quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Good day for Sanders yesterday


Hawaii Sanders 23,530 votes // Clinton 10,125

Washington Sanders 19,159 // Clinton 7,140

Alaska Sanders 440 // Clinton 99

It's funny though because it doesn't even matter.

The whole democrat primary is a giant sham. A farce. A huge make-believe, fictional production. The outcome was preordained years ago. There was always a zero percent possibility that Bernie would get the nomination.

I wonder if any of his supporters will figure out that they've been taken for a ride by the DNC.

Lets hope that when they do, all 5000 of the ones not too lazy to actually go and vote stick to their "Bernie or bust" attitude and not vote Hildabeast

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
jehzsa,

Wouldn't the prosecutors decide what to present to the grand jury ?

Both in exactly what the charges would be and who would be charged ?

With this case there are two main competing issues. The national security interests involved and a possible defendant's right to confront evidence presented against him/her.

You don't want a Grand Jury to be privy to national security concerns unless strictly necessary , for apparent reasons, and yet you have to present information and data sufficient to sustain an indictment. If only to avoid discretionary decisions.

And then, bringing the weight of the government on an individual that will have to face and defend those possible charges. It's an extremely tricky conundrum. Petraeus comes to mind. His case was basically "solved" by negotiations between the parties involved.

Those considerations and the fact that immunity was granted regarding the "house server" leads me to think that the government's thought process is now directed towards the least intrusive of those contentions. And not necessarily regarding issues of "was it classified at the time or not".

I can't imagine the stress that the folks involved in this criminal investigation are going through. Listen, they are professionals, extremely good at what they do-some would say the best. They know the system and processes and their job is, succinctly, "let's see if this holds water and if it does, let's pursue it". That is not as easy as it sounds.

I hope I cleared up a bit your concerns.

Grand Juries declining to indict is not uncommon at all. I believe that every homicide in Texas must be brought to a Grand Jury to determine if crimunal chsrges are appropriate. Remember Joe Horn, who shot two burglars leaving his neighbor's house? The GJ no-billed him. No bills are not uncommon at least in Texas, as I understand it.

In some states, the prosecutor can decide whether to file an information or present the case to the Grand Jury for an indictment. I'm not sure if that choice is available in Federal Court.

In cases of this magnitude, I would think a Grand Jury is the best approach. If you can't convince a Grand Jury of a crime, how can you hope to convince a trial jury beyond a reasonable doubt?

IIRC, but for very few instances, there are no nolo contendere (no contest) allegations in a Federal criminal case. That takes it down to either guilty or not guilty.

I would expect that if an indictment falls in this case, HRC will receive a similar courtesy like that afforded to Petraeus---allowing the pleading to a misdemeanor.

Political considerations aside, I do not know if that would cause her to "derail" her candidacy. The Clintons are not known for backing down like that. A hint was given by her when she was asked by J. Ramos in a debate and she replied that she was not going to answer that question.

It is then unambiguously clear that she has given thought to that possibility and expects that her followers will not be swayed by it. She is wired differently than most.

Beyond that, I'm certain that the people working on the case are fully aware of the date of November 8, 2016. And other dates. They know the implications, contrary to popular opinion, they do not live in another world---most particularly a parallel universe.

I can not think of another matter similar to this one in US history. Perhaps there is, but it is unknown to me.

quote:

It is then unambiguously clear that she has given thought to that possibility and expects that her followers will not be swayed by it. She is wired differently than most.

So is her husband....

I suspect they hope something as follows;

It all blows over,

There is an indictment for the equivalent of "J-Walking",

There is indictment which can be plea bargained to a misdemeanor loitering charge.

I would remind everyone that Hillary did not set-up the "server in the basement" in order to give secrets to our adversaries, mishandling classified information was collateral damage.

Her obsessive secrecy was because She was selling access to her office through the Clinton Foundation and her husbands speeches. Like her Wall Street Speeches; the speech gambit is just a means to transfer bribes under the table.

Since we know the FBI is working on this aspect of her affairs, it is to be hoped that indictments include a violation of "official acts" that is corruption, it will be much more difficult for her to squirm out of corruption charges.

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:
I would remind everyone that Hillary did not set-up the "server in the basement" in order to give secrets to our adversaries, mishandling classified information was collateral damage.

Her obsessive secrecy was because She was selling access to her office through the Clinton Foundation and her husbands speeches. Like her Wall Street Speeches; the speech gambit is just a means to transfer bribes under the table.

Well said. This whole thing is the result of the absolute greed of the Clintons. Both of them. The fact that laws were broken or that national security was potentionally compromised is of no consequence to them. The only thing that matters in their eyes is the balence in their bank account.

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:
IIRC, but for very few instances, there are no nolo contendere (no contest) allegations in a Federal criminal case. That takes it down to either guilty or not guilty.

I would expect that if an indictment falls in this case, HRC will receive a similar courtesy like that afforded to Petraeus---allowing the pleading to a misdemeanor.

Political considerations aside, I do not know if that would cause her to "derail" her candidacy. The Clintons are not known for backing down like that. A hint was given by her when she was asked by J. Ramos in a debate and she replied that she was not going to answer that question.

It is then unambiguously clear that she has given thought to that possibility and expects that her followers will not be swayed by it. She is wired differently than most.

Beyond that, I'm certain that the people working on the case are fully aware of the date of November 8, 2016. And other dates. They know the implications, contrary to popular opinion, they do not live in another world---most particularly a parallel universe.

I can not think of another matter similar to this one in US history. Perhaps there is, but it is unknown to me.

"Nolo contendere" has nothing to do with what happened to Petraeus. "Nolo" is an acceptance of the charge(s) without admitting civil liability. For example, if you were driving drunk and caused an accident, a "guilty" plea to any criminal charges would constitute an admission for purposes of civil liability for damages. A "nolo" plea requires the injured party to prove the case without relying on the admission.

When criminal charges are looming, the prosecutor and defense lawyers not uncommonly seek to arrange a plea bargain, which has advantages for both sides, and usually avoids the disadvantages and risks of a trial. The defendant has some exposure, the prosecution isn't completely confident the witnesses are up to it, or there are difficulties of proof the defense counsel is pointing out, and the "interests of justice" allow lowering the charges and exposure to penalties, etc.

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:

quote:

Originally posted by oldRoger:
I would remind everyone that Hillary did not set-up the "server in the basement" in order to give secrets to our adversaries, mishandling classified information was collateral damage.

Her obsessive secrecy was because She was selling access to her office through the Clinton Foundation and her husbands speeches. Like her Wall Street Speeches; the speech gambit is just a means to transfer bribes under the table.

Well said. This whole thing is the result of the absolute greed of the Clintons. Both of them. The fact that laws were broken or that national security was potentionally compromised is of no consequence to them. The only thing that matters in their eyes is the balence in their bank account.

Word.

quote:

"Nolo contendere" has nothing to do with what happened to Petraeus.

I did not say that it did, JALLEN.

No contest pleas do happen in Federal cases. Rare, but they happen. They are governed by Rule 11 of the FRCrP. And if the Judge allows it, the Court has to balance "the parties' views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice."

Highly improbable that that is going to happen here. I can't imagine under what circumstances that could occur. So it is going to be guilty or not guilty. If not guilty...

If guilty, she will probably be afforded a similar courtesy as that provided to Petraeus.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...-up-hillary-clinton/

Setting aside the pledges of the superdelegates,

Clinton has just over 1,200 delegates awarded through primary and caucus voting, while Sanders has over 1,000.

There are still around 2,000 delegates available through the remaining primaries.


In 2008, the media mentioned her overwhelming support from superdelegates,

the primary really turned in Obama’s favor after many of these superdelegates announced publicly they were switching their support or moving to neutral.

I believe an overwhelming part of elected Democrats are corrupt, either in seeking power or money. Superdelegates are made up of elected government officials and officials of the DNC and State organizations. Many, many of them are Teachers Union Reps and Public Employee Unions officials.

The Superdelegate system allows the delegate to sell his/her vote for whatever he/she can get in terms of patronage or cold cash. As the convention nears, the haggling over price will become intense.

Bernie, bless his heart, is at a severe disadvantage when this buying and selling takes place. This is the sort of business where WJ Clinton excels, he is probably best in class.

This sort of thing that goes on among the Democrats is what many of our misguided friends think happens in the GOP and whom they misguidedly refer to as "the establishment".

http://www.latimes.com/nation/...-20160327-story.html

Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.

Those interviews and the final review of the case, however, could still take many weeks,

No dates have been set for questioning the advisors, but a federal prosecutor in recent weeks has called their lawyers to alert them that he would soon be doing so, the sources said. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear.

The interviews by FBI agents and prosecutors will play a significant role in helping them better understand whether Clinton or her aides knowingly or negligently discussed classified government secrets over a non-secure email system when she served as secretary of State.

The meetings also are an indication that much of the investigators' background work – recovering deleted emails, understanding how the server operated and determining whether it was breached – is nearing completion.

“The interviews are critical to understand the volume of information they have accumulated,” said James McJunkin, former head of the FBI's Washington field office. “They are likely nearing the end of the investigation and the agents need to interview these people to put the information in context.

They will then spend time aligning these statements with other information, emails, classified documents, etc., to determine whether there is a prosecutable case."

Her attorney, David Kendall, declined to comment. Her campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, said in an email that Clinton is ready to work with investigators to conclude the investigation.

“She first offered last August to meet and answer any questions they might have,” Fallon wrote. “She would welcome the opportunity to help them complete their work.”

Lawyers for her closest aides – Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan, Cheryl Mills and Philippe Renes – either did not respond to messages or declined to comment.

In August, the FBI obtained the server and has since recovered most, if not all, of the deleted correspondence, said a person familiar with the investigation.

FBI agents have finished their review of the server and the correspondence turned over by Clinton to the State Department. They have interviewed a number of former aides so they could better understand how the system was used and why Clinton chose to use it, the person said.

Federal prosecutors granted immunity to one of those aides, Bryan Pagliano

short of an indictment or an explosive revelation, the controversy is not likely to alter the overall dynamics of the primary race or general election, political observers said.

"This is clearly disruptive to the campaign,” said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster. “It will take her off message and coverage about important aides being questioned is not coverage you'd like to have.

However, this issue is largely dismissed by Democratic primary voters and baked into the cake for the general electorate.”

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/...-20160327-story.html

..."They have interviewed a number of former aides so they could better understand how the system was used and why Clinton chose to use it, the person said."

Or maybe the FBI asked questions to which they already knew the answers.

quote:

the agents need to interview these people

Certainly not a time for rookies' hands-on training.

good summary article from the Washington Post on the emails.

just providing the link.

worth a read

https://www.washingtonpost.com...91d1fc4ec_story.html

I happened on to this piece. It's a couple of weeks old but has a bit more detail than I have heard elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhWB004l6G4

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:

quote:

"Nolo contendere" has nothing to do with what happened to Petraeus.

I did not say that it did, JALLEN.

No contest pleas do happen in Federal cases. Rare, but they happen. They are governed by Rule 11 of the FRCrP. And if the Judge allows it, the Court has to balance "the parties' views and the public interest in the effective administration of justice."

Highly improbable that that is going to happen here. I can't imagine under what circumstances that could occur. So it is going to be guilty or not guilty. If not guilty...

If guilty, she will probably be afforded a similar courtesy as that provided to Petraeus.

Then why mention it? It is rare, you can't imagine any circumstances it would occur, and it has nothing to do with Petraeus.

Three different outlets this morning toss out the hint of the FBI interviewing her, so I think the noose is beginning to tighten up.

Say, Hil, why don't you sit there and try that hunching your shoulders, throwing your hands in the air and making stupid faces shit when the FBI starts questioning you? Make sure you throw in that idiotic "it was wiped with a cloth" horse shit, too. They'll accept it and then you can be on your way back to world domination.

They nailed our former governor on much less of the same thing. Oh wait. This is IL so I have to be specific since only ONE of our former governors since the late '80s hasnt ended up in the federal pen. I'm talking the one and only Blagojevich.

Not to sound greedy, but I really hope they rope old Billy too. Oh crap...what the hell. Throw the daughter in too. She's as greasy as the rest of them.