2016 Postmortem

TM99

(8,352 posts)

33. I have seen numerous posts from the usual

Thu May 5, 2016, 07:58 PM

May 2016

suspects claiming Clinton has been exonerated all late afternoon here.

It has morphed from an 'unknown official' to an actual FBI investigator.

I guarantee there is going to be a negative news report on Clinton in the Friday afternoon news dump.

I guarantee that Trump and the GOP will attack her campaign hard on this.

I guarantee that this is a pre-emptive attempt to fight back on this by mudding the waters and sewing doubt. This is an information war and zombie Americans are being manipulated.

I heard a local ASU professor with a Ph.D. claim today on local talk radio that Clinton did nothing wrong and she doesn't care about the emails. She would have used her personal email herself in the same situation. This is how stupid the American populace is. Personal email is NOT the same as a home-brew server that violates security protocols and skirts FOIA laws.

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):

79 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Game Changer? "FBI Confirms They Will Question Hillary Clinton" [View all] 99th_Monkey May 2016 OP

They also said complain jane May 2016 #1

Who is "they"? Wilms May 2016 #3

Sure! Here you go. complain jane May 2016 #6

Thanks. Wilms May 2016 #15

This is good news. nt ZombieHorde May 2016 #16

It's a smokescreen.., tex-wyo-dem May 2016 #76

The unnamed US...errr FBI officials who Press Virginia May 2016 #7

Its in the Original Story Linked Stallion May 2016 #8

Thanks. Wilms May 2016 #17

Sufficient. Sufficient. That's a word that holds it's little hand up! n/t ebayfool May 2016 #56

Well, they haven't questioned Hillary yet either. Who knows how that will go. nt 99th_Monkey May 2016 #10

"Willfully" Joob May 2016 #11

Zactly. Gross negligence isn't willful and that's what the statute has as its standard. JudyM May 2016 #26

Gross negligence is often defined as wanton and wilful misconduct. COLGATE4 May 2016 #66

Reading comprehension is not your strength apparently. BillZBubb May 2016 #12

Again There Is No Crime if Prosecutor Can't Prove Required Statutory Intent Stallion May 2016 #18

Wrong. Gross negligence. JudyM May 2016 #27

Gross Neligence is a Type of Intent/Mens Rea-Rarely Applied Because it Requires Extreme, Outrageous Stallion May 2016 #30

I think deliberately conducting State business on an insecure server is willfull and gross negligeng HooptieWagon May 2016 #37

Yeah, it seems pretty plain. JudyM May 2016 #52

No, it doesn't. For there to have been gross negligence COLGATE4 May 2016 #68

You think that. And you'd be wrong. nt COLGATE4 May 2016 #67

If you think she used reasonable care I have nothing else to say! JudyM May 2016 #50

No-Negligence is the LACK of Reasonable Care Stallion May 2016 #61

Voluntary disregard... JudyM May 2016 #62

You know what they say about arguing legal issues COLGATE4 May 2016 #70

Reasonable care has nothing to do with gross negligence. COLGATE4 May 2016 #69

Oh, insults! Yay! complain jane May 2016 #19

Actually they Saif "sufficient evidence" and " laws were wilfully broken" Seeinghope May 2016 #23

No, that's wishful thinking on your part. It can just as easily mean COLGATE4 May 2016 #71

Well now. Let's see how this plays out. Seeinghope May 2016 #2

It doesn't change anything. That happens only if the FBI recommends indictment. BillZBubb May 2016 #4

I've been hearing for awhile that it was unclear whether Hillary would be questioned 99th_Monkey May 2016 #14

I'm sure s get Cheney to go with her mindwalker_i May 2016 #41

It was announced in February she was going to get questioned. IdaBriggs May 2016 #48

to my layman thinking, the only game changer might be is if indictment 2banon May 2016 #72

still, it's unbelievable to me 99th_Monkey May 2016 #74

If memory serves, (that's a big IF) I believe Nixon was the first.. 2banon May 2016 #75

Thanks for the reply. Assuming that was the case with Nixon (which does sound plausible), 99th_Monkey May 2016 #78

I suspect the Repukes pounced on Bill and Hill back in the '90s BECAUSE of Watergate 2banon May 2016 #79

DOJ said last week a referral is being prepared against her. That's a case. JudyM May 2016 #28

Now we've gone from US officials being the source Press Virginia May 2016 #5

Exactly! NWCorona May 2016 #21

This is beginning to feel like watching Pong. Barack_America May 2016 #57

But referring back to the CNN article, as if that were their source winter is coming May 2016 #64

It's most likely a secretary or the mail room guy. Press Virginia May 2016 #65

Which they proved is not true... scscholar May 2016 #9

they did grasswire May 2016 #20

But the FBI recently confirmed they didn't... scscholar May 2016 #34

It was reported her aides had been questioned. HooptieWagon May 2016 #39

So Faux Knews lied. scscholar May 2016 #43

LA Times real enough for you? HooptieWagon May 2016 #45

The level of denial on this is absolutely breathtaking. nt 99th_Monkey May 2016 #47

Denial is strong in fanclub atmosphere. HooptieWagon May 2016 #49

CNN... bobbobbins01 May 2016 #55

Jesus H Christ bobbobbins01 May 2016 #54

I want to hear that from the FBI themselves tularetom May 2016 #13

The perception of wrongdoing is often as damaging is the reality of wrongdoing. Drip, drip, drip. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #22

That is what I was thinking. For those who are taking comfort jwirr May 2016 #35

Of course those courteous and kindly Republicans won't say anything about an FBI investigation. Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #38

Exactly. jwirr May 2016 #40

Yes and no The Second Stone May 2016 #24

Silly question, I'm sure... casperthegm May 2016 #25

Yes. 99th_Monkey May 2016 #42

But,- it was just reported here officially that it was all over and there was nothing more to see notadmblnd May 2016 #29

But but but angrychair May 2016 #31

It was not just an "unknown source", it was an unknown "US official" EndElectoral May 2016 #32

Oh angrychair May 2016 #46

Great question. Why indeed. 99th_Monkey May 2016 #44

I have seen numerous posts from the usual TM99 May 2016 #33

Please, tell us more about your long, deep-seated interest in Cabinet official's e-mail practices Tarc May 2016 #36

. . . or not. nt ucrdem May 2016 #51

How much bullshit is packed in this? catnhatnh May 2016 #53

Just announced it's hardly over, just getting started. ViseGrip May 2016 #58

It's over Demsrule86 May 2016 #63

usuncut obamanut2012 May 2016 #59

Golly gee, that must mean the FBI will issue a citation? Sheepshank May 2016 #60

This was said before except it's definite now that Hillary WILL be interviewed. Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #73

It all depends on her intent BlueStateLib May 2016 #77