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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
38 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Another Fitzmas Fizzle? (Original Post) 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

Response to TDale313 (Reply #1)

yourpaljoey

(2,166 posts)
2. If this all comes out he will look like the king of fools
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:02 PM
Apr 2016

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)
31. Zactly and don't forget he didn't want Blumenthal involved but Hillary ignored that on had
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:57 PM
Apr 2016

him working secretly for her.

yourpaljoey

(2,166 posts)
33. I'll bet Hill and Blumenthal were rolling on the floor with laughter
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:05 PM
Apr 2016

over how they had completely skunked the president.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
3. At this point, it may not matter as much.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:02 PM
Apr 2016

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)
4. Don't See it That Way
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:03 PM
Apr 2016

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.

noretreatnosurrender

(1,890 posts)
9. I agree with you
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:15 PM
Apr 2016

I posted in another thread that I was shocked he came out and did this prior to the FBI investigation ending.

I was actually shocked

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:

Obama 'guarantees' he will not interfere with Clinton email investigation
'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)
15. yep -- HRC. (updated with link)
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:25 PM
Apr 2016
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268688-fbi-confirms-probe-clinton-probe-is-ongoing

“I am 100 percent confident [that the probe will not become criminal],” the former secretary of State said in a Democratic presidential debate last week. “This is a security review requested and carried out that will be resolved.”


leveymg

(36,418 posts)
29. As I read it, he acknowledges she can be charged with Sec 793, a felony that doesn't require intent
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:49 PM
Apr 2016

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


18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

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.
 

Gwhittey

(1,377 posts)
6. I don't think DOJ can just sit on it.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:05 PM
Apr 2016

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)
7. In the real world of the Executive Branch the DOJ and justice is blind.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:06 PM
Apr 2016

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)
12. Going Right Up to the Line
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:22 PM
Apr 2016

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)
17. Yes I just saw that.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:28 PM
Apr 2016

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)
13. IMO he's signaling no criminal intent, while she maybe didn't comply with regulations...
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:23 PM
Apr 2016

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.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
19. I think that works better against a charge that she materially helped an enemy. But...
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:58 PM
Apr 2016

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)
30. 18 USC 793, sections (e) and (f) do not require that she actually helped anyone or even intended to
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:55 PM
Apr 2016

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

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

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)
32. I know, I'm familiar with your posts on this topic...
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:02 PM
Apr 2016

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)
34. I think we would find ourselves fighting directly with Eurasia.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:06 PM
Apr 2016

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)
22. A lack of criminal intent isn't the same thing as a lack of criminal action.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:08 PM
Apr 2016

There's no way she didn't know better.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
23. Mostly I think it's intended to misdirect but, yes, you're right. The question is 'which' laws?
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:18 PM
Apr 2016

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.


grasswire

(50,130 posts)
18. Didn't Lynch warn the WH not to talk about this?????
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:38 PM
Apr 2016

I almost hope for a Watergate style blowup with the AG resigning. This meddling by Obama is really, really awful.

NJCher

(35,675 posts)
25. disturbing
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:31 PM
Apr 2016

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)
26. Yup
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:45 PM
Apr 2016

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)
28. It's exactly what I expected him to do.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:47 PM
Apr 2016

A big disappointment since day one. Promises are for the poor to keep apparently.

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
21. It is not like the email thing is why I won't vote for her.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:07 PM
Apr 2016

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)
37. If he is attempting to preserve his legacy, this could backfire big time.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:38 PM
Apr 2016

He well knows people in high office should never make comments like that about an ongoing investigation.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Bernie Sanders»Another Fitzmas Fizzle?