

Other than the fact that the FBI is coordinating the investigation, what relevant facts are in this article?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[revbones]

15. Well you said it "Other than the fact that the FBI is coordinating the investigation"

That should be fact enough.

[randome]

18. Ah, so it's just another attempt to affect the outcome of Super Tuesday.

By repeating what everyone already knows but with NEW AND IMPROVED EMPHASIS! Got it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Half-Century Man]

176. Effect Super Tuesday?

How?

I think you overestimate the power of Democratic Underground. I don't think we get much real life exposure, in spite of all our rage. None of us will ever convince any of you and vice versa.
Don't say silly things in anger.

[randome]

201. No, not DU, but HuffPost, NewsMax, Intercept, etc. are all vying for eyeballs right now.

They're collectively hoping they can project the power of the pixel to affect the outcome. Which is why all these articles are coming out now and in the past couple of days. It's like they're saying, "Hey, don't forget about this when you're voting! And don't forget who reminded you about it, either!"

Which is fine. Pundits gotta pundit but it's pretty obvious why they're dive-bombing us right now.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Half-Century Man]

208. To sell copy and advertising space. Money

The same motivator as drives the Clinton machine.

[1StrongBlackMan]

200. I stopped reading at ...

But the GOP is not leading the criminal investigation. The FBI is. The bureau is not partisan,

[randome]

226. You read that far?

Agreed:
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[BernieforPres2016]

42. Your apologist posts are a waste

That's the last one I'll read.

[randome]

57. Well, your loss, I suppose.

But you have to admit that's what these last-second repetitions of things everyone knows are designed to do -sway the results of Super Tuesday.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[metroins]

11. Love the gossip tabloid articles

Rw talking points posted on DU and they are allowed....

[revbones]

17. So you're calling the truth "Rw talking points"?

Wow. It's just mindbogglingly insane.

[SheenaR]

25. They are incredibly ignorant

But they have no trouble trotting out Brock, Capehart, et. al when they need to.

[metroins]

41. Show one piece of facts

That the FBI or DOJ are planning to indict Hillary.

Not an unnamed source, not that they are checking her server for emails, not they subpoenaed her to ask about it.

Show one ounce of fact that an official is looking to indict her and I'll actually take it seriously.

But no, there are none. It's a procedural issue with no substance of being under indictment.

[revbones]

49. It is an ongoing active investigation with 100+ FBI agents.

Being blinded to the truth, doesn't make it any less true.

I'll admit she may not be indicted.

Will you admit that she might? If so, then why would you roll the dice during the general election? If not, then there's no need to discuss much anymore if you can't even admit that.

[metroins]

52. Where, where is the proof of indictment?

I don't see it.

All I see are RW talking points.

Way to go, trying to smear the democratic leading candidate.

[revbones]

53. That's a bit obtuse don't you think?

There is an ongoing active investigation. There's only one candidate with an active FBI investigation.

Again, maybe there won't be an indictment. I guess you're ok with risking it. I'm not.

But you won't even admit to the possibility of a crime. That's what is so surprising, the sheer willful ignoring of facts.

[metroins]

54. No. Show an indictment pending or any facts

The FBI has not said at all they are investigating criminally, the DOJ hasn't said they are indicting.

Show one real official saying they are planning to indict.

Otherwise you're posting RW talking points and smearing the Democratic leading nominee.

[revbones]

56. Is that your argument? Really?

Because there isn't an indictment yet, there won't be one coming?

Sheesh. Google the email scandal. Read about how classified materials were mishandled. Specifically look for phrases like "born classified" or "presumed classified". Read about how there are actually people currently in jail for less than was done in this case.

Facts have been cited all over the place. Being willfully ignorant of them doesn't do anyone justice.

[metroins]

58. I've read all about it

There won't be an indictment.

The FBI hasn't said they're investigating with a plan to indict. The DOJ hasn't said they are planning to indict.

So perpetuating a RW talking point is a smear campaign against the leading Democratic nominee.

[revbones]

59. Obviously not.

Law enforcement agencies do not say whether they are investigating with a plan to indict or not. That's the whole point of an investigation.

To use your logic, show me one fact or quote from the FBI that says they are not planning to indict. Or one from the DOJ that they will not indict.

[Loki]

202. In fact, they have found that most of the emails in question

were sent without being labeled or dedicated as "Secret" until after the fact. But to these juveniles, that's an indictment for sure. They would make wonderful Republicans. Truth is inconvenient when it doesn't fit into your ideology.

[rbrnmw]

61. Are sure you support Bernie?

He doesn't want his supporters doing this. He knows it only helps Trump or Cruz. I am quite sure he opposes these RW smears being used in his name. I see nobody trying to damage him here. We know if he is the nominee we don't want to sow rancor and help the Republicans.

[revbones]

62. Explain how concern over an active FBI investigation is a RW smear n/t

[Zambero]

46. More like right-wing talking points masquerading as "truth"

Ongoing phenomena but relatively new around these parts. I'm leaning toward Bernie at the moment, and these half-baked and politically-motivated allegations will not force my hand one way or another. However, it would be nice to stick to real issues. Yes, and let the FBI and other gov't agencies continue to do their work with due diligence, without a lot of grandstanding and catcalling from the sidelines.

[Gary 50]

131. Which allegation is half-baked and politically motivated? That she is under investigation?

Nope. That wouldn't be it because the investigation by the FBI is real. Are you accusing the FBI of investigating politically- motivated half-baked allegations? Is it grandstanding and catcalling to suggest this might be a problem? If you answer yes to these questions you are whistling past the graveyard. It's a real issue. She will probably not be indicted but the whole affair is just one more instance of Hillary's recurring poor judgment.

[Zambero]

280. No, not the investigation

It's the guilty until proven innocent part, directly out of the right-wing playbook. They have feared and loathed the Clintons for a quarter of a century, knowing their potential to win elections, throwing mud at every turn and hoping that it might stick. And Bill Clinton was impeached not for anything resembling a high crime but for very poor judgment. I'm not sold on Hillary yet by any means, but the omnipresent "Evil Clinton Fatigue Factor" results in much skepticism, and I am unwilling to join any of the lynch mobs currently being formed.

[LexVegas]

14. Vince Foster! Whitewater! nt

[revbones]

20. Yep. The FBI and 100 agents is exactly the same

as some right-wing smear job.

[LexVegas]

24. 100 agents! Oh noes!!! nt

[revbones]

28. Good response! Completely obliterated my point by saying "oh noes"

10 points to hufflepuff

[brush]

96. How much are you paid?

[revbones]

98. Good response. Rather than reply or even acknowledge facts, just insinuate I'm a right-wing shill.

[brush]

106. You pretty much fit the description.

[revbones]

107. And that description being someone that has an opposing viewpoint to you. Nice.

[brush]

124. Nah, the low post count at this late stage in the primary process and the repug talking points

[randome]

100. How many people do you think it should take to review hundreds of thousands of emails?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[revbones]

102. Oh. Guess that makes it ok then. Carry on.

[randome]

117. You brought up the '100 agents' point.

And most of those are likely rookies sitting around reading endless emails until their eyes bleed. Sounds more sinister when you say '100 agents', though, without making any distinction.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[revbones]

118. Ok, so the distinction changes things? Makes them less true?

[Laser102]

151. Seriously? 100 agents? LOL! Nothing else going on I guess.

[NWCorona]

39. More like 150 FBI agents, over 50 state department employees along with the people at the DOJ

[6chars]

50. Travelgate.

[Hortensis]

21. Shhh. It's Super Tuesday. Go watch the GOP turn on itself.

[Skwmom]

22. Painful?

[Adrahil]

23. Lipson is a right-wing stooge. NT

[Major Hogwash]

186. Perhaps, but the FBI is not a wingnut organization that is part of the GOP.

They are not the NRA, which is wholly owned and operated by the Republican party.

[GreatGazoo]

27. I continue to wonder about Biden

why was he waiting to jump in. does he know something we don't yet know.

[DCBob]

29. What specifically were the "serious deliberate crimes"??

The article is vague about that. I think because there arent any.

[randome]

34. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU IGNORE THIS FACT??

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[DCBob]

48. LOL!

[Matt_in_STL]

31. I am sure all of the Hillary supporters blowing this off as not serious held security clearances

Actually, if they had held security clearances they would realize just exactly how bad this is. She failed the basic requirements given to anyone upon receiving a security clearance. If this was any run-of-the-mill worker with a clearance, they'd be sitting in a cell waiting for trial.

[zipplewrath]

152. No, they would not

She's basically being accused of mishandling of material that SHOULD have been marked. Even some of that is in dispute. But at the end of the day, the person who would be most in trouble would be the originator, not the receiver.

Yes, you're suppose to detect data spills. But people don't go to jail for missing them. They don't really go to jail for MAKING them, unless there was some intent or carelessness involved. The very worst thing would be a trip back through the class on proper marking of documents.

[Maedhros]

188. Obama has had a real hard-on for prosecuting people who mishandled data.

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

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.

In the case of Drake, he had retroactively-classified information on his computer with no intention to leak it, but the Justice Department threw the book at him.

[zipplewrath]

264. And in those cases

In those cases, if I recall correctly, they attempted to cover up what they had done. THAT will get you in trouble. Hillary has made no such attempt. Quite honestly, that was roughly the intent right up front. She apparently wanted primary control of the information. Not so much to cover up, but to control the flow of information.

[Maedhros]

265. No attempt to cover it up?

Really?

[zipplewrath]

267. Really

For one thing, she wouldn't know how if she tried. Furthermore, she turned stuff over when asked. At this point there apparently isn't anything much that they don't have available, including stuff they deleted. There has been no cover up and no one but the GOP has claimed otherwise. Like I say, it's pretty much a moot accusation because the entire purpose of having it on the private server was to maintain control. That pretty much made them "cover up" proof because they already had permission to control the information.

[Maedhros]

273. I work in security for a large regional bank, and I handle data loss/theft incidents.

Deleting email from the server is definitely covering up.

[zipplewrath]

275. It's required

Our email is regularly purged of anything older than 6 months. I guess we've been covering up for years.

[Maedhros]

277. You don't work for the State Department.

Look, I understand: you don't want to admit that your hero has faults. That seems to be the Democratic mantra these days. But trust me, as someone who has to regularly lobby the FBI and Secret Service to open investigations - the FBI doesn't allocate resources to an investigation unless they believe it warrants action. They would not be investigating Hillary's servers so intently unless they expect to find fire under all that smoke.

I guess you could make the claim that it's a political witch hunt by the FBI at the behest of Obama, but I don't think that idea makes any sense.

[zipplewrath]

278. My hero?

Bajeezeus, I'm banned in the HRC group. I'm far from a Clinton "supporter". Heck, I'm closer to Bernie than her. The last damn thing I wanna live through AGAIN is another Clinton term.

But I also know what I'm talking about and there's nothing here. She got her "get out of jail free" card when the arrangement was approved. After that all she had to do was avoid lying or intentionally breaking the rules. Repeated issues could have gotten her ADMINISTRATIVE actions. But no one in her situations would be "sitting in jail". And because I'm older than 30, I also know that the GOP has made the concept of the Clinton "scandal" about as meaningful as "dog bites man".

The FBI is doing what they've been requested to do. People with ALOT more clout than you have requested this and so it's going to happen. And there's not a lot of love for her over there either. None the less, there is nothing here.

And no, I don't work for the State Department. Which is neither her nor there when it comes to understanding how data spills get handled.

[Maedhros]

279. I trust my own experience with the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies

and my subject matter expertise in data theft and protection more than the opinion of some anonymous person on the Internet.

[zipplewrath]

282. And I trust mine

I trust my personal knowledge about the handling of classified information and data spills, especially on AIS.

[BreakfastClub]

33. Yeah, and Benghazi is going to destroy Hillary! We got her now!! nt

[NWCorona]

44. The FBI isn't benghazi

[Zambero]

38. Can the Bill Clinton House GOP impeachment team be reconvened now?

Why wait until after the election? We have high crimes and misdemeanors, judge and jury, Benghazi disclaimer notwithstanding, right here.

[NCTraveler]

43. I won't be used as a tool for the right...

To ratfuck progressives.

Clinton is going to crush Trump to the tears of idiots everywhere.

[fredamae]

45. Who is carrying the GOP Water again?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/debbie-wasserman-schultz-paylenders-cfpb_us_56d4ce38e4b03260bf77e8fc

[randome]

51. DWS is being protective of Florida with this but, yeah, it does not reflect well on her or the DNC.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[actslikeacarrot]

86. My GOD can she ever go lower?

Defending payday lenders. The motherfucking modern day moneylenders in the temple. Anyone know where the candidates stand on this? I bet I can guess what Bernie's stance would be! Hillary? Who knows!

[yourpaljoey]

47. There is enough dirt associated with the Clinton Foundation alone to sink her battleship

[Dr Hobbitstein]

113. Only if you read nothing but RW sources and ignore all the good

Clinton Foundation has done.

[TryLogic]

132. Same strategy the Koch brothers use - quite a bit of good to distract from the bad.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

137. Nope.

Keep trying, though.

[highprincipleswork]

64. I am so ready to say "I told you so." That's the real no-brainer around here.

[Faux pas]

66. Kickin' for the truth!

[jalan48]

70. Hillary is the oligarch's gal, nothing will come of this.

If they were concerned Biden would have jumped in months ago.

[stupidicus]

71. I sure hope so

eom

[LiberalArkie]

72. My parents said the same thing with the investigations of Nixon. Nothing would change their mind.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

74. As much as I really don't care for HRC, it's so pathetic for so-called Democrats to be going after

the presumed Democratic Party nominee.

[Mustellus]

75. Unless she traded classified information to get sex......

as did General Petraeus. Then giving top secret information out for sex is only a misdemeanor, and you just get fined.

[lark]

77. OMG, here we go again.

FBI and CIA was infiltrated by Bush appointees at the end of his reign and Obama (dumbly) left them in place, so no, FBI isn't even handed here. Cheney outted a major CIA operative and nothing was done because he lied about it and instead his top LT. took the fall. Who did Clinton out, what paper was it published in? See the different standards here. If you took the Repug talking points on Benghazi, they'd look a lot like this list.

I do worry about an indictment, that would kill her chances, bogus though the charges may be. I was really depressed by the results of NV and SC and am not looking forward to the news at the end of today either. Bernie is a much better candidate, but doesn't seem to have any traction outside of college kids and old hippies (like me). I really think he's got the right ideas and it's the right time to start implementing them, however (sadly) that doesn't seem to be the case with most people.

Still hoping he'll start to rise and will become the general nominee.

[Duval]

80. We need to know!

I can imagine, if she is the Nominee, the right wing attacks non-stop, plus the damage this can do to the Democratic Party. I'm voting for someone who will not be tied up in a scandal.

[dcbuckeye]

92. Even if Clinton gets indicted...

Even if Clinton gets indicted and her campaign goes down in flames, Bernie Sanders still won't be the nominee because the DNC won't allow the election to be handed to the Republicans on a silver platter. They will change the rules and give all of Hillary's delegates to Warren or Biden. And don't give me that business about Bernie beating the GOP in all the polls. Once they start unloading a half billion $$ in negative ads, calling him a communist, etc... those poll numbers will change.

[AzDar]

94. Dirty Deeds (Not) Done Dirt Cheap... Wonder if Angus and the Boys would let the Campaign use it?

[pkdu]

97. Charles Lipson - Thanks for your concern. enough said. n/t

[artyteacher]

103. the fact that the FBS keeps putting the crap out...

Right before primary votes proves to me that it is partisan. You know there are career Republicans and Clinton haters working in the FBI, right?

[LW1977]

109. Sure, and Michelle Obama's"Whitey Speech" @ Rev. Wright's church is still there!...

Somewhere! This could take him down his last year in office!
Eek! Beware!

[getagrip_already]

111. actually, that isn't true....

The whole "weren't classified when they were sent" defense means nothing if those email were then stored on a private email server after they were classified.

There is nothing in the law that says that, despite what you think. Fortunately people can only be convicted of breaking real laws, not made up ones.

There is nothing in the code that requires that an unclassified email server be scanned retroactively for material which may have become classified. Sorry, that is the case.

Here is another fact. The state departments own email server is unclassified, and they NEVER went back and cleansed the messages until the FOIA request came through. What does that tell you?

Classified material is not supposed to be on the State department server. It isn't a secure system. The have "wires" for that purpose.

The fact that it was a private server doesn't mean anything either. Every federal agency sends unclassified messages outside of their system to private servers every hour of every day. It's how they do business.

Why don't you stop making stuff up. It's not how the government secrecy act works.

[jeff47]

122. The problem is you're responding to a mischaracterization of this defense.

The claim is they were not marked classified when they were sent. Not that the information itself was not classified.

The marking is not what makes the information classified. The information is classified, whether or not it is marked. The information can be classified even if it's available through non-classified sources.

For example, if Clinton copy-n-pasted something Manning leaked into an email, she's still in trouble. How much trouble depends on exactly where the email is and who it was sent to.

[zipplewrath]

149. So do you

She did not originate the emails, so she wasn't the one responsible for marking them. So she hasn't been accused of your example. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for people who handle classified information to not immediately recognize classified material, especially when that classified information appears in publicly available sources. Many of those described have been people sending her compilations of material from unclassified sources. Yes, they can still be classified, especially upon compilation. But again, SHE wouldn't be the one at greatest risk, it would be the originator. Until other people start going to jail, she won't be anywhere near a jail cell. You'll know this is getting serious when other people start getting plea deals.

[jeff47]

158. She is the one who caused them to be stored in an unclassified environment.

If I still had a clearance and you sent me something Manning leaked, I would have a very shitty day. If I did not report it, I would at a minimum be fired and lose my clearance.

If I configured my email server as badly as Clinton did, I would be prosecuted for negligence. (There's basically two ways they can prosecute you: Give it to a spy/sell it, or negligence)

Furthermore, it is not uncommon for people who handle classified information to not immediately recognize classified material, especially when that classified information appears in publicly available sources.

It is not uncommon to be wrong by one "level". So you mistake something SECRET for unclassified.

It is very uncommon to be wrong by more than one level. You're very unlikely to think TS is unclassified.

It is damn near impossible to think TS/SCI/HUMINT or SAP is unclassified.

Obviously, we don't know exactly what the information was. But it would be really, really, really, really, really, really, really rare for TS/SCI or SAP to look like it should not be classified at some level.

You'll know this is getting serious when other people start getting plea deals.

Like her IT guy taking the 5th?

[zipplewrath]

182. She as ALLOWED to...

You keep ignoring that the use of the private server (all of the state department email servers were unclassified) was approved BY the State Department. That's her "get out of jail free" card. It was stupid, and what has happened is completely predictable, but it was approved none the less.

And it is VERY easy to miss that a collection of information compiled from unclassified sources has become highly classified.

Has her IT guy been charged with anything yet? Because any lawyer worth their salt is going to advise that one take the 5th so that they don't have to give up enough to get charged in the first place.

[jeff47]

207. That approval did not include storing classified on that server.

Also, claiming approval from the agency she was in charge of as a defense is probably not very effective.

Has her IT guy been charged with anything yet?

Nope. But again, this isn't a courtroom. This is a campaign. Appearance of impropriety is enough to hurt her campaign.

[zipplewrath]

266. So you know.

So you know who gave the approval? I've been trying to find out for some time.

And there isn't anything here to hurt her campaign, because there is nothing there. The GOP long ago destroyed their ability to impair through implication with the Clinton's. They've been throwing mud for so long, you can't even tell anymore. People either like her or don't and the GOP really can't do much about that anymore.

[jeff47]

268. Well...it's the State department. She was SoS.

Whoever gave approval either directly or indirectly reported to her.

No one has claimed the approval came from an outside agency like OMB. And given the political benefits of outside approval, that would have been claimed if it were true.

The GOP long ago destroyed their ability to impair through implication with the Clinton's.

The FBI does not work for the GOP. It works for Obama.

[zipplewrath]

269. And they haven't accusted her of a cover up

And there is no indication that the FBI will accuse her of a cover up.

And I'm not sure where the approval came from. I would have expected it to come from GSA, not State. Heck part of the reason she was given this opportunity is because of the intolerable state of IT inside the State Department. Ambassadors were doing the same thing. Powell was, so did Condi. There was an insufferable amount of use of otherwise "private" (nongovernment) email for relatively "official" business. And yet no one seems to want to ask this question.

[jeff47]

270. Yet.

The investigation is still ongoing. They don't leak like Republicans. We'll see where it goes.

But if she was a random low-level government employee she'd be in deep shit for this.

Heck part of the reason she was given this opportunity is because of the intolerable state of IT inside the State Department.

She wasn't "given this opportunity". She made it happen.

Contrast that with Kerry, who decided to prioritize fixing State's IT problems instead of creating an island for himself.

Ambassadors were doing the same thing. Powell was, so did Condi.

And as soon as they run for president, we can consider what effect that has on their presidential campaigns.

[zipplewrath]

271. Nor of being a martian either

So you're suggesting the absence of and accusation is the potential FOR an accusation?

There's nothing here and no, she wouldn't be in trouble for this on any level. This problem is so common it is hard to describe. This is why it was insane that she was allowed to do this because this was completely predictable. At the very LEAST the servers should have been audited on a frequent basis for security and for their back up capabilities. And as we have seen, the National Archives should have been involved.

[jeff47]

272. I'm suggesting that the FBI isn't done.

Which, shockingly enough, is exactly what the FBI says.

There's nothing here and no, she wouldn't be in trouble for this on any level.

And here you demonstrate you know nothing of procedures in a classified environment.

And as we have seen, the National Archives should have been involved.

Well, if she had bothered to follow FOIA, there'd be no investigation.

Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit. They got some emails from State. They noticed @clintonemail.com addresses. Suddenly Judicial Watch gets to troll her entire server...leads to discovery of classified and FBI investigation.

Imagine an alternate reality where Clinton actually followed FOIA and turned over her emails when she stepped down. Judicial Watch gets them along with the giant pile of @state.gov emails. Checking the emails for classified was already done when the emails were turned over, so there's no sudden discovery. No FBI investigation. No crisis.

As with the Rose Law Firm billing records that kept Starr around long enough to find Lewinsky, Clinton is her own worst enemy.

[zipplewrath]

274. I'm suggesting there is nothing there

The FBI would have already found something by now. They're just dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's".

And I know more than you realize about procedures in classified environments. Which is also why I know there is nothing here. And it's why I know this should have never been authorized. What happened was completely predictable, bordering on 100%.

[getagrip_already]

164. actually, i'm not...

As someone who falls under this particular code, I know how it works.

Information which becomes classified after the fact does not need to be purged from unclassified systems unless a specific notice is sent to look for it.

I'll give you an example. Lets say I had a conversation with x about y. Neither x nor y is classified. I send an email from an unclassified system to another unclassified system discussing it. No harm, no foul, right?

Ok, time goes by, and a completely different organization decides that any mention of y is classified. But, they make no effort to notify unsecured systems of that fact. It is not a violation of law to keep that email on the unclassified system.

Sorry, thats how it works. The owners of the unclassified system are under no obligation to retroactively scan their systems for data which may have become classified. In fact, they wouldn't (and shouldn't) have any access to the classified material so how would they even know?

Now if a classified document "accidentally" got sent to an unclassified system, the rules are different. Once dscovered, it is the finders responsibility to secure that document (not destroy it) and notify their site security officer. Once an intial investigation is performed, a purge of the data would take place. But even in this situation, the recipient isn't held accountable for the spillage (the sender would get a spanking though).

Spillage happens. Sometimes it's caught. Sometimes it isn't. But when you throw around the word "criminal" shit has to fall under a very narrow set of conditions.

What you are discussing isn't spillage. It's not a violation of the secrets act.

It "could" be if someone knowinglysent information they knew to be actively classified. It definately would be if someone cut and pad pasted it out of a classified document. But the mere presence of information retroactively classified on an unclassified system is not a criminal act. It isn't a best practice, but it isn't criminal.

[jeff47]

167. Yes, you are. Right here.

Information which becomes classified after the fact

BZZZZT.

There has been some after-the-fact classification. But the TS and higher that has been found was classified before it hit Clinton's server. It was never unclassified.

Once dscovered, it is the finders responsibility to secure that document (not destroy it) and notify their site security officer.

Which Clinton failed to do.

But when you throw around the word "criminal" shit has to fall under a very narrow set of conditions.

Broadly speaking, there's 3 ways a civilian could be prosecuted
1) Give classified directly to a foreign government or their agent
2) Sell classified.
3) Cause spillage due to negligence.

For example, Snowden hadn't actually broken the law until he accepted help from Russia (housing, food, etc). That is when he "sold" the information. Sure the government could make his life hell, like they did to Ellsberg, but there wasn't a crime yet.

Clinton's IT guy is in deep, deep shit due to #3. The server's security was abysmal, so he invoked the 5th amendment. Whether or not he is sufficient insulation for a negligence claim against Clinton remains to be seen.

If Clinton was a random government employee, she'd at a minimum lose her clearance and be fired. Criminal prosecution would probably come down to how much responsibility Clinton had for the awful security of her server.

But the first sentence is damning enough in a presidential campaign.

[getagrip_already]

190. bzzttt

There is ZERO evuidence that what you allege is true. Even state doesn't say the information was classified BEFORE it was sent.

Sure, that was the basis for the FBI starting their investigation, but guess what, it was incorrect. State retracted that position and admitted the iinformation was classified months later.

You are basically making stuff up. Sorry, but I'm glad you aren't an sso.

[jeff47]

204. Zero evidence....like the DNI IG saying it

But hey, what would he know?

There is ZERO evuidence that what you allege is true. Even state doesn't say the information was classified BEFORE it was sent.

Sure, that was the basis for the FBI starting their investigation, but guess what, it was incorrect. State retracted that position and admitted the iinformation was classified months later.

So....you contradicted yourself in your own post?

First you claim State said it wasn't classified at the time....and then State retracted that position and admitted it was classified at the time.

Why isn't State retracting their claim and admitting it was classified at the time not evidence that it was classified at the time?

[Oilwellian]

281. They weren't marked because Hillary asked that the "marks" be removed

If you read this email exchange from the bottom up, you will see where Hillary asked her aide, Jake Sullivan, to delete the markings that specified the document she was asking for was classified.



Wall Street Journal has a searchable database for all of the emails that have been released so far. (Not sure if the newest release has been included yet.)

http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/

On edit: Does anyone know what the TPs mentioned in the emails are?

[Tarc]

145. You're confusing the sheep with facts and logic

Camp Sanders doesn't have many cards left to play as they lose 11/12 states today. Have a heart, man.

[getagrip_already]

173. just trying to edemecate a little...

It annoys me when people swallow right wing talking points without any facts. All of the rumors they kick around come from leaks from right wing unidentified "sources". Sources, which btw, haven't been correct yet.

The whole FBI investigation started as the result of either an outright lie, or a twisting of facts. Someone at state asserted that classified information was transmitted in an email or emails. Months later, that same organization admitted that was an error, that the information wasn't classified until months after the email was sent.

Once an investigation is opened, it has to be completed, but so far there is zero sign that anything has been found.

But that doesn't keep the butt gasses from rising.

And everything is out of context anyway. Suppose I say "take out all the classified tags and send the info over to x". Sounds bad right? But what that means is to strip out any classified information - not the words that say classified. There is a jargon used that can be deceptive to people who don't work in a particular world.

So until I see something concrete, I'm not going to get excited.

Another example. The NYT uns an article with information about foreign policy. Someone forwards that on. What the world doesn't know is that someone in some agency has decided that the information is classified - but it has been published. There is a protocol for handling publicly available classified information, but it isn't criminal to forward news articles around. Technically the information is still classified, but it is there for the world to find. These are the wrinkles that we are dealing with.

[pugetres]

136. Are these classified emails

ones that were turned over by Clinton willingly or were they discovered as part of the recovery of her deleted "personal and private" emails about yoga and weddings?

[beaglelover]

142. Thank you for your concern. It is noted.

[SoapBox]

144. I wouldn't trust ANY Clinton to even take out my garbage.

Thirty plus years of Clintons being in our faces, with all of their baggage.

No...More...Clintons.

[Cheviteau]

154. Shameful.

fbc: This is a shameful post to be put on a Democratic site. If I owned this site, you be banned forever. I'm a Bernie fan-but this is over the line. copying and posting from a RW hate site is not what we need here. If we want to read bullshit we know where to find it without your help.

[monicaangela]

157. I believe in the end, this is what will get her

* The Clinton Foundation and some private businesses were deeply involved in the State Department’s business. The lines were blurred between Hillary Clinton’s official role as secretary of state and her unofficial role at a major foundation, headed by her husband, that was showered with money from people and companies working with the State Department. At best, the arrangements were sleazy. At worst, they were criminal “pay to play.”

[Trust Buster]

159. I think that the Bernie supporters should apply for entrance into the Republican Party at this point

I know I'll never forget what I'm seeing them do just to win an election.

[shenmue]

258. Yes

[merrily]

160. Aside from the facts cited in the OP, wasn't part of Hillary's job to decide what was classified?

I mean, let's say she gets an email from Russia. The person who sends it can't classify it for US purposes. Hillary receives it and determines it should be classified. She gets it classified and then it's marked.

The info was ALWAYS sensitive enough to be classified. That it was not "marked" classified when she received is irrelevant. It's a classic example of making a truthful statement that is intentionally misleading.

And, there is evidence that sending mail involving removing classified markings before emailing, so the fact that it was not marked classified while being sent is an even worse example. Just what everyone wants: a President who intentionally deceives America.

[zentrum]

161. The FBI is not...

….nonpartisan.

It's on the side of the oligarchs. Just systemically. So they're waiting.

If she becomes the nominee and the President, they probably won't "find" anything, unless she starts doing more leftist things—like taxing big oil. Then they'll bring it on. They can very much control her and undo any moving towards the left that Bernie has forced her to do.

The Republican gnats in Congress will keep holding hearings and raising a stink and maybe even try to impeach. Just for the fun of tying up all Democratic initiatives. They'll do that with or without "evidence". They'll do it with media and loud, righteous voices that set the frame for all the issues.

On the other hand it would be impossible to do this to Bernie—since his life is an open book.

Her "baggage" is a time bomb for Democrats any way you look at it. She shouldn't have run again. Her turn came and went in 2008.

[HenryWallace]

163. Consentrate on the Issues!!!!

To my fellow Sanders supporters:

Stick to the issues, this is where her "crimes" are.

This is a distraction! The issues are where we need to be and where we must win.

She is a hell of a lot better than the Republicans; but she doesn't have a vision for the future (just a fear of it).

PS: The last time I looked, protecting society from radical change was the dictionary definition of a "Conservative."

[modestybl]

166. The problem is the tangled web of conflicting interests...

Clinton Foundation donors, State Department favors, Bill and Hill's personal income (>$100M in speaking fees alone), Hill's campaign donor lists... all of these are braided together in a convoluted way.

When Charity Navigator refuses to rate the Clinton Foundation because of its irregular nature, that should send up a red flag. The Carter Center has no such problem.

For the Clintons, the nature of their organization relies on them being in power... the donors to their causes have multiple interests, and that makes the Foundation hideously opaque.

There doesn't have to be indictments (though there will be)... this is an FBI probe going to continue into the summer and fall.

This may have started with a Judicial Watch request, but there appears to have been violations of the FOIA in the structuring of State Dept. emails. These aren't the bozos in the House, this is the FBI under Obama, and the HRC can't just blow this off.

[JohnnyRingo]

168. Benghazi!!

I wondered how long it would be before Bernie people found themselves allied with the likes of Darrell Issa. I guess they're so far left they can shake hands with the far right in a twisted political mobius.

A moderate solid Democrat looks better and better all the time.

[Orrex]

169. Hillary Clinton once shivved me for buying 13 items in the express lane

If you see her in the grocery store, watch out!

[randome]

220. Oh, come on. You're making that up, right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[Orrex]

234. Well, you caught me.

It was 14 items.

[tex-wyo-dem]

170. Clinton's excuse for mixing personal and official SoS emails is totally bogus...

The former secretary of state says the reason she used her personal email for work is because she didn't want to operate multiple mobile devices while on the road.

However, in one email from 2010 in which Clinton asks Huma Abedin how to use her new iPad. Clinton regularly used a Blackberry device.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/after-10-months-thousands-pages-final-clinton-emails-be-released-n528286

I used to work for BlackBerry as an engineer and can tell you as fact: BlackBerry devices are designed such that both secure business communications (emails) can be separated by a firewall to a personal profile that can have all your personal apps, personal email account, etc. These are two different profiles on the phone, and BlackBerry phones are one of the only devices approved by the U.S. Government for official business due to there security.

The article states that Clinton used a BlackBerry device, so her excuse that she used the personal server for all of her personal AND official SoS emails so she wouldn't have to carry around multiple devices is totally bogus.

[Loki]

174. Blah, blah,, blah, blahblah.

The right wing has so many friends on this board it's pathetic.

[Major Hogwash]

178. If she becomes the nominee . . .

. . . and then is indicted, we have handed the Supreme Court to the radical rightwing nutjobs, McConnell and Company.

[randome]

189. Unless...a stray neutron bomb 'accidentally' destroys all FBI agents worldwide.

I mean, these things happen from time to time, no?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

[LW1977]

192. With a post like that, Major Hogwash is a good name for you..

[Major Hogwash]

209. Thanks.

I've only heard that about a brazillion times.

[LW1977]

195. So many Freepers masquerading as Sanders supporters in here.

Can't wait until the Primaries are over.

[revbones]

203. Good job disputing the facts by name calling. +10pts

[Tommy_Carcetti]

205. The Clenis did it!

The Clenis!

[Stand and Fight]

210. Three words in two sentences with a slight variation:

Consider the source.
Consider the author.

If the OP is holding up innuendo in this article from a non-partisan website and the same writer who played a part in attacking ACORN, then the OP either doesn't know the background of one or both of those entities. Either way, I'm astounding that the OP would put so much stock into a known right-leaning site. The OP has only to check the front page for RCP to see that the site promotes right wing causes, is focusing mostly on the Republican race, and attacks (and/or posts) questionable pieces that only denigrate Democratic candidates -- both Clinton and Sanders.

Did there not used to be a rule on this site about doing exactly what the OP is doing? To me this post is nothing more than concern trolling, and I'm sorry to see so many DUers falling for this sort of thing.

[Chichiri]

211. Benghazi! nt

[basselope]

213. of all the reasons to never vote for clinton this just isnt one of them.

I just dont care what emails were stored on what server.

[Stand and Fight]

217. Agreed. I think Senator Sanders said it the best. n/t

[AlbertCat]

218. Crimes Shmimes...

Last edited Tue Mar 1, 2016, 05:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Whatever crimes Clinton has or has not committed, the FBI will sort out.

The problem is this sorta la-dee-da attitude toward classified info while being the head of the dept.! It reflects on Clinton's other actions and her campaign. I don't think she's very thorough and takes much for granted. I also don't think she's brilliant at all.

[closeupready]

247. She's never struck me as all that smart.

Educated and connected? Absolutely. Smart? Nope.

[blackspade]

222. I'm beginning to agree that this is a big problem for Clinton.

[Gothmog]

225. Officials: New Top Secret Clinton Emails 'Innocuous'

Here are some more facts on this matter http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.

In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.

At issue are a new batch of emails from Clinton's home server that have been flagged as containing classified information in a sworn statement to the inspector general of the intelligence community. The sworn statement came from the CIA, two U.S. officials tell NBC News.

[bigtree]

260. this is information that these same critics praise Snowden for revealing

...no one should view this as more than republican scandalmongering adopted by Sanders supporters in their cynical, anti-Hillary campaign.

[MariaThinks]

229. if they were so serious the gop would have her in court and fox news

would be talking about it all the time.

all they can say are emails and bengazai - which are errors in judgement at worst

[Gothmog]

237. If the FBI had anything meaningful, Biden would be jumping into the race

Biden is not jumping in for a reason such as there is nothing to these investigations.

Again, the to secret e-mails that the right wing nut jobs are talking about are e-mails by Clinton aides talking about articles on drones published in the New York Times. It is not against the law to read and discuss the NYT except on Right Wing Nut Job websites that will remain nameless

[Phlem]

239. Meh. I think Biden's burnt and wants no part of the crazy anymore.

Every time I watch him it seems like his heart is just not into it. Especially after losing one of his kids. As a father that would have been a slap in the face to me telling me to spend more time with my family.

Nothing sinister, just life.

[Gothmog]

251. The Democratic Party would have a plan b in place

Sanders is not likely to be the plan B for the party. Again, if there was something to these silly claims, then someone else in the establishment would have announced.

[Phlem]

254. Hmm...

I kept Sanders and Hillary out of it but since you went there, go ahead and be sheep.

Fuck, can't even talk w/o spewing Hillary all over it!?

I hope she loses miserably, but I hear she's huge on twitter!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3405181/Hillary-Clinton-faces-Twitter-backlash-saying-debate-no-individual-big-jail.html

[George II]

243. Hillary Clinton will still win the Democratic nomination and be elected President.

[George II]

244. As to your first sentence, you probably missed this:

[Nitram]

245. The FBI has mountains of evidence pointing to serious, deliberate crimes? Really?

The GOP and its wealthy supporters have been paying for opposition research and smear campaign against Clinton for decades. Clearly the Sanders crowd swallowed it all, hook line and sinker. As for the emails, Colin Powell has already come out in Clinton's defense - someone who should know fully what is at stake. The State Department email system sucked and everyone knew it. Classifying emails after the fact is just one symptom of the over-classification that goes on in the military, the intelligence community and the sate Department. Take a deep breath and stop worrying. Unless you're hoping this will derail Clinton in time for Sanders to win the presidency.

I question the origin of some of the statements, which are not sourced: "Intelligence professionals agree the server was almost certainly hacked by foreign agencies—probably by several." First I've heard that. Source?

[FlatBaroque]

246. The reason you KNOW it's a real scandal is because the repigs are not overplaying it /

[Phlem]

255. That technique works both ways.

I'm sure their wailing about Hillary is to ensure her win. She's the most right leaning Democrat they can hope for and their economic policies are in line with each other.

They're fucked if Bernie wins.

[WDIM]

253. If there is going to be an indictment then they need to get going.

They need to use the evidence they have to begin the indictment process so the people at large will be aware of these crimes prior to wasting their votes.

[72DejaVu]

256. fbc?

What does that stand for?

[99th_Monkey]

257. So it's coming down the Clinton Machine v. the FBI

and Trump has his own legal issues with Trump Univ. scam hitting the courts.'

Gee, maybe we'll get a GE where BOTH nominees are under indictment .. you
can't make this shit up.

A new season for House of Cards?

[MaggieD]

276. More right wing sources and nonsense on DU

It's just sad.