Why is everyone so certain HRC will not be indicted? Rumors are not facts and the FBI

[Jitter65]

folk like Comey have been chomping at the bit to level some formal charges if not indictment at her. What is the source of these rumors?

Is it a on purpose leak so that they can let down the Hillary haters gently?

[840high]

1. I'll be convinced when I hear

it from the FBI.

[still_one]

5. and that is fair, but I don't think some here will be

[FarPoint]

58. Why do you still fall for right wing propaganda?

It's time to move forward.... support out Democratic Nominee without being teased by media frenzy verses reality. You know that the GOP has done this kind of hateful witch hunting regarding Hillary and Bill Clinton for 30 years.....there is a pattern.. separate the two.

[Adrahil]

69. So folks in the primaries....

Believed every right-wing accusation against her. I saw one person who actually posted the old Clinton "hit list" meme from 7 or 8 years ago, convinced it was "evidence" the Clintons murdered their political enemies. Too much "House of Cards" for those folks.

It's hard to come down from that, once you've convinced yourself that HRC is evil incarnate. A

[FarPoint]

112. I completely understand.

I'm optimistic that we as a Democratic Community can heal.

[jimw81]

145. It wouldnt heal, it will get worst

[840high]

89. What? I'm supposed to believe

speculations on DU and not the FBI?

[brush]

153. You do know the FBI doesn't indict, right?

[stopbush]

78. What are you hoping the FBI says when they report?

[Cali_Democrat]

2. Because she didn't break any laws. nt

[Lokijohn]

103. Yes she did break laws.

The State Dept. Inspector General report shows clearly she violated both FOIA and Federal Records Act. And that looks to be just the start.

Check out fellow DUer Paul Thompson's excellent info on this subject at @thompsontimeline.org

[still_one]

3. .........................................................

http://www.mediaite.com/online/sources-hillary-clinton-not-expected-to-face-charges-in-federal-email-probe/

[BlueNoMatterWho]

4. Some people are saying sources tell them a recommendation is likely, others are saying it is not.

Who knows?

[MattP]

11. Some people saying likely more like wishing

[BlueNoMatterWho]

12. True

[Lord Magus]

42. "Some people" being RW outlets like the Daily Caller.

And of course clowns like HAHA Goodman. No credible sources.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

43. David Shuster as well. But I'm not too familiar with him.

Edit: Says he's worked for MSNBC and Al Jazeera America.

[BlueStateLib]

47. and Fox

[spooky3]

50. Schuster was suspended from MSNBC for a vile anti-Clinton comment

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/08/AR2008020803756.html

He's not an unbiased observer.

[Kingofalldems]

114. Who are you trying to kid?

[Generic Brad]

61. "Some People" is a dog whistle to me

It sounds like the sort of false narrative a roomful of GOP consultants would cook up to foist on us through FOX News. "Some people say...." Got to use those unattributed sources to convince the easily swayed non-critical thinkers and help them continue to hear what they want to hear and reenforce the beliefs they want to believe.

Of course, the reason I suspect this is because the phrase fits the M.O. of the party that refers to anyone perceived to be different as "Those People".

[Kingofalldems]

115. Some people say. That's a Fox news/republican phrase.

[napi21]

6. Mainly because nothing she has done was against the law.

It was against State Dept. guidelines, maybe some general Gov't rules, but nothing punishable under the law. I would have been absolutely stunned if someone would have found her offense indictable.

[Worldly Traveler]

110. A reading assignment

Read the United States Espionage Act of 1917 and you will see that the State Department "rules" correlate with the laws within the act. It is actually a very easy read, low on legalese.

[pnwmom]

111. The Act of 1917 doesn't address emails or anything similar to emails

or anything similar to what Hillary did.

Here's your reading assignment, by a law professor who explains Hillary is not in violation of any criminal laws.

It should be easy enough for you to read, even though it's written by a professor who is much more familiar with the laws than you are.

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

By Richard O. Lempert

About the Author
Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.

[napi21]

125. Thank you for posting that link. It's the first detailed explanation of the "LAWS"

regarding the Sec. of State and why most of Hillary's actions were NOT against any laws. I've kept a copy in my favorites to refer to when someone tries to argue her guilt with me.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

127. A reading assignment

Please read about statutory interpretation and share with the rest of us your findings and how the United States Espionage Act of 1917 is applicable in the current instance.

Thank you in advance.

[scscholar]

7. Nick Merrill said.today "she will not comment further on her interview.”

which proves it was a review, and not an investigation.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

9. To be fair, the head of the FBI called it an investigation.

Said he wasn't familiar with the term "security review".

[scscholar]

13. No, he was speaking in general...

he never said that about Hillary.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

14. Hmmm...

"Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner, is expected to be interviewed by the FBI in the coming weeks. Her campaign has downplayed the probe, describing it as a “security review” — a term that Comey said he wasn’t familiar with. He described it as an “investigation,” noting that the word is in the bureau’s name."


http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_572a415be4b0bc9cb0457c07

[pnwmom]

91. He never said SHE was being investigated. n/t

[BlueNoMatterWho]

93. See post #32

[pnwmom]

94. So? He was quibbling about her use of the word review instead of investigation.

He was NOT saying SHE was the target of the investigation. No one ever has.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

95. Cute

[pnwmom]

97. It isn't cute to smear someone, and anyone who falsely claims that

the FBI has ever said she's the target of the investigation is smearing her.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

104. James Comey is a smear merchant.

[pnwmom]

105. James Comey said that there is an investigation. He never said SHE's the target. n/t

[BlueNoMatterWho]

107. Not a security inquiry?

[amandabeech]

119. The FBI only does criminal prosecutions.

The only thing that looks remotely like a security review is the investigation done by the State Department Inspector General who doesn't do criminal investigations.

I haven't read the whole IG report, but it didn't look very flattering for Hillary.

[99th_Monkey]

16. FBI Director Comey says investigating is "what the FBI does"

Not "security reviews".

Sorry.

Even though Hillary Clinton has repeatedly described the FBI probe over her use of a private email server as a "security inquiry," FBI Director James Comey today questioned the use of that phrase.

“I don’t know what that means," Comey told reporters today in Washington, D.C. "We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-questions-hillary-clintons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269

[scscholar]

26. He was speaking in general...

so that doesn't count.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

32. The response was to a specific question.

"One reporter noted that former Secretary of State Clinton often refers to it as a "security inquiry."

The word "investigation" -- "it’s in our name,” Comey responded. “And I’m not familiar with the term ‘security inquiry.’”

[99th_Monkey]

82. Thank you. I rest my case.

I don't know where some people are getting this crappy information from, but there is
a pattern to it. Perhaps some things are better not known?

[BlueNoMatterWho]

86. I mean how can one say that he didn't answer a question specifically asked about her?

[99th_Monkey]

88. The powers of selective perception

are vastly underestimated apparently

[840high]

157. Bingo -

[thesquanderer]

120. Does not prove it's a "review." At best, proves only that that's what the *HRC* people call it. (nt)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. "" *HRC* people"

At best, proves only that that's what the *HRC* people call it.

What are "*HRC* people"?

I believe the Administrator has stated we are all " *HRC* people" now:

We are Democrats and we are all Clinton supporters now.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/~Skinner

Am I right?


Thank you in advance.

[thesquanderer]

132. I meant HRC and her staff/representatives. Sorry for the ambiguity. (n/t)

[KMOD]

8. She was never even under investigation.

Good Grief.

When the hell will the right wing points stop being trolled here?

[BlueNoMatterWho]

10. The term came from Comey himself.

[KMOD]

18. What term?

Parsing words is ridiculous.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

20. See reply #8

[synergie]

29. Sure, but he never stated that SHE was under investigation. Which is the charge being made.

It was not an investigation of Hillary Clinton, but of the server, and what they found was no criminal violation, and no proof that the server had been hacked, based on the information released so far.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

31. Does the FBI conduct investigations on inanamate objects?

[synergie]

33. When they are servers, yes. were you confused on the matter? I mean, really?

Or did you think that things that the FBI investigates like crime scenes and terror plots were living, breathing people? I had no idea there was such ignorance if what the FBI actually did in this day and age.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

34. Are you for real?

Can the FBI recommend criminal charges on the server itself? Bottom line is that we need to vote for the nominee regardless of who it may be.

[synergie]

36. Are you for real? The nominee is HRC, so vote for her and stop with the parroting of

RW attacks on the nominee.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

39. Will vote for her with bells on.

Not sure how quoting the FBI director is RW, but, whatever.

[OhZone]

80. Well, he is a Republican. nt

[Lord Magus]

117. Because you're NOT quoting the FBI director.

You're putting words into his mouth.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

122. I quoted the FBI director directly in post #32.

[Lord Magus]

138. You've also been arguing that he said it was a "criminal" investiagtion & that Hillary is the target

Neither of which are things that Comey actually said.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

141. Someone was claiming that it was a security review. I pointed out the FBI called it an investigation

[Lord Magus]

142. You're the one who brought up "security review" in the first place.

In other words you've been knocking down a strawman instead of responding to what's actually been said.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

143. Incorrect. See post #7

[Kentonio]

49. There's a different between party loyalty and self delusion.

She has been under FBI investigation for months, and pretending otherwise is just lying to yourself. Hopefully she will soon be cleared so we can get on and win the election.

[840high]

159. Pleasure reading a post that

makes sense.

[zenabby]

85. I believe HRC is true

so I don't mind discussing articles (not RW propaganda with no source) that question her actions. In most cases I find that with digging, I can understand the issue better. That will also help dispel the notion that she is not trust worthy. If we keep telling we can't discuss anything, that will in fact cause more concerns.

I think if we relieve ourselves of the notion that the candidate (any candidate) has or can be perfect, and there is politics in most decisions made by all politicians (including Sanders), we will be able to have a sane discussion.

I do believe HRC used the private server because she believed she could get away with it, and it was more convenient and it was setup with appropriate security since her ex-president husband used it, and other senators etc use private emails as well. She did not anticipate the soup that she would be in.

I don't see this being criminal or grossly negligent. The guidelines were just that. It may be somewhat poor judgement, but have you seen any politician having perfect judgement?

[synergie]

135. Are you having some trouble figuring what is real and what is not? Your undestanding

of the FBI and how investigations work seems to indicate that you're either quite naive or just pulling my leg, since what you're typing is rather ridiculous.

Yes, the nominee is Hillary, and yes, you do need to stop fantasizing about someone else being the nominee based on RW fantasies and accept that you'll be joining us in voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton, there is no one else who will be the nominee, since SHE is the one who won all the votes.

Bottom line is that many don't seem to understand how the FBI works, or how votes work. The FBI wasn't investigating HRC, it was investigating the matter of her server and noted that she committed no crimes and did nothing illegal, and that the hacker was not telling the truth.

The nominee is HRC, period. She has the majority of the pledged delegates, the Superdelegates and the popular vote. No one else is going to be the nominee, I'm glad you're on the HRC team, despite the general lack of understanding of what happened with this FBI thing, which pretty much everyone has been telling you guys for months now. No indictment, no criminal wrongdoing, no matter how hard they tried.

[thesquanderer]

121. Investigating servers, crime scenes, terror plots, etc., are interim steps, not ends. If they find something...

...they tie it to a person. They are not going to accuse a server of a crime or send it to jail. If they find something wrong in any of those things, they proceed to the person responsible.

[synergie]

136. Indeed the person in question here was the hacker, not Hillary.

She was not under investigation, as people keep saying, her server was, based on the false boasts of a hacker.

[thesquanderer]

146. Why would they interview HRC's staff in June if it was all about building a case against Guccifer?

He already took a plea deal in May, the case is over.

[MADem]

53. He never said SHE was under investigation

The only people saying that -- and insisting it is true -- are right wingers and haters with vivid imaginations.

There will be no Fitzmas. "Comey" apparently does NOT play that game.

[99th_Monkey]

17. Sorry, but Dir. Comey disagrees with you

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fbi-director-questions-hillary-clintons-description-fbi-email/story?id=39048269

[KMOD]

19. No. He doesn't.

This spin on words is ridiculous.

[840high]

21. The FBI does not do security reviews - it

ddoes investigations.

[synergie]

38. Okay, but investigating something does not mean that someone associated with an

investigation is automatically a criminal, nor that they are guilty of some crime, especially when they keep telling you otherwise. It is why no one other than RWers and their acolytes have fantasizes about an indictment of anyone, since no crime was uncovered.

An investigation does not imply a crime or guilt of anyone involved with it, despite what RWers will tell you.

[840high]

44. Of course - an investigation

is just an investigation. No argument from me.

[MohRokTah]

87. The target of the investigation is a Romanian hacker.

End.

Full stop.

[scscholar]

41. This. Nick Merrill confirmed today that it wasn't (ntxt)

[AgadorSparticus]

148. Exactly!!!!

[PJMcK]

15. PLEASE GET UP TO DATE

This was posted hours ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141507211

Thank you.

[840high]

22. I'll ait for statement from the FBI.

[PJMcK]

27. Okay. What do you expect?

Since you're positing a point of view, 840high, what do you think is going to happen?

Please share your thoughts

[840high]

35. imo - no charges.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

40. Agreed

[The Second Stone]

23. A legal education would lead you to conclude that there was never a chance

of any criminal charges because of the necessity to prove criminal intent. The set up was not set up for criminal purposes, and there was never any indication from anyone not totally insane that there was such intent.

[Gothmog]

73. I agree with your analysis

Without evidence of the required culpable mental state (mens rea) there will be no indictment. There are very few strict liability criminal statutes and there will be no indictment without proof of intent or gross negligence

[The Second Stone]

81. That and they would have to charge Powell and Rice for the same

thing. Maybe we can treat them to an investigation next.

[Lil Missy]

24. People who want her to be indicted are the ones who won't believe she won't be.

She has never committed a crime, nothing to indict her for.

[BlueNoMatterWho]

25. Totally agree. And vice versa.

[okieinpain]

28. +1 n/t.

[Lord Magus]

30. Rumors are indeed not facts.

So I'm not getting why you state as if it were a fact that "the FBI folk like Comey have been chomping at the bit to level some formal charges if not indictment at her."

[itsrobert]

37. Your concern is noted.

[MFM008]

45. Do you think POTUS would damage himself

or his legacy by campaigning and supporting HRC if there was a good chance she will be indicted for a crime?????????
The mans a lawyer, She is a lawyer, they are surrounded by lawyers.
I just cant even imagine it.

[RBInMaine]

46. Indictment??? It was ALWAYS just an INSANE right wing talking point. No crime. No criminal intent.

[cosmicone]

48. Those praying for the indictment fairy

seem to be disappointed .... and on a democratic board to boot.

[Squinch]

51. *sigh*

[Ghost Dog]

52. Because of a headline at a web site?

A headline's purpose is to quickly and briefly draw attention to the story. It is generally written by a copy editor, but may also be written by the writer, the page layout designer, or other editors... The film The Shipping News has an illustrative exchange between the protagonist, who is learning how to write for a local newspaper, and his publisher:

Publisher: It's finding the center of your story, the beating heart of it, that's what makes a reporter. You have to start by making up some headlines. You know: short, punchy, dramatic headlines. Now, have a look, (pointing at dark clouds gathering in the sky over the ocean) what do you see? Tell me the headline.
Protagonist: HORIZON FILLS WITH DARK CLOUDS?
Publisher: IMMINENT STORM THREATENS VILLAGE.
Protagonist: But what if no storm comes?
Publisher: VILLAGE SPARED FROM DEADLY STORM

...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headline

Now, the heart of the news bin story might or might not have a pulse. It asserts what some unspecified source "expects" See DU thread.

[comradebillyboy]

155. That's all well and good but what does Britebart say?

/s for the humor impaired

[chillfactor]

54. emails and Benghazi...

are behind us...good grief...give it up already!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ucrdem]

55. Rumors are what this thing has been living on since it was hatched by Daryl Issa in 2012.

And if hatchers had their way it would go right on stinking until November 8.

[BlueMTexpat]

56. Please do not continue posting

such B*** S***! First of all, it has been confirmed by M$M sources (although it is true that M$M have played fast and loose with the truth all along in describing this as an investigation of Hillary herself).

Clinton herself was never under investigation. Her private email server was never set up to receive or disseminate classified information and she never sent or received information on it that was classified at the time. It may have been a mistake to set one up, but I blame that mistake largely on the terrible state of IT in the USG, much due to outsourcing to government contractors who make a point not to communicate with each other in an attempt to sell their own systems/products.

Any information that was "classified" was only deemed to be classified retroactively, so Clinton never knowingly received or shared information on that server that was classified at the time. Mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused) is an absolute requirement for criminal culpability.

Those who still want to pursue this issue need to examine their own Minority Report mentality. The situation would never have passed the prosecutorial "red face" test. Period.

Your concern has been noted.

[Sancho]

59. You are absolutely correct about Hillary as the subject of the investigation...

and the crazy spin for the last couple years is insane. No ones knows the exact details, but it's clear that the Clintons always had copies of email - and her lawyers had no problem turning over the server and their own archives to the State Dept. and FBI. It is not clear or discussed, but they had the ability to encrypt emails or permanently delete files if they wished. The technology is constantly changing, but even the FBI may had granted the tech immunity to allow access (or easy access) to archived files that may have been encrypted. A lot of private companies, as we know, have resisted revealing methods or keys even under threat.

"There's a bunch of missing secret stuff!!!" is basically a CT. There could easily be spam that slipped through or whatever, but nothing of consequences was ever missing.

The server was always backed up: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clintons-email-server-traced-to-home-based-service-ap/

In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.

http://www.emailsecurity.mx

The most reliable email and web protection available.

McAfee SaaS (formerly MX Logic) is a leading provider of managed email protection and security services that protect enterprises and service providers from junk email ("spam&quot , viruses, worms, malicious content and attachments, and other harmful email threats. McAfee's services reduce IT department burden, while providing up-to-the minute protection from the latest email threats through the use of sophisticated filtering technology and proactive around-the-clock monitoring. McAfee's services can be implemented immediately and require no integration, migration or upfront costs.

Intel Security has announced the discontinuation of 4 key McAfee SaaS Services, sending shockwaves through the IT community.

The good news is that we have partnered with the world's leading security providers to offer BETTER prices for MORE protection to our customers. We can assist in transitioning your new or existing account to Symantec and Veritas, the market-leading providers of endpoint protection, email security and archiving.

It seems perfectly obvious that the Clintons wanted to keep their personal emails away from FOIA and witch hunts by repubs both in and out of government offices. They seem to have been successful so far.

[BlueMTexpat]

68. She also never deleted

things en masse - as was the practice of Bush II.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

123. 18 USC 1924. is NOT a strict liability statute. Am I correct?

[BlueMTexpat]

144. No, it is not.

Pursuant to Section a:

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

There are two elements.

1) One must "become possessed of documents or materials containing classified information."

This fails because Hillary did not become possessed of classified information. Some information that she received was only classified after she had received it, when it was reviewed before her emails were released, i.e., YEARS later.

2) One must "knowingly" remove classified information and retain it at an unauthorized location.

This fails because without the information's having been classified at the time, she could not have "knowingly" removed and retained it anywhere.

But to some, ANYTHING Hillary does is criminal. Those people will never be convinced and I for one don't give a flying fug about them. If they are here on DU, they are NOT Democrats, no matter how loudly and how often they declare themselves to be.

[baldguy]

57. Why are you so eagar to see her indicted?

[Hoyt]

60. Because it's been clear for some time that she did not commit an indictable offense.

[rock]

62. Since I practically never hear the truth about Clinton

I'm going to assume that what I do hear is false (we're talking accusations here). Therefore the way to bet is an over whelming: they're lying.

[beachbum bob]

63. there will be no indictment, what General Petraeus got caught doing was so much worse

and he ended up with only misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material......

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Petraeus deliberately gave classified information to his paramour...

Petraeus deliberately gave classified information to his paramour, tried to cover it up, and then lied about it to the FBI.

He got a slap on the wrist. If he didn't lie to the FBI it might have ever been handled administratively.

[Zen Democrat]

71. Read that Comey wanted to indict Petraeus on felony charges, but Holder changed it to misdemeanor

[Arazi]

77. Yes, that's true. The FBI wanted 3 felony charges for Petraeus

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-david-petraeus-avoided-felony-charges-and-possible-prison-time/2016/01/25/d77628dc-bfab-11e5-83d4-42e3bceea902_story.html

[Rex]

149. He gave classified material to his mistress, yet that didn't seem to mean a thing.

Can't say the same for some enlisted military personal. Evidently the higher the rank, the less formal charges you face.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

64. Fifth Amendment!!!

The head of the FBI can't indict anybody. In fact neither can the DOJ.

A citizen of the United States can not be indicted in federal court except upon the finding of probable cause by a grand jury:

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The FBI agents and the prosecutors who have been assigned to the case will make a recommendation to the head of the criminal division of the justice Department. It is at that point where she decides how to proceed.

[DonViejo]

65. "folk like Comey have been chomping at the bit to level some formal charges if not indictment at her

Your source for this information about Comey "chomping at the bit"?

[BobbyDrake]

66. Byeeeeeee!

See you never!

[MineralMan]

70. It's not everyone, clearly. And those who are certain are certain

because they have followed this and applied their capacity to think to the issue. Those who think she will be indicted are using some other wishful part of their brain instead of actually thinking about it rationally.

Those are primarily Republicans, right-wingers, and a few on the left who don't want Clinton as President. They're all incorrect.

No indictment will be issued, in the first place. In the second place, any indictment would require a long investigation by the DoJ and calling a Grand Jury. That process would take two years, at a minimum.

Finally, indicting a former Secretary of State for mistakes made in carrying out her duties is simply not going to happen. The precedent that would set would be so outrageous that it will not be considered. It simply will not happen. Ever.

[Zen Democrat]

72. I don't think the DOJ will prosecute but if they did, for argument's sake, no GJ would be necessary.

An FBI criminal investigation resulting in a recommendation of criminal charges is dependent on the DOJ - but if they did accept the FBI recommendation no Grand Jury would be empaneled because the prosecution would be based on the FBI investigation. And charges would come down almost immediately. But even with a recommendation of criminal charges, the DOJ must be convinced the case is winnable in court before moving forward with an indictment.

It's why Bill Clinton's jaunt up the steps and into Lynch's airplane was so mind-blowingly stupid.

[MineralMan]

74. Actually, you are incorrect. No indictment in a case like this

can be issued without a Grand Jury. That would be prohibited by the Constitution.

The DoJ conducts its own investigations on whether a Grand Jury should be called, based on available evidence and whether a prosecution would be likely to result in a conviction.

The FBI will issue a report on their investigation and send it to the DoJ, which will decide what to do about that. If it recommends criminal charges, a decision on a Grand Jury will be made. If it does not, the DoJ will simply file it the report and do nothing. As I said, indicting a former Secretary of State for actions done in carrying out the duties of that position is an unprecedented thing, and is unlikely just on those grounds. Further, there are no egregious criminal activities indicated in any of this.

There will never be an indictment. There will not be a Grand Jury called, either. This will simply be yet another FBI investigation that will be filed somewhere. The whole idea of indicting an SoS in this situation is ludicrous.

[JoePhilly]

75. What crime did she commit?? ... please be specific.

[Rex]

150. None. Zero.

This is a pathetic narrative. People should be embarrassed pushing this crap.

[MohRokTah]

76. .

[MirrorAshes]

79. It must have caused Chuck Todd great pain to report...

that there would be no indictment. He's been as anti-Hillary as you can get through the primary season, so I can't imagine him reporting this if it weren't true.

But also--why are some of you so invested in seeing this happen? None of us benefit from a witch hunt.

[MineralMan]

83. See this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512233596

[EffieBlack]

84. Several reasons but mainly because she's not the subject of any criminal investigation

That right there is reason enough ...

[pnwmom]

92. The FBI has never said she's the target of the investigation. If you have a link

that shows otherwise, then provide it.

If you limit yourself to non right-wing sources, you might learn something. Or maybe it's hopeless.

[XemaSab]

96. From the NYTimes:

"The F.B.I. interviewed Hillary Clinton on Saturday morning for its investigation into whether she or her aides broke the law..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-emails.html?_r=0

[pnwmom]

98. Where does an FBI person say she is the target of an investigation? Nowhere. n/t

[pnwmom]

100. I forgot you don't read your own links.

The F.B.I. regularly interviews key figures before concluding an investigation, and such meetings are not an indication that it thinks the person broke the law.

While defense lawyers often advise clients against such interviews, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has been eager for her to cooperate, lest she give her opponents additional ammunition.

If Hillary's lawyers thought she had anything to worry about, they wouldn't be allowing her to participate in this voluntary meeting, no matter how it would look politically.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-emails.html?_r=0

[BlueNoMatterWho]

106. Wow

[lapucelle]

109. Amy Chozick?

That's your source?

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/07/supplemental-parker-and-chozick-frisk.html
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/03/supplemental-chozick-turns-hillary-into.html
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2016/03/campaign-watch-clinton-said-to-show.html
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2014/08/supplemental-script-became-official.html
http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/08/23-years-later-chozick-and-stelter-and.html

I could go on and on.

[elleng]

101. For ONE reason,

Obama Campaign Machine Revving Up To Elect Clinton.

[The Second Stone]

102. Because no one thinks she had criminal intent, which is necessary

for an indictment and a conviction. No one on any side thinks she did it to disclose confidential information. Even the Bros don't contend (at least not that I've seen yet) that she did it for illegal reasons.

[Hoyt]

113. Listening to "legal eagles" here, you'd think intent doesn't matter as long as there is .00000001%

chance someone might have gotten an email that in no way comprised America, she's guilty of a felon which will throw all the delegates to you know who.

[Kingofalldems]

116. Also at least one Trumpy legal eagle.

[The Second Stone]

124. Well, those "legal eagles" didn't got to law school

and I did.

[Hoyt]

131. Some of them did go to law school, graduated, passed bar and are practicing. Yet they still don't

get intent is necessary.

[The Second Stone]

134. Well, it isn't uncommon to find lawyers who are morons

I meet them every day of the week.

[Hoyt]

139. Definitely.

[lapucelle]

108. As was so beautifully explained in MineralMan's OP earlier today,

the FBI makes recommendations. It doesn't indict.
Only a grand jury can indict.

After the FBI makes its recommendations, we will likely learn exactly who was the target of this investigation, and former SOS Clinton likely already knows that it is not her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512233596

[Lord Magus]

118. Still waiting for an answer. Where did you come up with Comey "chomping at the bit" for indictment?

If that's the case, he should've already been fired.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. That's why the Founding Fathers in their wisdom invested the power to indict in a grand jury.

[floriduck]

126. OMFG, These responses are incredible. Anyone old enough to vote here?

[Lord Magus]

140. What's incredible is that people are still finding ways to call for the indictment fairy...

...but couching it in concern-troll language instead of actually saying they hope for the indictment fairy.

[gordianot]

133. Opinions plenty, facts are lacking, speculation even when sources provided.

Odd isn't it that posters are not given results or facts from the FBI or Department of Justice? You would think there is a legal process going on starting with an investigation.

[lancer78]

137. BECAUSE THE FBI DOES NOT INDICTED PEOPLE n/t

Only a Federal Grand Jury can. And that process can take almost a year.

[Vinca]

147. It doesn't matter whether she's charged or not, the damage has been done.

She's lucky to be running against a candidate who is rapidly imploding.

[Rex]

151. Because she didn't commit a crime?

[Peacetrain]

156. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[apcalc]

152. Because she broke no law......

[silvershadow]

154. I am not sure. nt

[DCBob]

158. I was certain long before these "rumors" came out.

Its always been much ado about nothing.

[Lord Magus]

160. Tell me again about how Comey was "chomping at the bit" for an indictment.

[LanternWaste]

161. This post and eleven dollars will get you a great cup of coffee at Starbucks.

This post and eleven dollars will get you a great cup of coffee at Starbucks.