2016 Postmortem

TBF

(36,038 posts)

119. Right - and then you lose the general by epic proportions

Mon Apr 11, 2016, 01:05 PM

Apr 2016

because the progressives of this party have had it. I have voted for the democratic nominee for president every election since 1992. I volunteered actively (and served as co-precinct captain locally) in 2008. The DNC has insisted on running a very flawed candidate (probably under a lot of pressure from Bill Clinton) and now here we are. We're not going down with you. We will form our own progressive party if we have to and move forward for 2020.

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):

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