2016 Postmortem

MineralMan

(151,750 posts)

74. Actually, you are incorrect. No indictment in a case like this

Sun Jul 3, 2016, 10:16 AM

Jul 2016

can be issued without a Grand Jury. That would be prohibited by the Constitution.

The DoJ conducts its own investigations on whether a Grand Jury should be called, based on available evidence and whether a prosecution would be likely to result in a conviction.

The FBI will issue a report on their investigation and send it to the DoJ, which will decide what to do about that. If it recommends criminal charges, a decision on a Grand Jury will be made. If it does not, the DoJ will simply file it the report and do nothing. As I said, indicting a former Secretary of State for actions done in carrying out the duties of that position is an unprecedented thing, and is unlikely just on those grounds. Further, there are no egregious criminal activities indicated in any of this.

There will never be an indictment. There will not be a Grand Jury called, either. This will simply be yet another FBI investigation that will be filed somewhere. The whole idea of indicting an SoS in this situation is ludicrous.

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