2016 Postmortem

Lord Magus

(1,999 posts)

42. "Some people" being RW outlets like the Daily Caller.

Reply to BlueNoMatterWho (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 3, 2016, 01:45 AM

Jul 2016

And of course clowns like HAHA Goodman. No credible sources.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

161 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why is everyone so certain HRC will not be indicted? Rumors are not facts and the FBI [View all] Jitter65 Jul 2016 OP

I'll be convinced when I hear 840high Jul 2016 #1

and that is fair, but I don't think some here will be still_one Jul 2016 #5

Why do you still fall for right wing propaganda? FarPoint Jul 2016 #58

So folks in the primaries.... Adrahil Jul 2016 #69

I completely understand. FarPoint Jul 2016 #112

It wouldnt heal, it will get worst jimw81 Jul 2016 #145

What? I'm supposed to believe 840high Jul 2016 #89

You do know the FBI doesn't indict, right? brush Jul 2016 #153

What are you hoping the FBI says when they report? stopbush Jul 2016 #78

Because she didn't break any laws. nt Cali_Democrat Jul 2016 #2

Yes she did break laws. Lokijohn Jul 2016 #103

......................................................... still_one Jul 2016 #3

Some people are saying sources tell them a recommendation is likely, others are saying it is not. BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #4

Some people saying likely more like wishing MattP Jul 2016 #11

True BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #12

"Some people" being RW outlets like the Daily Caller. Lord Magus Jul 2016 #42

David Shuster as well. But I'm not too familiar with him. BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #43

and Fox BlueStateLib Jul 2016 #47

Schuster was suspended from MSNBC for a vile anti-Clinton comment spooky3 Jul 2016 #50

Who are you trying to kid? Kingofalldems Jul 2016 #114

"Some People" is a dog whistle to me Generic Brad Jul 2016 #61

Some people say. That's a Fox news/republican phrase. Kingofalldems Jul 2016 #115

Mainly because nothing she has done was against the law. napi21 Jul 2016 #6

A reading assignment Worldly Traveler Jul 2016 #110

The Act of 1917 doesn't address emails or anything similar to emails pnwmom Jul 2016 #111

Thank you for posting that link. It's the first detailed explanation of the "LAWS" napi21 Jul 2016 #125

A reading assignment DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #127

Nick Merrill said.today "she will not comment further on her interview.� scscholar Jul 2016 #7

To be fair, the head of the FBI called it an investigation. BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #9

No, he was speaking in general... scscholar Jul 2016 #13

Hmmm... BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #14

He never said SHE was being investigated. n/t pnwmom Jul 2016 #91

See post #32 BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #93

So? He was quibbling about her use of the word review instead of investigation. pnwmom Jul 2016 #94

Cute BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #95

It isn't cute to smear someone, and anyone who falsely claims that pnwmom Jul 2016 #97

James Comey is a smear merchant. BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #104

James Comey said that there is an investigation. He never said SHE's the target. n/t pnwmom Jul 2016 #105

Not a security inquiry? BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #107

The FBI only does criminal prosecutions. amandabeech Jul 2016 #119

FBI Director Comey says investigating is "what the FBI does" 99th_Monkey Jul 2016 #16

He was speaking in general... scscholar Jul 2016 #26

The response was to a specific question. BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #32

Thank you. I rest my case. 99th_Monkey Jul 2016 #82

I mean how can one say that he didn't answer a question specifically asked about her? BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #86

The powers of selective perception 99th_Monkey Jul 2016 #88

Bingo - 840high Jul 2016 #157

Does not prove it's a "review." At best, proves only that that's what the *HRC* people call it. (nt) thesquanderer Jul 2016 #120

"" *HRC* people" DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #128

I meant HRC and her staff/representatives. Sorry for the ambiguity. (n/t) thesquanderer Jul 2016 #132

She was never even under investigation. KMOD Jul 2016 #8

The term came from Comey himself. BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #10

What term? KMOD Jul 2016 #18

See reply #8 BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #20

Sure, but he never stated that SHE was under investigation. Which is the charge being made. synergie Jul 2016 #29

Does the FBI conduct investigations on inanamate objects? BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #31

When they are servers, yes. were you confused on the matter? I mean, really? synergie Jul 2016 #33

Are you for real? BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #34

Are you for real? The nominee is HRC, so vote for her and stop with the parroting of synergie Jul 2016 #36

Will vote for her with bells on. BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #39

Well, he is a Republican. nt OhZone Jul 2016 #80

Because you're NOT quoting the FBI director. Lord Magus Jul 2016 #117

I quoted the FBI director directly in post #32. BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #122

You've also been arguing that he said it was a "criminal" investiagtion & that Hillary is the target Lord Magus Jul 2016 #138

Someone was claiming that it was a security review. I pointed out the FBI called it an investigation BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #141

You're the one who brought up "security review" in the first place. Lord Magus Jul 2016 #142

Incorrect. See post #7 BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #143

There's a different between party loyalty and self delusion. Kentonio Jul 2016 #49

Pleasure reading a post that 840high Jul 2016 #159

I believe HRC is true zenabby Jul 2016 #85

Are you having some trouble figuring what is real and what is not? Your undestanding synergie Jul 2016 #135

Investigating servers, crime scenes, terror plots, etc., are interim steps, not ends. If they find something... thesquanderer Jul 2016 #121

Indeed the person in question here was the hacker, not Hillary. synergie Jul 2016 #136

Why would they interview HRC's staff in June if it was all about building a case against Guccifer? thesquanderer Jul 2016 #146

This message was self-deleted by its author DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #129

He never said SHE was under investigation MADem Jul 2016 #53

Sorry, but Dir. Comey disagrees with you 99th_Monkey Jul 2016 #17

No. He doesn't. KMOD Jul 2016 #19

The FBI does not do security reviews - it 840high Jul 2016 #21

Okay, but investigating something does not mean that someone associated with an synergie Jul 2016 #38

Of course - an investigation 840high Jul 2016 #44

The target of the investigation is a Romanian hacker. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #87

This. Nick Merrill confirmed today that it wasn't (ntxt) scscholar Jul 2016 #41

Exactly!!!! AgadorSparticus Jul 2016 #148

PLEASE GET UP TO DATE PJMcK Jul 2016 #15

I'll ait for statement from the FBI. 840high Jul 2016 #22

Okay. What do you expect? PJMcK Jul 2016 #27

imo - no charges. 840high Jul 2016 #35

Agreed BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #40

A legal education would lead you to conclude that there was never a chance The Second Stone Jul 2016 #23

I agree with your analysis Gothmog Jul 2016 #73

That and they would have to charge Powell and Rice for the same The Second Stone Jul 2016 #81

People who want her to be indicted are the ones who won't believe she won't be. Lil Missy Jul 2016 #24

Totally agree. And vice versa. BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #25

+1 n/t. okieinpain Jul 2016 #28

Rumors are indeed not facts. Lord Magus Jul 2016 #30

Your concern is noted. itsrobert Jul 2016 #37

Do you think POTUS would damage himself MFM008 Jul 2016 #45

Indictment??? It was ALWAYS just an INSANE right wing talking point. No crime. No criminal intent. RBInMaine Jul 2016 #46

Those praying for the indictment fairy cosmicone Jul 2016 #48

*sigh* Squinch Jul 2016 #51

Because of a headline at a web site? Ghost Dog Jul 2016 #52

That's all well and good but what does Britebart say? comradebillyboy Jul 2016 #155

emails and Benghazi... chillfactor Jul 2016 #54

Rumors are what this thing has been living on since it was hatched by Daryl Issa in 2012. ucrdem Jul 2016 #55

Please do not continue posting BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 #56

You are absolutely correct about Hillary as the subject of the investigation... Sancho Jul 2016 #59

She also never deleted BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 #68

18 USC 1924. is NOT a strict liability statute. Am I correct? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #123

No, it is not. BlueMTexpat Jul 2016 #144

Why are you so eagar to see her indicted? baldguy Jul 2016 #57

Because it's been clear for some time that she did not commit an indictable offense. Hoyt Jul 2016 #60

Since I practically never hear the truth about Clinton rock Jul 2016 #62

there will be no indictment, what General Petraeus got caught doing was so much worse beachbum bob Jul 2016 #63

Petraeus deliberately gave classified information to his paramour... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #67

Read that Comey wanted to indict Petraeus on felony charges, but Holder changed it to misdemeanor Zen Democrat Jul 2016 #71

Yes, that's true. The FBI wanted 3 felony charges for Petraeus Arazi Jul 2016 #77

He gave classified material to his mistress, yet that didn't seem to mean a thing. Rex Jul 2016 #149

Fifth Amendment!!! DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #64

"folk like Comey have been chomping at the bit to level some formal charges if not indictment at her DonViejo Jul 2016 #65

Byeeeeeee! BobbyDrake Jul 2016 #66

It's not everyone, clearly. And those who are certain are certain MineralMan Jul 2016 #70

I don't think the DOJ will prosecute but if they did, for argument's sake, no GJ would be necessary. Zen Democrat Jul 2016 #72

Actually, you are incorrect. No indictment in a case like this MineralMan Jul 2016 #74

What crime did she commit?? ... please be specific. JoePhilly Jul 2016 #75

None. Zero. Rex Jul 2016 #150

. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #76

It must have caused Chuck Todd great pain to report... MirrorAshes Jul 2016 #79

See this: MineralMan Jul 2016 #83

Several reasons but mainly because she's not the subject of any criminal investigation EffieBlack Jul 2016 #84

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #90

The FBI has never said she's the target of the investigation. If you have a link pnwmom Jul 2016 #92

From the NYTimes: XemaSab Jul 2016 #96

Where does an FBI person say she is the target of an investigation? Nowhere. n/t pnwmom Jul 2016 #98

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #99

I forgot you don't read your own links. pnwmom Jul 2016 #100

Wow BlueNoMatterWho Jul 2016 #106

Amy Chozick? lapucelle Jul 2016 #109

For ONE reason, elleng Jul 2016 #101

Because no one thinks she had criminal intent, which is necessary The Second Stone Jul 2016 #102

Listening to "legal eagles" here, you'd think intent doesn't matter as long as there is .00000001% Hoyt Jul 2016 #113

Also at least one Trumpy legal eagle. Kingofalldems Jul 2016 #116

Well, those "legal eagles" didn't got to law school The Second Stone Jul 2016 #124

Some of them did go to law school, graduated, passed bar and are practicing. Yet they still don't Hoyt Jul 2016 #131

Well, it isn't uncommon to find lawyers who are morons The Second Stone Jul 2016 #134

Definitely. Hoyt Jul 2016 #139

As was so beautifully explained in MineralMan's OP earlier today, lapucelle Jul 2016 #108

Still waiting for an answer. Where did you come up with Comey "chomping at the bit" for indictment? Lord Magus Jul 2016 #118

That's why the Founding Fathers in their wisdom invested the power to indict in a grand jury. DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2016 #130

OMFG, These responses are incredible. Anyone old enough to vote here? floriduck Jul 2016 #126

What's incredible is that people are still finding ways to call for the indictment fairy... Lord Magus Jul 2016 #140

Opinions plenty, facts are lacking, speculation even when sources provided. gordianot Jul 2016 #133

BECAUSE THE FBI DOES NOT INDICTED PEOPLE n/t lancer78 Jul 2016 #137

It doesn't matter whether she's charged or not, the damage has been done. Vinca Jul 2016 #147

Because she didn't commit a crime? Rex Jul 2016 #151

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Peacetrain Jul 2016 #156

Because she broke no law...... apcalc Jul 2016 #152

I am not sure. nt silvershadow Jul 2016 #154

I was certain long before these "rumors" came out. DCBob Jul 2016 #158

Tell me again about how Comey was "chomping at the bit" for an indictment. Lord Magus Jul 2016 #160

This post and eleven dollars will get you a great cup of coffee at Starbucks. LanternWaste Jul 2016 #161