Lynch non-committal on Clinton email prosecution

[nashville_brook]

Source: POLITICO

Lynch non-committal on Clinton email prosecution
By JOSH GERSTEIN 02/24/16 12:32 PM EST


Attorney General Loretta Lynch declined Wednesday to discuss how she would make a decision about whether to prosecute Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over classified information found on her private email server.

However, Lynch did say the investigation and the Justice Department's review of the matter would follow the usual process and procedure for such matters.

"This will be conducted as every other case and we will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as to how to best handle it," Lynch said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday morning.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/02/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-prosecution-219733

[Politicalboi]

1. She's been bought

I wonder how much she took. Disgusting

[DeadLetterOffice]

3. Any evidence for that claim? Just curious.

I don't know any background on the relationship between Lynch and HRC.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

25. It's an opinion.

It's sad that you can't give an opinion around here without someone alerting because they happen not to agree.

[DeadLetterOffice]

41. I didn't alert, I asked a genuine question

The post offered up a statement, I asked what evidence there was to support the statement.

It's sad that you can't ask a question around here and get an actual answer.

[DeadLetterOffice]

6. Jury Results (brought to you by juror #3)

She's been bought
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1358322

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Accusing a Democratic AG of a felony with absolutely no evidence and none presented.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Feb 24, 2016, 03:09 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hit the reply button once in a while instead of the alert button.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Opinion. Not one I agree with necessarily, but opinion nonetheless. And if someone said it about a Republican we wouldn't even bat an eyelash. Argue about it in the thread.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Geez, let it stand. It's worth discussing; when have we ever needed evidence for conjecture?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Random noise like that is Republican garbage not fit for DU.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree completely with the alerter. This is democratic underground not some right wing website. Hide this crap!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[JudyM]

15. Why do they want to shut down communication about widespread crony-corruption?

It ain't all tinfoil hat, folks.

[CoffeeCat]

31. That's crazy, that the remark could be hidden!

My feeling is that if it is opinion--unless it's a personal attack--it should not be hidden. Or even alerted!

This is getting so ridiculous.

Some DUers are acting like professional tattle tales.

I RARELY hide--even if the post is disparaging or insulting to Bernie. This is a political message board! What is wrong with people??

You don't want to discuss or read about dissenting opinions--then why are you here?

So bizarre!

[saturnsring]

12. lol

[NV Whino]

2. She'll look into it.

[bobthedrummer]

4. +1 n/t

[DeadLetterOffice]

7. well, what was she supposed to say...

... about an ongoing investigation?
(I'm a Sanders supporter for the primaries btw, before anyone accuses me of being blind about HRC's faults or some such.)

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

26. And probably tell Hillary to "cut it out!!".

[NV Whino]

39. Yep.

[George II]

5. What words were used by her to say she was "non-committal"?

What she said was that she would conduct an INDEPENDENT review of the case:

"Attorney general promises 'independent' review of Clinton email case"

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/270592-lynch-promises-independent-review-of-clinton-case

[Jarqui]

9. I didn't see anything wrong with her answers

"With respect to our investigation into how information was handled by the State Department, how they handled classified information, as I'm sure you know that matter is being handled by career, independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents as well as the career, independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence. They look at the law. And they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," Lynch said.

I've read they've had between 100-150 FBI agents looking into this over a period of months. And they've also had agents from the Intelligence Community to determine the disposition of classification of the documents during that time - as well as other departments. And two Inspector Generals offices looking into it.

You would think that after all these months, that if all these people are seeing is a misdemeanor, you'd have to wonder why the FBI would still hanging around. At the very least, they could pull the FBI out because there's no big crime and let the Intelligence Community and Inspector Generals sort the rest out.

But that's not happening. They've got to be looking at something that has the potential to be more than a misdemeanor. That's a lot of man hours to conclude "Oh well, give Huma the equivalent of a speeding ticket misdemeanor for being sloppy with classified material and move on." For them to be still going at it, there has to be something more that has caught their attention.

[leveymg]

20. Violations of Sec. 793 of the Espionage Act under FBI investigation are felonies not misdemeanors

"Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). Conviction under either part carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment. Intent to harm the US is not a necessary element of these parts of the statute. The mere fact of mishandling classified materials will get you or me, and those who have been actually convicted of storing classified materials on unsecured home computers, thrown in federal prison for years. It's all in there:

See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653

[Jarqui]

22. What about this:

How David Petraeus avoided felony charges and possible prison time

Petraeus, in the end, pleaded guilty last year to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material.

Now, I understand that every case is different. What Petraeus did seems more deliberate compared to maybe negligence on Clinton or her staffs part. And he got off with a misdemeanor of "mishandling classified material."

This was the misdemeanor Petraeus pled guilty to:

Sec. 1924. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term "classified information of the United States" means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

I'm not clear why a misdemeanor charge like that wouldn't be an option for the FBI and Justice Dept. She did have it at home ("classified information of the United States" "without authority" "an unauthorized location", etc).

That of course depends on them not finding more serious breaches of the laws.

[leveymg]

23. Plead down. Charging doc originally specified 793.

It's on-line. USDC NC.

[Jarqui]

24. For sure. Can you imagine sending a man like Petraeus to prison?

I can't. Not when you weigh all the good things he's done against the bad.

Similarly, can you see them driving off with Hillary in cuffs, taking her to a prison?

She'd have to have done something really naughty.

It's a double standard. I get it. Everyone should all be treated the same. But the punishment for this could end her campaign or if she's in office with the GOP in control, maybe they impeach. There's a little more to the punishment than just the prison time in her case.

[Beowulf]

33. To big to jail, I guess.

Now if Hill was an AA caught with an ounce of marijuana.

[Jarqui]

34. Great comeback! Sentencing under the Clinton Crime Bill?

To go from a favorite to get the Democratic nomination ... to jail.

That's a big fall for maybe being a little loose or naive with classified material. But you're right, it isn't how a non celebrity would be treated.

I remember Gary Hart ... lookin' good ... whoops, an affair! ... end of campaign.

If she obstructed justice by deleting those emails or there's quid pro quo with the Clinton Foundation donors who got helped by the State Department, that's different matter - Hillary in Handcuffs.

The trouble with her is she is so loose with the truth, the DNC could never be sure how vulnerable she is. They're taking quite a chance.

My sixth sense is saying the GOP already have the goods on her. They want her to get the nomination and then a few weeks before the election, nuke her so that the Dems have no time to recover.

[Yo_Mama]

10. She has to be - this is the bookend to the ridiculous Alito thread.

She was not-noncommittal, nor did she decline to discuss how she would make a decision. She was appropriate and nonpolitical.

She said that the investigation was being handled by independent career (not political employees) and that when they were ready to present she would review their recommendations neutrally, and that this case would be handled as any other would be.

If she said, oh, yeah, we are gonna get her, she would be compromising the independence of the investigators. If she said, no, we are not going to prosecute, she would be compromising the independence of the investigators. If she said, I am waiting until the investigation finishes before telling you what I have already decided to do, she would be undercutting them.

Leaving them alone to do their work is what she should do, and what she said she would do.

[andrewv1]

11. In all fairness to Lynch, does she need to prosecute?

I would think if the FBI makes it recommendation to indict, that would automatically suspend Clinton's Presidential Campaign without prosecution.

Or would she still go on?

[Yupster]

21. She'd go on

as if nothing was wrong.

[saturnsring]

13. it's persecution not prosecution

[BillZBubb]

29. Not if she knowingly put classified information on her server.

That's a crime. Did she? The evidence isn't conclusive at this point.

[saturnsring]

32. The evidence isn't conclusive at this point. which means innocent

[BillZBubb]

35. That's a foolish statement. Sure she's "innocent" until proven guilty AS ARE ALL CRIMINAL SUSPECTS!

[saturnsring]

36. which means you have nothing

[BillZBubb]

37. You are doubling down on your foolishness?

Of course I have nothing. I'm not investigating her. The State Department, the FBI, and outside organizations are. It isn't about me.

The FBI thinks they have probable cause to investigate. That means they have found suspicious activity. Whether it leads somewhere or not is up in the air. Just on the face of it, though, it doesn't look good. The FBI isn't the republican congress.

[FiveGoodMen]

16. If Hillary becomes the nominee, I'll bet they decide to prosecute in the fall

[Bradical79]

19. Why would she decide to prosecute right before elections? -nt

[Bradical79]

17. Not sure what's to discuss on that subject

Seems to me it would be jumping the gun to discuss prosecution of Clinton before the FBI investigation has determined what crimes (if any) she commited.

[Cheiko]

18. Prosecutors never discuss

These issues.

[leftofcool]

27. In other words, it's all bullshit. Thank you for recognizing this Ms Lynch!

[BillZBubb]

30. Wishful thinking as usual.

There is evidence that indicates Hillary knowingly put classified information on her server. We don't know how strong that evidence is yet. If she did it, it's a crime, not bullshit.

[BillZBubb]

28. Lynch: "We'll treat her like we do all bank representatives".

[apnu]

38. Does anybody know what law Hillary broke with the email sever?

I was under the impression that there was no law or policy against her using that email server and no law or policy in the State Department stating what email accounts they could use. I've been told the Rice and Powell State Departments also did not have any such law or policy and that SoS Kerry is the first SoS to have a policy defining email use by the State Department.

So what could AG Lynch prosecute Clinton on at all? Why be mum about it? If there's a law that's been broken, tell us and peruse it. Why is this so hard to figure out? Why is anybody being coy about this?

[metalbot]

40. There were no laws or policies against using an email server

What's at issue is whether or not the server was used to hold classified information that should have remained on "secured" (and I use that term loosely and somewhat sarcastically) government servers.