2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumExperts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous."
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/01/experts-push-back-against-right-wing-media-clai/208297TPM'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
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)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."
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)a lot has come out since February. Just saying.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)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)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)http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-fbi-james-comey.html?_r=0
Arneoker
(375 posts)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)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Redwoods Red
(137 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)We need term for Bernie-ite class warrior Twitter dead-enders that does not besmirch whole Sanders movement. Perhaps Bern-ay Rouge?
https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/731264055374155776
Arneoker
(375 posts)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)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)This is the same thing that a Washington Post columnist found when he spoke to a former "CIA general counsel whos 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 isnt
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 its not something a prosecutor would take to court.
Its common that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information, said Jeffrey Smith, a former CIA general counsel whos now a partner at Arnold & Porter, where he often represents defendants suspected of misusing classified information.
There are always these back channels, Smith explained. Its 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 shouldnt, but they do.
Its common knowledge that the classified communications system is impossible and isnt used, said one former high-level Justice Department official. Several former prosecutors said flatly that such sloppy, unauthorized practices, although technically violations of law, wouldnt normally lead to criminal cases.
~~
~~
First, experts say, theres 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 theyre 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)
frylock
(34,825 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)That's the date of the article.
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)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)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
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511958733
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)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)Republicans preserve at all costs - to logic and rational thought - their Alternate Reality...
AgerolanAmerican
(1,000 posts)Someone saying they consulted experts doesn't even come close to constituting a valid basis for making that decision.
Human101948
(3,457 posts)http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels-drain-suns-energy-experts-say/
Some Experts Say Earth Has Entered Mass Extinction
http://endtimeheadlines.org/2016/04/some-experts-say-earth-has-entered-mass-extinction/
and don't forget your tin foil!
What Experts Say About Electromagnetic Radiation
https://www.defendershield.com/learn/experts/
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)scscholar
(2,902 posts)She left office and the server shutdown long before that so nothing happened since then.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)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.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)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)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)will it be a surprise for whoever it is
frylock
(34,825 posts)The article is from February. Stick a fork in her.
Response to Bill USA (Original post)
insta8er This message was self-deleted by its author.
procon
(15,805 posts)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.