The problem is that both

Sandy Berger and David Petraeus were prosecuted and charged with mishandling classified data.

http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-difference-between-murder-and.html

For those who won't click on the link (I'm looking at YOU, Hillbots) it matters not whether Bryan Pagliano is spilling the beans, and the definition of classified data isn't -- as the word 'is' once was -- up for debate.

She stands a greater chance of NOT being prosecuted for the crime than she does having committed it, even by error or omission.

But we know... y'all don't care. First lady president, her turn, etc.

The difference between murder and manslaughter is

"I didn't mean to."

(IANAL)

Even if her motives for having a homebrew server were far from nefarious, "mistakes were made" and somebody must be held accountable. There's going to be a fall guy or gal, and today my money's on Cheryl Mills, known as the only person who says 'no' to Hillary.

Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's former National Security Adviser, paid a $50,000 fine, performed 100 hours of community service, lost his security clearance and his law license. For stuffing classified documents down his pants. David Petraeus similarly got his charges reduced to a misdemeanor, with a $100,000 fine and two years of probation for sharing classified info with his mistress/biographer.

Both cases angered investigating agents because of the leniency of punishment.

From what I can tell and from what Bryan Pagliano may or may not be saying as a result of his immunity from prosecution, Hillary Clinton very likely is -- like Berger and Petraeus -- responsible for the "mishandling of classified data". (The conversation about what is, what is not, and/or what should be classified data or not is a word-definition distraction that nobody is indulging in any longer.)

Whether she is eventually indicted or not, whether misdemeanor or felony if so, is to be determined by the conclusions of the FBI's investigation, director Comey, AG Lynch, and I suspect even Obama himself.

(Insert "Law and Order"'s DUNH-DUNH sound effect here.)

If Guccifer is teling the truth -- and can provide evidence that backs his statements up -- the only question I have is: what should Clinton's penalty be?

My final concern about this matter is when we will have the conclusions of the investigation made public: before November... or after.

Kindly note that I draw no conclusions about political consequences, though that will be at the forefront of everyone's reaction. once we know what we do not know today.

Too dramatic?

It's even worse than you may think

The Congressional Black Caucus PAC takes contributions from the private prison industry.

https://newrepublic.com/article/130930/congressional-black-caucus-lost-conscience

The PAC, which has raised $2.7 million since 2010, gets its funding from the biggest firms in America, like telecoms AT&T and Comcast, payday lender Cash America, mega-banks JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup, minimum-wage foe the National Restaurant Association, and private-prison firm Corrections Corporation of America.

Members of the CBC PAC board include Daron Watts, a lobbyist for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the highly addictive opioid OxyContin; Mike Mckay and Chaka Burgess, both lobbyists for Navient, the student loan giant that was spun off of Sallie Mae; former Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md., a lobbyist who represents a range of clients, including work last year on behalf of Lorillard Tobacco, the maker of Newport cigarettes; and William A. Kirk, who lobbies for a cigar industry trade group on a range of tobacco regulations.

And a significant percentage of the $7,000 raised this cycle by the CBC PAC from individuals was donated by white lobbyists, including (former California Congressional Rep.) Vic Fazio, who represents Philip Morris and served for years as a lobbyist to Corrections Corporation of America, and David Adams, a former Clinton aide who now lobbies for Wal-Mart, the largest gun distributor in America.

Not just any Republican mega-donors, mind you

Ted Cruz's:

http://observer.com/2016/05/wealthy-cruz-donor-pours-millions-into-clinton-campaign/

Would any Clinton supporter dare compare her values to Ted's? Would any Sanders supporters do that? I doubt it.

But apparently they are, according to the Clinton camp. And apparently the rich guy who formerly supported Cruz believes so.

Most of the responses when Nader was mentioned on DU

in years past were like dbakjon's and Gothmog's. Exactly like dbakjon's, in fact.

It's certainly an improvement here IMO that theirs is the minority POV now.

Gothmog just keeps cutting and pasting that screed over and over again, as if it has some special new meaning each time. I don't think he understands that, in the eyes of independents and infrequent voters -- literally millions of Americans who have ceased participating not just in the blue or red options but in the system entirely -- Sanders and Nader are perceived as precisely accurate on the "two sides of the same coin" analogy. It's just one of the reasons why fewer and fewer people vote every single year, and the partisans who are wholly invested in the status quo can't seem to understand why.

More to the point: Sanders and Nader being correct isn't a bad thing (it's an opportunity for a Democrat to distinguish his or her candidacy as different from a Republican's). Unless you're a Clinton supporter, that is.

Clinton's own Republican outreach strategy -- hell, her entire political life -- is the evidence. From Goldwater Girl to Henry Kissinger sycophant to Ted Cruz's former mega-donor James Simons now donating to her... the list, as we all know, is endless.

Here is the disconnect: OF COURSE the two parties are different. They're just not different enough to MAKE a difference to the folks that aren't on the same team, or have quit the game altogether.

Is this really so difficult to understand?

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum..." -- Chomsky

That edict would apply

to more than 50% of all voting age Americans, mostl of whom are also poor and minority. In other words, the people who would be most damaged by a Trump presidency. Almost all of whom are very unlikely to be on DU at any time, ever.

So why aren't you blaming them? Better question: why aren't you out registering those folks to vote instead of flinging childish insults not grounded in reality at people on the internet who don't support your candidate?

"Keep shopping"

"DU and other similar sites aren't even remotely representative of reality"

That's false based on sheer absolutism. The "Latest Breaking News" forum for example, is based in reality.

Nah. They'll blame the Green candidate in a close swing state loss.

They've been doing that for 16 years. Why stop now?

Let's name names, shall we

Besides Peter Daou and his wife at Blue Nation Review there Susie Madrak, formerly of Crooks and Liars, and Melissa McEwan of Shakesville. All front-pagers at the BNR propaganda outlet.

http://bluenationreview.com/

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/05/hillary-clintons-propaganda-website-blue-nation-re.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/31/1477890/-Blue-Nation-Review-fake-news-blitz

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/07/hillary-clinton-s-hit-men-target-bernie-sanders-at-blue-nation-review.html

Here's what I observed about Madrak back during the Iowa Coin Flip-gate:

http://brainsandeggs.blogspot.com/2016/02/whats-most-you-ever-lost-on-coin-toss.html

(Crooks and Liars has mostly played it down the middle with their front-pagers in Madrak's absence, keeping a commendable lack of bias one way or the other. Not at all so for the Shakers.)

Last month DUers exposed Daily Newsbin, and even got the editor to respond (indignantly):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511639395

There's more $Hill sites like this out there, but most of you already know the drift. The paid pushback is most strongly evident at Facebook and Twitter, and even as the primary season winds down, they are refocusing on Drumpf (who very likely has his own well-compensated trolls hard at work. Some of the responses to TacoBowlGate last week were uproarious in the spin applied).

It's the new frontier in dirty tricks campaigning. Charles Colson and Lee Atwater and Karl Rove are mere pikers in comparison to a duplicitous shitass like David "I Savaged Anita Hill" Brock.