2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAnyone talking about "indictment" or thinking Bernie has the math to win isn't on the planet Earth.
For there to be an "indictment" there has to be a crime and evidence of criminal intent. This email flap doesn't come close. What are they going to do, indict dozens of people over decades including Colin Powell?
So please, enough of that sheer insanity.
Next, Bernie has lost the primary. He doesn't have the votes. He doesn't have the math. I know facts hurt, but that's the reality, at least down here on Earth. Hard telling on what planet some are choosing to live.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
merrily
(45,251 posts)As many times as Hillary supporters try to pretend otherwise, no Secretary of State had a private server before and one had it wiped after an FOIA request. As for Powell, he expressly said that he did not even use his own email account except for housekeeping matters, not official business. I don't think any rules or regulations about email accounts existed then either.
As far as criminal intent, I fear you don't get to wave that away. The report was quite clear on that point.
If there is no indictment, it will not be for lack of intent. It will be because in the America that the Clintons occupy, no one will indict Hillary Clinton.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)Powell did use it for official business, and the same kind of retroactively-classified info was in his AOL account. And he did delete emails, unlike Hillary who released them all.
Legally, there's no difference, if anything a stronger case against Powell. But neither of them will be charged with anything, because no laws were broken, and also there was no intent.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I will take Powell's word for what Powell did over those of an anonymous internet poster.
Forgive me if I put zero stock in your legal advice. Your claim that there's a stronger case against Powell is totally bogus. Among many other things, there were not even any rules about emails when Powell was in office.
Blow smoke somewhere else. I'm not buying. Thanks anyway.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)The IG report disagrees with you, but hey.
merrily
(45,251 posts)YouDig
(2,280 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)However, he also said there were no systems in place then. It was a mess. (He took over from Albright, I think?)
Also, there were no rules then, so, again, your claims about a stronger case against Powell than Hillary are bogus.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)it legally the same situation as Hillary. Retroactively confidential information on a private email. And yes, there were rules.
And the systems were a mess when Hillary took over too. Even under Kerry, when there was a huge breach of the state.gov email system. Everyone is all upset that Hillary had a private server, all signs are that it was never hacked. But never a mention of the actual hack of the state.gov emails.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Confidential and above top secret are not the same and there Powell violated no rules.
Hacks were suspected several times and Hillary was notified of them, but persisted. Not that it matters. Driving drunk is still a crime, even if the driver hit no one or nothing. Whether she got hacked or not, Hillary was doing something dangerous and something she knew she was not supposed to do and persisted anyway because....Clinton.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Google is responsible for their gmail platform.
The Clintons are responsible for theirs.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)authorized to host classified material on servers they manage.
Clinton at least was SoS at the time, a high ranking government employee. Google is an entirely separate private company. If anything, gmail is worse.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)documents.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)What she did at State was not a nothingburger. The denial would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious matter on several levels.
As to supporting Bernie, we know exactly what the score is, we're just not following you off the cliff. See the prior paragraph.
MFM008
(19,806 posts)In the state of denial.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)BTW, didn't Fox donate to Hillary? I read that on DU, but that means nothing.
bvf
(6,604 posts)regarding an FBI investigation than the FBI itself should probably be addressing those arguments to the FBI, instead of to one's imagined aliens.
peace13
(11,076 posts)......well let's just say that to anyone with a conscience, the evidence shows Clinton to be irresponsible and void of concern for the accessibility and confidentiality of information. No laws broken you say? Substandard, dangerous business practices are proof enough that she should not be president . She laughs in your face as you write your words....go figure.
Proud Public Servant
(2,097 posts)"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." - HRC, 2008
mathewsleep
(857 posts)Damn...
Logical
(22,457 posts)Response to RBInMaine (Original post)
TM99 This message was self-deleted by its author.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)
Yurovsky
(2,064 posts)Pay no attention to the FBI agents behind the curtain!
While I can't say for certain whether an indictment will be recommended and then handed down, to say that it's a fantasy concocted by the evil forces aligned against Hillary Rodham Clinton is just plain paranoid and delusional.
One thing is for certain, if HRC does face indictment, we'll need to keep an eye on the folks over at Team Hillary. Not sure how they'll handle the emotional trauma...
baldguy
(36,649 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5558635&mesg_id=5558664
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=94494&mesg_id=94687
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)And today fling out everything including the kitchen sink in an attempt to smear Bernie.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Completely soulless.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Why are you looking at me that way?
The Party powerful were for Obama then and for Hillary now and so were/are they. Pure coincidence.
merrily
(45,251 posts)My favorite was the one who called Hillary a crypto-fascist in 2008 and now says we must vote for her to save ourselves from crypto fascists. BTW, I think she may have deleted the 2008 post. Someone linked me to it within the past year, but I just searched DU and it did not turn up. However, quite a few other posts with crypto-something or other in the did turn up. LOL!
panader0
(25,816 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)BUSTED.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)If this was HRC (R) they would be asking for her head
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)You cannot speak with authority on the likelihood of charges against anyone.
There is enough info in the public to know that federal records were intentionally destroyed during an investigation. That is a fact. There is clear exposure to criminal liability here. Pagliano has immunity, so there may be no other charges. But there could be. I seriously doubt Hillary will be charged, but it is not outside the realm of possible that one or more on her staff are charged. There is clear wrongdoing.
Your proclamation that there is not going to be an indictment is premised on complete ignorance of what the FBI criminal investigation has uncovered. You don't know, I don't know.
And Bernie will not be mathematically eliminated until the super delegates vote. That is also a fact.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)...while you're wishing your life away.
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)How very "progressive" of you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
"Gaslighting or gas-lighting is a form of mental abuse in which a victim is manipulated into doubting their own memory, perception, and sanity.[1][2] Instances may range from the denial by an abuser that previous abusive incidents ever occurred, up to the staging of bizarre events by the abuser with the intention of disorienting the victim"
merrily
(45,251 posts)Anyone who doubts their own memory because of an OP from RBI probably needs help anyway.
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)but if there were an indictment, he certainly would be.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Wait, they are not. Nada to do with Sanders.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)They INVESTIGATE people for the hell of it.
And until we know what happens with that, NO ONE KNOWS who will be the nominee.
It's time to just cut the crap.
TimPlo
(443 posts)And as polls show a bunch of clueless Americans don't care about a criminal being in the White House. But to try and act like the Internet has not changed in decades is letting your Thrall like bias worship of Clinton show. Look at how much the net has grown over 15 years. There were only 361 million Internet users in 2000, in the entire world. For perspective, that’s barely two-thirds of the size of Facebook today. in 2016 1,967 million users.
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/06/26/americans-internet-access-2000-2015/
http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/10/22/incredible-growth-of-the-internet-since-2000/
QC
(26,371 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)They live on the same planet as the people who claim HRC is ethical/liberal/progressive and not beholden to Wall Street.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...depending on which spin one wants to believe.
I'm not going to be convinced by a random DUer, however, that there was no crime. That's for official investigators to decide.
emulatorloo
(44,117 posts)Nobody knows what the FBI has or has not found but the FBI. And they aren't leaking. All we have is speculation until they release the report.
Miles Archer
(18,837 posts)First, thank you...thank you so much...for another "It's over, Bernie lost, it's over, get over it" thread, because the 30 or 40 of those we get 7 days a week without fail are clearly not enough. Thank you.
Now I have some truth for you. Sit down and get comfy.
1). I think Sanders' supporters know the "facts" just as well as you know the "facts." The issue here...the only issue...is "electability." I am normally pretty good at understanding, if not agreeing with, the viewpoint of others. And what I will say, because we are not yet in "GE Mode" and it is still my right to say it, is that I don't like Ms. Clinton, I don't trust Ms. Clinton, and I am not the only Democrat who feels that way.
2). Anyone who thinks Clinton is going to win without the votes of Sanders' supporters isn't on the planet Earth.
3). When John Kerry went up against George W. Bush, as strong as the "Anyone But Bush" movement was, as disliked as Bush and Cheney may have been after the end of their first term, the "he's not George W. Bush" strength was not a strength at all. The opponent can be loathed and the opponent can be suspect and unless you have a completely charismatic and well-liked candidate running against them, they're not going to win. In the Hillary group, she is charismatic and well-liked. Outside of the Hillary group, not so much.
4). I understand that after we enter into GE mode, discussions of "spoiler" candidates will be taboo, but for right now, you tell me why there is a rumble going on about having Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren ready as a "backup" on the convention floor.
5). I always take polls with a grain of salt. In all honesty, I look at the data and dismiss it, because things can change in a heartbeat. But if you look at the current polls, Clinton and Trump are neck and neck, and the percentages are close to, if not within, the margin of error. Sanders polls about 9 percentage points higher than Clinton.
6). I understand delegates, I understand superdelegates. And unless Clinton whips Sanders' ass in the remaining contests, and unless her favorability numbers spike and unless the polls show something other than they show right now, people could change their minds on the convention floor. Whether it's Sanders and a running mate or Biden and Warren or anyone else, Clinton receiving the nomination is not a "lock" on June 2, 2016.
7). Trump doesn't play fair, and so far, his supporters don't care about any of his dirt. They don't care about him bilking Veterans out of money promised to them, they don't care about Trump University, they don't care about any of it. He's thrown a couple of volleys at Clinton but I do not believe for a minute that they represent the depths he will sink to if they both enter GE mode.
So you take all of that and put it together and yeah, I get it. But so do the voters. If Sanders' supporters thought Clinton would come within spitting distance of his platforms, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Sanders' supporters aren't going down without a fight. You don't have to like it...you just have to be a resident of "Planet Earth."
Regardless of her political stripe...regardless of whether she really is a "neocon war hawk" or not...she's not going to get a significant number of Republican votes. They loathe her and her husband and all that they believe she represents.
She'd not going to do a sweep of the independents, either.
And among Democrats, she's not going to win without a full-bodied show of support from Sanders' supporters, and right now far too many people are depending on an abrupt "about face" as they "rally behind" her. I don't see it. Some will, simply because they know the only way to defeat Trump is by voting for Clinton. And when it comes down to the GE and Wasserman Schultz can no longer wave her magic wand to turn the tide in Clinton's favor, it's going to be a different game.
I'm not asking anyone to "agree" with anything I've posted here but how the hell can you ignore or dismiss it? I know some people will say "Yeah, but we can BEAT it," and maybe we can, maybe we can't.
We'll find out what's going to happen soon enough.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Does not get the issues even in a broad stroke. And it is self inflicted..stop with Bernie
And anybody who believes this will not be a huge issue in the General is living in fantasy land
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)"For there to be an "indictment" there has to be a crime and evidence of criminal intent."
What evidence of criminal intent is provided when one is being convicted of criminal negligence?
Negligence and criminal negligence are a part of the laws and regulations for handling classified material.
Negligence is a potential issue here where the security of the country was neglected due to her focus on her on personal security of people not finding out what she was up to (contradicting Records Act or FOIA laws).
Having classified material at home without authorization is against the law - period. That's how they nailed Petraeus and past CIA Director Deutch. You don't need to mess with intent much there - either you have classified material in your home without authorization or you don't.
When you lie or deceive, there can be consequences - like a conviction of contempt of the congressional committees (which may be punishable in prison) or obstruction of justice by lying to or deceiving investigating authorities or by deleting emails to hide ones misdeeds from being discovered. Hillary has lied a lot of about this as the recent IG report underscores further. Motive, means, opportunity and intent are usually pretty easy to figure out.
If you're taking in millions of dollars on the side from other countries in exchange for weapons deals, for example, that has some serious criminal legal problems too. Motive, means, opportunity and intent are also usually not hard to figure out there either. I think that remains an open question they're still looking at. I've seen nothing that clears her of that concern and the GOP have six more lawsuits going to get more information on that.
Unless you are employed by the FBI or one of the bodies investigating Hillary and participating in the investigation, I don't think you're in a position to take "indictment" off the table of discussion as if it isn't possible.
Yesterday, her IT guy took the 5th again. Doing so allows a person to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate them. If he's worried about incrimination for a crime by answering questions about this and his boss is still avoiding talking to authorities, it's not a stretch to suggest the potential for being charged with a crime has not passed for either of them.
David Brock may well have planted the story that the FBI will not indict her - to attempt to shore up her campaign. We won't know for sure until the FBI closes their investigation. Fairly recently, the FBI director was quite clear that they were not doing an "inquiry" as Clinton had been maintaining - they were doing an "investigation" which is part of their name.
None of that has anything to do with Bernie or his supporters. They're not the ones being investigated for this behavior. All they're doing is exercising their first amendment rights to express their concern for the outcome.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)still #BernieStrong.
frylock
(34,825 posts)I believe that the FBI is currently gathering evidence. Surely, you're aware of this development?
