Hillary Clinton Should Concede to Bernie Sanders Before The FBI Reveals Its Findings

Floyd Robertson wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:Clinton’s Crimes and Comey’s Choice

Would Comey really hand Bernie the nomination?

You can bet that Obama has put the kibosh on Comey doing anything but sweeping this under a large rug now that Hills is the presumptive nominee.

Email exchanges released on Wednesday by Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group, show that in December 2010, filters were blocking messages from then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff, sending them to the spam folder or making them bounce.

So the State Department turned them off.

The department’s IT staff did so nervously, given that there were plenty of reasons not to. And following the step, the State Department’s unclassified email system has been breached – repeatedly.

On Monday night, the Associated Press published a piece noting the release of an additional 165 pages of emails Hillary Clinton sent from her private email address while serving as secretary of state. These were emails that had never been previously released and only were made public because of a court order in response to a request from a conservative group.

And yet again, the emails poke holes in Clinton's initial explanation for why she decided to exclusively use a private email server for her electronic correspondence while serving as the nation's top diplomat.

Let's start with this from the AP story: "The emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence."

Attorney General Loretta Lynch met with former President Bill Clinton for a half-hour on her government airplane at the Phoenix airport on Tuesday, an Arizona news station is reporting.

The unannounced meeting, which comes as Lynch’s Justice Department is investigating the handling of classified information on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, came to light only when Phoenix’s ABC15 TV station asked Lynch about it during a press conference.

The Obama appointee told the TV station that she and Clinton did not discuss the investigation or any other government business. Instead, she says they talked about Clinton’s grandchildren and golf.

“I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport,” she told ABC15.

Once news of their meeting on the tarmac at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport broke, Democrats made clear that while the meeting was likely as innocent as Lynch described, it did not give the Justice Department the appearance of independence.

“I do agree with you that it doesn’t send the right signal,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Thursday in response to a question about the meeting from CNN “New Day” host Alisyn Camerota. “She has generally shown excellent judgment and strong leadership of the department, and I’m convinced that she’s an independent attorney general. But I do think that this meeting sends the wrong signal and I don’t think it sends the right signal. I think she should have steered clear, even of a brief, casual social meeting with the former president.”

David Axelrod, a former top aide to President Barack Obama, tweeted that he took Lynch and the former president “at their word” that the Justice Department’s probe into Hillary Clinton’s email server did not come up, “but foolish to create such optics.”

GRR Spartan wrote:And some wonder why Sanders has sat on the sideline and not endorsed.

But so far after a lot of talk there are still no indictments.  Not following policy might not be breaking any laws.  Might be bad judgement and ill advised but if the FBI findings, post interview(s) don't result in an indictment what's left?

For some it will be like Benghazi.  Regardless of any findings it's still someone's fault and the GOP lead Congressional committees tree wanted to pin it on the presumptive Democratic nominee long before the primaries started.

Just a question for those who make a big deal of invoking 5th Ammendment rights.  Have you ever been in front of a grand jury or had to interview with law enforcement involving a crime?  What if they start questions about unrelated matters?  The 5th Ammendment is to protect everyone, not just for those with whom you agree.

Floyd Robertson wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:And some wonder why Sanders has sat on the sideline and not endorsed.

But so far after a lot of talk there are still no indictments.  Not following policy might not be breaking any laws.  Might be bad judgement and ill advised but if the FBI findings, post interview(s) don't result in an indictment what's left?

For some it will be like Benghazi.  Regardless of any findings it's still someone's fault and the GOP lead Congressional committees tree wanted to pin it on the presumptive Democratic nominee long before the primaries started.

Just a question for those who make a big deal of invoking 5th Ammendment rights.  Have you ever been in front of a grand jury or had to interview with law enforcement involving a crime?  What if they start questions about unrelated matters?  The 5th Ammendment is to protect everyone, not just for those with whom you agree.

There won't be any indictments forthcoming, but she and her team definitely broke laws under FRA and NARA. #AboveTheLaw

GRR Spartan wrote:I would have liked to have all this been addressed sooner so primary voters and candidates had a clearer view but the FBI wanted more time and didn't interview HRC until July '16.

GRR Spartan wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:

There won't be any indictments forthcoming, but she and her team definitely broke laws under FRA and NARA. #AboveTheLaw

If laws were broken there will be indictments.

Floyd Robertson wrote:Ari Fleischer ‏@AriFleischer 4m4 minutes ago
Bottom line: Hillary is reckless, careless and has poor judgement, but she's not a criminal. Which means she's likely to be our next POTUS.

Floyd Robertson wrote:a) Carelessness and Recklessness
b) Many cases of top secrect and confidential emails sent/received from private servers.
c) Top secret and confidential emails could have been deleted before FBI investigation
d) email system could have been hacked, but found no evidence of such
e) No precedence for filing charges, therefore FBI recommendation is let it slide.

xsanguine wrote:So who else, besides Bob, is going to vote for someone that found it humorous that they won the freedom of a child rapist in court despite believing he was guilty to make decisions on a national level and represent our country on an international level?

DWags wrote:I'm legitimately confused here, are we saying the FBI is in her pocket? They won't indict even though they now know she was criminally guilty?

WTF?

If the FBI and CIA know she's criminally guilty and refuse to indict then the blood of their own employees is on their hands. They need to hire their own attorneys

Rocinante wrote:

DWags wrote:I'm legitimately confused here, are we saying the FBI is in her pocket? They won't indict even though they now know she was criminally guilty?

WTF?

If the FBI and CIA know she's criminally guilty and refuse to indict then the blood of their own employees is on their hands. They need to hire their own attorneys

The quote that matters from Director Comey is "Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,"

Not that the right will care.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

The quote that matters from Director Comey is "Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,"

Not that the right will care.

Except Roc.....they've brought cases on a lot less evidence. The difference of course is the defendant. Don't ignore that and blame the "right". The fix was in, we all knew that.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

The quote that matters from Director Comey is "Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,"

Not that the right will care.

Except Roc.....they've brought cases on a lot less evidence. The difference of course is the defendant. Don't ignore that and blame the "right". The fix was in, we all knew that.

DWags wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Except Roc.....they've brought cases on a lot less evidence.    The difference of course is the defendant.   Don't ignore that and blame the "right".   The fix was in, we all knew that.

Then who is also guilty of the cover up?  The FBI has to be.  

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

The quote that matters from Director Comey is "Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case,"

Not that the right will care.

Except Roc.....they've brought cases on a lot less evidence. The difference of course is the defendant. Don't ignore that and blame the "right". The fix was in, we all knew that.

GRR Spartan wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Except Roc.....they've brought cases on a lot less evidence.    The difference of course is the defendant.   Don't ignore that and blame the "right".   The fix was in, we all knew that.

There is no"except" about it.  A registered Republican who has donated to the McCain and Romney Presidential campaigns and was appointed to be a US prosecutor by G W Bush said "No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

Some will insist on finding a unreasonable prosecutor.  Another Ken Starr hired to prove a suicide was a murder coverup to find it was suicide 36 months later.

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.

I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Except Roc.....they've brought cases on a lot less evidence. The difference of course is the defendant. Don't ignore that and blame the "right". The fix was in, we all knew that.

Really? Where did you get your law degree? Have you seen the entire case file?

LooseGoose wrote:The point is that there are a class of people in the US that are above the law, the Clintons are among them.

That class is not entirely Dems, nor entirely Reps. It enrages me that we have such a class when those same
pukes will be on our televisions all summer/fall talking about how they care about average Americans. Had an
"average" American done what Hills did they would have been indicted already for either the home server or the
erasure of government records. She LIED about everything on this and will get away with it.

Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart went to prison NOT for any crime they were investigated for but for inadvertently lying to investigators.

It sucks but it's the way the system has evolved.

The head of the fucking FBI who is also the guy who said that President Obama's justice department inquiries into police brutality are causing police to be afraid to do their jobs wrote:In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email uncovered evidence that her spokesman gave reporters false information in 2015 about the process lawyers used to sort personal emails prior to deletion.

Clinton press secretary Nick Merrill previously told TIME that her attorneys had individually read every email to determine if it was a government document or personal correspondence. “Every one of the more than 60,000 emails were read. Period,” Merrill wrote in one email to a TIME reporter dated March 14, 2015.

The FBI concluded that this claim was false. “The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails,” said FBI Director James Comey in a statement on Tuesday. “Instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014.”