Hillary May Be Charged Within 60 Days

[Jhhnn]

Indictments should have already been made. There is no question she violated the Espionage Act at this point. They have all the proof they need. Any normal citizen / politician would probably already be convicted and serving their sentence by now since the case is open and shut. Frankly, it is a disgrace that it's gone on this long.

And if no indictments are forthcoming it's just part of a much greater conspiracy, I'm sure.

Got yourself primed for that already.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

are we past 60 days yet? has hillary been charged? indicted? arrested?

 

[fskimospy]

are we past 60 days yet? has hillary been charged? indicted? arrested?

That story being obviously wrong would be less depressing if conservatives wouldn't swallow the next, equally preposterous story that will come up just as readily.

 

[werepossum]

Indictments should have already been made. There is no question she violated the Espionage Act at this point. They have all the proof they need. Any normal citizen / politician would probably already be convicted and serving their sentence by now since the case is open and shut. Frankly, it is a disgrace that it's gone on this long.

I agree that an ordinary citizen would probably have already been convicted, but she's not an ordinary citizen. She's one of the elite. Hillary is unusually arrogant and blatant, but the same underlying behavior has been observed in all the elites. How can we honestly say that Hillary should be imprisoned for improperly handling classified documents on her own private server without going after the Bushies on their RNC servers? Is there some magic number of illegally handled classified documents after which we say "Okay, now we're serious, now we're actually going to enforce the law."? What about Powell who did all his official business on a commercial email provider? Sure, the Hildabeast is more blatant and has more latitude for abuse, but the underlying infractions are exactly the same.

Assuming the D.C. elites agreed to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, maybe they can agreed that other cases are too old to prosecute, but do you really think they would agree to behave as per the new precedent? It's one thing to have a political issue to attack Clinton, quite another to take action that would hamper you too. Maybe they aren't as blatant as Clinton, but none of them want to lose their own freedom to flaunt the law, especially where it would hamper their ability to do their own work.

Unless there's something egregious AND more unusual than we've seen leaked - which I judge unlikely as Mrs. Clinton has tons of people in D.C. who hate her personally and professionally - then I see zero probability she'll be indicted, much less convicted, and much much less imprisoned. And while I consider Mrs. Clinton to be among the worst of a bad lot, I can't ethically say that she should be indicted. To be fair - and government has far too much power to intentionally accept it not being fair - then if one is indicted, they must all be indicted. Even assuming we get a President Trump or President Cruz who would love to see the Hildabeast behind bars, we still have to consider practicality. Right now we have no convenient way to fix this, and the D.C. elites aren't going to sacrifice their own convenience and freedom just to knock off Her Royal Highness. She just isn't that different from the rest of them.

I could always be wrong, but I don't think that's where the smart money is riding.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree that an ordinary citizen would probably have already been convicted, but she's not an ordinary citizen. She's one of the elite. Hillary is unusually arrogant and blatant, but the same underlying behavior has been observed in all the elites. How can we honestly say that Hillary should be imprisoned for improperly handling classified documents on her own private server without going after the Bushies on their RNC servers? Is there some magic number of illegally handled classified documents after which we say "Okay, now we're serious, now we're actually going to enforce the law."? What about Powell who did all his official business on a commercial email provider? Sure, the Hildabeast is more blatant and has more latitude for abuse, but the underlying infractions are exactly the same.

Assuming the D.C. elites agreed to prosecute Mrs. Clinton, maybe they can agreed that other cases are too old to prosecute, but do you really think they would agree to behave as per the new precedent? It's one thing to have a political issue to attack Clinton, quite another to take action that would hamper you too. Maybe they aren't as blatant as Clinton, but none of them want to lose their own freedom to flaunt the law, especially where it would hamper their ability to do their own work.

Unless there's something egregious AND more unusual than we've seen leaked - which I judge unlikely as Mrs. Clinton has tons of people in D.C. who hate her personally and professionally - then I see zero probability she'll be indicted, much less convicted, and much much less imprisoned. And while I consider Mrs. Clinton to be among the worst of a bad lot, I can't ethically say that she should be indicted. To be fair - and government has far too much power to intentionally accept it not being fair - then if one is indicted, they must all be indicted. Even assuming we get a President Trump or President Cruz who would love to see the Hildabeast behind bars, we still have to consider practicality. Right now we have no convenient way to fix this, and the D.C. elites aren't going to sacrifice their own convenience and freedom just to knock off Her Royal Highness. She just isn't that different from the rest of them.

I could always be wrong, but I don't think that's where the smart money is riding.

Or maybe it's just a corollary to birtherism, fast & furious, the IRS flap & benghazi. Maybe it's like Joe McCarthy's list of commies in the State dept. Maybe righties' bullshit detectors are irretrievably broken.

 

[Fern]

are we past 60 days yet? has hillary been charged? indicted? arrested?

It's still an ongoing investigation. And I believe that 60 day estimate was made before it was known that the investigation was expanded to include the Clinton Foundation, which obviously means more time.

Fern

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It's still an ongoing investigation. And I believe that 60 day estimate was made before it was known that the investigation was expanded to include the Clinton Foundation, which obviously means more time.

Fern

So it's an indefinite investigation and the people who are clamoring for it will not be satisfied with the results until hillary is found 100% guilty, no matter how long it takes or how much it costs, is that a fair assessment?
I get it, I still think the warren commission is b.s. and nothing, not one thing will change my mind, short of going back in time and witnessing the assassination over oswalds shoulder.

 

[werepossum]

It's still an ongoing investigation. And I believe that 60 day estimate was made before it was known that the investigation was expanded to include the Clinton Foundation, which obviously means more time.

Fern

Wait - do we definitely know that this investigation has been expanded to include the Clinton Foundation? Or is it that simply another D.C. leak?

 

[Jhhnn]

It's still an ongoing investigation. And I believe that 60 day estimate was made before it was known that the investigation was expanded to include the Clinton Foundation, which obviously means more time.

Fern

It's not "known" but rather alleged by the same sources spreading the usual excreta.

Comey & the FBI have done a really great job of containing actual leaks forcing propagandists to just wing it with whatever speculation can be dreamed up & attributed to anonymous ( but authoritative!) sources.

 

[MongGrel]

It's still an ongoing investigation. And I believe that 60 day estimate was made before it was known that the investigation was expanded to include the Clinton Foundation, which obviously means more time.

Fern

Hillary wins the General Election, and on Inauguration Day the FBI shows up and slaps hand cuffs on her on the platform.

:sneaky:

 

[werepossum]

Hillary wins the General Election, and on Inauguration Day the FBI shows up and slaps hand cuffs on her on the platform.

:sneaky:

lol As my first official act, I pardon myself for all crimes which I may or may not, but in fact have, committed.

I could actually see Hillary being indicted on corruption charges IFF they found evidence. But in an election year, I'm not automatically buying the notion that the FBI is officially investigating the Clinton Foundation. "Sources close to the investigation" have agendas too. I have zero doubt that she used her position to swing government contracts to big donors, but I highly doubt she's any less skilled at doing so without smoking guns or criminal acts than any other denizen of D.C. They well know how they have to handle such things. They ALL well know how they have to handle such things. It's what makes them worth buying.

 

[Jhhnn]

lol As my first official act, I pardon myself for all crimes which I may or may not, but in fact have, committed.

I could actually see Hillary being indicted on corruption charges IFF they found evidence. But in an election year, I'm not automatically buying the notion that the FBI is officially investigating the Clinton Foundation. "Sources close to the investigation" have agendas too. I have zero doubt that she used her position to swing government contracts to big donors, but I highly doubt she's any less skilled at doing so without smoking guns or criminal acts than any other denizen of D.C. They well know how they have to handle such things. They ALL well know how they have to handle such things. It's what makes them worth buying.

Yeh, you're not necessarily buying it but you're spreading innuendo anyway.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

So it's an indefinite investigation and the people who are clamoring for it will not be satisfied with the results until hillary is found 100% guilty, no matter how long it takes or how much it costs, is that a fair assessment?
I get it, I still think the warren commission is b.s. and nothing, not one thing will change my mind, short of going back in time and witnessing the assassination over oswalds shoulder.

So I guess I will ask it again, at what point would the people here be ok with the results of the findings? Only when hillary is found guilty or in 20 years of investigation? I think that's a fair question, at what point are you willing to let go of this? The money spent on this could definitely help the folks in Flint.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So I guess I will ask it again, at what point would the people here be ok with the results of the findings? Only when hillary is found guilty or in 20 years of investigation? I think that's a fair question, at what point are you willing to let go of this? The money spent on this could definitely help the folks in Flint.

Maybe you should ask these question to those in charge of the DOJ/FBI, who are running the investigation. If Hillary or one of her staff violated the law they should get their day in court. Why should the funding from a DOJ/FBI investigation be diverted to another issue?

 

[werepossum]

Yeh, you're not necessarily buying it but you're spreading innuendo anyway.

lol So saying I'm not automatically buying the story is spreading innuendo? I suppose I must deny it's happening to be sufficiently ideologically pure, even though I obviously have no way to know either way.

Even code needs more self-awareness than that.

So I guess I will ask it again, at what point would the people here be ok with the results of the findings? Only when hillary is found guilty or in 20 years of investigation? I think that's a fair question, at what point are you willing to let go of this? The money spent on this could definitely help the folks in Flint.

So could the millions that flow into the Clinton Family Foundation.

Speaking only for myself, I have seen enough to know that Hillary is guilty of violating laws on classified documents and document retention, enough to see that everyone in similar positions of power have done slightly less egregious but essentially equivalent violations, and enough to see that the proper, legal methods available are clunky, inconvenient, and not something that either party will willingly embrace for itself. Taking as a given that the FBI will not and cannot indict everyone who made similar indictments, assuming she is not indicted I am fine with that. My position now is that Mrs. Clinton did on 11 what everyone else did on 9 or 10, so if nothing happens to change my mind, my view will remain the same. It's not only consistent with the elites not holding themselves to such strict standards as the rest of us, but also broadly consistent with Justice. It's just difficult to ethically prosecute the man who kills five people while insisting that the man who killed four is fundamentally different. (Note that this also allows the possibility that they all do it on 11, just most are more discreet.)

Corruption within the Clinton Family Foundation is a bit different. I have a big problem with Huma being simultaneously employed full time by the State Department, Hillary's own office, the Clinton Foundation, and a private lobbying firm. That's a huge conflict of interest being supporting by my tax dollars. Yet I don't know to what degree that is unique. Similarly, we all know that the elite steer very lucrative contracts to their friends and big donors - but I repeat myself. That is one major reason they have big donors, that and the ability to propose/legislate/interpret laws favorable to those donors. We also know that Justice WILL prosecute politicians of either party who cross certain lines. Just as with Tom Delay, politicians can do the exact same thing and either be following or breaking the letter of the law depending on exactly how they do those things. There are some things they must do, and some they must not do. Therefore, assuming Mrs. Clinton is not indicted for Clinton Foundation activities (which may or may not even be under FBI investigation), I assume she did nothing which is actionable. The FBI investigation is simply too big for them to hide any blatant violations that should be prosecuted. Also, I trust Comey far more than the average DC denizen. If there is something that definitely should be prosecuted and Obama quashes it for political reason, I believe Comey will resign in protest rather than silently allow someone who should be in prison. (I have seen things that to me SEEM unusual violations, such as demanding that classified markings be removed and the paper sent unsecured, but unless and until she is indicted for them, I will assume that they are within acceptable boundaries of SecState boundaries.) Short of that, I will assume that any leaks indicating that she should be prosecuted are politically motivated, unless of course they are extremely well documented. It's always theoretically possible she honestly should be prosecuted and is not, I just trust Comey and the FBI enough to not assume that. Doesn't mean I believe she has broken no laws or done nothing that would see me prosecuted had I done them, it just means she did nothing deemed unacceptable by my standards. (An example would be water boarding; if I water board my neighbor, I am in serious shit even if he then admits he took my water hose. Rank hath it's privileges.)

So again, my current default position is that Hillary has done nothing that ethically recommends indictment. Thus there is no magic point in days or dollars required to reach that conclusion. Doesn't mean I believe she has broken no laws, of course.

 

[werepossum]

Maybe a good example would be bribery. If I am a low level State Department, and I requisition cash and use that cash to bribe a foreign official, then I am in serious shit. I have broken the law, and likely I will be held accountable. On the other handle, fairly high level State department personnel do this literally every week. If I took the same taxpayers' hard-earned money and made the same bribes to the same people while under orders from above, I am fine. Either way I am breaking the exact same laws, but Justice recognizes that a certain amount of law breaking may be required to carry out legitimate government functions, and thus high level functionaries have limited discretion to do so. Do I like that? Of course not; we should all be held to the same exact laws. But I can understand that we function in the world we have, not the world I might wish. Accordingly, I recognize that some, like Mrs. Clinton, will somewhat abuse that discretion. Perhaps they all do. But again, that discretion exists, and it is the FBI's and Justice' task to decide when it becomes prosecutable. I don't like it either way, but I see no reason to pretend it started with Mrs. Clinton, or that it is easily and practically stoppable. Those of us old enough to recall the dog's breakfast President Carter made of the CIA and State have learned that idealism is sometimes self-defeating, bitter as that might be to swallow.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe you should ask these question to those in charge of the DOJ/FBI, who are running the investigation. If Hillary or one of her staff violated the law they should get their day in court. Why should the funding from a DOJ/FBI investigation be diverted to another issue?

Why should the taxpayers pay to pound sand into a partisan rat hole? There's a point where it becomes just that & we've seen Repubs more than willing to cross the line time after time. Sometimes there ain't no there, there no matter how much bullshit gets piled on top of its absence.

I'm sure that the FBI realizes that they need to wrap this up before the conventions & have allocated the resources to do a thorough job in that time frame. There's really only just so much honest evidence to be dealt with. It's not like they see themselves as a partisan congressional committee with license to go on tangential fishing expeditions.

 

[DrPizza]

I agree that an ordinary citizen would probably have already been convicted, but she's not an ordinary citizen.

An ordinary citizen would not have been convicted, because an ordinary citizen wouldn't be the victim of an orchestrated smear campaign, one which hinges on no evidence of wrong-doing. This is like yet another Benghazi committee charged with looking for wrong-doing? How many committees were there so far? And none found any evidence of wrong-doing? I'm not a Hilary fan, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go along with every accusation made against her without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Why should the taxpayers pay to pound sand into a partisan rat hole? There's a point where it becomes just that & we've seen Repubs more than willing to cross the line time after time. Sometimes there ain't no there, there no matter how much bullshit gets piled on top of its absence.

I'm sure that the FBI realizes that they need to wrap this up before the conventions & have allocated the resources to do a thorough job in that time frame. There's really only just so much honest evidence to be dealt with. It's not like they see themselves as a partisan congressional committee with license to go on tangential fishing expeditions.

I didn't realize that the DOJ/FBI was partisan and working for the GOP. Odd considering that there's currently a Democratic administration.

 

[Jhhnn]

I didn't realize that the DOJ/FBI was partisan and working for the GOP. Odd considering that there's currently a Democratic administration.

I didn't say that. Don't pretend that I did.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

So I guess I will ask it again, at what point would the people here be ok with the results of the findings? Only when hillary is found guilty or in 20 years of investigation? I think that's a fair question, at what point are you willing to let go of this? The money spent on this could definitely help the folks in Flint.

It's not some giant conspiracy.... It's the fbi! It will be done when it's done, what anyone else wants isn't relevant.

An ordinary citizen would not have been convicted, because an ordinary citizen wouldn't be the victim of an orchestrated smear campaign, one which hinges on no evidence of wrong-doing. This is like yet another Benghazi committee charged with looking for wrong-doing? How many committees were there so far? And none found any evidence of wrong-doing? I'm not a Hilary fan, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go along with every accusation made against her without any evidence whatsoever.

So, if a drug king pin is smart, and evades prosecution for decades, he is innocent? Just because there was a crime committed, doesn't mean there will be sufficient evidence to prosecute.

 

[Jhhnn]

So, if a drug king pin is smart, and evades prosecution for decades, he is innocent? Just because there was a crime committed, doesn't mean there will be sufficient evidence to prosecute.

Under our legal system, everybody is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers.

What sort of crime are we talking about, anyway? Imperfect handling of sensitive material not resulting in public disclosure? Imperfect discretion on the part of the office of the SoS as an honest effort to do the job?

It's not like she knowingly confirmed the identity of a CIA operative to the media, is it?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I didn't say that. Don't pretend that I did.

Maybe you should have left off the first part of reply. In fact I have no clue as to why you chose to reply to my post other than it was a reflex on your part to attack anyone that replies in this thread with anything that doesn't support your opinion.

 

[MongGrel]

lol So saying I'm not automatically buying the story is spreading innuendo? I suppose I must deny it's happening to be sufficiently ideologically pure, even though I obviously have no way to know either way.

Even code needs more self-awareness than that.


So could the millions that flow into the Clinton Family Foundation.

Speaking only for myself, I have seen enough to know that Hillary is guilty of violating laws on classified documents and document retention, enough to see that everyone in similar positions of power have done slightly less egregious but essentially equivalent violations, and enough to see that the proper, legal methods available are clunky, inconvenient, and not something that either party will willingly embrace for itself. Taking as a given that the FBI will not and cannot indict everyone who made similar indictments, assuming she is not indicted I am fine with that. My position now is that Mrs. Clinton did on 11 what everyone else did on 9 or 10, so if nothing happens to change my mind, my view will remain the same. It's not only consistent with the elites not holding themselves to such strict standards as the rest of us, but also broadly consistent with Justice. It's just difficult to ethically prosecute the man who kills five people while insisting that the man who killed four is fundamentally different. (Note that this also allows the possibility that they all do it on 11, just most are more discreet.)

Corruption within the Clinton Family Foundation is a bit different. I have a big problem with Huma being simultaneously employed full time by the State Department, Hillary's own office, the Clinton Foundation, and a private lobbying firm. That's a huge conflict of interest being supporting by my tax dollars. Yet I don't know to what degree that is unique. Similarly, we all know that the elite steer very lucrative contracts to their friends and big donors - but I repeat myself. That is one major reason they have big donors, that and the ability to propose/legislate/interpret laws favorable to those donors. We also know that Justice WILL prosecute politicians of either party who cross certain lines. Just as with Tom Delay, politicians can do the exact same thing and either be following or breaking the letter of the law depending on exactly how they do those things. There are some things they must do, and some they must not do. Therefore, assuming Mrs. Clinton is not indicted for Clinton Foundation activities (which may or may not even be under FBI investigation), I assume she did nothing which is actionable. The FBI investigation is simply too big for them to hide any blatant violations that should be prosecuted. Also, I trust Comey far more than the average DC denizen. If there is something that definitely should be prosecuted and Obama quashes it for political reason, I believe Comey will resign in protest rather than silently allow someone who should be in prison. (I have seen things that to me SEEM unusual violations, such as demanding that classified markings be removed and the paper sent unsecured, but unless and until she is indicted for them, I will assume that they are within acceptable boundaries of SecState boundaries.) Short of that, I will assume that any leaks indicating that she should be prosecuted are politically motivated, unless of course they are extremely well documented. It's always theoretically possible she honestly should be prosecuted and is not, I just trust Comey and the FBI enough to not assume that. Doesn't mean I believe she has broken no laws or done nothing that would see me prosecuted had I done them, it just means she did nothing deemed unacceptable by my standards. (An example would be water boarding; if I water board my neighbor, I am in serious shit even if he then admits he took my water hose. Rank hath it's privileges.)

So again, my current default position is that Hillary has done nothing that ethically recommends indictment. Thus there is no magic point in days or dollars required to reach that conclusion. Doesn't mean I believe she has broken no laws, of course.

Dubya and Cheney and company broke many laws in various ways for 8 years.

It could have been a mandate for the GOP after 9/11 to look really good at the time, and Duyba screwed up badly at almost every turn.

Was incompetence at the highest level for personal monetary gain.

 

[Jhhnn]

Maybe you should have left off the first part of reply. In fact I have no clue as to why you chose to reply to my post other than it was a reflex on your part to attack anyone that replies in this thread with anything that doesn't support your opinion.

You asked why funding should cease for this investigation. I pointed out the circumstances under which that would be appropriate while affirming the integrity of the FBI at the same time.

It's important to remember that the FBI only entered into a review because the law demands that they do when the intelligence community IG calls for it. They didn't do this on the basis of any suspicion regarding Clinton at all. I'm confident they'll acquit themselves in a non-partisan fashion.