Latest Breaking News

grasswire

(50,130 posts)

171. Nixon: I AM NOT A CROOK!

Reply to brooklynite (Original post)

Fri May 6, 2016, 11:52 AM

May 2016

The email scandal is Hillary's third rate burglary.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

221 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Officials: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails [View all] brooklynite May 2016 OP

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