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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
Fri Aug 28, 2015, 10:23 AM Aug 2015

Hillary Clinton's Felony. The federal laws violated by the private server [View all]

Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.

It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.

It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law. As of right now, the matter is under FBI investigation. This isn't just about violation of Departmental policy.

The facts:

NYT: F.B.I. Tracking Path of Classified Email From State Dept. to Hillary Clinton

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/15/us/fbi-tracking-path-of-email-to-hillary-clinton-at-state-department.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — F.B.I. agents investigating Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server are seeking to determine who at the State Department passed highly classified information from secure networks to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, according to law enforcement and diplomatic officials and others briefed on the investigation.

To track how the information flowed, agents will try to gain access to the email accounts of many State Department officials who worked there while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the officials said. State Department employees apparently circulated the emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011, and some were ultimately forwarded to Mrs. Clinton.

They were not marked as classified, the State Department has said, and it is unclear whether its employees knew the origin of the information.

F.B.I. is also trying to determine whether foreign powers, especially China or Russia, gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s private server, although at this point, any security breaches are speculation.

Four para limit stops here. But, I will in all fairness stipulate that this article goes on to say that HRC is not at this point the target of the investigation. However, Reuters has since reported that her unsecured private server email system contained "presumed classified" materials. Hillary personally exchanged such presumed classified information with Sidney Blumenthal, and those communications were intercepted and publicly released by a Romanian hacker. http://www.aol.com/article/2015/08/21/exclusive-dozens-of-clinton-emails-were-classified-from-the-sta/21225607/

The fact that the email was not marked classified at the time does not excuse Mrs. Clinton. This is because information gathered from foreign government sources, a great deal of her email was so sourced, is presumed classified. Mrs Clinton received Departmental training on recognizing and handling classified materials. Presumed classified information is defined by Executive Order as "The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security." (see full text of that section of Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information, Sec. 1.1(4)(d), below)

Secretary Clinton was trained in handling of classified materials, and acknowledges that she understood them. By transmitting and receiving email correspondence that contained information gleaned from foreign government sources on an unauthorized, insecure system, she violated the law. This was not something she did unwittingly, and that the foreign government sourced material was not stamped classified is irrelevant.

On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned former CIA Director John Deutch who had committed similar violations. Deutch left the CIA on December 15, 1996 and soon after it was revealed that several of his laptop computers contained classified materials. In January 1997, the CIA began a formal security investigation of the matter. Senior management at CIA declined to fully pursue the security breach. Over two years after his departure, the matter was referred to the Department of Justice, where Attorney General Janet Reno declined prosecution. She did, however, recommend an investigation to determine whether Deutch should retain his security clearance.

All Deutch did was to take some classified material home with him to work his unsecured personal laptops that were connected to his home commercial internet. In other words, pretty much what Hillary did on a much larger scale.

Other, lesser, federal officials have been recently prosecuted for downloading classified materials onto private servers or media and taking them home, and they were charged and convicted even though the materials was never publicly released and they had no intention to do so or to harm the United States. Links in thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141184063, see also, http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/ ; and, http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/19/sailor-pleads-guilty-to-mishandling-documents.html


Applicable statutes and Executive Order:

1) 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Full copy of this Section of the 1917 Espionage Act is below. It has been claimed that Hillary did not violate the law because she didn't intend to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power. However, that purpose is not required to convict under this Subsections (e) and (f) of this statute.

Subsections (a)-(d) and (g)(conspiracy) reference and require intent to injure the United States. The plain-language of Subsection (e) and particularly (f) are different:

The difference is this phrase that references purpose in the first three subsections; "with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, Note: "is to be used"

The language in (e) is close but omits reference to purpose to injure: "he possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation". The word intent is not there. Note: "could be used"

Finally, the offense specified at (f) requires not willful action, simply a negligent action:

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

The differences between Sections (e) and (f) and the various other offenses covered in Section 793 comes down to the element of intent to injure the US or act to the advantage of a foreign power. These are not requisite elements of the offenses covered under these sections of the Espionage Act.

2) 1950 Federal Records Act

44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.



That law requires heads of agencies -- no exception for DOS -- to preserve and turn over all official correspondence and records to the National Archives. She didn't do that until confronted after a Romanian hacker leaked Hillary's email correspondence with Blumenthal. Those emails were clearly official not private. HRC admits to destroying at least 30,000 emails she deemed private and turned over approximately 30,000 her lawyers found to be public documents. However, a number of other emails have subsequently been turned over and analyses by news agencies. Reuters reported that a number of them to contain presumed classified information.

Hillary had also failed to provide these records to meet a FOIA request and Congressional Committee subpoena, which violates other federal laws.

Those emails and many like them were most recently found to contain "presumed classified" materials about US communications with foreign governments. That was a violation of Executive Orders, and possibly the 1917 Espionage Act that criminalizes private retention or mishandling of classified materials.

Intent to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign power is not required under Sec 793 (e) and (f). The mere fact of unauthorized removal or destruction of materials the official should have known were classified are all that is required for conviction under these parts of the Espionage Act. Hillary should have known.

Removal is obvious from the fact that she ran her private server out of her own house. There have been several recent convictions under these provisions of lower-ranking officials, as well as the forced retirement and referral to the Justice Department of CIA Director John Deutch for taking home classified materials on his personal laptop and connecting to the internet.

We know that she sent and exchanged presumed classified materials with Syd Blumenthal. Read the Reuter article linked. Bluementhal's email with Hillary on her server was intercepted and published by a Romanian hacker. That's how this whole thing came to light.

Sorry, she's done herself in, and has no one else to blame except some overzealous aides and risk-seeking lawyers.


Potential Prosecution:

At this point, the FBI is investigating the server and network history before a decision is made whether to proceed with prosecution and what charges to seek from a federal Grand Jury.

The facts are clear that she was operating her own private server and that "presumed" classified materials were shared on that unsecured device. The FBI won't come out and say she's the target until a series of decisions have been made. That Biden is signalling he's readying his candidacy tells me that probable cause exists and the system has already been found to have been breached. In fact, we know that a Romanian hacker obtained email containing presumed classified information between Blumenthal and Hillary, and that she responded to him. We also know that she was trained not to do anything like this, she acknowledges that, but she went ahead and continued to did it anyway.

This is serious, not a pseudo-scandal.

_____________________________________________
Complete copy of relevant sections of law and Executive Order

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense; or
(b) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe, copies, takes, makes, or obtains, or attempts to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, document, writing, or note of anything connected with the national defense; or
(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,
(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.


2) Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 29, 2009
Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism.

. . .

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:

(1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.

(d) The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.


C) 1950 Federal Records Act

44 U.S. Code § 3106 - Unlawful removal, destruction of records
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/44/3106

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)

prev | next
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.

263 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This belongs in CT. nt DURHAM D Aug 2015 #1
Yup! KMOD Aug 2015 #3
Why are outright lying smears of DEMOCRATIC candidates allowed on DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND? randys1 Aug 2015 #90
I dont know but this is getting very old quick moobu2 Aug 2015 #166
Either the jury system Jamaal510 Aug 2015 #201
Um, because some are true? nt revbones Mar 2016 #238
For those who can't or won't discuss the facts or the law, there is always the comfort of snide leveymg Aug 2015 #4
Are you an expert on this? Seeing as you're a Sanders supporter you're certainly biased and have an Metric System Aug 2015 #7
the sources are clearly experts magical thyme Aug 2015 #60
And Hillary Clinton certainly never transferred classified info to her server. Huddie94 Aug 2015 #230
they were trained to recognize classified information magical thyme Aug 2015 #231
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2015 #235
if I understand something I read yesterday correctly, it was Abedin who magical thyme Sep 2015 #236
Ad hom. Jester Messiah Aug 2015 #103
It's all they have when faced with something negative about their candidate. nt revbones Mar 2016 #239
You might possible be right!! pocoloco Aug 2015 #109
As agendas go, that seems a pretty laudable one Bubzer Aug 2015 #137
Your headline is an opinion -not a fact. Take it down please. riversedge Aug 2015 #64
Agreed: Riversedge: Hillary has done nothing wrong lewebley3 Aug 2015 #118
Besides, Hillary can still run for Preident, bvar22 Aug 2015 #176
So if that's true then dispute it with facts. revbones Mar 2016 #240
Your OP isn't a "smear"? This issue has been discredited over and over again, and has been... George II Aug 2015 #157
It has not been discredited even once, let alone over and over. revbones Mar 2016 #241
You have called Hillary Clinton a felon! That is FALSE, unconscionable, and inexcusable. George II Aug 2015 #158
No not quite. elehhhhna Mar 2016 #251
Why because you don't like it? CT is over used to lock or hide posts that some find contrary rhett o rick Aug 2015 #30
and this belongs in - DURHAM D Aug 2015 #39
This message was self-deleted by its author Agschmid Aug 2015 #54
I have no problem with this post, however, yesterday when a thread was posted about Bernie applying still_one Aug 2015 #89
I missed that. Can you provide a link? nm rhett o rick Aug 2015 #110
What is CT??? PatrickforO Aug 2015 #55
This message was self-deleted by its author Agschmid Aug 2015 #69
Oh. Thanks. PatrickforO Aug 2015 #73
Thanks. nt Raymondo22 Aug 2015 #211
CT=Conspiracy theory hedda_foil Feb 2016 #237
Why is this post Okay: its filled with slander: Hillary is not under investigation lewebley3 Aug 2015 #95
This message was self-deleted by its author Agschmid Aug 2015 #107
But , The Host are very careful to hide post that disagree Sanders people lewebley3 Aug 2015 #115
This message was self-deleted by its author Agschmid Aug 2015 #124
So you're aware of all the intricacies of the investigation revbones Mar 2016 #242
..... MADem Aug 2015 #2
Nothing would make me happier than a long orange line down Penn Ave of Bush-era leveymg Aug 2015 #6
Justice: Probe sought in Clinton e-mails, but no ‘criminal’ focus Fla Dem Aug 2015 #151
Amazing how many "Democrats" are so eager to throw one of their own MADem Aug 2015 #193
Precisely. She should have thought about what she was doing, but it isn't as if she erased JDPriestly Aug 2015 #146
unfortunately the president decided to turn the page or look forward or some idiotic Doctor_J Aug 2015 #192
You have no shame. I see you're a Sanders supporter. What a shocker. I see two fellow Sanders Metric System Aug 2015 #5
Hillary supporters also owe it to themselves to learn about her legal problems. leveymg Aug 2015 #8
Are you a legal expert? What are your credentials? Metric System Aug 2015 #12
You're over the line with this brush Aug 2015 #15
Why do you assume this is an attack? It's an analysis of facts and law. Dispute it on that basis leveymg Aug 2015 #18
Are you a legal expert? Metric System Aug 2015 #20
Read the article and links - make your own determination. leveymg Aug 2015 #23
Short answer - No. But (s)he stayed in Holiday Inn Express. nt COLGATE4 Aug 2015 #114
Your amateurish analysis is worth the paper it's printed on. n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #117
Of course it's an attack brush Aug 2015 #43
Believe it or not FlatBaroque Aug 2015 #52
So why are you on this site? brush Aug 2015 #59
Pathetic FlatBaroque Aug 2015 #75
Like I said, it's called DEMOCRATIC Underground brush Aug 2015 #80
Aren't we also here to discuss the pros and cons of the different candidates? Raymondo22 Aug 2015 #212
In many cases the criticisms have ventured into . . . brush Aug 2015 #216
"Over-the-top"? Raymondo22 Aug 2015 #217
A headline of an OP stated that Hillary Clinton committed a felony . . . brush Aug 2015 #218
Those are examples. A definition would be more useful to me. Raymondo22 Aug 2015 #219
Don't know why that's hard to understand brush Aug 2015 #220
So it's OK to say something good about a Dem primary candidate--- Raymondo22 Aug 2015 #224
As I stated in my earlier post . . . brush Aug 2015 #227
Thanks for the examples. Raymondo22 Aug 2015 #233
Exactly... busterbrown Aug 2015 #144
Oh for FUCKS sake, I am more liberal than you and your ten best friends and your randys1 Aug 2015 #98
If there is indeed a felony that could stick, based on the facts and legal statutes ... Martin Eden Aug 2015 #133
If I beat my wife, I would be in trouble too. randys1 Aug 2015 #135
The felony cited is a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #143
SMearing Hillary on DU is an all day , every day event randys1 Aug 2015 #149
So then, you are certain there is no legal case that could derail HC in the general election ... Martin Eden Aug 2015 #147
Thanks for giving voice to my feelings. Candidates that "play the game" are not what I want erronis Aug 2015 #134
They can play the game all they want, as long as they arent republicans or teaparty randys1 Aug 2015 #136
If you're a Sanders supporter let his campaign stand on its own. AlbertCat Aug 2015 #70
I'm one of the ones who thinks Dems should not be attacking other Dems brush Aug 2015 #76
This message was self-deleted by its author Agschmid Aug 2015 #78
I'm one of the ones who thinks Dems should not be attacking other Dems AlbertCat Aug 2015 #85
I've mentioned that Bernie himself has refused to attack Hillary brush Aug 2015 #93
Stop doing repug dirty work. AlbertCat Aug 2015 #122
Don't lie. Onlooker Aug 2015 #203
Addressing these issues is part of letting the campaign play out. frylock Aug 2015 #77
Let the repugs do their own dirty work. brush Aug 2015 #83
Looks like Obama's DoJ is doing the repug's "dirty work" frylock Aug 2015 #100
After the repugs have been fanning the flames for months brush Aug 2015 #123
And it can all end with a phone call by the president.. frylock Aug 2015 #129
^^This and only this^^ nt tblue Aug 2015 #229
Because you (and a few Bernie supporters) and the republicans say she has "legal problems"? ... 1StrongBlackMan Aug 2015 #56
I am willing to litigate the charges with the seminal poster as long as he stipulates neither... DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #79
Anyone who thinks this issue will disappear before the 2016 election has no clue. k&r, nt. appal_jack Aug 2015 #34
already has.. busterbrown Aug 2015 #142
This message was self-deleted by its author FlatBaroque Aug 2015 #35
yeah Hillary supporters are just so upright cali Aug 2015 #44
Was that thread made by a Hillary supporter? Judging by the poster's rec list I doubt it. Metric System Aug 2015 #51
You have no shame. AlbertCat Aug 2015 #65
add me to your list frylock Aug 2015 #72
Oh hell, this thread will have a hundred recs by the end of today. leftofcool Aug 2015 #112
They hate her. The can say they don't but tgey do. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #165
Oh noes now a third Sanders supporter is posting in this thread passiveporcupine Aug 2015 #196
To you "No shame" = speaking truth? That's weird. nt revbones Mar 2016 #243
Yikes! Mike Nelson Aug 2015 #9
You forgot the sarcasm tag. Metric System Aug 2015 #13
Thank you... Mike Nelson Aug 2015 #16
Most likely not a spy FlatBaroque Aug 2015 #37
Thanks, Mark hootinholler Aug 2015 #10
These articles disagree with you: Metric System Aug 2015 #11
Neither one of those articles even attempts a legal analysis by reference to relevant statutes jberryhill Aug 2015 #17
Is the OP qualified to give legal analysis? He still hasn't answered that question. Metric System Aug 2015 #19
Yes. leveymg Aug 2015 #21
Really? Gothmog Aug 2015 #120
You never answered my question but your posts tell me all I need to know Gothmog Apr 2016 #260
Well certainly neither of your op-ed writers are jberryhill Aug 2015 #22
It's an opinion presented as fact. Just look at the title: "Hillary's Felony." Metric System Aug 2015 #25
My goodness, an opinion presented as fact. On the internet. jberryhill Aug 2015 #27
If you have a different opinion based in fact, express it. Here's your chance. leveymg Aug 2015 #29
Clinton email violated no laws or policies Gothmog Aug 2015 #181
OMFG! an opinion presented as fact RoccoR5955 Aug 2015 #46
The second link goes to an article by David Ignatius DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #106
Good golly jberryhill Aug 2015 #116
I take umbrage at folks calling other folks felons, especially if the folks being called felons... DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #125
Yes, the suggestion that a government official violated a law is offensive jberryhill Aug 2015 #127
You are using facts against a Howdy Gowdy inspired talking point Gothmog Aug 2015 #119
4 Sanders supporters and counting have recommended this thread. Interesting. Metric System Aug 2015 #14
The 9:00 am mass at the Church of the Perpetual Authenticity LuvLoogie Aug 2015 #26
What you are forgetting is that Democrats are held responsible when they break the law virtualobserver Aug 2015 #31
There would be more recs; but, ... 1StrongBlackMan Aug 2015 #62
Interesting. AlbertCat Aug 2015 #74
I have here in my hand a list of 4 Sanders supporters and counting.... frylock Aug 2015 #81
and one has called bull pucky on it. passiveporcupine Aug 2015 #198
K&R for Metric System bahrbearian Aug 2015 #24
What a joke. I'm referring to your post and this thread. Metric System Aug 2015 #40
What's next? msrizzo Aug 2015 #28
Chuck Grassley recommends this post. KMOD Aug 2015 #32
What are your legal credentials? MohRokTah Aug 2015 #33
He doesn't have any. It's his opinion and, as they say, opinions are like assholes... Metric System Aug 2015 #36
I agree Gothmog Aug 2015 #175
What does that matter? Show where the post is wrong. Octafish Aug 2015 #225
Cool story, bro! Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2015 #38
FYI: you were alerted on. Action_Patrol Aug 2015 #82
I'm sure... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2015 #84
I knew the meme. Made me smile Action_Patrol Aug 2015 #86
What were the results? Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2015 #87
3-4 leave Action_Patrol Aug 2015 #92
This message was self-deleted by its author Agschmid Aug 2015 #94
Yeah... Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2015 #102
I didn't know it was "old joke".. but i smiled 'cause it sounded like somebody the hell had to say Cha Aug 2015 #204
Why project your own hobbies to others? revbones Mar 2016 #244
Why are you gravedigging old threads from August of last year? Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #246
I just saw the ignorant comment on a thread in the latest threads list so I thought I'd reply. revbones Mar 2016 #249
That's funny. Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #250
PS Dr Hobbitstein Mar 2016 #247
When I first saw this thread on my phone I knew it would bring you 'lots of love'. Thanks for Purveyor Aug 2015 #41
You just know somewhere in DC Trey Gowdy is stroking it to this thread. Metric System Aug 2015 #42
Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #45
There was no classified content on her server, KMOD Aug 2015 #47
Then why does Obama's DNI IG say there was? jeff47 Aug 2015 #50
Because Chuck Grassley believes on of his emails KMOD Aug 2015 #53
Chuck Grassley controls Obama's intelligence agencies? jeff47 Aug 2015 #58
He's the one making the stink. KMOD Aug 2015 #63
No, the DNI Inspector General is also "making the stink". jeff47 Aug 2015 #66
Not true. Anonymous sources are making claims about the DNI IG. n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #113
The DNI IG testified before Congress. jeff47 Aug 2015 #138
And he didn't say this during his testimony. n/t pnwmom Aug 2015 #140
He said they found classified emails during his testimony. (nt) jeff47 Aug 2015 #154
He didn't say they found emails that were classified at the time of origination. pnwmom Aug 2015 #155
It's just your opinion, as your supporters in this thread have argued. That's about as much thought Metric System Aug 2015 #48
Res ipsa loquitur DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #49
This message was self-deleted by its author carolinayellowdog Aug 2015 #91
IMO, she's covered by the hole between 18 USC e and f jeff47 Aug 2015 #57
That's going too far. Jester Messiah Aug 2015 #108
Well, it would fucking help make our case against TPP Cry Aug 2015 #221
This post is a lie; Hillary is not being investigate for anything: Nothing but a GOP attack! lewebley3 Aug 2015 #61
Would Bernie Sanders say smut such as the OP? NO, he would not and woud be very riversedge Aug 2015 #67
Dude... JackInGreen Aug 2015 #68
At high levels of government the laws are subjective. Everyone knows this. PatrickforO Aug 2015 #71
yep, definitely true Fast Walker 52 Aug 2015 #104
Keep the recs coming! Yay right wing conspiracy theories on DU! DanTex Aug 2015 #88
You are using facts against a conservative talking point Gothmog Aug 2015 #173
It is our own bit of free republic right here. Makes me sick. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #174
I'm looking forward obnoxiousdrunk Aug 2015 #96
This message was self-deleted by its author Agschmid Aug 2015 #105
I thought the State Dept. already said everything was ok. jalan48 Aug 2015 #97
Post removed Post removed Aug 2015 #99
Translation nichomachus Aug 2015 #101
Utter nonsense. Numerous NAMED, not anonymous, sources throughout government pnwmom Aug 2015 #111
What you have done is equivalent to posting laws against murder pnwmom Aug 2015 #121
Vince Foster knew that Hillary planned to ... JoePhilly Aug 2015 #128
Wow. You should make this an OP. Make sure you put the word "felony" pnwmom Aug 2015 #130
The plan had a name too .... REDRUM!!!! JoePhilly Aug 2015 #131
LOL SunSeeker Aug 2015 #161
The issue about the private server isn't going away Catherina Aug 2015 #126
What was hacked were the .gov accounts state department officials used, pnwmom Aug 2015 #139
hello CAtherina! grasswire Mar 2016 #252
This is where Sidney Blumenthal comes in, apparently. grasswire Mar 2016 #253
Why are these threads continuing? blackspade Aug 2015 #132
Thanks for saying that. KMOD Aug 2015 #145
Because some people lack confidence in their preferred candidate, so they post garbage about others. pnwmom Aug 2015 #153
This again? murielm99 Aug 2015 #141
... Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2015 #148
Recommended. AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #150
SORRY, Righties, State Dept. Says There’s Nothing Illegal About Hillary’s Emails liberal N proud Aug 2015 #152
that is not the issue. grasswire Mar 2016 #254
What struck me about this post ... staggerleem Aug 2015 #156
A post from "an above board" Bernie supporter. brush Aug 2015 #163
+1,000,000! nt MADem Aug 2015 #194
Agreed, I will vote for the winner. The alternative will kill people. Period. Not acceptable. n/t freshwest Aug 2015 #197
".. this reply ws written by a REAL Bernie Sanders supporter... " Not someone spreading Cha Aug 2015 #205
This is old and simply not true - misrepresentations, lies, whatever - here are links to facts Sancho Aug 2015 #159
Bottom line: She would not need a team of lawyers to cover her @$$ if she Zorra Aug 2015 #160
Once you get to Hillary's rank in politics, you always have a team of lawyers passiveporcupine Aug 2015 #199
One of the most worthless OPs of the month. And that's saying something! randome Aug 2015 #162
One more hide and the poster takes a vacation. zappaman Aug 2015 #191
there are no more vacations for jury hides. grasswire Mar 2016 #255
Yes, the comment I made in August of 2015 is no longer valid. zappaman Mar 2016 #257
I didn't know Trey Gowdy had an account here. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #164
Exactly. This is something you would expect on GOP.con moobu2 Aug 2015 #167
The hatred of Hillary Clinton on this site is transparent. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #168
Dems are concerned this would blow up in the general. AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #177
This garbage belongs at free republic. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #178
Nonsense. I suggest you attempt to understand the AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #182
Better? Get over yourself! hrmjustin Aug 2015 #183
Alrighty then. Another toxic primary it is. AtomicKitten Aug 2015 #184
Then don't patronize me. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #185
Then I suggest first aid for your foot... Cry Aug 2015 #222
My foot is fine. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #232
Why go to the Free Republic when you can see the same material here Gothmog Apr 2016 #261
I have some questions for the seminal poster that I would request he or she answers DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #169
This post shows some Sanders supporters will just post anything to take Hillary down. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #170
A falsehood from start to finish. okasha Aug 2015 #171
Or back to free republic. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #172
Or maybe Cato Institute, okasha Aug 2015 #179
And yet the praises continue to come in. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #180
Trump has adoring fans, too. okasha Aug 2015 #186
Yes he woukd destroy garbage like this in a second. hrmjustin Aug 2015 #187
Oh look freeper/Limbaugh /Hannity /Fox news workinclasszero Aug 2015 #188
The Hillary Clinton e-mail ‘scandal’ that isn’t Gothmog Aug 2015 #189
Yawn. zappaman Aug 2015 #190
Short reply to this post... Rosco T. Aug 2015 #195
Can we PLEASE stop talking about bullshit like this, and disscuss eridani Aug 2015 #200
Are you a Republican? Onlooker Aug 2015 #202
The fact that you mention her private server shows that you don't understand this case Recursion Aug 2015 #206
Jesus Christ on a Trailer Hitch Hekate Aug 2015 #207
What a fucking pantload... SidDithers Aug 2015 #208
And you are completely wrong according to the AG who investigated Petreus stevenleser Aug 2015 #209
Hindsight is better than foresight and Madame Secretary's judgment is open to scrutiny... DemocratSinceBirth Aug 2015 #210
It don't taste like chicken.... John Poet Aug 2015 #213
OK, if the 1950s Records Act applies apnu Aug 2015 #214
Have you contacted the Attorney General to demand her indictment? brooklynite Aug 2015 #215
Gosh. Ex-CIA man is going to prison for getting a phone call from a reporter. Octafish Aug 2015 #223
Trying again, huh, good thing cooler heads prevail. Thinkingabout Aug 2015 #226
Then why hasn't she been indicted? tblue Aug 2015 #228
Enough of this silly bullshit. RBInMaine Aug 2015 #234
If I were on the jury, Not Guilty. Call it jury nullification or whatever you like. Hoyt Mar 2016 #245
Kick for timeliness / FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #248
Hillary's "not marked classified" line or Jarqui Mar 2016 #256
Kick for visibility. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #258
Still missing a step. Orsino Mar 2016 #259
This makes me smile Gothmog Jul 2016 #262
So how did that work out for you? DanTex Jul 2016 #263
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Clinton's Felony....»Reply #0