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
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Questions I'd like answered from Hillary Supporters.... [View all]Gothmog
(175,724 posts)31. Hillary Clinton is going to be exonerated on the email controversy.
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 weve heard so far on this subject:
That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isnt 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.
Prosecutors and FBI agents investigating Hillary Clintons 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. Attorneys 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 isnt 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I genuinely wish you luck getting substantive responses. It would be a pleasure to have real
JudyM
May 2016
#3
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
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
I am running to be a national delegate and I have been working with the Clinton campaign on issues
Gothmog
May 2016
#21
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
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
On question 1, Sanders is talking about appointing judges to SC who would rule to overturn, the case
Thinkingabout
May 2016
#30