Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
Sat May 14, 2016, 04:37 PM May 2016

Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous."

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297


TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." As reported by Talking Points Memo editor, Josh Marshall, law professors and former federal prosecutors have told him "to a person" that the chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea and that "on the possibility of an indictment, most of this chatter is just plain ridiculous -- a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness":



[div style="border:1px solid #000000;" class="excerpt"] As a legal matter, the chances of Hillary Clinton facing any kind of indictment are very, very low.

Start with the fact that as far as we know, she is not actually even being investigated for anything, let alone facing a looming indictment. The simple facts, as we know them, just don't put her in line for an indictment. The first reason is the facts, which rest heavily on intent and reckless negligence. The second is tradition and DOJ regulations which make professional prosecutors very leery of issuing indictments that might be perceived or in fact influence an election. This was my thinking. But as the press coverage has become increasingly heated, I started trying to figure out if there was something I was missing - some fact I didn't know, some blindspot in my perception. So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched.

So why the press coverage? I think it's a combination of reasons. The most irreducible and perhaps most significant is simply prestige reporter derp and general ignorance of the legal system. Second is journalists' perennial inability to resist a process story. And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views. (TPM, 2/1/15)


ABC News: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her." In a February 1 article, ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media outlets hyping the claim that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. Abrams added that "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":

(more)


But the Republicans just love to keep repeating this threadbare RW Big Lie: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1960216


35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous." (Original Post) Bill USA May 2016 OP
Yeah, but thousands of lay Sanders' lawyers think she is guilty of the espionage or some such BS. Hoyt May 2016 #1
Malice against her, wishful thinking for Bernie. Hortensis May 2016 #14
This is from February pmorlan1 May 2016 #2
But unnamed "experts" said there wasn't anything bad happening! winter is coming May 2016 #6
statement by the Intell Comm. IG & DoS IG re 'security referral' sent to security officls in Exec Br Bill USA May 2016 #18
Then there is this... pmorlan1 May 2016 #25
No indictments though Arneoker May 2016 #20
This message was self-deleted by its author rjsquirrel May 2016 #3
Josh Marshall. Now there's a disinterested party. Not. Redwoods Red May 2016 #4
Yep JonLeibowitz May 2016 #10
How was his remark wrong? Arneoker May 2016 #22
For a few reasons JonLeibowitz May 2016 #24
Marshall was reporting what law profs and former federal (CIA) prosecutors said.... Bill USA May 2016 #12
Your articles are from 2/16 and 8/15. frylock May 2016 #31
FEBRUARY 1 grasswire May 2016 #5
Even for 3.5 months ago this was a masterpiece of denial AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #8
You are correct pmorlan1 May 2016 #11
Marshall was reporting what law profs and former federal (CIA) prosecutors said... Bill USA May 2016 #13
lots of anonymously sourced assertions there AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #15
LOL! when faced with experts statements contradicting your narrative, say the reporter made them up! Bill USA May 2016 #17
Who exactly are these "experts"? AgerolanAmerican May 2016 #19
You believe every "expert" that is quoted? Human101948 May 2016 #21
Well much has happened in the last almost 4 months now... nt silvershadow May 2016 #26
Uhhh, no. scscholar May 2016 #27
True, but the rw press has been going crazy! BootinUp May 2016 #28
Uhhh, yeh. frylock May 2016 #32
^^This. nt silvershadow May 2016 #34
Most people, those with a memory and half a brain, have known this all along. Lil Missy May 2016 #7
Non credible and outdated source. IdaBriggs May 2016 #9
The problem with any prosecution is that they have to prove intent, or at least anotherproletariat May 2016 #16
of course not there'll be a Scooter Libby type fall guy, wonder if they've picked him yet azurnoir May 2016 #23
lol @ Media Matters. frylock May 2016 #29
This message was self-deleted by its author insta8er May 2016 #30
LOL - "And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views." procon May 2016 #33
Media Matters-- exacrtly where I turn for unbiased information Armstead May 2016 #35
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
1. Yeah, but thousands of lay Sanders' lawyers think she is guilty of the espionage or some such BS.
Sat May 14, 2016, 04:40 PM
May 2016

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
14. Malice against her, wishful thinking for Bernie.
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:19 PM
May 2016

This post points out that there has been no change since both the Justice Department and FBI felt it necessary some months ago to reassure America that no indictments were expected.

Another thing I've learned this election season is that extremism, and the mental and emotional problems that are part of it, is something that can develop in previously balanced people by hanging with extremists and behaving as they do. Most of those who have come to long for Hillary's indictment (indictment-trial-prison) have fallen so far down the rabbit hole they will never find their way back to reality on this subject. Another reason to get money out of politics, and with it lengthy elections.

"Oh, my grandmother doesn't know who I am, but she's really sweet. We just never mention Hillary Clinton's name in front of her, though. Or falafel."

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
6. But unnamed "experts" said there wasn't anything bad happening!
Sat May 14, 2016, 04:49 PM
May 2016

It's a shame they didn't give the FBI a heads up--it could have saved them all the hours they've spent interviewing Clinton's aides since then.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
18. statement by the Intell Comm. IG & DoS IG re 'security referral' sent to security officls in Exec Br
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:44 PM
May 2016
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf

July 24, 2015

Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the
Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails


Yesterday the Office ofthe Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a
congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG
support to the State Department IG (attached).

The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of
40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which
have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings
and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these em ails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security
officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security
officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive
that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not
make a criminal referral- it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The
IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to
the appropriate IC security officials.


pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
25. Then there is this...
Sat May 14, 2016, 06:15 PM
May 2016
The F.B.I.’s case began as a security referral from the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies, who were concerned that classified information might have been stored outside a secure government network. But multiple law enforcement officials said the matter quickly became an investigation into whether anyone had committed a crime in handling classified information.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-james-comey.html?_r=0

Arneoker

(375 posts)
20. No indictments though
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:52 PM
May 2016

I remember Watergate. It didn't really get going in terms of investigations until after the 1972 election, with the Ervin committee, the special prosecutor, and the impeachment process starting in the fall of 1973. But once it got going a lot of the perpetrators ended up going into the slammer. Dean, Ehrlichman, Liddy, Colson, etc. Not just investigated on and on and on and on...but indicted, sent to prison.

How many have gone to prison because of this? Or even are being tried and face prison? After all of this I think that the number is ZERO.

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

Arneoker

(375 posts)
22. How was his remark wrong?
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:55 PM
May 2016

I have been thinking the same thing. I cannot disrespect Bernie, at least not too much, and my own daughter has expressed support for him, and my nephew really supports him. (But his Mom and my sister don't.) But some of his supporters...?

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
24. For a few reasons
Sat May 14, 2016, 06:13 PM
May 2016

1) He's a political commentator who also had humble beginnings. A lot of the pro-Bernie twitter commentators are also liberal bloggers and writers for various progressive organizations and news agencies : Jacobin, The Nation, FAIR, The Intercept

2) Even if his remark wasn't wrong, the point is to show his disdain for at least some segment of Sanders' supporters; since it is left unsaid which ones they are, it is a broad brush.

3) Red-baiting from the supposed left (class warrior was a popular attack on Obama, at the very least)

4) Joking about Khmer Rouge while Kissinger advises Hillary Clinton, his preferred candidate.

I don't agree with a great deal of Sanders' supporters either. But it is incredible how much sillyness Marshall packed into that single tweet.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
12. Marshall was reporting what law profs and former federal (CIA) prosecutors said....
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:04 PM
May 2016
The Wages of Derp are Derp. Lots of it.
So I've spoken to a number of law profs and former federal prosecutors - based on the facts we know now even from the most aggressive reporting. Not like, is this theoretically possible? Not, what the penalties would be if it happened. But [font size="+1"]is an indictment at all likely or is this whole idea very far-fetched. To a person, very far-fetched[/font].



This is the same thing that a Washington Post columnist found when he spoke to a former "CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information" and a "high-level Justice Department official" said.


The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t

Does Hillary Clinton have a serious legal problem because she may have transmitted classified information on her private e-mail server? After talking with a half-dozen knowledgeable lawyers, I think this “scandal” is overstated. Using the server was a self-inflicted wound by Clinton, but it’s not something a prosecutor would take to court.

“It’s common” that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel who’s now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.

“There are always these back channels,” Smith explained. “It’s inevitable, because the classified systems are often cumbersome and lots of people have access to the classified e-mails or cables.” People who need quick guidance about a sensitive matter often pick up the phone or send a message on an open system. They shouldn’t, but they do.

“It’s common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isn’t used,” said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldn’t normally lead to criminal cases.

~~
~~

First, experts say, there’s no legal difference whether Clinton and her aides passed sensitive information using her private server or the official “state.gov” account that many now argue should have been used. Neither system is authorized for transmitting classified information. Second, prosecution of such violations is extremely rare. Lax security procedures are taken seriously, but they’re generally seen as administrative matters.

Potential criminal violations arise when officials knowingly disseminate documents marked as classified to unauthorized officials or on unclassified systems, or otherwise misuse classified materials. That happened in two cases involving former CIA directors that are cited as parallels for the Clinton e-mail issue, but are quite different. John Deutch was pardoned in 2001 for using an unsecured CIA computer at his home to improperly access classified material; he reportedly had been prepared to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. David Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in April for “knowingly” removing classified documents from authorized locations and retaining them at “unauthorized locations.” Neither case fits the fact pattern with the Clinton e-mails.

(more)
 

AgerolanAmerican

(1,000 posts)
8. Even for 3.5 months ago this was a masterpiece of denial
Sat May 14, 2016, 04:56 PM
May 2016

If it reads like it could have come off a desk at Clinton campaign HQ, it probably did!

Once one understands that intent does not matter where massive breaches of national security are concerned, the entire operation becomes indefensible.

pmorlan1

(2,096 posts)
11. You are correct
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:02 PM
May 2016

This was a piece about the civil side (FOIA) but they talked about the criminal side being a standard of gross negligence not intent.

Fmr. Top DOJ Official: Clinton Likely Committed ‘Biggest Violation of Federal Records Act in History

Recently, these two key civil laws have figured prominently in the wide-ranging controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal e-mail account, compounded by a private e-mail server, during nearly the entirety of her four-year tenure. (The fact that she systemically also bypassed the State Department’s special system for classified or potentially classified e-mails is a matter of criminal law, subject to a “gross negligence” standard, that is not further addressed here.) This conduct violated the Federal Records Act from beginning to end, including through what appears to be her utter failure to meet any of the requirements placed on a departing employee. This amounts to what can be viewed as the biggest, most consequential violation of the FRA in its history, as well as a blatant circumvention of the FOIA the likes of which have never before been seen.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511958733
 

AgerolanAmerican

(1,000 posts)
15. lots of anonymously sourced assertions there
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:22 PM
May 2016

I see no reason to believe that those authoritative sources genuinely exist; or, if they do exist, that these opinions are not coming from individuals with a conflict of interest on the matter.

Bill USA

(6,436 posts)
17. LOL! when faced with experts statements contradicting your narrative, say the reporter made them up!
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:37 PM
May 2016

Republicans preserve at all costs - to logic and rational thought - their Alternate Reality...




 

AgerolanAmerican

(1,000 posts)
19. Who exactly are these "experts"?
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:51 PM
May 2016

Someone saying they consulted experts doesn't even come close to constituting a valid basis for making that decision.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
32. Uhhh, yeh.
Sat May 14, 2016, 07:52 PM
May 2016

Her IT guy was granted immunity and several of Clinton's aides have been questioned by the FBI. Also, Director Comey shot down a huge Clintonite talking point when he confirmed that this was an investigation, and not a security review. I think quite a bit has happened since then.

 

IdaBriggs

(10,559 posts)
9. Non credible and outdated source.
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:00 PM
May 2016
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock

David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American political operative, author, and commentator who founded the media watchdog group Media Matters for America. He has been described by Time magazine as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party”. He had been a journalist during the 1990s who wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton.

Brock began his career as a right-wing investigative reporter, but in the late 1990s switched sides, aligning himself with the Democratic Party, and in particular with Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2004, he founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." He has since also founded super PACs called American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record, has become a board member of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, and has been elected chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).


He's basically playing FOX News for Hillary, which is why people who rely on him don't know what they are talking about.

 

anotherproletariat

(1,446 posts)
16. The problem with any prosecution is that they have to prove intent, or at least
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:30 PM
May 2016

willful negligence in order to do anything more than issue a fine. These are exceedingly hard things for which to find definitive proof.

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
23. of course not there'll be a Scooter Libby type fall guy, wonder if they've picked him yet
Sat May 14, 2016, 06:01 PM
May 2016

will it be a surprise for whoever it is

Response to Bill USA (Original post)

procon

(15,805 posts)
33. LOL - "And third, let's be honest, wingnut page views."
Sat May 14, 2016, 08:14 PM
May 2016

Boom!

That you. There it is in a nutshell... so raise your hand if you think all those who are fiendishly posting those daily screwball rightwing "news" articles will ever find another hobby.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Experts Agree Clinton Ind...