I haven't been following the "email thing" for a while...sick of hearing it..In your....

[clarice]

opinion...do you think that there might be an indictment?

[mwrguy]

1. no

it's much ado about nothing

[clarice]

2. Thanks. nt

[snooper2]

100. So, what is a while in your world? End of last month you were on the case

LOL

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512052894


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512049692

[clarice]

101. Point? Just being Snoopy?lol nt

[scscholar]

86. The FBI hasn't even confirmed there's an investigation!

They need to start one first before there could possibly be an indictment.

[840high]

107. Yes they have.

[scscholar]

108. OK, prove it

Comey talked in general terms, but refused to verify.

[840high]

109. here you go

White House: Yup, Hillary email probe is 'criminal investigation' « Hot Air
hotair.com/.../white-house-yup-hillary-email-probe-is-criminal-in...Hot Air
6 days ago - White House: Yup, Hillary email probe is 'criminal investigation' ... that the FBI does not conduct “security reviews” they conduct criminal ...
White House finally calls Hillary's email scandal a 'criminal ...
www.bizpacreview.com/.../white-house-finally-calls-hillarys-email-scand...
5 days ago - ... time called the investigation into her illicit email scandal a “criminal investigation. ... did not intend to specifically say that the investigation into Hillary's ... White House admitted that the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton's ...

[SpareribSP]

3. I'll give you a very firm maybe

Clinton definitely made mistakes with her email system, but we'll see if anything serious comes of it.

[clarice]

4. "Very firm maybe" lol. nt

[CrispyQ]

5. We have rule of laws - one for the rich, one for the rest of us.

So, no.

Look forward sounds so positive, doesn't it?

[clarice]

7. IMHO... NOBODY should be above the rule of law. nt

[geek tragedy]

8. someone is bitter that Hillary isn't going to jail over trumped up nonsense nt

[clarice]

10. Is this Bill? nt

[geek tragedy]

11. no, just a mainstream Democrat. nt

[clarice]

16. Are you saying that Bill isn't a mainstream Democrat !!!??? nt

[Sheepshank]

67. This line of reasoning is pretty dumb

As is the bait in the OP

[clarice]

72. Ok...let me explain....slowly....

1. My response concerning Bill, is what some of us like to call humor. It was my response to an unwarranted snarky attack post.
2. There is no "reasoning" in the OP. I posited a simple question that until now, has garnered some intelligent thoughtful responses.

[Sheepshank]

88. Insults aside, you call someone mentally deficient, and then expect a listening ear?

Good fucking luck with that.

[clarice]

105. Sheep...perhaps I misunderstood your original response to my OP....

If I did, then I apologize. In your first response to the OP, I took it that you were calling the OP dumb..and
that somehow I was "baiting" people.

[CrispyQ]

14. You guys are such one dimensional thinkers.

~snore

[geek tragedy]

19. there are at least 4 dimensions, with time being the 4th, speaking of which,

two more days!

[floriduck]

32. It can't come too soon.

[Gothmog]

6. From the FBI

There will be no indictment http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/clinton-server-drone-fbi/

The FBI has not yet interviewed Clinton as part of its investigation. As CNN first reported, investigators have not found evidence to support criminal charges against Clinton and none are expected, but no final determination will be made until that interview has taken place.

This is plenty of foundation for my opinion

[clarice]

9. Thanks Goth....but help me.... the article spoke specifically about "The drone thing"..

When the FBI stated that no charges will be filed, did they mean pertaining to"the drone thing"
only? Or no charges will be brought forth at all in the whole case?

[MariaThinks]

78. that little link has a goldmine of information. There is no evidence of a crime.

here's the important paragraph:

"The FBI has not yet interviewed Clinton as part of its investigation. As CNN first reported, investigators have not found evidence to support criminal charges against Clinton and none are expected, but no final determination will be made until that interview has taken place."

furthermore, the whole drone program that was the subject of the emails was cancelled. Laughable, some are saying she should be charged for a program that didn't happen and emails were sent to HER not from HER.

[Demsrule86]

12. No

Disappointed? Tick Tock

[clarice]

17. Disappointed in what ???? nt

[DesMoinesDem]

13. The FBI will definitely recommend an indictment.

We'll see if she actually is indicted.

[clarice]

21. Would the Justice Department be the ones to decide if there will be an indictment?nt

[DesMoinesDem]

27. Yes

[floriduck]

33. Barack Obama's DOJ. Does that make it clearer. She walks to our dismay.

[Lord Magus]

29. "Definitely"?

Have you informed the FBI yet that they're going to do that?

[DesMoinesDem]

61. I don't inform the sun to come up in the morning but it still does.

[Lord Magus]

63. And when no recommendation for an indictment happens will you think the world has ended? -nt-

[DesMoinesDem]

66. Just as the sun rises every morning, an indictment will be recommended.

I don't concern myself with things that can't happen.

[Lord Magus]

90. So in other words you're completely delusional.

That's literally the only way you could possibly believe that it's impossible for an indictment to not be recommended.

[clarice]

74. You are correct... it is Clarice's job to make sure that....

all celestial bodies act in strict adherence to MY every whim.

[Arkansas Granny]

15. I get really confused over the email thing. I was under the impression from the beginning that

Sec. Clinton was not the subject of the investigation, but it was the procedure of the State Dept. for handling email that was being looked into. Am I remembering wrong?

[clarice]

18. I'm as confused as you are.lol

[DesMoinesDem]

22. Yes, you are remembering it wrong. Hillary is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI.

[Arkansas Granny]

30. In that case, what law was broken? Apparently, Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice

had the same type of setup. Are they also being investigated?

[floriduck]

35. Such a classic misstatement and here's why.

Neither of the two prior SOS had a private unsecured server and the rules set forth for Clinton changed after the prior were gone. That is a big difference but believe what you want.

[Arkansas Granny]

44. There are so many statements and misstatements

concerning this case that it's hard to determine what to believe.

[clarice]

50. I agree...just look at the differences of opinion on DU alone ! nt

[floriduck]

53. Yes, I understand that. I'm not criticizing you. But there are those that know the truth but

will not acknowledge it for fear they'd look weak to their peers.

[YouDig]

40. No laws were broken. Yes, Powell and Rice had the same setup, they

conducted business over private non-governmental email, and there was retroactively confidential information that was found there. The only real difference is the name "Clinton".

[Melissa G]

83. Not true.

Neither Powell or Rice used personal email exclusively or had all their work email set up on a private server in their homes.

They also both collaborated with the IG investigation. Clinton and I think a number of her top aides did not.

[YouDig]

89. Yes, it is true. A home server and AOL server are the same in the eyes of the law.

It's only right-wingers who don't understand that.

[YouDig]

93. That's a conspiracy theory website, you know that, right?

[Melissa G]

94. That is a factual analysis from the State Dept IG report

Nice Slide!

Is anything inaccurate?

Here is another difference. All these points are cited. Most are from the State IG report.

May 25, 2016: A Bill Clinton assistant with no security clearance and no special computer expertise helped manage Hillary Clinton's private server. It had been previously believed that Bryan Pagliano was the one who managed Clinton's private server. But the State Department inspector general's report released on this day reveals that there actually were "two individuals who provided technical support to Secretary Clinton." The report rarely names names, but the individual other than Pagliano is described as someone who "was at one time an advisor to former President [Bill] Clinton but was never a [State] Department employee, [and] registered the clintonemail.com domain name on January 13, 2009." Previous media reports made clear the person who registered the domain on that day and was an aide to Bill Clinton is Justin Cooper. (US Department of State, 5/25/2016) (The Washington Post, 3/10/2015) In 2015, The Washington Post reported that Cooper had "no security clearance and no particular expertise in safeguarding computers, according to three people briefed on the server setup." (The Washington Post, 8/4/2015) However, the inspector general's report describes a January 2011 incident in which Cooper turned Clinton's server off and on in response to a hacker attack, showing he had direct access to the server and thus all the classified information contained inside it. (US Department of State, 5/25/2016) In April 2016, The Washington Times alleged that Bill and Hillary Clinton "have paid [Cooper's] legal fees associated with the FBI investigation, amounting to 'hundreds of thousands of dollars.'" (The Washington Times, 4/27/2016)

Source: The Clinton Email Scandal Timeline ©2016 #ClintonEmailTimeline
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/The_State_Department_Inspector_General_Report

[YouDig]

95. It's a conspiracy website by someone who is totally cluess of the law and cherry-picks "facts".

[Melissa G]

96. Wow! That is a lot of denial!

Those particular items are well documented in the cited press and the State Dept IG report.

But keep sliding away from that...I sure that is uncomfortable for you to actually discuss.

[Motown_Johnny]

47. Rice and Powell never did anything like what she did.

There are 22 emails from Sec. Clinton contained top secret information. There are none from either Rice or Powell.

The numbers vary depending on what source you look at, but it seems that 1,800+ emails from Sec. Clinton which contained classified information, ~104 of which she herself wrote and sent.


Rice and Powell combined have about 12 emails with classified information in them.


Claiming that the 12 emails from Rice and Powell that have information marked classified is the same thing as over 1,800 from Clinton is not honest. Nor is claiming that zero emails from Powell and Rice combined containing top secret information is the same as the 22 from Clinton.


As far as laws being broken, the claims are all over the place. I will just link to NPR as the most left wing source I can find and leave it there.


http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law


^snip^

The Laws

At issue are four sections of the law: the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) regulations and Section 1924 of Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code.

In short:

The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.

FOIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information."

The NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."

Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.

[leftofcool]

36. And yet the FBI said 5 times she was not the target

Have they told you something different.

[Motown_Johnny]

51. Seriously?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server

^snip^

In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judge’s direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.

Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

[JudyM]

81. We've had this discussion, haven't we? Criminal. Investigation. Of *her* use of the server.

This is the subject of referrals being prepared by 2 inspector generals.

This is the wording used in the April DOJ formal written statement to the FOIA court.

[TwilightZone]

37. The NY Times blew the initial story and printed corrections 10 months ago. The DU e-mail brigade is

sticking with the original story, even though it was loaded with false info that the NYT eventually admitted was false in at least two corrections to the original. That's basically where the confusion lies.

Here are a couple of takes, though there a lots of them out there from the same time frame:

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-new-york-times-emails-357246

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/27/after-two-corrections-the-ny-times-botched-emai/204610

[apcalc]

56. No you are remembering correctly.

It is an inquiry into email practices.

[Xyzse]

20. I doubt it. It is why I did not concentrate on it during the primaries.

I know that if Hillary wins the Presidency that the Republicans will bring that up again and again(as well as other scandals manufactured and otherwise) to make her as impotent as possible. However, that is a completely different issue altogether. Important, but I don't believe an indictment would happen this year.

In regards to any leaks however... I don't know much about it, but if true, it shows a not too secure system, which is also problematic and could come up again later.

[clarice]

23. Thanks ....let's hope not.nt

[Xyzse]

25. Hope not, but I wouldn't put it past them.

I've pretty much given up on things really, as either Presidency will most likely be impotent.

I actually don't know how I feel about this, and so I keep telling people to concentrate on the local races. That much, I at least have some clarity with.

[clarice]

28. A very wise stance IMHO.nt

[Xyzse]

69. That really is all I can offer at this time.

Hope things are doing well with you.

[clarice]

71. Yes....very well...thanks for asking...just

got the last one out of high School. Poppa and I are looking forward to a bit of a break. What's new in
Xyzse-world?

[Xyzse]

85. Just came back from Hawaii, getting a much needed break.

Trying to figure out what's next in my list of activities to do.

Probably going to sign myself up for some races just to force myself in to getting more cardio.

Having high blood pressure forces me to be active. Sadly, that is genetics, and I can't seem to beat it.

[oasis]

24. No. Now my question

Which candidate have you been supporting for President among your friends and people a work?

[clarice]

26. I'm a registered Green. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

31. I don't understand how she did not break FOIA.

The rest of the charges are arguable and it is entirely likely that the Clintons have enough clout to avoid indictment.

On the other hand....



http://time.com/4337518/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch-civil-lawsuit/

^snip^

Two close Clinton aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, will testify under oath this month and next Judicial Watch announced today. The judge in the case said earlier this month he may force Clinton herself to testify after the first round of interviews is completed. That has set up the prospect of the Democratic front-runner for the White House facing off under oath against one of her most dogged pursuers as early as July, just months before the November election.

It is telling that Judicial Watch’s potentially big win has come not from any dark conspiracy it has uncovered, but from what it has not. The judge has limited the group to a narrow line of inquiry designed to answer a simple question: why did Clinton set up a private server and use it for all her work e-mails as Secretary of State? Clinton says it was matter of convenience, but over the course of the trial, the judge has given credence to the allegation that she was intentionally thwarting the federal laws ensuring government transparency.

And that’s why the messy, drawn out drama over case No. F-2013-08812 matters. Clinton is no stranger to allegations that amount to nothing. From Whitewater to Benghazi her political opponents have tried and failed to find evidence that she committed a crime. A law enforcement official familiar with the separate FBI investigation into how classified information got onto her private server says there is little evidence of a crime there either, though the probe is continuing.

But Clinton may have violated civil law if she intentionally thwarted FOIA or the Federal Records Act, which requires public officials to take a number of steps to preserve and make public their work related documents, according to experts and judges handling the matter in the courts. Which means that for many voters it will be Clinton’s trustworthiness that is on trial in the FOIA case.


It seems that "Not Indicted" is the new standard for a Democratic Presidential nominee. Welcome to the new Democratic Party!

[clarice]

34. Thanks Johnny... an informative - level headed- much appreciated response.nt

[loyalsister]

73. A low bar, for sure

I can understand why someone sick of being investigated might want to avoid having their email available. But, I can't understand why an individual who knows they may run for president (or any public office) would not follow every single rule to the letter in order to avoid leaving a string for their enemies to pull.
So, the justification based on previous witch hunts doesn't fly for me.

I doubt that she will be indicted. I think anything regarding the possibility of criminality will be dealt with behind the scenes, and there may be someone else to take the fall.

[clarice]

76. I agree....someone else will take the fall.. she will Clinton her way out of this...oh well...

as long as it pisses the Republicans off.lol

[MariaThinks]

82. Reading that note shows that Hillary did nothing that is indictable

by providing printouts, late as they may have been, she did not hide information.

There is nothing here, and the only ones who think there is are doing so because they hate Hillary.


Thanks for posting this - I was worried, but after reading this, there is no way to prove she intentionally thrwarted FOIA. She could have set up the server for convenience or because she didn't trust the other server, or whatever reason.

[PoliticAverse]

38. Don't assume that an indictment means an indictment of Clinton.

Someone else may be implicated in the mishandling of classified data.

[clarice]

41. Ok...there probably ARE other people involved....does that mean that.....

they could "take the heat " on this one?

[pdsimdars]

65. But Hillary is clearly the target. Just by the order they are interviewing people.

They interview the target last.

[clarice]

70. Is it possible that they may have someone "take a dive" for them?

[ucrdem]

39. It's quietly joined the Christmas Card scandal on the junkheap of broken Whitewaters.

It won't be coming back.

[clarice]

43. Hope you're right... but I'm not that sure.nt

[ucrdem]

49. Oh we'll keep hearing about it in Trump ads and tweets

but as a serious investigation it's over. They need to concentrate now on Orlando.

[clarice]

52. But with all respect UC... how can it really be "over"....?

just look at the differences (spin) of opinion in this one thread alone... and that's among Democrats.

[ucrdem]

55. The short answer is that there was never anything there to begin with.

Hill's an attorney, Bill's an attorney, between them they have a gazillion years of political experience. The foxes once again left the wolf holding a fistful of fur you might say.

[clarice]

57. They certainly are good at that. Whether that is commendable or not is another question. nt

[TwilightZone]

42. No. The NY Times screwed up the initial story and issued corrections. The claim that she'll be

indicted is largely based on that original, uncorrected story, which was published in the middle of last year.

More here, with a couple of links to coverage at the time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512184890#post37

[clarice]

46. The New York times "made up" the allegations? WTF ???!!! nt

[inchhigh]

45. She may drop out as part of a deal

But she very clearly broke the law and lied about it numerous times. First she said it wasn't a criminal investigation, but the FBI said it was. Then she said she never sent or received anythin marked classified, then IBT released copies of emails showing she did. She said she wouldn't appoint know about Foundation donations and couldn't "reward" them. Then last weekend emails surface showing that she did.

She will either be indicted or drop out of the race. I just hope their is still time to replace her on the ballot and pull the party back together.

[clarice]

48. Wow !!!!! There sure are a lot of differing opinions on this issue...not sure who to believe. nt

[procon]

59. Until the final results are made public, everything else is just useless gossip.

Wait it out, then you can smugly wag the finger of your choice at the defeated side.

[clarice]

64. Not much of a finger wagger, I just hope that justice is done at the end. nt

[leftofcool]

60. Nice try but Bernie lost.

[inchhigh]

87. this has nothing to do with Bernie.

It about the democratic party choosing the weakest candidate in its history to run against a truly scary opponent in the general. I am honestly and truly terrified and praying she will drop out in time to at least give us a chance to avoid disaster.

[apcalc]

54. Not a chance

[clarice]

58. How so? nt

[pdsimdars]

62. She had about 2200 emails that contained classified information on her private server

In these, at least 22 were Top Secret, some even being SAP (the highest level of Top Secret). They were never "classified later" as Hillary keeps saying, maybe some of the 2200 were, but the Top Secret ones weren't. From the moment they were created they were Top Secret.
Espionage is removing government information from its secure government location to somewhere else. That is EXACTLY what Hillary did. All those messages were on her private, non government, non secure server. That is espionage. There does not have to be "intent" as people keep saying, just the FACT that they were removed from government to private is enough.

Yes, she committed crimes. But will she be indicted? I doubt it, for political reasons.

But I strongly agree that she should be. If we don't have a rule of law where EVERYONE is judged by the same standard, then we don't have a country.

There are people in prison right now who did far less than Hillary did.

I don't hate Hillary. I have nothing against her. But she did break those laws and it is destructive to the rule of law if she is not prosecuted.

[clarice]

68. And yet there are many people (even in this thread) who would strongly disagree...

Is it really just a question of what "side" someone is on?

For example.. if what you say is true.. ( and I'm not doubting you).. how can there be so much spin on the issue?
Either laws were broken... or they were not. Doesn't seem like there should be much grey area there.

[pdsimdars]

97. Well, the emails were there, and the law is there. People have posted the relevant sections

and they say exactly what Hillary did.
And just what you said is also true. "how can there be so much spin on the issue?"
How can Hillary come out and look right into the camera and say what she says? Right after the IG report came out and cut down all her arguments, she comes out and doubles down on them.
IT MAKES NO SENSE.
That is why many people are so upset. Are there 2 standards? If there are, we have no rule of law and no country. That is why it is a big deal to so many. Do we still have a rule of law, that is the laws apply equally to everyone, or do we have an oligarchy (or whatever it would be)?

[clarice]

98. +1 nt

[99Forever]

75. Not a single person on this site can say with any real degree of knowledge...

... whether there will or won't be an indictment. Every opinion you read here is tainted by that person's personal bias. Every one of them. Period. ONLY the lead attorney on this case for the DOJ could give you an answer worth reading.

[clarice]

77. I am inclined to agree 1000%. nt

[99Forever]

80. Everyone's an expert and a psychic on the internet.

[clarice]

102. I knew you were going to say that! lol

[clarice]

79. A very nice, and for the most part, civil debate. Thanks to all and goodnight.nt

[TwilightZone]

84. Here are a whole bunch of sources that someone compiled. Enjoy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2182832

[clarice]

106. Cool stuff...thanks.nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

92. I do not believe this Administration will pursue it.

[Exilednight]

99. No, but I blame that on historical lack of trying.

Petreus should have received jail time for what he did. I will give him this much credit, he didn't try and run for president after doing something so stupid.

[Vinca]

103. I don't know.

I would have thought it would have been wrapped up long ago if there is no "there there."

[clarice]

104. I agree... I don't know what to make of the whole thing....

as you can see, lot's of different opinions.