Latest Breaking News

Jarqui

(10,897 posts)

213. I agree with you

Fri May 6, 2016, 07:01 PM

May 2016

Maybe it is getting just that. The subpoena came from state Department investigators.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-foundation-received-subpoena-from-state-department-investigators/2016/02/11/ca5125b2-cce4-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html

But then they backed off for the FBI.

Clinton had to have a motive for using the private server. If one is going to exonerate her from wrong doing then I think the appearance of quid pro quo with the Clinton Foundation needs close scrutiny.

The problem for the general election is it doesn't look like it's going to get cleared up. And that is a great big fat Clinton pinata for the GOP to thump on that will cost her a lot of votes. If she's innocent, it's bad news that they never got this cleared up. Even if they started now, I doubt they could do it to the public's satisfaction. The GOP ads on that are going to be deadly brutal on this. And it's going to be very hard to impossible to refute effectively.

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