I think you must be using some colloquial definition of “criminal intent” here–i.e., that people have been convicted for knowingly disclosing or mishandling classified information for non-criminal purposes. If so, I’m sure that’s true. But if you’re using the actual definition of “criminal intent”–i.e., relevant knowledge (or recklessness) that the information was classified–then I think your claim is probably false depending on what you mean by “plenty.” Notwithstanding loose talk about strict liability by some ill-informed bloggers, I don’t think any of the relevant laws actually lack criminal intent requirements.
Where in your link did the FBI tell us that? I’ve seen reports from unnamed FBI sources leaked to media members that go both directions. Here the only FBI comment I saw in your link.
Having said that, your link is from January. Here’s from the same source in May.
It seems to me that any claim that Clinton is not being investigated or is not the target of an investigation is without support. The same could be said for people claiming she definitively is the target. The FBI simply hasn’t told us yet.
It’s all technical. It’s a security review, and if security was FUBAR, then someone’s getting indicted.
I got the information from here:
Incidentally the FBI would not tell such a thing to all who ask, but to the persons who are suspected or being targeted if they request to know. In this case it would be less likely for a lawyer like Clinton to not had done as such a thing, and her actions afterwards do reflect that that took place indeed.
And the full weight of your expertise and authority is behind that?
Well, I could be wrong, maybe they actually will indict the email account.
And indeed you are, the FBI can not indict anyone, they can only recommend that. Bottom line is that on this subject the Republicans have ramped up the bullshit and just like in other past “scandals” the end result IMHO is that there will be many Republicans that will become unhinged when they realize that a lot of what they promised will not take place regarding Hillary going to Prison.
Unhinged yes, but many will still go back for other bullshit. But, what I also expect is to see more than a few Republicans that will, in combination of seeing Trump become the nominee and realizing that they were had once again by the Republican party regarding the Clintons, vote for Hillary in disgust for all the bullshit that was tossed at them.
If the FBI recommends indictment, it’s game over, regardless of what Loretta Lynch does.
Your story is pretty old (August 2015). Look again at the story I posted regarding the motion filed this week (6/6/16).
https://www.scribd.com/doc/315057055/Show-Temp-12
Directly from the motion from the Justice Department.
Oh, it’s definitely an investigation of Clinton, she’s just not a “target”, which is a purely technical term. If she was a target, she’d be quite screwed already. Once the FBI is targeting you, they’ll get you for something.
Even that doesn’t seem right. How do we know she’s not a target? They’re coming out and directly saying they aren’t naming their targets.
She’s trying to characterize this as a general review of policies of the past several secretaries of state. It’s not an investigation, it’s an inquiry. She’s not a target. She followed all the rules and did the same thing as Powell and Rice. Rules have since been clarified. At the same time the Justice Department is filing motions saying it is an investigation related specifically to the FBI’s principal role of law enforcement and relates directly to “Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server”.
I’m not saying I think she’s going to jail, but I think these blanket assertions that she’s not a target of any investigation and has not broken any laws are just wishful thinking. That might be true, but we don’t know it because the FBI hasn’t told us anything yet. It simply can’t be proven either way. Common sense tells me, though no doubt most of this board would disagree, that the FBI thinks there is at least something there worth investigating. I think they would have dropped it long before now if it was as simple as she’s doing the same thing as Colin Powell and Condeleezza Rice.
It further seems to me that there is a greater than zero chance that the clear Presidential front runner and only remaining viable candidate running may face a criminal indictment a few short months before the election date. The prospect of that terrifies me. Not sure what percentage chance I put on it happening; it’s certainly less than 50% but probably greater than 10%. I hope the Democrats have a good fall-back plan.
And nowhere there contradicts what I said, even if old. The point stands as you also helped establish it, most of what the right wing has going on has been bullshit. And the ones that could be targets can demand the FBI to confirm if that is the case, one can dismiss what Hillary has said but it is less likely IMHO that she did not ask, and her behavior afterwards points to what she reported about what the FBI told her that she is not the target; so far, but that is what it should be reported, not the certifiable bullshit that we have seen coming from the right. Some of what they say about Clinton is accurate, but this only underlines what I think is going to happen.
The results are likely to be embarrassing to Clinton, but it is more likely that there will not be a recommendation to an indictment and even going farther a less likely conviction; it will underline how bad the right has been when giving information to their readers and viewers.
That is right, because it is not the [del]beeswax[/del] business of people that are not involved. However, this has been known for ages:
This isn’t quite a “they did it too” argument, but, rather, “a much worse offense was never indicted,” and that’s Cheney and Libby and the Plame affair. (Libby was indicted for lying to investigators.)
If something of that magnitude never resulted in an indictment, it seems absurd that something a millionth as bad possibly could.
That’s not how the law works though. It’s about what you can prove. The whole investigation was looking in the wrong place. Richard Armitage was the source of the leak. There’s a lot less ambiguity in legal terms around Clinton’s email server. We don’t know for sure what exactly they are looking into, but assuming it’s about security, “Secure vs. not secure” isn’t really difficult to determine and prosecute.
Now on the poitics of it you are right, but in political terms Clinton vs. Bush isn’t the race, it’s Clinton vs. Trump, so it’s actually Clinton’s lack of transparency vs. Trump basically being a fraud in general. Clinton probably wins there too. Although politically, scandal as a member of the government might be frowned upon more than private sector scandal. And as with any scandal, it depends on how it’s handled as much as the merits of the scandal itself.
Meh.
Hillary Clinton is not stupid. She claimed that she didn’t delete anything very important. The FBI has since recovered most of the emails she deleted.
She knows they are investigating and have all of the evidence. She knows that if she was a liar comma it would be exposed for all to see.
Hillary Clinton has not blinked since the FBI said they recovered all of those emails. This is why, along with the long history of scandals that went up in smoke, I don’t think anything will come of this.
Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk