Hillary folks DO REALIZE that Hillary will be found to have deliberately violated the FOIA, RIGHT?

[Attorney in Texas]

There is a real question about whether Hillary violated the criminal laws and whether the FBI will recommend prosecution (I think it is foregone conclusion that Obama's DoJ will not act on any FBI recommendation for indictment so the criminal case ends there). I -- for one -- have doubts that Hillary is criminally responsible for violating the national security laws, and I agree that she should not be indicted (although she loses the general election if we foolishly nominate her and the FBI recommends indictment regardless of what Obama's DoJ chooses to do).

However, the three dozen (more by now) civil lawsuits seeking information as well as federal fines and penalties based on Hillary's deliberate violation of the FIOA law are going forward regardless of what the FBI recommends, and Hillary is almost certain to be found in deliberate violation of the law.

Hillary supporters act like skipping out of an indictment is the same as clearing Hillary of wrongdoing, but that is 100% incorrect. U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth found "evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith" and specifically noted the "constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials."

U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan (a Clinton appointee for those try to write off all of Hillary misdeeds as part of a "vast right wing conspiracy&quot had also previously found that the claims were sufficiently meritorious as to warrant the disclosure of the disputed emails.

Why should we care about this? MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell did a good job explaining why we should all be disappointed in this most recent episode of Hillary's laws-don't-apply-to-me problems:

"You know what’s funny to me about this is a lot of people in Liberal World today are using the Bush standard, something they normally find abhorrent on everything, including what you order for dinner. They’re using the Bush standard as the defense of Hillary. Bush’s e-mails were legally available to everyone. Hillary Clinton’s system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law. The Freedom of Information Act and all this government transparency, which we obviously care about a lot more than voters do, that was a decades-long liberal crusade. It was liberals pushing on this from the Nixon administration forward to say, ‘There’s see much nasty stuff backstage, we have to find out how this is really working.’ So every one of these regulations– the regulation that Hillary Clinton was defying is a liberal regulation."

[silvershadow]

1. They live in fantasy land, so no, they don't realize anything. nt

[mmonk]

2. No. They will say it is part of a Republican conspiracy concerning Benghazi.

[YouDig]

3. From all I've read, it's pretty unlikely that she will be found to have

violated any laws. Because of the partisanship, there are opinions varying from 100% sure she's going to prison to 100% sure she's innocent, but by and large, the sense I've gotten from impartial accounts is that this not a legally consequential problem.

The GOP will go after her for it anyway, of course, so there could be political consequences. But they are going to throw everything they have against whoever is the nominee. In a way, the fact that Hillary has been attacked by the GOP for decades helps her in that regard. It will play as just more of the same.

[Attorney in Texas]

12. You're confusing the criminal case investigation and the numerous civil suits. I agree it's unlikely

that Hillary will be found to have criminally violated the law.

The civil suits are different.

The civil suits are legion. They do not require beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof of an deliberate breach of national security. And the courts who have looked at the issues have found prima fascia proof of wrong doing and bad faith. It is possible that Hillary wins some of these suits and loses others, but there are more than three dozen and she is not going to win all of them (or even most of them and she potentially loses all of them).

If we foolishly nominate Hillary, the general election refrain will be "how much did the State Department have to pay in fines, legal fees, and penalties because you were repeatedly warned against a private email server, and you nevertheless were found by several courts to have intentionally violated the Freedom of Information Act?"

You can bet on that. This is the BEST CASE SCENARIO (the worst case scenario is a FBI recommendation of a criminal indictment followed either by a DoJ prosecution or -- more likely -- a DoJ decision to ignore the FBI recommendation which will hurt as much as an indictment).

[YouDig]

14. I don't see civil suits as having the same impact as an indictment.

The thing is, most people who would really care are already not voting for Hillary.

[Rilgin]

32. Some of us care because transparency is a liberal value.

Ethically, Clinton's attempt to avoid the FOIA is significant for anyone who cares about good government and not a little letter by a candidates name.

Practically and tactically, in response to your idea that it will help Clinton because it will just add to the attack noice coming from republicans, it has already worked to lower her net favorables to the second worst (behind trump) of any major candidate since they started polling on favorables.

What Clinton supporters seem not to understand when they claim she has been vetted or withstood attacks for 25 years, is that political attacks are targetted at net favorables. That is their purpose.

The effect of her scandals, lies, and republican attacks, real and imaginary, is that her net favorables make her unelectable in a general election. It is difficult to see what would cause them to rise. A comparison of net favorable-unfavorables on election day is very correlative of who wins. If her numbers stay that way and the Republicans manage to eliminate Trump, Hillary is in trouble as a practical matter.

This is what "vetting" her has done. Its the same word but if a job candidate is "vetted" for a job, they do not get it if the vetting process has led to 60% unfavorables and an association with the word "dishonest". Think about it.

[YouDig]

46. Here negatives are a problem, no doubt about it.

I don't think that this is really a transparency issue, after all, she released 30,000 or whatever number of emails. But it is a political one.

Still, I think she has a considerable edge against either Trump or Cruz.

[Fawke Em]

69. But the FBI found an additional 30,000 emails - many of which they say

WERE work-related and she didn't include them in her original release.

[Rilgin]

124. Transparency is exactly one of the issues.

Someone mentioned that the fbi found additional work emails not turned over. However, the reason that her email server and email that was not a .gov address was discovered was not because of a proper response to FOIA requests. The state department responded by saying there were none because there were no hillary_clinton.gov emails and she did not after leaving office send her emails to the government archivists. The 30,000 were produced years after her leaving office and after FOIA requests went unanswered.

Similarly even though it was a partisan and political committee and ginned up scandal, congress has oversight responsibilities and had a right in the Benghazi hearings to her emails without the issues. We will want the oversight if we democrats control congress and have a right wing president.

Her setting up a private server and not archiving her emails with the government was intentionally to avoid transparency and that should bother you. It should clue you in on how much else of the Clinton public story is false.

Her negatives are not a mere problem. Unless trump is her opponent, It is hard to see her winning with her negatives. If keeping republicans out is important, people should be begging her to get out of the race. It is not about the positive aspects of Bernie's message it is how risky Hillary is as a candidate and how made up are her positions.

[Zira]

77. +1.

[Attorney in Texas]

38. I don't either, but that's like saying "I don't see a stroke as having the same impact as cancer"

You don't want either.

[leveymg]

85. She violated her signed Classified Info Nondisclose Agreement. That was a serious felony violation.

Please see my response at #83 below.

[Bohemianwriter]

35. Apparently, being inside Establishment...

Also makes you above the law....

Why do you think that?

[leveymg]

83. She violated the terms of her signed classified info nondisclose agreement. This is criminal.

The FOIA violations carry no inherent criminal penalty on the head of agency. It's inconsequential so far as her going to jail is concerned, unless by some lack of cooperation she is found in Contempt Of Court. That's not likely to happen.

Her much more serious problem is her multiple violations of felony statutes that apply to mishandling classified information as laid out in her security agreement. Under 18 USC Sec. 793 (e) and (f) she can be sent away for 10 years for each count for 1) she, herself, sent 104 emails containing classified over her uncertified server; and (2) she failed to report the security breaches of others, 22 emails containing Top Secret/SAP materials from Sid Blumenthal alone, messages that contained obvious classified materials that ended up originating with with NSA. Instead of reporting Blumenthal and his ex-CIA source, she wrote back "Keep 'em coming." These are established facts. She's cooked.

Yes, she apparently set up her private server to evade FOIAs and subpoenas, but its her mishandling of classified materials in violation of her signed security oath that's threatens to put her in federal prison. There were more than 1100 separate items of classified information found on her server. Lots of others have been locked up for far lesser violations of that oath.

[Ash_F]

4. As someone who makes regular FOIA requests for work, this whole story really aggravates me

...more so than the possibility that national security secrets might have been stolen, which we don't yet know happened.


I have had federal workers do some fishy stuff with the documents, and it has and is causing real life problems for the vulnerable people whom they were supposed to serve.

[NCTraveler]

5. JudicialWatch: The go to source for Sanders supporters.

You should at least highlight your link as being from JW so you don't send them anymore traffic. Then again, that is probably what you want.

[ismnotwasm]

8. I know right?

[NCTraveler]

10. I would like to think they would highlight it instead of hide it.

I hate giving places like that traffic. The op should show some transparency on that one.

[Attorney in Texas]

17. If you have a PACER account, you can get these public court orders and court transcripts there for a

small fee.

[NCTraveler]

23. Judicial Watch is your source of choice. Nice. I actually like the transparency.

Please highlight it as being Judicial Watch so duers don't unknowingly give those pieces of shit traffic. I understand they are a go-to for you. Most of us don't even want them to get any traffic. Thanks.

[Attorney in Texas]

24. It is NOT my source. PACER is my source.

[Fawke Em]

70. Um... check out who you're talking to.

An ATTORNEY in Texas.

Attorneys and journalists use PACER all the time. Hell, I still have an account.

[JTFrog]

101. Lol.

Yea, and I'm a frog.

Just sayin... anyone can be whoever they want on the internet.

[Attorney in Texas]

16. No, my links are to (1) a court order, (2) a court transcript, (3) The Guardian (a liberal paper),

(4) Huffington post (from a writer sympathetic to Hillary), and (5) WikiPedia (a public source for the fact that the first judge who granted the discovery in these civil suits is a Clinton appointee).

I have access to the court order and court transcript on a paid-for legal source (PACER), but I linked the documents on Judicial Watch because they are available to all for free. The documents are court documents, not Judicial Watch documents.

[NCTraveler]

18. You link directly to judicial watch in your op.

Why be dishonest about something everyone can see?

You even disagree with yourself. You say no, then you say yes. Please highlight the jw link in your op so people here don't give those right wing extremists traffic unknowingly.

[grasswire]

56. who cares?

Documents are documents. The fact that it is a right-wing entity taking this to court doesn't make the evidentiary documents any less valid.

[NCTraveler]

62. People who believe in transparency and the knowledge they are being ratfucked.

That is who cares.

If the link is as insignificant as you state, why wouldn't the op be transparent about it. They know many of us never want to give those pieces of shit one hit. You made it clear you have a different opinion of them.

Fuck JW and anyone supporting them.

[grasswire]

65. he said why

The documents are free at JW. There is no other way to see them unless you are a law professional and subscribe to the service that provides documents.

[NCTraveler]

66. Sure. lol. Stick with that. Not the reality that it is their go-to source. nt.

[Fawke Em]

72. Ugh...

Here - go pay the fee and look for yourself:

https://www.pacer.gov/

The only reason the OP linked to JW is because they have those documents already housed for free.

Attorney in Texas, if you want to download the SAME EXACT documents from PACER, I'll be happy to host them for you somewhere. I know it's a waste of time and effort, but then NCTraveler wouldn't have to complain about where legal documents are housed.

[JimDandy]

88. Thanks for offering to do that! That poster was out of line. n/t

[SwampG8r]

99. Wow...look who believes in ratfucking all of a sudden.

[Attorney in Texas]

58. The links are to court orders and transcripts. You can find them on for-pay government websites or

for free on the internet at Judicial Watch.

The court documents are the exact same whether you pay for them or get them for free.

[JimDandy]

61. If it means giving free acess to public documents, I don't care whose site it is.

I'm sick and tired of all these barriers to accessing public documents, whether it's Clinton hiding them on an email server, Romney destroying them as he leaves the governor's office, states charging thousands of dollars for access to statewide voter databases and, especially, not being able to freely view our public court documents without physically being in the jurisdiction of interest.

[JoePhilly]

76. exactly!

[leveymg]

90. There are 38 separate civil suits. JW is just one. There's also a criminal FBI investigation

that's sitting on Comey's desk waiting for transmission to the AG. There are also two separate federal judges who have already granted discovery in civil cases.

You can't diminish this any longer. Too many people know a lot of the facts, and she is tainted, mortally wounded as the party's nominee. It's way out of the HRC campaign's control.

[Vote2016]

131. She is too selfish to care that her over ambitiousness is endangering our government

[COLGATE4]

106. Crazy Larry Klayman strikes again. His next suit -

exhume Vince Foster to 'prove' that he didn't commit suicide, and that Hillary killed him. Stay tuned.

[DCBob]

6. You DO REALIZE you have no idea what you are talking about.. RIGHT?

[Fawke Em]

73. Where did you get your law degree, Bob?

[DCBob]

75. The School of Common Sense.

There is no way they are going to indict her. I have posted the reasons repeatedly on this site. Look them up if you are interested.

[Attorney in Texas]

78. You can read the court order yourself. That's why I linked it. So - technically - it is the judges

who you think don't know what they are talking about on the legal issue they are presiding over.

But I'm sure your point of view is also relevant.

[DCBob]

86. My comment was referring to your "interpretation" of the court order.

[Attorney in Texas]

92. Did you have a different interpretation of "wrong-doing and bad faith" or "constantly shifting

admissions"?

[DCBob]

93. Yes, this is a non-story fake scandal.

Be patient Mr Attorney this will all be settled soon.

[Attorney in Texas]

95. Tell yourself that a federal judge finding "wrong-doing and bad faith" is a non-story fake scandal

if it helps you sleep at night, but some of us live in a world where actions have consequences.

[DCBob]

98. Lets revisit once the report comes out... I am sure that wont be too long.

Cheers!

[Attorney in Texas]

105. Is the difference between the civil cases and the criminal investigation beyond your grasp? There is

no "report" in the civil cases, and there are more than three dozen separate civil cases, and the judges who have ruled in the furthest developed of these have looked at the evidence and said there was wrongful conduct and bad faith.

This FOIA issue will come up again-and-again over the next 7 months as each of these three dozen cases reaches newsworthy stages in each of the cases.

The FBI's "report" is part of an ongoing criminal investigation. It has nothing to do with the numerous civil cases based on the deliberate violations of the FIOA.

[DCBob]

113. Huh?? Civil cases?? That's ridiculous if the FBI clears her.

But I suppose it could happen. Any idiot can file a civil case but that doesnt mean a judge will hear it or if anyone will care.

The FBI report is final say in this matter. If she is cleared by the FBI the stupid fake scandal is over.

[Bob41213]

116. In all likelyhood the FBI report WILL NOT clear her

It may say there is not enough evidence to convict. But it won't say this was all just a big nothingburger. I suspect it will be fairly critical to say the least. There is a HUGE difference between clearing and saying they couldn't support an indictment.

[DCBob]

118. It will.

[Bob41213]

119. Oh good, I'm glad you spoke to Comey

[Attorney in Texas]

132. You "suppose it could happen"? You know that there are already more than 3 dozen cases pending?

They have nothing to do with the FBI.

Have you ever heard of OJ Simpson? He won his CRIMINAL trial but lost his CIVIL trial. Both the standard of proof is different and the elements that you need to prove are TOTALLY different.

You say "that doesnt mean a judge will hear it." I linked you to orders and transcripts where judges ARE hearing the cases. Do you not know what judges do for a living?

[DCBob]

133. Given your track record on your previous predictions and claims..

this one is also bogus desperate nonsense.

[Attorney in Texas]

136. You understand that over 3 dozen cases CURRENTLY pending is not a "prediction," right?

[DCBob]

137. Are any of those "pending" cases yours?

[Attorney in Texas]

139. No, but I certainly support the Associated Press's right to enforce the FOIA. Don't you?

[DCBob]

140. Glad to hear that. Keep up the good work posting all this crap.

It helps that we don't have to go to RW sites to get the latest fake scandals.

[Attorney in Texas]

141. Right wing websites like The Guardian, Huffington Post, WikiPedia, NPR, etc.?

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/hillary-clinton-email-server-criminal-charges-department-of-justice

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

http://politburo.gawker.com/gawker-v-department-of-state-1691327528

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/gawker-foia-lawsuit-state-department-clinton-emails_n_6877990.html?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-blum/those-damn-emails-are-bac_b_9717276.html

[DCBob]

142. Keep plugging away.. maybe one day you will actually be right about something.

Gotta go.

[Else You Are Mad]

7. I'm not listening!!!!

Honestly, if this was some low level government official a warrant would have been applied for by the FBI and issued by any semi competent judge. And the FBI and justice department then would have lauded themselves about how tough on corruption they are. That said, even if a warrant is applied for by the FBI and was, prima facie, air right, I doubt any federal judge would sign off on it because of who Hillary is.

More likely, someone will take a fall for Hillary, and will end up with a very well paid position at the Clintons foundation after their prison time.

[Paper Roses]

9. Why is it that the questionable situations are now brought to light so late in the game?

We need to be aware of all questionable situations, any violations of law, any transgressions by any candidate. It is so late in the game. Are the FBI and the Justice Department waiting for a reason?

We the people need action now! Any situations of question should have been addressed as soon as they happened, not at a time when there is little to be done to correct results.

[Attorney in Texas]

22. The DoJ is waiting on the FBI. The FBI is reportedly just months from making a recommendation.

[LexVegas]

11. Don't lose mad...just lose. nt

[Dems to Win]

13. I can't see how Sidney Blumenthal will NOT be indicted

No security clearance, but he somehow had access to top secret info and emailed it around with no care, and he got hacked by Gucifer.

I don't think his indictment will reflect well on Hillary.

[Attorney in Texas]

19. I agree. Hillary RECEIVED emails that show a criminal violation of the law. I haven't seen where she

SENT emails that reflect a criminal violation of the law.

I can see Hillary as a key witness in Sidney Blumenthal's criminal trial, but I do not see Hillary as being indicted (although the word on the street is that the FBI is likely to recommend indictment based on information that is not yet public).

[One_Life_To_Give]

34. or Sid had an as yet unknown source in GOV

I suspect the FBI cares a whole lot more about just how Sid got his hands on the intel. If they can identify somebody as leaking to Sid, then somebody will spend many years making little rocks out of big ones. But that would only tangentially implicate HRC for failing to recognize and report that sensative information had apparently been leaked.

[Attorney in Texas]

47. He almost certainly did, but that source wasn't Hillary because Sid was leaking information TO her

and not receiving confidential information FROM Hillary.

She ought to be OK unless the information was going back and forth and she was leaking info TO Sid as part of that.

[grasswire]

57. one source that Sid was using was former CIA who also was ginnng up ..

..private business interests in Libya. Unfortunately, he "died".

[leveymg]

91. The late Tyler Drumheller, former head of the CIA's European Division who exposed "Curveball".

Worked HRC's 2008 campaign. Was working with Blumenthal and a consortium of security contractors attempting to obtain State Dept. contracts in post regime change Libya. But, he died of pancreatic cancer in a Northern VA hospital last August. He may have been deposed before he passed away.

[AzDar]

15. Ayup.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. You're losing you're losing you're losing you're losing

[Vinca]

21. Campaign-wise, it almost doesn't matter if she's indicted or not.

If she is, it's obviously not good. If she isn't, the Obama administration will be accused of a cover-up and it will strongly be implied she was guilty of something. All things considered, if Hillary cared more about having a Democrat in the White House than a page in the history books, she wouldn't have run this time around.

[Paper Roses]

55. Yes! n/t

[onehandle]

25. Random Internet chatter says something. nt

[Attorney in Texas]

26. These are court orders and court transcripts. That's not "random internet chatter"

[onehandle]

27. Cool story, bro.

Keep on clicking!

[rhett o rick]

129. Don't feed them. Put them on ignore if you cant ignore them. They are in their glory

with disinformation and baseless attacks.

[think]

28. Lawrence O'Donnell: "They’re using the Bush standard as the defense of Hillary. "

Yep...

[2banon]

68. surprised to hear Laurence said that out loud, did he say that on MSNBC?

In any event it's spot on, as i see it. I don't think Hillary will face any discernable consequences, politically or legally.

She's Besties with the Bush/Cheney club of corruption, fraud and grift.

They are never held to account.

[think]

71. Yes.

I can only find the video on the DailyCaller website but he's on MSNBC when he says it.

[2banon]

89. Well, I think he's right about that..

Remember FitzChristmas?

[BreakfastClub]

29. So, you're a psychic? That must be neat to foretell the future! nt

[Attorney in Texas]

41. I'm not a psychic - I'm literate. I linked the court order. You can read it yourself.

[saidsimplesimon]

30. drip, drip, drip

I'm a prime candidate for Democratic Party loyalty. The Clintons and DWS have driven me into silence.

[JimDandy]

107. Please unmute your voice and feel free to speak to the issues that inspire you.

You are here with me, with us, among friends on a site that has a huge majority of progressives who have freely choosen to come together to discuss issues and fair, equitable and just solutions to problems that often affect us personally. Your thoughts and concerns are valued.

[Turn CO Blue]

31. I really feel that the story about the private email server

and the classified information and debates on whether mis-classified nor non-classifed, or at risk without encryption and/or possibly exposed there has always been a tertiary issue to DISTRACT away from the main investigation -- which is the question of WHY they insisted on a private server in the first place.

Answer: to avoid FOIA requests in order to hide the Pay-to-Play and racketeering operation of weapons deals and correlated donations to the Clinton Foundation (CF) by the both sides of the deal -- weapons makers and foreign buyers/factions/governments.

Not to mention the State Department approving sales in violation of specific UN mandates to some specific groups/governments that also will correlate to donations to the CF. And consequently, (and as usual, but not a focus) American-made weapons sales approved by State turn up against our own soldiers.

I feel that the Public Corruption Investigation is what the FBI has a hold of like a dog with a bone; the classified email thing is what they allow to leak out to the press to justify all those FBI departments on it.

I am sure they're digging into John Podesta, and his brother who turns out in Panama Papers to have massive off-shore accounts (money from where? part of this ring?), as John was hopping around the planet, clearly a go-between for the CF and the State Department.

I found it humorous that in one of the emails from H to John Podesta, she advises him that she will call him early in the morning, wonders if that is "too early" and then writes that he should "wear socks to keep your feet warm". That is obvious code that she will call him earlier than that time window, and code reminding him to "turn on a jammer to thwart listening devices". I got the impression they already worried they were being investigated at that early point.

[AgerolanAmerican]

39. bingo

The email issue is definitely secondary to the public corruption issue, the evidence for which is already overwhelming with the info presently in the public domain. She's the living embodiment of crony capitalism.

[zazen]

43. exactly! n/t

[grasswire]

59. Excellent.

Please post more. Lots more.

My personal theory is that the transcripts are also a distraction. She's chumming with them. Diverting attention away from the real corruption. The pay to play, and the rogue foreign policy done out of the sight of Obama.

[IdaBriggs]

60. ^== This. nt

[vintx]

82. Wow. nt

[winter is coming]

103. Both issues (classified material and pay-to-play) are serious problems,

but the MSM isn't going to report on pay-to-play one microsecond sooner than it has to. I do suspect the FBI is also delving into public corruption and if they have, Hillary is sunk.

[WDIM]

33. Im more concerned about her taking bribes from

dictators and the MIC to approve weapon deals. That is what she and the defense contractors involved should be prosecuted for.

[workinclasszero]

36. If you can predict the future

Whats the winning powerball number?

Its sad that this place seems to be a clone of freerepublic anymore.

[7wo7rees]

37. Thank you.

You are near Houston, right? If so, hope you and everyone you hold dear are safe.

If you are anywhere near Dallas, can I come work for you for free?

[Attorney in Texas]

49. Thanks. I had to reschedule some things set up in downtown Houston this week, but otherwise, all is

good.

[sadoldgirl]

40. As far as I understand it these are civil

suits and may end up in a fine.

The Clintons have enough money to pay that
fine and move on.

I don't see that from stopping or hindering her
campaign. Do you?

[Attorney in Texas]

45. Fines, legal fees, and penalties will likely be assessed against the State Department, not Hillary.

It will not be a situation where she pays it and goes on. It will be a situation where the government pays money because of her deliberate violation of the law and so the issue will be "your deliberate violation cost the public $$$."

[COLGATE4]

108. And the upshot wil be the electorate reads that and

collectively says, "Fines? FOYYA??? That's nice - what's for dinner, dear?"

[workinclasszero]

42. Feds flag Bernie Sanders campaign contributions

Bernie fans DO REALIZE that Sanders will be found to have deliberately violated the LAW, RIGHT?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511778576

[uponit7771]

44. More likely that Sanders to be found to be "full of shit" by most of the dem electorate no?

[Attorney in Texas]

48. This has nothing to do with Sanders. The Democratic electorate loves Sanders:

Here is a graph of all of the Ipsos/Reuters national polls:



Here is a graph of all of the McClatchy/Marist polling:



Here is a graph of the Bloomberg/Selzer polling:




Here are some favorability polling results:

[uponit7771]

50. You're right, we love his full of shitness and don't take it seriously and that's why he's losing by

... millions of votes and hundreds of PD's.

so...

yeah, love him but he's the uncle with a great business idea but no plan or business lone.

[Attorney in Texas]

51. You know the "Hillary's winning by millions of votes" meme totally ignores a bunch of caucus states,

right?

[uponit7771]

54. OK, instead of 2.4 million we'll make it 2.15 million... better?!? tia

[ViseGrip]

52. Hillary should not be holding any more public offices.

[Attorney in Texas]

53. I'm not saying she's unfit for office. I'm just saying she's not the basket to put all our eggs in.

[grasswire]

64. but how could she possibly hold a security clearance now?

I don't see how she can be trusted with national secrets.

Maybe her passport oughta be pulled, too, if there's an indictment.

[Attorney in Texas]

67. Violating FIOA is about HIDING documents from American citizens, not LEAKING documents to foreign

citizens. This probably has no effect on her security clearance.

The indictment might, but I don't see Obama's DoJ indicting Hillary.

[pdsimdars]

81. From what I understand, that "hiding" documents from the government is a crime

[leveymg]

111. It doesn't matter if the AG actually indicts. The FBI report will sink her candidacy.

In the end, she will likely be pardoned, as was CIA Director John Deutch on Bill's last day in office.

[COLGATE4]

109. Unfortunately, neither is Bernie.

IF he were to become the candidate the Republican smear machine will gut him like a striped bass. You're an attorney - do you believe that their 24/7 machine hasn't been ginning up 'Willie Horton' type ads, complete with little pictures representing Jews and Communists cleverly placed throughout to use against him? He has never been subjected to 1/100th of the scrutiny and unrelenting criticism that Hillary has had every day of her life since she was the wife of the Governor of Arkansas. She has proven she can take it. I don't think he can. After watching him it's my impression that he's acerbic, temperamental and short-tempered, even in not terribly confrontational situations. I don't think he'd make a good witness and I don't relish enduring that type of a General Election propaganda campaign by the Rethugs.

[Bread and Circus]

74. It is obvious she was trying to skirt foia laws.

[Bob41213]

97. Skirt? That's a sexist bash!

(SARCASM)

[pdsimdars]

79. I wondered why you of all people think she didn't violate any laws.

From what I have heard from people in the intelligence community, she's toast.
I don't know how you came to your conclusion.
I agree that the DoJ probably won't indict, but from what I've heard the FBI wants to indict.

[Attorney in Texas]

94. I have not heard evidence of criminal conduct. I have heard the FBI plans to recommend indictment

based on evidence not yet released (and the DoJ plans to ignore this recommendation).

I'm not saying what will or will not happen with the FBI's criminal investigation because not all of the evidence is out yet and the evidence that has come out already suggests criminal conduct but not criminal conduct by Hillary. Everything else about the criminal investigation is rumor.

I DO think Hillary violated the laws. I think she violated the FOIA. I think that's serious (but not criminal). Whether she violated anything else, I just don't have any evidence.

[leveymg]

117. Here is Hillary's Security Oath and the statute it references, 18 USC Sec. 793. Go ahead and read

them both and come back and tell us that criminal violation isn't indicated.

1) Hillary signed this document on 01/22/09:

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2015-05069 Doc No. C05833708 Date: 11/05/2015
! I RELEASE IN PART I
B7(C),B6
---------------------------------1REVIEW AUTHORITY:
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT Barbara Nielsen, Senior
Reviewer
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN Hillary Rodham Clinton AND THE UNITED STATES
1. lntending to be legally bound. I hereby accept the obligations contained In this Agreement In consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified Information is marked or unmarked classified Information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards or Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits unauthorized disclosure of lnformation in the Interest of national security; and unclassified Information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided In Section 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1A(e) of Executive Order 12958 or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified lnformation special confidence and trust have been placed in me by the United States Government .
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security lndoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this Information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified Information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will not divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it, or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) 1'9SJ) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that lf I am uncertain about the classification status of Information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the Information is unclassified before I may disclose It, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this may result In the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified lnformation by me may constitute a violation, or violations. of Untied States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641. 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, and the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50,
United Slates code. and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing In the Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation..
5. I hereby assign to the United States Government all royalties, remunerations. and emoluments that have resulted, wiII result or may result from any disclosure, publication or revelation of classified Information not consistent with the terms of this Agreement
6. I understand that the United States Government may seek any remedy available to it to enforce this Agreement Including, but not but not limited to application for a court order prohibiting disclosure of Information In breach of this Agreement.
1. I understand that all classlfled information to which I have access or may obtain access by signing this Agreement will remain the property of, or under the control of the United States Government unless and until otherwise determined by an authorized official or final ruling of a court of law. I agree that I shall return all classffled materials which have or may come into my possession or for which I am responsible because of such access: (a) upon demand by an authorized representative of the United States Government; (b) upon the conclusion of employment or other relationship with the Department or Agency that last granted me a security clearance or- that provided me access ID classifled Information; or (c) upon the conclusion of my employment or other relationship that requires access to classified information. If I do not return such materials upon request, I understand that this may be a violation of Sections 793 and/or 1924, § 18, United States Code, a United States criminal law.
8. Unless and until I am released In writing by an authorized representative or the United States Government.. I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified lnformation, and at all times thereafter.
9. Each provision of this Agreement is severable. If a court should find provision of this Agreement to be unenforceable, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain In full force and effect.

Sec 793 (e) and (f) linked here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[floriduck]

80. If Obama threatened to veto releasing the "28 pages", there's no chance in hell

he will allow Hillary to be indicted. He's now in protection mode for his own legacy. He has become such a disappointment to me after donating and voting for him in both elections. He SHOULD have been primaried in 2012.

[pdsimdars]

84. I honestly don't know where you are all getting your information.

There were 22 emails which were of the highest level of the Top Secret classification on her unencrypted, non-government server.
If someone even leaves a document like that on their own desk overnight, they will probably lose their job and career.
Have any of you actually heard from people in the intelligence community or just talking heads?
Your conclusions are at such odds with what I have heard.

[Attorney in Texas]

100. That's part of the distinction between civil law and criminal law. Civil law, you just need to show

by a preponderance of the evidence (51% of the evidence) that someone did something.

Criminal law generally requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that someone did something with criminal intent.

Maybe someone gets fired for carelessness, but to get incarcerated, you generally need something more than carelessness. I'm not saying that there isn't evidence beyond carelessness; I'm just saying I have not personally seen evidence of criminal conduct committed with criminal intent by Hillary (Sid, it looks bad for him; Hillary, I haven't seen the smoking gun yet).

[leveymg]

112. Are you saying you havea reasonable doubt that Hillary traded classified docs over a private server?

Or are you saying you doubt she withheld classified docs and failed to return them at the time she left office, as her security agreement commands?

[pdsimdars]

121. In that youtube link I provided they said she exchanged classified email which she had

removed the classified marking from and they were sent around to her circle and something like 12 other people many of whom did not have proper security clearance.
That sounds pretty definitive to me.

[2cannan]

110. This article has some interesting comments from security experts

Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law?
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/04/17/is-hillary-clinton-above-the-law/

[pdsimdars]

115. Great article and as I said, intelligence officials take it very seriously

BTW here is my favorite. I never posted it because I thought of all the outrage it would cause because it is mostly from FOX and some Joe Scarborough. . . and while most, including me, totally disagree with them on most issues, they are at least covering this issue.
You and I may not agree with their opinions about it but they do bring up many issues regarding the laws and the information we know.
It is a little over an hour long but it does go into a lot of detail.

I'd love to hear what you think.

[LenaBaby61]

87. Nope....

Sorry ....

[CajunBlazer]

96. Are you really a lawyer? Where did you get you JD?

If you aren't retired, you must not have any clients because you spend all day on DU and you can't afford a Star membership.

[artyteacher]

102. nope.... eom

[Gomez163]

104. Is that like foie gras???

[Jitter65]

114. What FOIA rule or law was broken? Do you even know what info FOIA applies to?

I suggest you find a copy of the law and read it.

[senz]

120. Thoughtful, well-written OP, Attorney in Texas. S/B morally persuasive to genuine liberals.

Citizen access to information -- FOIA -- is basic to a healthy democracy and fair, equitable governance.

Anyone who subverts it, as did Hillary, or opposes it, as do her followers, relinquishes their claim to the "liberal" mantle.

[Vote2016]

125. this ^

[Waiting For Everyman]

122. Apparently FOIA is just another liberal value to do away with.

I feel like I'm in a bad flashback to the Nixon era. It's "deja vu all over again".

One thing anyone with common sense should know for sure: this stuff is not going under the rug. Even if she is only tried in the court of public opinion, that alone will be ferocious enough to guarantee that this will not be covered up, as so many Clinton failures and scandals have been.

People of both parties are not going to stand for it. Not this time.

So her supporters are delusional in thinking this will end ok. All she cares about is not going to jail, and she figures if she's the nominee that is less likely. She doesn't seem to care what the party and the public stand to lose. Typical Clinton.

All that's happening right now is, people are being civil enough to delay their outrage a bit, waiting to see what the FBI's and the DoJ's move will be. After that comes, and especially if it's perceived that nothing is going to be done by them, the shit storm will let loose.

It wouldn't be pretty, and it would probably be during the GE if Dems are foolish enough to keep going down this road of choosing her.

[Eko]

123. Bias confirmation.

" I -- for one -- have doubts that Hillary is criminally responsible for violating the national security laws,"
You know this why? You have seen all the evidence? You are part of the FBI's investigating team? no, not any of that. Its because it is what you would like.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

126. Wow - what a jerky post. Worry about your own guy...geez

[Tarc]

127. I love that my indictment fairy creation is now the #3 google image search for the term

[dlwickham]

128. since you're psychic can I have tomorrow's lotto numbers

[rhett o rick]

130. I wonder if moveon.org will come to Hillary's aid when she is indicted. They formed as a group

to help her husband. But I think they are to progressive for Hillary. Well, as far as that goes, most are more progressive than Hillary.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

135. Hillary is radioactive.

No Internet-based progressive group will support her other than maybe astro-turf groups.

[msanthrope]

134. Judicial Watch? They've been going after the Clintons since the 90s....nt

[Attorney in Texas]

138. Judicial Watch's case is not the only one. There are 38 (or more). Is the Associated Press part of

the vast right wing conspiracy to enforce the FOIA?