2016 Postmortem

Rosa Luxemburg

(28,627 posts)

72. Obama should stay out of it

Reply to paulthompson (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:16 PM

Apr 2016

if it is a FBI investigation he should not get involved

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

122 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Boy, is the FBI going to be pissed at Obama! [View all] paulthompson Apr 2016 OP

Difference is Petraeus gave info to someone who could have harmed USA. Apparently, Clinton has not. Hoyt Apr 2016 #1

But how do you know that? How would Obama know that? paulthompson Apr 2016 #3

You have to know that for her to be guilty under the laws. Hoyt Apr 2016 #9

There are different laws paulthompson Apr 2016 #20

18 U.S. Code � 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information Fawke Em Apr 2016 #29

The penalty is 10 yrs even without intent or actual damage to Nat'l security. leveymg Apr 2016 #59

Without intent? JudyM Apr 2016 #74

Without intent or actual harm. It's a draconian law, but it's the law. leveymg Apr 2016 #76

Here's a law CoffeeCat Apr 2016 #101

He doesn't know. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #10

Something strange is going on. Obama claims not to be in communication with the FBI, but acts as if he has inside information. InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2016 #52

I was talking about the poster above Paul, not Obama. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #53

Too funny!... but applies to Obama as well! InAbLuEsTaTe Apr 2016 #90

My understanding is Petraeus gave the info to someone with top secret clearance. Bob41213 Apr 2016 #30

Here's the surprise. It's a crime regardless of intent or actual harm to Nat'l security. leveymg Apr 2016 #55

If she took the info and gave it to someone not entitled to it. That didn't happen. You settled it Hoyt Apr 2016 #58

NO. HRC violated 793 (e) and (f) just by putting classified info at risk, doesn't matter leveymg Apr 2016 #60

That is not what it says. Putting it at risk by giving it to someone, might qualify. Hoyt Apr 2016 #61

Yes it is. Go back and read the law to understand it and come back. leveymg Apr 2016 #62

I read it. It doesn't say what you think. Hoyt Apr 2016 #63

You refuse to explain so we can move on. You have nothing to add. leveymg Apr 2016 #66

Read it. Merely having emails sent to her server is not a violation. Hoyt Apr 2016 #70

You don't understand the details . It was classified info she sent as well as classified info she leveymg Apr 2016 #73

That is what DOJ will decide. I don't think they will interpret law as you have. Hoyt Apr 2016 #82

I think Obama is going to extremely great lengths CoffeeCat Apr 2016 #104

they extradited that hacker from Romania because he read her shit for six to roguevalley Apr 2016 #91

a bit more paulthompson Apr 2016 #2

He's a sharp lawyer. The fact that he made these comments suggests to me he is under intense JudyM Apr 2016 #4

Yes, but... paulthompson Apr 2016 #5

Yes. I hope you are right. I am also concerned about either a cover-up or DOJ deeming it unworthy JudyM Apr 2016 #13

True paulthompson Apr 2016 #27

Here's the deal. She has to reach the magic number of delegates to lock before th leveymg Apr 2016 #64

That is what I think .... (eom) Samantha Apr 2016 #79

Thank you noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #14

People who have seen them say that the highest level of security is "Top Secret" pdsimdars Apr 2016 #114

!!!! riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #6

Had thought Obama was too smart RobertEarl Apr 2016 #7

He should have stayed out of this mess. 840high Apr 2016 #44

The FBI is going to pissed at Obama? SharonClark Apr 2016 #8

You're throwing the FBI under the bus now? Kentonio Apr 2016 #95

Give it a rest, for f*ck sake! pdsimdars Apr 2016 #115

Let's just say that every Trump and Bernie Supporter's wet dream is true Trenzalore Apr 2016 #11

its not gonna be biden. he didn't run restorefreedom Apr 2016 #15

Nope Trenzalore Apr 2016 #17

then prepare for pres trump or cruz restorefreedom Apr 2016 #18

The Republicans have their own convention problems which are much more likely Trenzalore Apr 2016 #19

why should it be a puppet installed who didn't even run? nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #23

Because the other guy was rejected by the majority nt. Trenzalore Apr 2016 #24

thhe other guy will have nearly half the delgates restorefreedom Apr 2016 #26

Yup nichomachus Apr 2016 #45

oh, always. the country, as are all things, is just a tool. nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #47

One thing you forget... paulthompson Apr 2016 #22

Hey, Hillary supporters don't seem to care about anything else, just like Trump supporters pdsimdars Apr 2016 #116

lol SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #89

Warren. She's the only one who can pull this back together again. leveymg Apr 2016 #75

even warren can't fix humpty dumpty restorefreedom Apr 2016 #86

Why not give her delegates to Bill, as long as you're fantasizing? Contrary1 Apr 2016 #35

Thats just silly Trenzalore Apr 2016 #36

Yeah that was silly...I meant to type Chelsea. n/t Contrary1 Apr 2016 #40

Right - and then you lose the general by epic proportions TBF Apr 2016 #119

LOL. DanTex Apr 2016 #12

I'm glad you have a hobby. itsrobert Apr 2016 #16

I see you don't know who Paul Thompson is... riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #21

Thanks! Fawke Em Apr 2016 #31

Deeerp frylock Apr 2016 #33

isn't he essentially overriding their investigative results, in advance? amborin Apr 2016 #25

I believe he is signaling the FBI director and his AG FlatBaroque Apr 2016 #28

Except... paulthompson Apr 2016 #34

Agree. 840high Apr 2016 #46

What do you think he would be risking? n/t Contrary1 Apr 2016 #37

I would say that if Clinton is found to have broken multiple FlatBaroque Apr 2016 #42

It's Obama's scandal too. It was his administration, and he knew Hillary had her own server. jfern Apr 2016 #32

Yes paulthompson Apr 2016 #38

More paulthompson Apr 2016 #39

Sounds like "where's there's a private email servers" beedle Apr 2016 #48

I don't think he did know she had one, myself. Fawke Em Apr 2016 #41

Presumably he noticed her e-mail address. jfern Apr 2016 #49

There are a couple of federal judges who disagree that "there was purposely efforts ... to hide Attorney in Texas Apr 2016 #43

Robert Gates paulthompson Apr 2016 #50

Or... paulthompson Apr 2016 #51

Obama is definitely lying. onecaliberal Apr 2016 #57

"....the FBI recommends indictment for Clinton and/or her top aides." chillfactor Apr 2016 #54

reply paulthompson Apr 2016 #65

Look at 793 (f)(2) - she failed a positive duty to report Blumenthal's clearly classified emails leveymg Apr 2016 #80

Both Bill and Hill think rules are for lackeys. I believe both of them are obsessed snagglepuss Apr 2016 #83

That would explain a great deal. Hmmm. nt leveymg Apr 2016 #93

Can you speak on this? notadmblnd Apr 2016 #56

look again paulthompson Apr 2016 #69

OK, that makes sense. Thanks. notadmblnd Apr 2016 #77

.... and given that history, Obama STILL appointed him FBI director. yodermon Apr 2016 #112

It makes more sense when you read the OPs reply to my question. notadmblnd Apr 2016 #113

"I'm working on a comprehensive timeline about the Clinton e-mail scandal" Tarc Apr 2016 #67

No paulthompson Apr 2016 #78

Exactly. appal_jack Apr 2016 #108

I think you need to understand who Paul is... Fawke Em Apr 2016 #81

Obama wants to protect her (and possibly himself) sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #68

I just want them to wrap it up soon, they've had enough time....n/t pantsonfire Apr 2016 #71

Obama should stay out of it Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2016 #72

several things don't make sense and are bugging me. grasswire Apr 2016 #84

There's more. grasswire Apr 2016 #85

I'm not sure paulthompson Apr 2016 #87

I believe the NSA is extra judicial and outside normal operating parameters riderinthestorm Apr 2016 #88

The only thing that makes sense to me about her actions is leveymg Apr 2016 #94

Her first email on the server was to Petraeus, IIRC nt grasswire Apr 2016 #100

That's one thing that suggests this scenario to me. leveymg Apr 2016 #102

do you know offhand if that email with Petraeus has been released? nt grasswire Apr 2016 #103

NotAFAIK. It has merely been described as "personnel matters." If so, why hasn't it been released? leveymg Apr 2016 #111

A kick and thank you for sharing this insight. nt AnotherDreamWeaver Apr 2016 #92

So what, they have been pissed at him since he entered the WH. nt Jitter65 Apr 2016 #96

The constitutional scholar doesn't seem to understand the concept of command influence. Scuba Apr 2016 #97

Check out what he said about Snowden 2cannan Apr 2016 #106

Nope, that would be, shall we say, sanctimonious. Scuba Apr 2016 #118

The POTUS should have remained silent. Vinca Apr 2016 #98

kick nt antigop Apr 2016 #99

Paul, thank you for taking the time to work on CoffeeCat Apr 2016 #105

Why is the FBI pissed? louis-t Apr 2016 #107

Thanks Paul Tuesday_Morning Apr 2016 #109

Crimes have already been proven. The only question is indictment. WhenTheLeveeBreaks Apr 2016 #110

One leak I heard was they the FBI were ready to indict and if the DOJ doesn't prosecute pdsimdars Apr 2016 #117

The sooner the better. nt TBF Apr 2016 #120

hey, folks, take a look at this video and see if you notice anything antigop Apr 2016 #121

I watched the video WhenTheLeveeBreaks Apr 2016 #122