Clinton didnt break the law: DOYLE McMANUS IT MAY NOT sound like it at first, but the FBIs decision to move fast on its investigation of Hillary Clintons email practices is good...

Progressive One

DOYLE McMANUS
IT MAY NOT sound like it at first, but the FBIs decision to move fast on its investigation of Hillary Clintons email practices is good news for the Democratic front-runner.
As my colleague Del Quentin Wilber reported this week, federal prosecutors have begun setting up formal interviews with Clintons advisors. After those sessions, theyre expected to seek an interview with the candidate herself. Clinton has long said she will cooperate.
Signs are that FBI Director James Comey, who has personally overseen the inquiry, wants to get the probe done before the Democratic Convention in July. Comey understandably wants to avoid any appearance of sitting on information that could influence a p**********l e******n.
But its also in Clintons interest to get the case over with as soon as possible, because, in the end, shes unlikely to face prosecution. The cloud of suspicion is worse than the likely outcome.
Lets not mince words: Clinton screwed up. Instead of using the State Departments email system, she decided to send business messages through a private, unsecured system set up by a former campaign aide. That was contrary to State Department policies, some of them promulgated by Clinton herself.
Clinton said she decided to use a private server as a matter of convenience. To many of us, it looked more like a Clintonian urge to keep control over information. Either way, it wasnt her decision to make. After months of public criticism, Clinton eventually acknowledged that shed erred.
But did she commit a crime?
Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is no. While Clintons gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasnt an indictable offense.
The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasnt authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody with the intent to retain it.
So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didnt. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.
Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated top secret but they werent classified when she sent or received them.
Second, did she willfully communicate classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didnt, and theres no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.
Third, did she remove classified information with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location?
If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I dont think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything, a former top government lawyer told me.
The FBI wont make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.
In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (Highly classified, he told her so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.
Heres a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.
The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clintons case doesnt clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.
This isnt to excuse her conduct; its just a diagnosis of the way the law works.
In political terms, a bigger danger to Clinton may be the counterintelligence question: Did spies from China, Russia or some other country penetrate her server? If so, some v**ers might conclude that poor judgment should disqualify Clinton for the presidency. Clinton may want that part of the investigation to take as long as possible.
But my bet is that, unless new facts emerge, the potentially criminal part of her case will end this summer with the Justice Department declining prosecution. At that point, it will be up to the government to lay out the facts, and let the v**ers decide what they think. doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com   Twitter: @DoyleMcManus

solarkin

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

DOYLE McMANUS
IT MAY NOT sound like it at first, but the FBIs decision to move fast on its investigation of Hillary Clintons email practices is good news for the Democratic front-runner.
As my colleague Del Quentin Wilber reported this week, federal prosecutors have begun setting up formal interviews with Clintons advisors. After those sessions, theyre expected to seek an interview with the candidate herself. Clinton has long said she will cooperate.
Signs are that FBI Director James Comey, who has personally overseen the inquiry, wants to get the probe done before the Democratic Convention in July. Comey understandably wants to avoid any appearance of sitting on information that could influence a p**********l e******n.
But its also in Clintons interest to get the case over with as soon as possible, because, in the end, shes unlikely to face prosecution. The cloud of suspicion is worse than the likely outcome.
Lets not mince words: Clinton screwed up. Instead of using the State Departments email system, she decided to send business messages through a private, unsecured system set up by a former campaign aide. That was contrary to State Department policies, some of them promulgated by Clinton herself.
Clinton said she decided to use a private server as a matter of convenience. To many of us, it looked more like a Clintonian urge to keep control over information. Either way, it wasnt her decision to make. After months of public criticism, Clinton eventually acknowledged that shed erred.
But did she commit a crime?
Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is no. While Clintons gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasnt an indictable offense.
The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasnt authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody with the intent to retain it.
So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didnt. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.
Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated top secret but they werent classified when she sent or received them.
Second, did she willfully communicate classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didnt, and theres no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.
Third, did she remove classified information with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location?
If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I dont think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything, a former top government lawyer told me.
The FBI wont make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.
In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (Highly classified, he told her so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.
Heres a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.
The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clintons case doesnt clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.
This isnt to excuse her conduct; its just a diagnosis of the way the law works.
In political terms, a bigger danger to Clinton may be the counterintelligence question: Did spies from China, Russia or some other country penetrate her server? If so, some v**ers might conclude that poor judgment should disqualify Clinton for the presidency. Clinton may want that part of the investigation to take as long as possible.
But my bet is that, unless new facts emerge, the potentially criminal part of her case will end this summer with the Justice Department declining prosecution. At that point, it will be up to the government to lay out the facts, and let the v**ers decide what they think. doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com   Twitter: @DoyleMcManus

DOYLE McMANUS br IT MAY NOT sound like it ... (show quote)

Surely you jest.
Corruption and denial.
Libya, Iraq. Iran ,Yemen,Gemany, The E.U.
What possible outcome puts her in the O.O.?
Good old Bill, got a Cigar?

Progressive One

solarkin wrote:

Surely you jest.
Corruption and denial.
Libya, Iraq. Iran ,Yemen,Gemany, The E.U.
What possible outcome puts her in the O.O.?
Good old Bill, got a Cigar?

Find something worthwhile to talk about. The witch hunt has been a failure, as usual.

buffalo Loc: Texas

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

Find something worthwhile to talk about. The witch hunt has been a failure, as usual.

kibbles, b***h clinton has more troubles than her treasonous emails.

Report: FBI expands investigation of Hillary Clinton

EXCLUSIVE: The FBI investigation into Hillary Clintons use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clintons personal server.

"The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed," one source said.

Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have deep ties to criminal activity yet have somehow remained largely outside the cross-hairs of law enforcement. Amazingly, that is all possibly about to change.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be screaming if a prosecution is not pursued because many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation, the Fox News report continued.

https://www.intellihub.com/clinton-family-criminal-roots-exposed/

Hopefully this will take the corrupt, incompetent b***h down.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

A Rufus Spook In 2016 wrote:

DOYLE McMANUS
IT MAY NOT sound like it at first, but the FBIs decision to move fast on its investigation of Hillary Clintons email practices is good news for the Democratic front-runner. s

Guess what Kuntus.

I agree with you.

The Clinton wench is as innocent and pure as the driven snow.

And she's just what you spooks need to take you to da' laind' o' milk and herney'.

Yessir, you spooks will be dancing in high cotton...............................Durpwad !!!

Progressive One

Wolf counselor wrote:

Guess what Kuntus.

I agree with you.

The Clinton wench is as innocent and pure as the driven snow.

And she's just what you spooks need to take you to da' laind' o' milk and herney'.

Yessir, you spooks will be dancing in high cotton...............................Durpwad !!!

I'm cool...lessening the dirty white trash interaction. Life is too great to be f--king it off with inbreds.

Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

I'm cool...lessening the dirty white trash interaction. Life is too great to be f--king it off with inbreds.

Whoa there cowpunk, not sure you should be throwing that inbred thing around so loosley, considering the over 70% fatherless families in wonkville, daddy wonks running wild like a pack animal breeding with anything slow enough to get caught, the odds you have mated within the blood lines are pretty high..just sayin.
I will also throw In that plantation thing where ya'll were mated with whoever was chosen for you by your owners...pretty good damn chance there are some relatives reproducing in your family somewhere down that long line, not to mention the huge incest rate in the black community when relatives are known...must be that hump your sister collective you are always mentioning

You may want to rethink that attempted slam oh guilty one....splains that 70% IQ thingy going against ya...slight mental r****dation is a symptom of inbreeding...Hmmmmmmm, GUILTY

Ricko Loc: Florida

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

DOYLE McMANUS
IT MAY NOT sound like it at first, but the FBIs decision to move fast on its investigation of Hillary Clintons email practices is good news for the Democratic front-runner.
As my colleague Del Quentin Wilber reported this week, federal prosecutors have begun setting up formal interviews with Clintons advisors. After those sessions, theyre expected to seek an interview with the candidate herself. Clinton has long said she will cooperate.
Signs are that FBI Director James Comey, who has personally overseen the inquiry, wants to get the probe done before the Democratic Convention in July. Comey understandably wants to avoid any appearance of sitting on information that could influence a p**********l e******n.
But its also in Clintons interest to get the case over with as soon as possible, because, in the end, shes unlikely to face prosecution. The cloud of suspicion is worse than the likely outcome.
Lets not mince words: Clinton screwed up. Instead of using the State Departments email system, she decided to send business messages through a private, unsecured system set up by a former campaign aide. That was contrary to State Department policies, some of them promulgated by Clinton herself.
Clinton said she decided to use a private server as a matter of convenience. To many of us, it looked more like a Clintonian urge to keep control over information. Either way, it wasnt her decision to make. After months of public criticism, Clinton eventually acknowledged that shed erred.
But did she commit a crime?
Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is no. While Clintons gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasnt an indictable offense.
The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasnt authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody with the intent to retain it.
So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didnt. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.
Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated top secret but they werent classified when she sent or received them.
Second, did she willfully communicate classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didnt, and theres no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.
Third, did she remove classified information with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location?
If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I dont think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything, a former top government lawyer told me.
The FBI wont make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.
In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (Highly classified, he told her so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.
Heres a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.
The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clintons case doesnt clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.
This isnt to excuse her conduct; its just a diagnosis of the way the law works.
In political terms, a bigger danger to Clinton may be the counterintelligence question: Did spies from China, Russia or some other country penetrate her server? If so, some v**ers might conclude that poor judgment should disqualify Clinton for the presidency. Clinton may want that part of the investigation to take as long as possible.
But my bet is that, unless new facts emerge, the potentially criminal part of her case will end this summer with the Justice Department declining prosecution. At that point, it will be up to the government to lay out the facts, and let the v**ers decide what they think. doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com   Twitter: @DoyleMcManus

DOYLE McMANUS br IT MAY NOT sound like it ... (show quote)

Dem2016-the article has one item partially correct. The DOJ will decline to prosecute regardless of what the FBI recommends. The fix is in already ?? Due to the lackadaisical manner in which she exposed the SAP data, Hillary should not be allowed to have a Security Clearance.
I believe there are enough patriotic democrats out there to can Hillary once all the facts are made public. It is surprising that so many left wingers entrust her with the country's security after she has clearly demonstrated that she acts at her convenience and for her own benefit regardless of the country's needs. This woman is woefully incompetent. Bernie is a socialist but he is perceived to be honest. Good Luck America !!!

Progressive One

Ricko wrote:

Dem2016-the article has one item partially correct... (show quote)

So I'll see what is said by you right wing types if the FBI says no harm no foul. Bottom line is that the GOP would rather run against a socialist so they can use that one freebie line of theirs. Not going to happen. lets see; Sec of State and Senator versus a reality tv show person with tons of bankruptcies.

Wolf counselor Loc: Heart of Texas

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

I'm cool...lessening the dirty white trash interaction. Life is too great to be f--king it off with inbreds.

Well Kuntus,

We don't discriminate against you poor dumb spooks.

So feel free to mouth off anytime you please.

That's why we set you spooks free, so that we could give you an equal opportunity to h**e whitefolks for what they did to you poor darkies.

You poor dumb..........................SPOOK !!!

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

DOYLE McMANUS
IT MAY NOT sound like it at first, but the FBIs decision to move fast on its investigation of Hillary Clintons email practices is good news for the Democratic front-runner.
As my colleague Del Quentin Wilber reported this week, federal prosecutors have begun setting up formal interviews with Clintons advisors. After those sessions, theyre expected to seek an interview with the candidate herself. Clinton has long said she will cooperate.
Signs are that FBI Director James Comey, who has personally overseen the inquiry, wants to get the probe done before the Democratic Convention in July. Comey understandably wants to avoid any appearance of sitting on information that could influence a p**********l e******n.
But its also in Clintons interest to get the case over with as soon as possible, because, in the end, shes unlikely to face prosecution. The cloud of suspicion is worse than the likely outcome.
Lets not mince words: Clinton screwed up. Instead of using the State Departments email system, she decided to send business messages through a private, unsecured system set up by a former campaign aide. That was contrary to State Department policies, some of them promulgated by Clinton herself.
Clinton said she decided to use a private server as a matter of convenience. To many of us, it looked more like a Clintonian urge to keep control over information. Either way, it wasnt her decision to make. After months of public criticism, Clinton eventually acknowledged that shed erred.
But did she commit a crime?
Washington lawyers who specialize in national security law say the answer is no. While Clintons gambit was foolish and dangerous, it wasnt an indictable offense.
The laws governing the misuse of classified information require that the offender knew the material was classified and either delivered it to someone who wasnt authorized to receive it or removed it from government custody with the intent to retain it.
So the first test is whether Clinton knew she was putting classified information into an unclassified system. Clinton and her aides have insisted that she didnt. They say none of her emails included material that was marked as classified at the time.
Some of her emails were later reclassified, including 22 that have been designated top secret but they werent classified when she sent or received them.
Second, did she willfully communicate classified information to anyone not authorized to receive it? She says she didnt, and theres no known evidence that she did. Most of her exchanges were with other officials who were cleared to look at secret material.
Third, did she remove classified information with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location?
If all she was doing was exchanging emails with her staff, I dont think they can prove that she had the intent to retain anything, a former top government lawyer told me.
The FBI wont make the decision whether to prosecute Clinton. That will be up to the Justice Department, after the FBI delivers its report. At that point, prosecutors will have to consider several recent cases that count as precedents.
In 2015, retired Army Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted for giving top secret notebooks to his mistress, who was writing a book about him. (Highly classified, he told her so he knew what he was doing.) Petraeus pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor count of mishandling classified information and was fined $100,000.
Heres a better analogy: Beginning in 1998, former CIA Director John M. Deutch was investigated for storing highly classified documents on a personal computer connected to the Internet. The Justice Department initially declined to prosecute. After a public outcry the case was reopened, and Deutch negotiated a misdemeanor plea, but he was pardoned by then-President Bill Clinton.
The Petraeus and Deutch cases both included material that was highly classified, and both defendants clearly knew it. If Clintons case doesnt clear that bar, it would be difficult for the Obama Justice Department to explain why she merits prosecution.
This isnt to excuse her conduct; its just a diagnosis of the way the law works.
In political terms, a bigger danger to Clinton may be the counterintelligence question: Did spies from China, Russia or some other country penetrate her server? If so, some v**ers might conclude that poor judgment should disqualify Clinton for the presidency. Clinton may want that part of the investigation to take as long as possible.
But my bet is that, unless new facts emerge, the potentially criminal part of her case will end this summer with the Justice Department declining prosecution. At that point, it will be up to the government to lay out the facts, and let the v**ers decide what they think. doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com   Twitter: @DoyleMcManus

DOYLE McMANUS br IT MAY NOT sound like it ... (show quote)

Only lawyers have such ridiculous conversations, the rest of us clearly know right from wrong - and expect our potential leaders to know such things as well.

"what I did was technically wrong, but not illegal" is a defense one EXPECTS from a lawyer - but NOT a World leader. The State Department protocols and policies were implemented for a reason and it was NOT her place to choose to violate them. The repeatedly changing lies about this, is further proof of willful malfeasance. That alone is UNACCEPTABLE - whether it is technically illegal or not.

Progressive One

lpnmajor wrote:

Only lawyers have such ridiculous conversations, t... (show quote)

technically illegal is the basis for prosecution/indictment, not public sentiment. You were not going to v**e for her anyway so why bother?

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

lpnmajor wrote:

Only lawyers have such ridiculous conversations, t... (show quote)

Well said, Doc :!:

Progressive One

Wolf counselor wrote:

Well Kuntus,

We don't discriminate against you poor dumb spooks.

So feel free to mouth off anytime you please.

That's why we set you spooks free, so that we could give you an equal opportunity to h**e whitefolks for what they did to you poor darkies.

You poor dumb..........................SPOOK !!!

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

A Democrat In 2016 wrote:

technically illegal is the basis for prosecution/indictment, not public sentiment. You were not going to v**e for her anyway so why bother?

Public indictment is just as serious as a legal indictment, perhaps more so. Lawyers are BRED to read between the lines of law, maneuver over, under, through or around the law - the rest of us just try to obey them, when we can figure out what the hell they are.

Lawyers suck, ESPECIALLY when they pretend to be public servants.