Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumAnother Fitzmas Fizzle?
Seems like the President is signaling that this is no big deal to him. Does that mean the DOJ won't do anything with this?
TDale313
(7,820 posts)Response to TDale313 (Reply #1)
leftcoastmountains This message was self-deleted by its author.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)His SOS ran a rogue pay for play right under his nose.
And this, over and above, the email shenanigans.
He fears this will tarnish his 'legacy.'
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)him working secretly for her.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)over how they had completely skunked the president.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)My thought is that if she skated with nothing happening, then those that have suspicions, it will just say that the fix was in. And for those that believe she could do no wrong, it will just vindicate their beliefs.
I don't see a big change in opinions in either camp. Those that don't follow things closely, will see some negativity associated with her either way. Headlines saying "Hillary was cleared of wrongdoing" still associate wrongdoing with Hillary.
Now if ANY indictments came out at all, I think it would be an additional negative on some of her support.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)I obviously don't know what the FBI will report after their investigation is concluded but the fact the President felt the need to come out and defend Hillary prior to the end of that investigation doesn't tell me it's no big deal to him. Just saying.
antigop
(12,778 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)I posted in another thread that I was shocked he came out and did this prior to the FBI investigation ending.
that he did this prior to the FBI completing it's investigation. It's like he was trying to send them a message. He obviously can't contact them directly so it looked like he was doing the next best thing. I think he chose to go on Fox because he knew they would ask about the emails. There is no way they wouldn't on FOX. I could be wrong but it really looked to me like this was the reason for this interview. He wanted them to ask about it so he could send his message.
Another person who agreed posted this:
'I do not talk to the attorney general about pending investigations'
http://www.kcci.com/politics/obama-guarantees-he-will-not-interfere-with-clinton-email-investigation/38956136
Check out our conversation in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1697646
antigop
(12,778 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Have some been calling it a security review?
antigop
(12,778 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)When she sent and received classified email over an uncertified server, in the words of subsection (f) of that statute (18 USC Sec. 793) she violated:
Please. see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653
Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
. . .
(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.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)Comey is a Republican because Obama likes to appoint him some Republicans. So if DOJ tries to cover it up if there is anything then Comey is going to come out about it. That why he is waiting till "after convention" as he said because he does not want to hurt her chances of getting the nomination. Then if that happens we will see truth come out, probably about Oct.
gordianot
(15,238 posts)That is the way it should be. When Nixon tried tried to interfere with justice he learned the hard way there were consequences.
As a constitutional expert I am sure President Obama realizes his role and acts accordingly.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Obama can't interfere with the investigation by contacting the FBI directly but it seems to me that he went right up to the line by trying to communicate to the FBI via the news media. He would be better off to wait until they finish their investigation before he gives his opinion about it.
gordianot
(15,238 posts)Makes one wonder what could go wrong? As my attorney once told me in a land dispute you never know what might happen in court even when facts appear to be in your favor.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Not sure that will be so easy to swallow. She was willfully working around a decision to deny her used of a blackberry for secure communications. I'm not sure how narrowly intent can be parsed.
Moreover, competely ignoring any legal issues, they're pushing us to believe it was all just a mistake' hoping that voters won't see that such a mistake was caused by a feature of her eminence's personality.
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)He was trying to help her out on "intent".
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)no one is saying that.
It's rather similar to the slight of hand that magicians use. NO ONE can demonstrate that she willfully committed treason isn't a defense against the real issue which is that serious knowledgeable people think she broke US Code in the manner she handled secure communications.
It's a diversion. It's not much different from the 'she's always escaped before so she's not guilty not' argument. It's a non sequitur
leveymg
(36,418 posts)For a full explanation of why neither intent nor a showing of actual damage to the national defense is a prerequisite for conviction under this felony (10 years imprisonment), please see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251552653
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.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Personally I'm troubled as much by what this seems to reveal about her personality and sense of self-entitlement as the law.
I don't think any treaty or international traditions of behavior would long stand in her way. Given her interest in intervention and claims of international rights to protect, we could quickly find ourselves with forces 'protecting' others all over SW Asia and SE Europe.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Before she was a neocon, she was a Cold Warrior. It only takes one Russian aircraft shot down over her Syrian No-Fly Zone to start that conflict which can't be contained to proxies.
The stakes couldn't possibly be higher.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)There's no way she didn't know better.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)HRC and Co want us to believe what she did was akin to speeding...everyone does it, and in this case even Colin Powell and Condi Rice admit to sometimes using private email in the office.
The issue is willfully acting to put in place and use technology that resulted in mishandling of sensitive documents. And she did it because she wanted to use a Blackberry device that she was told shouldn't be used for sensitive documents.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)how many more mistakes is she going to make if she is elected president?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I almost hope for a Watergate style blowup with the AG resigning. This meddling by Obama is really, really awful.
NJCher
(35,675 posts)to put it mildly.
Obama is not someone who talks for the sake of talking. To say I was shocked as I read the Washington Post article would be understating it.
I think he's trying to pull something here. I'm shocked, disappointed, and surprised. I did not expect this of him.
Cher
noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)And he chose to do this on Fox where he knew they would bring up this specific topic. No way they wouldn't. When was the last time Obama was on Fox? Feb 2014. Coinkydink?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)A big disappointment since day one. Promises are for the poor to keep apparently.
djean111
(14,255 posts)it is the war and the fracking and the TPP, etc. But, yeah, Obama is likely "preserving his legacy". Or really does not give a shit.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)He well knows people in high office should never make comments like that about an ongoing investigation.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)so to speak.
leftcoastmountains
(2,968 posts)it won't mean a Hill of beans.