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

Bernie Sanders

leftcoastmountains

(2,968 posts)

38. I've been saying since the beginning of this scandal

Reply to GreenPartyVoter (Original post)

Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:07 PM

Apr 2016

it won't mean a Hill of beans.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Another Fitzmas Fizzle? [View all] GreenPartyVoter Apr 2016 OP

? TDale313 Apr 2016 #1

This message was self-deleted by its author leftcoastmountains Apr 2016 #5

If this all comes out he will look like the king of fools yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #2

Zactly and don't forget he didn't want Blumenthal involved but Hillary ignored that on had snagglepuss Apr 2016 #31

I'll bet Hill and Blumenthal were rolling on the floor with laughter yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #33

Yep. Who does Obama thinks he is telling her majesty who she can hire! BillZBubb Apr 2016 #35

All that pay-for-play as SOS and Obama never once collected the vig!!! yourpaljoey Apr 2016 #36

At this point, it may not matter as much. revbones Apr 2016 #3

Don't See it That Way noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #4

agreed. If it was "nothing", he wouldn't have done the interview. nt antigop Apr 2016 #8

I agree with you noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #9

I think you are correct. He couldn't talk directly to the FBI. nt antigop Apr 2016 #10

did you also notice he called it an "investigation"? He didn't call it a "security review". nt antigop Apr 2016 #11

Didn't Notice That noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #14

yep -- HRC. (updated with link) antigop Apr 2016 #15

As I read it, he acknowledges she can be charged with Sec 793, a felony that doesn't require intent leveymg Apr 2016 #29

The timing suggests to me that the end of the investigation is quite close. n/t winter is coming Apr 2016 #20

I don't think DOJ can just sit on it. Gwhittey Apr 2016 #6

In the real world of the Executive Branch the DOJ and justice is blind. gordianot Apr 2016 #7

Going Right Up to the Line noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #12

Yes I just saw that. gordianot Apr 2016 #17

IMO he's signaling no criminal intent, while she maybe didn't comply with regulations... HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #13

I read it that way too noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #16

I think that works better against a charge that she materially helped an enemy. But... HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #19

18 USC 793, sections (e) and (f) do not require that she actually helped anyone or even intended to leveymg Apr 2016 #30

I know, I'm familiar with your posts on this topic... HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #32

I think we would find ourselves fighting directly with Eurasia. leveymg Apr 2016 #34

A lack of criminal intent isn't the same thing as a lack of criminal action. winter is coming Apr 2016 #22

Mostly I think it's intended to misdirect but, yes, you're right. The question is 'which' laws? HereSince1628 Apr 2016 #23

You have to ask yourself Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2016 #24

Didn't Lynch warn the WH not to talk about this????? grasswire Apr 2016 #18

disturbing NJCher Apr 2016 #25

Yup noretreatnosurrender Apr 2016 #26

It's exactly what I expected him to do. 2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #28

It is not like the email thing is why I won't vote for her. djean111 Apr 2016 #21

If he is attempting to preserve his legacy, this could backfire big time. BillZBubb Apr 2016 #37

it just means those Aspen trees turn together because they are connected at the roots 2pooped2pop Apr 2016 #27

I've been saying since the beginning of this scandal leftcoastmountains Apr 2016 #38