2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumEnough 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.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Nor do her supporters.
Bob41213
(491 posts)Some of her supporters realize it. We're starting to see some of them come around.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)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)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)How's that for a cult of personality.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)How much to you want to bet that she's a Hillary supporter?
riversedge
(69,727 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)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.
Bob41213
(491 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)I suspect none.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)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)You meant to troll. I called you out for it and pointed out that the electorate chose Hillary. Still later.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)But very likely a grand jury has already been empaneled.
Response to berni_mccoy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Is "we" a replacement for "independents"?
riversedge
(69,727 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Sickening.
SmittynMo
(3,544 posts)what would be the outcome? I would think the Obstruction of Justice charge would stick like glue.
Agree?
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)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)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)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.
So, so so blinded by the light.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)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)
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)They are conducting a criminal investigation.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)BootinUp
(46,928 posts)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)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 dogathering facts and evidence to solve and prevent crimes.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)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.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)That is ALL they do. NOTHING but and nothing less.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)false information. CARRY ON!
pinebox
(5,761 posts)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.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/what_we_investigate
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)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.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)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.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)The denial is all yours.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
jmg257
(11,996 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
morningfog
(18,115 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)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)She's the last person to be interviewed. That honor is reserved for the target.
randome
(34,845 posts)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)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)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)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.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)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)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)I don't know what she could possibly be thinking
BainsBane
(53,003 posts)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.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Great post
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)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)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)
Post removed
Fikari
(29 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)Thanks for the thread, berni_mccoy.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)If it belongs anywhere on DU (being generous). Your source is also a 9/11 truther.
chervilant
(8,267 posts)really want -- or NEED -- a president who makes such poor decisions? (Notice I haven't even touched on her deceit...)
I sincerely hope not!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)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)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.