Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Akicita

(1,196 posts)
170. Of course you are right. Nothing has been proven at this point. It is currently being
Fri May 6, 2016, 11:46 AM
May 2016

investigated. But there is plenty to worry about.

The whole Clinton meme of no documents marked classified is a legalistic dodge meant to distract and mislead. This isn't about classified documents being attached to emails sent to Hillary's private server. You can't send a document from the classified server to a server outside the classified system. This investigation is about whether Clinton and/or her aides wrote emails containing classified information outside of the classified system and even outside the government system.

So far we know that yes indeed they did write 2,200 emails that investigators have deemed contained classified info when they finally had a chance to examine them. What we don't know is whether some or all of that info was classified at the time it was written or if some or all of it was retroactively classified. All we know is the investigators declared it classified when they saw it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I am not disappointed, lot of fake smoke made by smoke machines. Thinkingabout May 2016 #1
A lot of people who should know better, Cary May 2016 #57
Exactly. Thinkingabout May 2016 #61
This is a preemptive leak with a lot of backspin. Read it closely and it says the FBI has found leveymg May 2016 #205
You are having a hard time, its okay, we will drop this without being angry. Thinkingabout May 2016 #207
Not upset. When I read this, I can see that the FBI found evidence that she violated her leveymg May 2016 #209
Wont happen, you should direct attention to Sanders FEC investigations Thinkingabout May 2016 #210
You won't like what will actually be in the FBI report. leveymg May 2016 #214
Even worse. Call it out and they do nothing and YOU end up getting your posts hidden. Gomez163 May 2016 #153
They are.85% here Cary May 2016 #184
Benghazi!! Happyhippychick May 2016 #2
Trump will put his crack team of investigators on it underpants May 2016 #38
No malicious intent? lsewpershad May 2016 #126
"scant" Voice for Peace May 2016 #204
It depends on what your definition of scant is. ChairmanAgnostic May 2016 #220
Was malicious intent the standard? nt silvershadow May 2016 #3
She was just inept? N/T spinbaby May 2016 #4
Thank you Mr. Trump Democat May 2016 #6
piss-poor judgement? nt silvershadow May 2016 #7
...for the purpose of the highly desired (among some) indictment? Probably. brooklynite May 2016 #8
Your response leaves me baffled...why would we hope for an indictment? silvershadow May 2016 #10
...and yet, a number of voices here sound gleeful at the prospect... brooklynite May 2016 #11
You want her in charge of national security? "I made a mistake" bahrbearian May 2016 #14
... not just one mistake Victor_c3 May 2016 #70
The letter after a name shouldnt excuse anyone... TipTok May 2016 #66
Many ostensible democrats on this board see Hillary's indictment as Bernie's path to victory. beastie boy May 2016 #119
I haven't seen that. I have seen much discussion on how arrogant and foolish she was to silvershadow May 2016 #122
I have seen that many times. beastie boy May 2016 #128
? Could be. Not all on this board are Democrats. So what? nt silvershadow May 2016 #131
So what? You said you haven't seen it. beastie boy May 2016 #135
So what are you expecting? Something different? No, I haven't seen it. nt silvershadow May 2016 #136
Bullshit you haven't. anigbrowl May 2016 #202
As a Bernie suppoter, I don't think anybody on this board wants to see Hillary indicted Akicita May 2016 #180
"I made a mistake" I made a mistake, I made a mistake... bahrbearian May 2016 #12
She's made a bunch of mistakes Victor_c3 May 2016 #77
In the laws officials examine, the words 'willful intent' are the standard. Sunlei May 2016 #19
Exactly. Crimes do not require malicious intent, except as to degree of crime. Divernan May 2016 #28
ABC reported this morning that Hillary will be questioned by the FBI in the next few weeks. floriduck May 2016 #160
Yeah, when was that ever stated as the issue? 7962 May 2016 #49
Incompetence does not constitute a violation of the law. COLGATE4 May 2016 #85
It does when it concerns national security. 7962 May 2016 #96
Please post the part of the law that says that. COLGATE4 May 2016 #100
Incompetence is a valid concern when considering someone for the presidency. nt retrowire May 2016 #105
"Incompetence", as used here on DU means "I don't like Hillary COLGATE4 May 2016 #118
well you used the word retrowire May 2016 #130
No, merely trying to explain why what was said is incorrect. COLGATE4 May 2016 #187
So is lack of competence beastie boy May 2016 #123
well, to disregard or make a mistake regarding retrowire May 2016 #132
Assuming that disregard for secure information is established, yes it is. beastie boy May 2016 #134
For the purpose of the article... TipTok May 2016 #60
Got to Love the - "U.S. officials familiar with the matter" FreakinDJ May 2016 #67
I suspect this story is a smokescreen... tex-wyo-dem May 2016 #163
No. Gross negligence. COLGATE4 May 2016 #82
That's my bet. Callous disregard that lead to gross negligence. Akicita May 2016 #147
Really? Where in our election rules does it say that??? COLGATE4 May 2016 #186
Say What? My bet is that IF Hillary is indicted it will be for gross negligence due to Akicita May 2016 #190
If she did not have intent she cannot be convicted. That's the law. COLGATE4 May 2016 #193
No it's not. Gross negligence handling classified info does not require intent. Akicita May 2016 #194
You don't even know what gross negligence is.At least try and COLGATE4 May 2016 #195
I just explained it to you. I'll add a little more so maybe you can understand. Akicita May 2016 #197
I really appreciate your explaining it to me. I've been a practicing COLGATE4 May 2016 #198
Ok. I'm listening. What is your definition of negligence? Akicita May 2016 #199
Do your own homework. I suggest Prosser and Keaton, the definitive work on Torts. COLGATE4 May 2016 #200
So after 26 years of lawyering you are either incapable or unwilling to define negligence? Akicita May 2016 #201
Negligence is generally defined as either 'doing something that a reasonable person of COLGATE4 May 2016 #203
Thank you. Especially for not making me read the 1000 pages for all the twists and turns. You give a Akicita May 2016 #212
Glad it was useful. It's a complicated issue and most people are COLGATE4 May 2016 #217
It is the standard for the elite. zeemike May 2016 #88
petreaus had no malicious intent either. so fucking what? elehhhhna May 2016 #165
What about Whitewater and Vince Foster? Democat May 2016 #5
K & R most enthusiastically. Surya Gayatri May 2016 #9
I do not think it means what you think it means unc70 May 2016 #13
Actually, I don't think this means what you think it does. DCBob May 2016 #17
People have been punished for revealing sensitive information, 7962 May 2016 #56
Please provide examples of what you are talking about. DCBob May 2016 #76
It's just not a good day for republicans. Kingofalldems May 2016 #161
Indeed.. they have a lunatic for a nominee and Hillary is innocent. DCBob May 2016 #166
No one in THIS situation, no. No one has been charged with anything. 7962 May 2016 #221
For instance the sailor who took a selfie on his submarine and sent it to his girlfriend. Akicita May 2016 #148
Totally different situation.. DCBob May 2016 #164
Thanks for the informative reply. I don't think that was the story I was referring to. Akicita May 2016 #172
The cover is probably what got him in trouble Ohioblue22 May 2016 #179
Had this discussion with a coworker yesterday. Thor_MN May 2016 #21
This.... CherokeeDem May 2016 #30
If by truth you meant a gross misstatement of the facts. yeah Press Virginia May 2016 #99
Hahahahahahahaha Press Virginia May 2016 #78
well said still_one May 2016 #81
K&R! stonecutter357 May 2016 #15
Irrelevant, what anyone says unofficially. Helen Borg May 2016 #16
Then you apparently haven't noticed that a lot of very important statements Nitram May 2016 #24
And a lot of important falsehoods are first told "off the record" as well. Helen Borg May 2016 #54
True, Helen, it's just like the internet. You have to triangulate information to get at the truth. Nitram May 2016 #62
Yeh, especially useful when they confirm what I want to believe! Helen Borg May 2016 #109
I'm sure some do that. I just keep it in mindd until it is either backed by good evidence or Nitram May 2016 #155
Anonymous Sources pmorlan1 May 2016 #55
Thank you. beastie boy May 2016 #142
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #18
Free Republic is over there ----> Thor_MN May 2016 #23
Aren't you clever? chervilant May 2016 #40
Who is clever? Thor_MN May 2016 #58
I had a genius tell me that I was "craven" because I COLGATE4 May 2016 #86
The words knowingly and leftynyc May 2016 #36
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #63
LOL - get used to it, cupcake leftynyc May 2016 #65
Hi Walt! In_The_Wind May 2016 #47
In a world where the choice is between a Clinton or Trump? gordianot May 2016 #20
Don't forget that her bad judgement resulted in her support for a war on Iraq Victor_c3 May 2016 #79
All by herself ... BlueMTexpat May 2016 #129
Poor judgement is poor judgement Victor_c3 May 2016 #173
Sad rtracey May 2016 #22
Gross negligence handling classified info is a crime. No malicious intent needed. Akicita May 2016 #151
not proven rtracey May 2016 #152
Of course you are right. Nothing has been proven at this point. It is currently being Akicita May 2016 #170
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #25
You pals at freeer land leftynyc May 2016 #41
What massive waste of time and money. MynameisBlarney May 2016 #26
Or spent it feeding children, fixing the water in US cities csziggy May 2016 #64
INORITE!?! MynameisBlarney May 2016 #93
I wish someone would update the figures on how much Republicans csziggy May 2016 #101
Agreed! MynameisBlarney May 2016 #111
REPUBLICAN majority Congress STILL leftynyc May 2016 #143
Exactly - but they waste money to repeal something that DOES help people csziggy May 2016 #149
That would be awesome leftynyc May 2016 #150
We may have to "settle" for some Blue Dog Democrats csziggy May 2016 #154
Politics is all about compromise leftynyc May 2016 #157
True - but some of the people here don't seem to understand it csziggy May 2016 #177
The possession of classified materials in an insecure setting is a crime. Calista241 May 2016 #27
Where did you pass the bar exam? COLGATE4 May 2016 #87
I got my JD from Fox News of course! Calista241 May 2016 #108
That's what I thought. COLGATE4 May 2016 #116
No materials were classifed BlueMTexpat May 2016 #133
We don't know if the information was classified at the time or not. We only know it was not marked Akicita May 2016 #158
If it is not marked "classified," it is BlueMTexpat May 2016 #162
Wrong. If you read a marked classified document and then type some or all of that classified info Akicita May 2016 #175
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #29
Did you miss the last sentence of the report? Kingofalldems May 2016 #39
You're just another clown leftynyc May 2016 #42
Trey Gowdy's hearing have already cost $6,824,000.00 and counting Botany May 2016 #31
Post removed Post removed May 2016 #32
Troll much? Botany May 2016 #37
So you quote the extremist right wing Power line? Kingofalldems May 2016 #44
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #33
And another freeper poster leftynyc May 2016 #45
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #48
Sorry, cupcake leftynyc May 2016 #51
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #59
"Democrat Party" Democat May 2016 #71
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #74
Sure tell! LOL. nt Fla Dem May 2016 #75
And the poster to whom she is replying posts anti-Muslim bigotry and "Obama is gullible". ieoeja May 2016 #113
Do you realize calling out another DUer leftynyc May 2016 #144
You must have forgotten this post. ieoeja May 2016 #145
Oh yeah, leftynyc May 2016 #146
Only republicans use the phrase 'Democrat Party'. Kingofalldems May 2016 #72
Sorry to burst your bubble zalinda May 2016 #110
You are correct Bodych May 2016 #114
Maybe a few. But mostly RW republicans. Kingofalldems May 2016 #159
"My party is the Democrat Party." Botany May 2016 #92
LOL - nothing like outing yourself leftynyc May 2016 #141
So if you were in charge I guess there Kingofalldems May 2016 #52
Message auto-removed Name removed May 2016 #68
You broke the rules of DU by trolling Democat May 2016 #69
don't you know that post count = wisdom, intelligence and authority? uhnope May 2016 #125
I wasn't aware that there was any requirement for 'criminal negligence'. COLGATE4 May 2016 #90
not malicious, just incompetent & negligent uhnope May 2016 #34
Which is NOT a violation of the law, even if true. COLGATE4 May 2016 #91
true. YAY! so glad she jumped that low bar of "not a criminal" uhnope May 2016 #103
Those are your characterizations, not mine and not those of Hillary's supporters. Up COLGATE4 May 2016 #104
no it's the country's problem. uhnope May 2016 #112
You know, in real life repeating something over and over again COLGATE4 May 2016 #115
in real life, lightweight one-line snark holds no weight uhnope May 2016 #120
How about lightweight COLGATE4 May 2016 #189
Yes it is for the Secretary of State Bodych May 2016 #117
A NDA is not legally definitive. COLGATE4 May 2016 #121
BULL Bodych May 2016 #127
Did you join DU just to post BlueMTexpat May 2016 #137
No I joined to promote Bernie Sanders, a Democrat n/t Bodych May 2016 #139
The burden of proof is on the person making the charge. So, it's up to you to COLGATE4 May 2016 #188
Says the person who spouts slogans endlessly. truedelphi May 2016 #208
What 'slogans' have I posted???? COLGATE4 May 2016 #218
Again, I hope this plays out in our Party's favor... blackspade May 2016 #35
Actually.... Debau2005 May 2016 #43
Vince Foster faked Obama's birth certificate and that is why he was killed! yellowcanine May 2016 #46
Aggravated Ignorance. Fuddnik May 2016 #50
I'm with Bernie, I'm tired of hearing about her damn emails. IMO it's been blown way RKP5637 May 2016 #53
It's unfortunate how a small number of Sanders supporters Cary May 2016 #73
It is! In fact, I find the political environment in this country maddening. Much of the RKP5637 May 2016 #98
I am at a loss Cary May 2016 #138
Very well said, and I agree with you 1000%!!! n/t RKP5637 May 2016 #156
I have an appointment, so my earlier response was short. It's always a relief to talk to sane RKP5637 May 2016 #169
Likewise and right back at you. Cary May 2016 #174
Public Administration Principle Arizona Roadrunner May 2016 #80
Not only that, but they haven't even begun to probe COLGATE4 May 2016 #95
The indictment fairy is struggling to achieve liftoff!! JoePhilly May 2016 #83
Likely more a matter of INCOMPETENCE than malicious intent. nt Herman4747 May 2016 #84
I think I'm going to wait for something more official Jarqui May 2016 #89
I thought that the Clinton foundation truedelphi May 2016 #206
I agree with you Jarqui May 2016 #213
There never have been charges of malicious intent. No, thumb-driven dopamine addiction is not Kip Humphrey May 2016 #94
Good. Can we get on with things now? AllyCat May 2016 #97
Scant evidence won't stop repukes from persecuting Hillary meow2u3 May 2016 #102
I wasn't aware this was at issue. malthaussen May 2016 #106
No malicious intent, just rateyes May 2016 #107
rules out paragraph e, willful. But not paragraph f. 1. gross negligance, or f. 2. magical thyme May 2016 #124
"Gross negligence" is a legal term that has a specific meaning and its way beyond just negligence. DCBob May 2016 #167
that still doesn't answer f.2. Sidney's Top Secret email magical thyme May 2016 #181
If Hillary had her aides send her emails with classified info transcribed or summarised from the Akicita May 2016 #183
Gross negligence is really gross. DCBob May 2016 #215
I hope you're right. We'll see. I wouldn't put anything past her. Akicita May 2016 #216
from a practicing lawyer: magical thyme May 2016 #219
The real issue is the Clinton Foundation and its donors... modestybl May 2016 #140
What was the intent anyway? Bradical79 May 2016 #168
Nixon: I AM NOT A CROOK! grasswire May 2016 #171
Its a nonsense issue.. her lack of qualifications and judgement are much more important. basselope May 2016 #176
Any government official who did what Clinton did JimDandy May 2016 #178
Cenk Uyger must be Heartbroken! fred v May 2016 #182
Bwahahaha. And another conspiracy bites the dust. Tough cheese for some. Laser102 May 2016 #185
if rich people want Hillary in office, this won't amount to anything. If they don't but she could yurbud May 2016 #191
So was Watergate until it wasn't. You may be right though. It may depend on what the 1% want. Akicita May 2016 #192
which of Nixon's crimes wasn't committed by Baby Bush? Hell, Obama has committed a couple of them. yurbud May 2016 #196
Someone get Larry Klayman on the case.. oh wait he's already there.. BadGimp May 2016 #211
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Officials: Scant evidence...»Reply #170