Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(175,724 posts)
31. Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy.
Wed May 25, 2016, 03:58 PM
May 2016

I find your post to be amusing and normally very very wrong. Here are some facts for you to ignore https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/06/hillary-clinton-is-going-to-be-exonerated-on-the-email-controversy-it-wont-matter/

The latest news on the Hillary Clinton email controversy reinforces everything we’ve heard so far on this subject:

Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server have so far found scant evidence that the leading Democratic presidential candidate intended to break classification rules, though they are still probing the case aggressively with an eye on interviewing Clinton herself, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

FBI agents on the case have been joined by federal prosecutors from the same office that successfully prosecuted 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui — and who would handle any Edward Snowden case, should he ever return to the country, according to the U.S. officials familiar with the matter. And in recent weeks, prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Virginia and their FBI counterparts have been interviewing top Clinton aides as they seek to bring the case to a close.

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

So far no one has found evidence of intent.

Recommendations

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

Great questions. A wonderful tribute to your username. RufusTFirefly May 2016 #1
Platform on Citizens United Gothmog May 2016 #2
I genuinely wish you luck getting substantive responses. It would be a pleasure to have real JudyM May 2016 #3
Here, here. LAS14 May 2016 #11
Fracking Gothmog May 2016 #4
Ack! a fracking supporter! panader0 May 2016 #6
A rare sighting, to be sure! Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #9
I'll drink to that! RufusTFirefly May 2016 #26
FBI investigation Gothmog May 2016 #5
She "chose" to ignore the rules. So it's not a "serious lapse in judgement". panader0 May 2016 #7
Waiting for a Clinton indictment? Don’t hold your breath Gothmog May 2016 #14
I disagree that no crimes were committed--we'll have to wait and see. panader0 May 2016 #16
Exactly. The fact that Obama's DoJ may not indict is not a demonstration that no crime has occurred. Attorney in Texas May 2016 #25
What? yallerdawg May 2016 #27
This spells doom in the 40 or so civil suits for Hillary's deliberate violation of the FOIA, but the Attorney in Texas May 2016 #24
"As a lawyer..." bvf May 2016 #8
No-but I may try for the rules committee at the DNC Gothmog May 2016 #13
Oooh...! bvf May 2016 #18
I am running to be a national delegate and I have been working with the Clinton campaign on issues Gothmog May 2016 #21
I've been fairly active since working Dennis Kucinich's bvf May 2016 #33
Your posts amuse me given the rather sad but silly nature of your posts Gothmog May 2016 #34
Who said anything about Philadelphia? bvf May 2016 #37
You'd better hurry before DWS is thrown out.... panader0 May 2016 #19
Texas gets 9 members to each of the Rules, Platform and Credentials permanent committees Gothmog May 2016 #20
Any statement about "mens rea" is ill informed. You don't have access to the FBI's investigation so Attorney in Texas May 2016 #23
Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy. Gothmog May 2016 #31
You say that you abhor the non-legal analysis of the issue. You should know there's no "exoneration" Attorney in Texas May 2016 #32
Thank you for your thoughtful discussion. I however have to disagree (a little bit). ThinkCritically May 2016 #36
Happy to engage in civil discourse. LAS14 May 2016 #10
Thanks for numbering Buzz cook May 2016 #12
Hmmm Tarc May 2016 #15
ok arely staircase May 2016 #17
Well, you could learn something about Citizens United, for starters. TwilightZone May 2016 #22
I'll answer: CrowCityDem May 2016 #28
+ 1 JoePhilly May 2016 #29
On question 1, Sanders is talking about appointing judges to SC who would rule to overturn, the case Thinkingabout May 2016 #30
^^^Thank you for all your responses^^^ ThinkCritically May 2016 #35
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Questions I'd like answer...»Reply #31