Past cases suggest Hillary won’t be indicted

[LoverOfLiberty]

A POLITICO review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it’s highly unlikely — but not impossible.

The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton’s use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don’t appear to be present in Clinton’s case.

Linky here

[Matt_in_STL]

1. So you agree that she mishandled classified information, just not to a level to be indicted?

[CrowCityDem]

2. Everyone has known she didn't break any laws. This is noise.

[Press Virginia]

3. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm sure you think removal and retention of classified information is allowed but it's actually a criminal violation.
Whether it's prosecuted is another thing altogether.

[CrowCityDem]

4. Nothing was classified at the time. Nice try.

[Press Virginia]

5. yeaaaah...you keep on telling yourself that

she authored over 100 e-mails that were confidential at the time of their creation.
She was in possession of 22 E-mails deemed so secret that they couldn't be released in any manner.
There were about 20 e-mails from the President....which are confidential to TS/SAP, depending on the content and they are classified upon creation...the administration has already stated they were policy related and he wasn't looking to get ice cream with her.
We have the IC IG who says there are a number of e-mails from IC Sourced material....that's classified when created

The retroactive classification claim is laughable as this is the first time the e-mails have actually been reviewed by anyone other than Clinton and her staff. Why do you think she's using the "marked classified" excuse?

[geek tragedy]

10. so, where will you be posting after Sanders concedes? nt

[Press Virginia]

13. the same place you'll be when Clinton is indicted

[geek tragedy]

17. that will never happen, Clinton will be the nominee, at which

point the Indictment Fair clappers will have to self-deport

[Press Virginia]

21. I'm sure you'll be huffing and puffing about witch hunts and misogyny

when she is indicted.

[geek tragedy]

23. Lol. You are going to be bitterly disappointed. Too bad you won't be able

to express that disappointment at this website as of 18 days from now.

[Press Virginia]

28. I won't? are you sure?

[geek tragedy]

33. those rooting against the Democratic nominee won't be given a platform here after the voting is over

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=10460
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=10436
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=10431
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1259&pid=10399

You have 18 more days, at most.

[Press Virginia]

36. Who needs to root against her? I just don't have to root for her or the turd

running against her.
I'll stick to my principles.

[geek tragedy]

38. silly talk about her going to prison will be verboten here within 18 days.

You and your 'principles' will have to go somewhere else to find fellow believers. There's a bunch of places where you and your principles will fit right in, so I'm not worried about you.

[Press Virginia]

40. Not if she's indicted.

Im sure your support will remain as unwavering on that day as it is 2 days after she's been caught lying for the last year.

[geek tragedy]

41. that day will never happen, too bad so sad for you and your fellow travelers

As I said, there are plenty of places where "Hillary for Prison 2016" is considered a sane, constructive position to maintain

This will not be one of them.

[Press Virginia]

44. She isn't going to prison. She'll plea bargain down to a misdemeanor

ill focus on the down ticket

[geek tragedy]

45. LMAO. Bye nt

[frylock]

59. Fellow travellers

[Lil Missy]

31. Not according to Skinner ....

Non-Democrats will not be welcome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910422

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125910453#post1

[Press Virginia]

42. I don't have to discuss HRC or the election. I don't have to support

someone who spent the last year lying to everyone either

[Lil Missy]

47. yes! Silence is good!

[lagomorph777]

16. not "marked classified" - a tipoff that something is fishy

Either (as Virginia suggests) many of the emails were created in a way that by definition makes them classified, regardless of marking, or (as seen here http://nypost.com/2016/01/24/hillarys-team-copied-intel-off-top-secret-server-to-email/ ) explicitly classified material was illegally stripped of its markings.

[Press Virginia]

18. It's ain't classified because it's marked

it's marked because it's classified.

She had a responsibility to know what was classified and what wasn't. She also had a responsibility to report the receipt of classified information outside proper channels.

[lagomorph777]

20. We are in vehement agreement.

If it's marked, it's definitely classified, and stripping the marking won't change that fact.

If it's classified by certain blanket policies, it's classified even though it hasn't been marked yet.

Either way, the not "marked classified" argument is a dead giveaway.

[rock]

54. You BSers

Are so-well named.

[Press Virginia]

56. If you've ever had a government security briefing

you'd understand how ridiculous her claim is....which evolved from "there is no classified information on my server" to "I never sent any classified material" to nothing being marked classified.
It ignores both the actual content and sources

[politicaljunkie41910]

57. If YOU'VE had one then YOU'D know that, as stated in the OP article, it is the responsibility of

the ORIGINATOR, not the receiver, to ensure that the document is properly classified. The originator of an email which contains classified information also needs to know, prior to sending an email which contains classified information, that the intended recipient has the appropriate clearance to receive it. The purpose of MARKING the document is to preclude accidental disclosure. If the originator doesn't know the classification of every word in their document before sending, they should ask someone who does know. Retroactive classification as discussed in the OP article happens as discussed in that article, but you're not going to find any receiver being prosecuted for someone else's mistake. And before anyone says that it should be obvious, if it were obvious,than why doesn't the Originator know that if it's so obvious.

Also the article explains the reason for so few prosecutions is because the law is not as simple as the Bernie supportors think it is even in the cases discussed in the OP when there is willful intent to remove, conceal, or send for some unlawful purpose. Get over it. Hillary will never be indicted over this type of bull crap.

[Press Virginia]

58. I refer you to the standard NDA

which puts the responsibility on the person handling the information. it is made clear to the signator as well as anyone with a clearance that classified information may or may not be marked.
In HRC's case, ANY classified information she received, marked or unmarked, outside the proper means of communicating the information is to be reported to the appropriate security officers immediately.
Some communications, usually confidential, are not marked as the communication itself has been designated classified upon creation....which means HRC created over 100 classifed e-mails herself.

[politicaljunkie41910]

61. I don't care what you're reading from, I lived it for 27 years.

The responsibility is on the Originator (the person who creates the document) to make sure that the document is properly marked. If the Originator does not know what's in the document that he or she is preparing, than he or she should ask somebody who does.

[Press Virginia]

63. It still does NOT change the responsibility of the recipient. HRC

had a responsibility to recognize sensitive information, treat it as classified and the verify if it was classified.
TS/SCI receive annual briefings on this responsibility. They sign a document that acknowledges this responsibility as well as the penalties that go along with negligence and willful disregard of their responsibilities.

She knows what classified information is. She knows what is sensitive and to be treated as classified until verified.

And, if you lived it, you know about what the 312 says. You know you're briefed on on recognizing sensitive information. You know classified information may or may not be marked.

[noiretextatique]

7. Proof?

Eom.

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

27. This is a a completely nonsensical argument

And it reflects very poorly on you to continue spreading it. I hope that someday Democrats will rise above blatant lying and actually fight for what's right, not just what's politically expedient. Clinton is rubbing off on you.

[CrowCityDem]

35. Nonsensical? You can't mishandle classified information that wasn't classified when you handled it.

[IdaBriggs]

39. Do you understand that she AUTHORED classified documents?

Do you understand that it isn't "marking" that makes something classified?

Do you understand that as Secretary of State she had people prosecuted for mishandling classified documentation?

Do you understand that "it wasn't marked classified" is nonsense?

Do you understand that she emailed a staff member to "cut-and-paste" information from a classified document so it wouldn't have marking?

I know you want to believe she has been honest about this, but truly, she has not. She was trying to pull a Karl Rove "oops, they were accidentally deleted" but it blew up because the no-security clearance company working with her server backed everything up on the cloud, so the FBI is very likely going to nail her hard.

[Press Virginia]

50. The IC IG says otherwise furthermore

She authored about 100 classified emails

[Dem2]

48. Bet you a kilobuck she's not indicted

C'mon, if it's so 'BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA' egregious, surely she'll be indicted, right?

[pmorlan1]

52. Just like when

Cheney and company weren't indicted for setting up a torture regime.

[HooptieWagon]

8. You might want to tell the FBI.

[merrily]

6. Hillary 2016! She dodged indictment!

(I could not resist.)

[BootinUp]

11. More like "She Overcame Phony Scandals Again"

[Press Virginia]

14. Which phony scandal? The IG report basically proved she's been lying for a year.

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

29. Not just basically

There is no doubt now. The shilling here is getting ridiculous.

[Press Virginia]

32. The HRC group is counting down the days until they can expand their bubble

outside their little safe zone.

They don't care if Hillary is a liar or serves the interests of the 1%. It's only about winning the GE with a warm body

[geek tragedy]

43. 18 days until those trying to defeat the Democratic nominee need to self-deport

to be specific.

[Press Virginia]

46. Who's tried to defeat the Democratic nominee? We have a presumptive nominee

[merrily]

26. I hope she overcomes every phony scandal. The real ones are bad enough!

[brooklynite]

19. Bernie 2016! He'll pay back the illegal campaign contributions!

...as soon as his fans give him some more money.

[merrily]

24. That's what happens with millions of small donations via ActBlue.

Well worth the trade off: have a President with no dark money, who is owned by ordinary voters and who has to make refund some small donations or have a President owned by banks and big business and other sources of dark money and who does everything to dodge FOIA requests and subpoenas.

Easy choice in my book!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280109865

[frylock]

60. Obama did, didn't he?

Bernie is no Obama!!

[lagomorph777]

22. That's an awesome bumper sticker.

I'm sure it will inspire Californians to run out and support her.

[mmonk]

9. Past cases indicate Clintons go through impeachment trials.

[geek tragedy]

12. 18 more days nt

[still_one]

49. Results of alert

On Sat May 28, 2016, 07:50 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

18 more days nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2068366

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Telling posts that they are getting banned seems to be rude,hurtful or otherwise inappropriate. You are not a admin so might want to stop acting like you are one.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat May 28, 2016, 07:53 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I have no idea what the alerter is talking about.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Does not seem to clearly say the poster will be banned, but instead just that in 18 more days the primaries will be over and dissing the Dem nominee won't be tolerated.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No way is this hideable. Seriously? People, just stop with all this nastiness. Please.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[frylock]

53. currently fewer than 12 Federal Agents

[merrily]

25. BOOM!

[NCTraveler]

15. It's a right wing smear.

Their goal from the beginning has been about content. The rest is just to try and make themselves look "above-board". They failed there as well. You shouldn't expect honesty of intentions from them.

[ThirdWayToTheHighway]

34. Tell the Democratic State Department IG that

Oh wait, you mean it's not a right wing smear? You mean she has been lying this whole time and she DID break the rules? You mean the FBI investigation is a criminal one? The Clinton shilling here is getting really out of hand.

[floriduck]

30. Unfortunately, there are no known scientific studies in correlation between a legal indictment and a

loss in a presidential election. She can be indicted and win the nomination and lose the general election OR she can not be indicted and win the nomination and win or lose the general election. But I suspect the chances of winning a general election while being under indictment is rather slim.

[Renew Deal]

37. It's long, but it's worth reading despite Guiliani's commentary

Lots of examples of incidents that were and weren't prosecuted.

[beachbumbob]

51. Only in right wing land and leftist zealot world is this an issue....

[99Forever]

62. So the FBI is leftist zealot and lives in right wing land?

As does the originator of this investigation, one John Kerry.

[nilesobek]

55. Leaning for Sanders but agree.

Imo she's too big to indict for this. Its like busting grandma for a small amount of weed. (She is a grandmother)