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
 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:22 AM May 2016

Enough Evidence To Charge Hillary With Obstruction of Justice

Hillary has been the target of an active FBI investigation initiated at the request of Secretary of State John Kerry since last May regarding the violation of federal laws around handling of government secrets. With the release of the OIG report yesterday, it is clear that Hillary purposely withheld emails from the State Department showing that she was warned her server was compromised and had to be shutdown. This corroborates a story from last March where unnamed sources in the Cybersecurity Division of the State Department warned Hillary about the security risks posed to her conducting all her State Department business via her own private server. There were many other instances where Hillary was warned, but none so direct as this. This alone shows that she tried to conceal that she knew the risk as early as 2011, did nothing to inform State Department about it and concealed it from the State Department once it was known she needed to hand over the emails from her private server. Withholding this information firmly amounts to Obstruction of Justice.

Time to end your campaign Hillary.
82 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Enough Evidence To Charge Hillary With Obstruction of Justice (Original Post) berni_mccoy May 2016 OP
She has ended it; she just doesn't realize it yet. lagomorph777 May 2016 #1
Yes on the first 2 points... Bob41213 May 2016 #20
Are we really? I have so many of them on ignore I wouldn't know. It would be great if true. stillwaiting May 2016 #33
I don't want to post links Bob41213 May 2016 #37
One said she felt a bit betrayed by Hillary and she was thrown out of the Hillary group. pdsimdars May 2016 #75
1st Woman President - to be Impeached in Office FreakinDJ May 2016 #38
Ha!! :-D NurseJackie May 2016 #2
Love that gif and the original video. Candace Payne is one ultra-cool lady! Surya Gayatri May 2016 #26
So far, I never tire of seeing that pic. Fits so many OP's here on du lately! riversedge May 2016 #55
Another Republican smear job. The electorate chose Hillary. Deal with it. Trust Buster May 2016 #3
The biggest state in the "electorate" hasn't gone to the fucking polls yet. cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #5
And he's behind in the polls in that state too. Can't make up the delegate gap. Trust Buster May 2016 #12
"behind in the polls" cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #18
And things aren't exactly trending her direction if you know what I mean.... Bob41213 May 2016 #21
That poll will not get it done in closing the delegate deficit. Simple math. Trust Buster May 2016 #22
Click your heels together three times... cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #24
Staring at a 270 delegate deficit, I think it's Sanders supporters that are clicking their heels.LOL Trust Buster May 2016 #28
Good comeback. I'll wear the mark it left for the rest of the day. cherokeeprogressive May 2016 #35
Don't look now but he needs more than that: ucrdem May 2016 #39
My comeback is a mathematical fact, your denial aside. Trust Buster May 2016 #41
How many Hil-fans do you think are going to sit on the grand jury? berni_mccoy May 2016 #8
You sound childish. Not worth my time. Your candidate still lost. Later. Trust Buster May 2016 #11
So says the one calling DUers Republicans. If you knew anything berni_mccoy May 2016 #14
I was responding to your post asking how many Hillary supporters will serve on the Jury. Trust Buster May 2016 #16
Hate to point nt this to you nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #4
Who is this "we" anyway? A Democrat will win the presidential election in November 2016. tonyt53 May 2016 #13
Yet, another Sanders fan OP making stuff up. riversedge May 2016 #6
I see they've decided to double down on the Kerry crap. ucrdem May 2016 #9
I often wonder,,,, If anyone other than HRC were to do this, SmittynMo May 2016 #7
GSers are prosecuted for much less Press Virginia May 2016 #10
Yeah, and she's SmittynMo May 2016 #17
You should write for Free Republic or any other right wing rag, seriously BootinUp May 2016 #15
WOW SmittynMo May 2016 #19
No more and no less blinded that one who would write "time to end your campaign, Hillary..." LanternWaste May 2016 #27
He/she/it probably does, under a "nom de plume"... Surya Gayatri May 2016 #30
She has no choice but to cooperate with the FBI and DOJ morningfog May 2016 #36
and that supports the OP? Not. BootinUp May 2016 #42
Just clarifying your statement. morningfog May 2016 #45
you added a bullshit adjective that is not true either. BootinUp May 2016 #49
The only bullshit is coming from you. From the FBI directly: berni_mccoy May 2016 #78
The FBI conducts only criminal investigations. That is an accurate adjective. Don't play dumb. morningfog May 2016 #81
Ya let's all deny reality that Hillary is under an FBI criminal investigation pinebox May 2016 #48
What crime pinebox? I missed the FBI announcing a crime had been committed. BootinUp May 2016 #51
Do you understand that the FBI only investigates criminal activity? pinebox May 2016 #57
If they haven't determined a crime, it isn't called that. And they haven't, so yes you spread BootinUp May 2016 #58
It is called that. It's a criminal investigation. pinebox May 2016 #62
SO....WHY CAN'T YOU SHOW THE FBI SAYING IT? BootinUp May 2016 #63
Comey said the FBI only does criminal cases and there's no such thing pinebox May 2016 #66
Thats not what he said pinebox. nt BootinUp May 2016 #69
Yes it is. pinebox May 2016 #70
Right, forget it, because you can't post a citation to support your bullshit. BootinUp May 2016 #71
Here's your fucking link berni_mccoy May 2016 #79
She is not under investigation and no crime has been reported. randome May 2016 #52
Hey - "At least I wasn't indicted" could make a GREAT bumper-sticker! jmg257 May 2016 #23
She is not the target of an investigation. I have to assume you are deliberately lying. randome May 2016 #25
Her use of her server is the target of a criminal investigation. morningfog May 2016 #40
Correct. But that's not what the OP says. That statement is a link to emphasize its 'truthiness'. randome May 2016 #47
Her use of the server... Hmmm who else would be the target then? berni_mccoy May 2016 #56
The FBI has said she is not the target. randome May 2016 #59
Not true, NOT true. Comey was last asked a direct question regarding this in the last presser... berni_mccoy May 2016 #65
You're not bursting any bubble of mine. If she's indicted, I'm fine with Sanders being the nominee. randome May 2016 #68
As Comey also said in his last presser... the FBI's job is criminal investigations berni_mccoy May 2016 #72
Well, if YOU say so... nt onehandle May 2016 #29
Ordinary politicians would be making arrangements to enter prison... Yurovsky May 2016 #31
I believe they get out of situations repeatedly by promising to enact neoliberal policies that stillwaiting May 2016 #46
If the DOJ doesn't the Senate Judiciary Committee will FreakinDJ May 2016 #34
You obviously don't know what the word evidence means BainsBane May 2016 #43
K&R redstateblues May 2016 #50
What is "pathetic" buddy is THIS CRAP HERE: Herman4747 May 2016 #64
There has not historically been a Democratic vs. a Republican foreign policy BainsBane May 2016 #80
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #67
What does any of that have to do with Hillary putting our national security at risk? Fikari May 2016 #76
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe May 2016 #44
More right wing tripe uponit7771 May 2016 #53
Cough cough pinebox May 2016 #54
Crap like this belongs in Creative Speculation. JTFrog May 2016 #60
Does our nation chervilant May 2016 #61
The last thing we need is a president who puts our national security for granted. B Calm May 2016 #73
It's a real issue, and we shouldn't have it around our collective neck Babel_17 May 2016 #74
If there are no indictments/charges initiated, does it really mean anything? no_hypocrisy May 2016 #77
I think it would be great if powerful people were held to the same standards as regular people Cheese Sandwich May 2016 #82

Bob41213

(491 posts)
20. Yes on the first 2 points...
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:37 AM
May 2016

Some of her supporters realize it. We're starting to see some of them come around.

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
33. Are we really? I have so many of them on ignore I wouldn't know. It would be great if true.
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:45 AM
May 2016

HRC does NOT deserve to become President. What she has done as SOS is simply too much, and it should not be rewarded with a promotion. Period. This is on top of her Kagan and Kissinger approved foreign policy, and her Goldman Sachs approved economic policy prescriptions.

If she does become President her Administration will be bogged down with investigation after investigation. Scandal after scandal.

And she won't be running against Trump for reelection. One term President, if she can even eke out a win in November against TRUMP (for God's sake) if she becomes our nominee.

We desperately need someone else.

Bob41213

(491 posts)
37. I don't want to post links
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:47 AM
May 2016

cause it could be "calling out" a member but I've seen at least a few threads with HRC supporters saying they are concerned or more or less coming around.

 

pdsimdars

(6,007 posts)
75. One said she felt a bit betrayed by Hillary and she was thrown out of the Hillary group.
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:29 AM
May 2016

How's that for a cult of personality.

 

Surya Gayatri

(15,445 posts)
26. Love that gif and the original video. Candace Payne is one ultra-cool lady!
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:41 AM
May 2016

How much to you want to bet that she's a Hillary supporter?

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
18. "behind in the polls"
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:37 AM
May 2016

Are you taking that to the bank? Because that's not what I'm reading. The L.A. Times has it 46/44 with an almost six percent margin of error.

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
14. So says the one calling DUers Republicans. If you knew anything
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:33 AM
May 2016

you'd know I and many like me here are long-time liberal members of DU. John Kerry started the FBI investigation into Hillary's private server... is he a RWer too?

 

Trust Buster

(7,299 posts)
16. I was responding to your post asking how many Hillary supporters will serve on the Jury.
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:35 AM
May 2016

You meant to troll. I called you out for it and pointed out that the electorate chose Hillary. Still later.

Response to berni_mccoy (Original post)

 

tonyt53

(5,737 posts)
13. Who is this "we" anyway? A Democrat will win the presidential election in November 2016.
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:32 AM
May 2016

Is "we" a replacement for "independents"?

SmittynMo

(3,544 posts)
7. I often wonder,,,, If anyone other than HRC were to do this,
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:26 AM
May 2016

what would be the outcome? I would think the Obstruction of Justice charge would stick like glue.

Agree?

 

Press Virginia

(2,329 posts)
10. GSers are prosecuted for much less
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:30 AM
May 2016

than what we know about HRC's server contents.

I can lose my clearance if I take notes in a classified meeting and then fail to secure the notebook, properly, in my office. Something as simple as leaving it on my desk while I go get a drink can result in a reprimand.

SmittynMo

(3,544 posts)
17. Yeah, and she's
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:35 AM
May 2016

running for the presidency. WOW.

It sure makes sense to me to drop out. If for nothing else than to avoid the embarrassment.

But the queen will have no such action bestowed upon her.

Now, how does that happen? Can you say "ESTABLISHMENT" politics?

Get prepared. We're going to lose in November.

Wait for the shit storm by Donald. It's coming, believe me.

BootinUp

(46,928 posts)
15. You should write for Free Republic or any other right wing rag, seriously
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:33 AM
May 2016

It is the Justice Department that she is cooperating with, by all reports. You are so lost in the Bern bubble I fear for your ability to discern anything regarding evidence and facts.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
27. No more and no less blinded that one who would write "time to end your campaign, Hillary..."
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:41 AM
May 2016

No more and no less blinded that one who would tolerate "time to end your campaign, Hillary..." yet criticize a response in kind as they are in fact, simply six of one, and half a dozen of the other

(insert distinction lacking relevant difference below rationalize holding two different standards)

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
36. She has no choice but to cooperate with the FBI and DOJ
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:46 AM
May 2016

They are conducting a criminal investigation.

BootinUp

(46,928 posts)
49. you added a bullshit adjective that is not true either.
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:50 AM
May 2016

There is no crime that has been reported by the Justice Department. Therefore, calling it a criminal investigation is complete bullshit.

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
78. The only bullshit is coming from you. From the FBI directly:
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:47 AM
May 2016
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs

What does the FBI stand for?

The FBI stands for Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Federal” refers to the national government of the United States. “Bureau” is another word for department or division of government. “Investigation” is what we do—gathering facts and evidence to solve and prevent crimes.
 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
48. Ya let's all deny reality that Hillary is under an FBI criminal investigation
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:50 AM
May 2016

Sorry but since when is reality a RW talking point. It's funny because if anybody sounds RW it's you all with denying what is happening.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
57. Do you understand that the FBI only investigates criminal activity?
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:55 AM
May 2016

That is ALL they do. NOTHING but and nothing less.

BootinUp

(46,928 posts)
58. If they haven't determined a crime, it isn't called that. And they haven't, so yes you spread
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:56 AM
May 2016

false information. CARRY ON!

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
62. It is called that. It's a criminal investigation.
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:00 AM
May 2016

False info is you denying that Hillary is not under a criminal investigation.

What is so hard to understand? Why do you Hillary supporters REFUSE to see facts.

The very heart of FBI operations lies in our investigations—which serve, as our mission states, “to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.”
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate


 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
66. Comey said the FBI only does criminal cases and there's no such thing
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:08 AM
May 2016

as security reviews.

This was discussed at great length on here a couple of weeks ago on DU.

Let's stop the bullshit. Hillary is under a criminal investigation. There is no Judge Wapner in the FBI, this is NOT a civil suit & maybe you're mixed up between this case and the one from Judicial Watch.

There's your out. Take it.

 

pinebox

(5,761 posts)
70. Yes it is.
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:15 AM
May 2016

At this point, forget it. You're too much in love with your candidate to realize she is in huge trouble and openly lied about it for over a year.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
52. She is not under investigation and no crime has been reported.
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:53 AM
May 2016

The denial is all yours.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
25. She is not the target of an investigation. I have to assume you are deliberately lying.
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:40 AM
May 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
47. Correct. But that's not what the OP says. That statement is a link to emphasize its 'truthiness'.
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:49 AM
May 2016

And the verbiage in the link does not at all say what the OP is trying to push.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
56. Her use of the server... Hmmm who else would be the target then?
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:54 AM
May 2016

She's the last person to be interviewed. That honor is reserved for the target.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
59. The FBI has said she is not the target.
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:57 AM
May 2016

You can put all the spin on this that you want but it doesn't alter the truth that she is winning the nomination and Sanders is very likely to lose.

Maybe if you and yours spent more time discussing the issues instead of denigrating Clinton, your guy might have had a better chance. You were one of Sanders' worst enemies, imo.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
65. Not true, NOT true. Comey was last asked a direct question regarding this in the last presser...
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:03 AM
May 2016

His response: "NO COMMENT".

If she wasn't the target, he could has easily have said so. That leaves very little room for any other outcome.

Again, if her ACTION is the target, then who else would be the INDIVIDUAL...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but many of us have seen this coming and have tried to warn the party. She is not going to get out of this.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
68. You're not bursting any bubble of mine. If she's indicted, I'm fine with Sanders being the nominee.
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:12 AM
May 2016

But you're simply guessing what might be happening behind the scenes. I'll go with what is known and is stated in public. There is no criminal investigation because there is no crime alleged. The worst that we know is that Clinton didn't follow all the FOIA rules. That has very little in the way of penalties attached to it and even NARA said her 'inadequacies' in this area were mitigated by her furnishing 55,000 printed pages of her emails.

Until an actual allegation of criminal activity comes out, speculation (hope) that she will be indicted is nothing more than another tool to avoid reality.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

 

berni_mccoy

(23,018 posts)
72. As Comey also said in his last presser... the FBI's job is criminal investigations
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:16 AM
May 2016

That's what they do.

And of course, my OP is speculative. But I also know a few lawyers and many people in the security industry. You are welcome to take or leave anything I say. That's your choice.

Yurovsky

(2,064 posts)
31. Ordinary politicians would be making arrangements to enter prison...
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:44 AM
May 2016

but the Clintons have spent a lifetime in politics teetering on the edge. They are masters of getting out of situations that would destroy most people. Until they are both either incarcerated or have left this mortal coil, I will bet that they will snake their way out of anything.

No wonder they operate as if laws and rules don't apply to them - they've never really been held accountable for flouting them (I doubt Bill cared about losing his law license post-Monica).

This is America 2016... Laws are for the little people. The oligarchy has neither the time nor the inclination to abide by the rules governing lesser beings.

stillwaiting

(3,795 posts)
46. I believe they get out of situations repeatedly by promising to enact neoliberal policies that
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:49 AM
May 2016

hugely benefit the vampire class and hugely hurt average working, middle class, and poor people. It becomes their insurance policy. And, TPTB gladly ensure they suffer few to no repercussions. It puts the Clintons over a barrel and makes them highly suitable targets for blackmail. "You do this or else".

All in the name of the Democratic Party too which destroys the Party's reputation that used to be solidly for the working class, middle class, and poor.

It's how they protect themselves I believe.

We are fools to choose them again.

 

FreakinDJ

(17,644 posts)
34. If the DOJ doesn't the Senate Judiciary Committee will
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:46 AM
May 2016

I don't know what she could possibly be thinking

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
43. You obviously don't know what the word evidence means
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:48 AM
May 2016

Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)

She is the nominee. Cut the crap. Bernie LOST the election. Despite your allies in the GOP promoting this email story for months on end, she still beat Sanders. You all could have supported a better candidate, but you chose not to. You went all in on a "revolutionary" who spent over $100 million in ads but underfunded organizing efforts, and in turn his supporters decided to spend their time attacking voters and civil rights leaders on social media rather than working to get the vote out. Instead, Sanders and his supporters counted on being able to buy the election, but despite outspending Clinton 2-1, he still lost, and that's with voters already knowing all this email shit you pretend is going to miraculously make him the nominee after being decidedly rejected by the majority of the Democratic electorate. Now that you know Bernie can't win votes, you turn to increasingly desperate measures. Frankly, it's pathetic. The increasing contempt for democracy is unseemly.

 

Herman4747

(1,825 posts)
64. What is "pathetic" buddy is THIS CRAP HERE:
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:02 AM
May 2016
?quality=90&strip=all&w=664&h=441&crop=1

Can you please explain why a Democratic (REPEAT DEMOCRATIC) candidate should be getting foreign policy advice from Henry Kissinger? Can you do that??

Go on, I dare you.

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
80. There has not historically been a Democratic vs. a Republican foreign policy
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:55 AM
May 2016

in this country. In fact, the two parties have been remarkably consistent in their foreign policy. The Bush administration was a departure from that, but Kissinger is not a neocon. He is known for real politik, which is the opposite of neoconservativism.

Now, I will not defend Kissinger's record in Chile or Vietnam. I believe the US should be member of the International Criminal Court and that he should be prosecuted there. However, he is a former Secretary of State and one of the leading figures in foreign policy circles.

Now, I understand the popular view advanced by the Tea Party and some on the left is that people should not associate with anyone from the other party and ensure they keep themselves closed off to as many views as possible, but I don't agree. I also disagree that a candidate for the president should remain uninformed about basic foreign policy issues--like the difference between Sunni and Shia, the difference between say Jordan and Turkey or understanding a wee bit of the history of tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, wet foot, dry foot, US policy in Colombia, etc,--and refuse to as much as assemble a foreign policy team to prepare him for the job of being president. As much as I would love to see a leftist, less interventionist foreign policy, Sanders never articulated one because he never bothered to put in the work necessary to learn enough about foreign policy to be able to do so.

So, in short, if I have to chose between abject ignorance and a very well informed candidate who is too Hawkish for my tastes, I choose the latter. You see, throughout my entire life, the US has been an imperialist, interventionist nation. We've had many hawkish presidents but one truly ignorant one on foreign policy, and he led us into the most disastrous war in US history. George W Bush taught me that competence matters. One cannot be competent if one doesn't care enough to even bother assembling a foreign policy team to inform him on key matters of national security. That, and how he has run his campaign (especially repeated violations of campaign finance law), has shown me that Sanders lacks the competence to be president.

Now, I understand that's not as pithy or cute as a series of video clips taken out of context, but that's not how I roll.

Response to BainsBane (Reply #43)

 

JTFrog

(14,274 posts)
60. Crap like this belongs in Creative Speculation.
Fri May 27, 2016, 10:58 AM
May 2016

If it belongs anywhere on DU (being generous). Your source is also a 9/11 truther.


chervilant

(8,267 posts)
61. Does our nation
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:00 AM
May 2016

really want -- or NEED -- a president who makes such poor decisions? (Notice I haven't even touched on her deceit...)

I sincerely hope not!

Babel_17

(5,400 posts)
74. It's a real issue, and we shouldn't have it around our collective neck
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:17 AM
May 2016

We were told there was never going to be any there there, yet here we are. The media has reacted, we'll see who follows them. I see some notable Clinton friendly pundits as not going to be willing to twist themselves in knots trying to defend this. The results of the FBI investigation are being waited on with a high degree of anticipation. We've seen what turmoil that the OIG report has generated. The FBI report could undo some of that turmoil, but it could also make it look like small potatoes in comparison by what it brings about.

Nobody with credibility to lose was seen as laughing off the OIG report. An even bigger shoe could be dropping, and very soon.

no_hypocrisy

(45,774 posts)
77. If there are no indictments/charges initiated, does it really mean anything?
Fri May 27, 2016, 11:33 AM
May 2016

The FBI could draft charges, but it would bumped up to the Justice Department. Either Loretta Lynch, the U.S. Attorney General, would file or there would have to be an independent prosecutor appointment to file the charges.

I don't see either happening.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Enough Evidence To Charge...