Will Hillary be indicted?

[Thunderbird is the word]

Vote/Discuss!

[SillyAmerican]

Should Secretary Clinton be indicted? From my reading of what has already been revealed during the FBI investigation, I think that there's enough to recommend for an indictment. Will Hillary be indicted? I have my doubts as to whether the Obama DoJ will act in accordance with an FBI recommendation to indict. I'd hope that an FBI nod would be acted upon, but frankly, I trust Comey to do his job a whole lot more than I trust Lynch to do hers.

[BlueSwan]

Of course not. The entire thing is blown completely out of proportion, solely due to the fact that the "case" involves one Hillary Clinton.

[SteveRogers]

No. Again. Still. Forever.

[Shadows]

There is enough material in there for here to live as a disgraced politician for the rest of her life with the indictment n everything.

But Obama DOJ won't. But if news of her being guilty comes before the Convention (leak), the Dems have to throw her under a bus & get a new person as nominee regardless of Obama pardoning her.

[Panda Express]

But if news of her being guilty comes before the Convention (leak), the Dems have to throw her under a bus & get a new person as nominee regardless of Obama pardoning her.

The new person would be Joe Biden.

[Ljube]

She should be.

[dspNY]

No. Next question

[BlueSwan]

I'm a bit curious here. What on earth are supposedly informed people on this board basing these ridiculous ideas that Clinton has committed some high crime on? Her predecessors did exactly the same thing.

[dax00]

I'm a bit curious here. What on earth are supposedly informed people on this board basing these ridiculous ideas that Clinton has committed some high crime on? Her predecessors did exactly the same thing.

I believe all her predecessors who committed the same egregious offense should be indicted as well.

[SillyAmerican]

I'm a bit curious here. What on earth are supposedly informed people on this board basing these ridiculous ideas that Clinton has committed some high crime on? Her predecessors did exactly the same thing.

I believe all her predecessors who committed the same egregious offense should be indicted as well.

Yup. Anyone in government who moves sensitive information onto a private server should face charges; doesn't matter what office they hold, doesn't matter what party they belong to, doesn't matter what their last name happens to be. Same standard across the board. Got it?

[Shadows]

I'm a bit curious here. What on earth are supposedly informed people on this board basing these ridiculous ideas that Clinton has committed some high crime on? Her predecessors did exactly the same thing.

Colin Powell made 1-2 emails from his gmail account. Hillary made a whole freaking Server of Clintonemail where she handled 1000's of Classified emails, some of which are "Top Secret" & can't be released. Some emails talk about throwing governments & so on & she claims all these 1000 or so emails plus the Top-Secret stuff were termed classified later.

To create a private server she may have given her password to her staffer which if she did is a direct violation & game over.

Her staff Bryan Pagliano who pleaded the 5th got immunity in this criminal investigation which many times when someone could be indicted, whether her or her staff. You don't throw around immunity.

Already Classified stuff were found in the account of Huma Abeddin or whatever her name is. This account was co-incidentally hacked by an online hacker. The hacker said he read Clinton's emails while gardening & for fun & this hacker exposed the clintonemail stuff.

The hacker has since been extradited. She also wiped her sever clean, deleted some 30,000 emails & then handed it to the FBI claiming those were personal emails. She did not discuss with the FBI or show them any of these emails while doing it. The FBI has recovered quite a section of these emails.

There is enough material there. The FBI has now called to interrogate 4 of Clinton's aides who have now gone for a "Common" lawyer so that they give the "same" story. Clinton may not be indicted but if anyone things this is a small thing, they are just being dumb,

[SillyAmerican]

I went back and re-read Michael Mukasey's op-ed piece in the WSJ, entitled
Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified. What he said back in January is even more true today: Hillary’s explanations look increasingly contrived as evidence of malfeasance mounts day by day.

Anyone thinking she'll be able to dodge the FBI should read through that article.

[Ebsy]

I went back and re-read Michael Mukasey's op-ed piece in the WSJ, entitled
Clinton’s Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified. What he said back in January is even more true today: Hillary’s explanations look increasingly contrived as evidence of malfeasance mounts day by day.

Anyone thinking she'll be able to dodge the FBI should read through that article.

Yes I always get my legal opinions from former Republican appointed attorneys general.

[This account no longer in use.]

No (sane, normal, etc.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

No.

If I'm wrong, she'll be acquitted in what will prove to be a shamefully political prosecution.

I don't like her, but this e-mail stuff is just that.  Stuff.  And nonsense.

[President Freedom]

Yes!!!

[Meclazine for Israel]

https://youtu.be/1hvqZuQ9nj0?t=12

The first 3 seconds of this video link says it all.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I'm a bit curious here. What on earth are supposedly informed people on this board basing these ridiculous ideas that Clinton has committed some high crime on? Her predecessors did exactly the same thing.

That's... not entirely accurate. Politifact rates it as Mostly False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice had private email addresses, yes. And they did conduct some official business over them. But they didn't have private servers, and they did use their state.gov address for most of their official email. Clinton never even activated hers.

I used to be in the "oh, it's all Republican BS" crowd, but then a (pro-Sanders, but non-fanatic - he'd vote Hillary over Trump, even now) friend pointed out  to me that Clinton never appointed an Inspector General the entire time she was Secretary of State. That didn't seem right, and I started trying to do more reading. (Doing that while avoiding BS from Republicans with Clinton derangement syndrome was difficult.)

The emails she exchanged with Sidney Blumenthal are problematic at best.

She held on to her private server and its data long after leaving office, including transferring its full contents to a hosting company with no security clearance or existing relationship with the government.  (And may have tried to get that company to delete its backups AFTER Congress asked for her emails....)

At least two of the emails on her server were flat-out Top Secret at the highest level, no ifs, ands, or buts, and they should never have been there. They are not the result of post-facto classification, or anything like it.

Lower-level staff have been prosecuted for similar but lesser things.

She's said a lot of specific things about the emails and her server, both under oath and otherwise, that do not appear to be true. (It looks to me like she really did delete official emails, for example.)

There's always a chance of a flat-out quid pro quo email that hasn't popped up yet. The email investigation may have already spilled over into investigating Clinton Foundation shadiness. And there may be a grand jury impaneled for this already.

In the end, at least to me, it doesn't look good. Past tar-baby and into ticking bomb territory. Clinton was, at best, doing a high-wire act on the far edge of what was legal, and my gut is that she didn't actually pull it off without some stumbles into lawbreaking.

The Republicans have certainly done Clinton a big favor by spending years blowing a giant storm of smoke without fire. (Imagine the result of the State Department's IG report if it had come out without years of Republican posturing?) In spite of that, I'm starting to think she's going to be in trouble, if she isn't already.

And by trouble, I mean either she's going to be indicted, or FBI Director Comey (and / or other senior FBI figures) resign in protest that she hasn't been, before leaking everything they have.

[Fusionmunster]

I'm a bit curious here. What on earth are supposedly informed people on this board basing these ridiculous ideas that Clinton has committed some high crime on? Her predecessors did exactly the same thing.

That's... not entirely accurate. Politifact rates it as Mostly False.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/09/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-said-my-predecessors-did-same-thin/

Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice had private email addresses, yes. And they did conduct some official business over them. But they didn't have private servers, and they did use their state.gov address for most of their official email. Clinton never even activated hers.

I used to be in the "oh, it's all Republican BS" crowd, but then a (pro-Sanders, but non-fanatic - he'd vote Hillary over Trump, even now) friend pointed out  to me that Clinton never appointed an Inspector General the entire time she was Secretary of State. That didn't seem right, and I started trying to do more reading. (Doing that while avoiding BS from Republicans with Clinton derangement syndrome was difficult.)

The emails she exchanged with Sidney Blumenthal are problematic at best.

She held on to her private server and its data long after leaving office, including transferring its full contents to a hosting company with no security clearance or existing relationship with the government.  (And may have tried to get that company to delete its backups AFTER Congress asked for her emails....)

At least two of the emails on her server were flat-out Top Secret at the highest level, no ifs, ands, or buts, and they should never have been there. They are not the result of post-facto classification, or anything like it.

Lower-level staff have been prosecuted for similar but lesser things.

She's said a lot of specific things about the emails and her server, both under oath and otherwise, that do not appear to be true. (It looks to me like she really did delete official emails, for example.)

There's always a chance of a flat-out quid pro quo email that hasn't popped up yet. The email investigation may have already spilled over into investigating Clinton Foundation shadiness. And there may be a grand jury impaneled for this already.

In the end, at least to me, it doesn't look good. Past tar-baby and into ticking bomb territory. Clinton was, at best, doing a high-wire act on the far edge of what was legal, and my gut is that she didn't actually pull it off without some stumbles into lawbreaking.

The Republicans have certainly done Clinton a big favor by spending years blowing a giant storm of smoke without fire. (Imagine the result of the State Department's IG report if it had come out without years of Republican posturing?) In spite of that, I'm starting to think she's going to be in trouble, if she isn't already.

And by trouble, I mean either she's going to be indicted, or FBI Director Comey (and / or other senior FBI figures) resign in protest that she hasn't been, before leaking everything they have.

Your making some big assumptions there.

And people keep saying that low level staffers would have been prosecuted for much less than what Hillary did yet I havent seen anything of the sort.