Clinton public corruption

[Glocktogo]

Naw, she'd just get sued to the gills 10 years later with the claim she gave the baby some sort of latent birth defect from being the first thing it ever saw.

fify.

 

[chuter]

The people who still think Hillary is a good person, will never see wrong in her.

Yup, even if she's convicted; if someone in jail can be elected president, her minions will still vote for her.

 

[Wheel Gun]

You heard it here. The Dems candidate will be Joe Biden. I'm convinced.

 

[Dale00]

You heard it here. The Dems candidate will be Joe Biden. I'm convinced.

Washington Post Tells Biden to Get Ready to Replace Hillary

This is high drama. If she can stay in the race after breaking the law and compromising national security something stinks.

Clinton email scandal: Why it might be time for Democrats to draft Joe Biden

By Colbert I. King, Opinion writer February 5 at 7:06 PM

The Hillary Clinton email issue is developing into a real whodunit, complete with Clintonesque legal semantics. “I never sent or received any material marked classified,” she said with respect to the discovery of classified information on her private, unclassified email server. That surface denial nearly rivals Bill Clinton’s classic: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

But this is no laughing matter.

There is nothing trivial about a secretary of state having top-secret information on an unsecured computer in her home. That appears to have been the case, based on the State Department’s announcement last week that 22 emails, across seven email chains, containing top-secret information were on Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

At issue is whether the information in the emails was classified when it was sent to her unsecured server. It was, after all, the State Department, upon review of the content by intelligence agencies, that upgraded the emails to top-secret and ordered them withheld from the public.

Now, it may well be that some of Clinton’s political opponents are out to derail her presidential campaign and are using the email controversy to do so. Or it could be the case, as Clinton’s supporters claim, that intergovernmental infighting over what is and isn’t classified is driving this investigation.

The important nonpolitical question: Did the nation’s top diplomat or her State Department staff improperly handle extremely sensitive, top-secret information and do so in a manner in which the information could be compromised?

State Department rules are quite clear.

Top-secret information must not be placed on any unclassified systems. It must be accounted for and controlled. And no copy of a top-secret document can be made without the permission of the office or agency in which it originated.

In addition, any State Department employee who causes the compromise of top-secret information or makes a copy of a top-secret document or any portion of it without the originator’s permission is subject to administrative action.

There are also limited ways in which top-secret information can be transmitted. Sending top-secret information via a private, unsecured email server is not one of them. Transmitting top-secret information with the classification removed is also forbidden.

That makes it critical to establish whether Clinton’s private server contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.

Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said , “She was at worst a passive recipient of unwitting information that subsequently became deemed as classified.” In other words, Clinton is an innocent victim of bureaucratic infighting. If so, how did it happen?

That’s what makes this a Washington whodunit.

Someone inside the State Department transmitted the information to Clinton’s personal email account through a private server. That employee — or employees, as the case may be — knows or should know whether the material was drawn from, was based on or included top-secret information.

Given that the information on the server has been upgraded to top-secret, another fear arises: Have unauthorized individuals, even foreign governments, gained access to highly classified information, to the detriment of the United States?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/clinton-email-scandal-why-it-might-be-time-for-democrats-to-draft-joe-biden/2016/02/05/cd69dfea-cc18-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html

 

[Biggsly]

Nothing to see here. You must hate grandmas to post something like that.

 

[Larry Morgan]

fify.

Hahaha, I gotta hand it to you, that was pretty d#$% funny!

 

[Dale00]

Read it and weep. The stench coming out of Washington worsens.

Hillary’s National Security Crime Needs a Special Prosecutor

Clinton’s calculated criminality undermines the law that sustains a free nation

The day approaches when the inevitable Drudge Report headline “Hillary Indicted” has two remarkable consequences. One: fundamentally re-shaping the 2016 U.S. national election. Two: demonstrating that—ultimately—farsighted Democrats chose to save the Democratic Party.

Cynical Doubters and Vicious Deniers dispute; they dismiss indictment as fantasy. Consequence Two is counter-intuitive. So hang on.

News cycle-driven Democrats swear Republican conspirators invented the so-called email scandal. Balderdash. This is a national security scandal with major implications. Piercing the email veil reveals 9-11, San Bernadino, Charlie Hebdo, a metastasizing Islamic State and Kim Jong Un’s nuclear weapons. (Japan took North Korea’s latest missile test so seriously it deployed anti-ballistic missiles in downtown Tokyo.)

Terrorists and rogue states are deadly threats. Effective diplomacy and reliable intelligence collection and assessment are our first lines of defense against both. Effective diplomacy and reliable intel require institutionally and legally protecting secrets—ie: classified information. Protection includes protecting reliable intelligence sources, from satellites to flesh and blood human spies.

Protecting secrets has a moral spine as well. Failure to protect classified information increases the risk of belligerent attack on America, its allies and their interests. Exposing classified information can endanger the lives of U.S. military personnel, intelligence agents and counter-intelligence officers. It certainly undermines morale at essential security agencies.

The denials become ever more elastic. See? They classified the info after she received it. No—sorry, it’s all over-classified. No, wait. Hold everything. Mis-classified!

The circumstances lead to a particular failure to protect secrecy matter. Accidents and mistakes do occur, and those responsible for the accidents and mistakes are held responsible. However, in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s case, we confront a dangerous intelligence and counter-intelligence scandal created by her premeditated and systematic (hence criminal) mishandling of highly classified U.S. national security-related information.

Let’s return to the prospect for indictment. Cynical Doubters usually agree the evidence is overwhelming that Ms. Clinton intended to circumvent federal laws mandating the retention of government records, and in the process subverted laws protecting national security secrets. In the service of her personal political agenda, she chose to maintain personal control of information about her stint at State.

But forget about military and intel and FBI fuddy duds. A mountain range of evidence will not sway the ultra-partisan Obama Administration Justice Department—Democratic Party power trumps national security law. Attorney General Loretta Lynch will refuse to indict the inevitable Democratic presidential nominee. So there.

Vicious Denier arguments shape-shift as damning evidence emerges, exposing Ms. Clinton’s claims of innocence and ignorance as lies. Ms. Clinton initially swore no classified information ever transited her private system. At last count some 1,600 of Ms. Clinton’s personal emails contain classified information. The denials become ever more elastic. See, they classified the info after she received it. No, sorry, it’s all over-classified. No, wait. Hold everything. Mis-classified!

Compromising this type of information exposes ‘sources, methods and lives’ to enemy retaliation. Enemies retaliate against flesh and blood human spies by ‘liquidating’ them—spy jargon for murder or execution.

These serial down-the-memory-hole explanations recall Nixon Administration press secretary Ron Ziegler. Asked if President Richard Nixon’s latest Watergate statement contradicted prior claims, Mr. Ziegler replied, “This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.”

The latest operative statement: “I am 100 percent confident nothing will come from the review of my email account,” Ms. Clinton told MSNBC debate moderators. Why? Because investigators have discovered classified information in the personal emails of Colin Powell and Condi Rice, Bush Administration biggies. Everybody does it!

Yes, an ‘everybody does it’ defense. Just like Goldman Sachs execs lay $675,000 in speaking fees on everybody. As this essay is published, Ms. Clinton refuses to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs orations, lectures, homilies.

No, everybody doesn’t do it. Neither General Powell nor Ms. Rice used a private, unsecure email system to routinely transmit classified U.S. government information. Neither attempted to use a private, unsecure system they didn’t create to circumvent government record keeping and security laws in order to maintain personal control of information for personal political purposes. Moreover, they didn’t order subordinates to use a system they didn’t create. Ms. Clinton created such a system. The published emails prove her subordinates used it—frequently, and with abandon.

The State Department inspector general found two emails sent to Mr. Powell that contained “confidential” information, the lowest level of classification. Mr. Powell says he can prove the information was not classified when transmitted to his personal email. Gotcha! Exactly like Hillary! Uh, no. Quantitative difference: two emails versus Ms. Clinton’s 1,600 (so far). Qualitative difference: no attempt to avoid scrutiny and scrub a server. The third difference is this scandal’s Catch 22. At this point in time, 22 is the number of emails allegedly containing very highly-classified Top Secret Special Access Program (SAP) information. The State Department won’t release them and it darn well shouldn’t. This classification level often protects what the intelligence community calls “operational intelligence.” Compromising this type of information can expose “sources, methods and lives” to enemy retaliation. Enemies retaliate against flesh and blood human spies by “liquidating” them—spy jargon for murder or execution.

Protecting lives. Defending America. Pierce the email veil and we return to the institutional, legal and moral foundations for protecting classified information. Blackmail is another concern. Ms. Clinton’s system was unsecured. When asked his opinion, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates thought it likely foreign agencies had penetrated it.

Democrats intent on nominating Ms. Clinton need to think about the next terror attack. Would a source compromised by Ms. Clinton’s Catch 22 have prevented it? Dateline 2017: Russian President Vladimir Putin makes an onerous demand and President Hillary Clinton caves. What’s Vlad have on Hillary?

For the moment Ms. Clinton owns this scandal, but permitting such blatant disregard for the law and U.S. security sets a strategic trap which threatens the Democratic Party’s national viability. The accusation “weak on defense” will tag another generation of Democratic candidates.

The trap has other teeth. Failure to punish Ms. Clinton’s calculated criminality at the highest levels of national government undermines the societal respect for law and elected government that sustains a free nation. The Democratic Party—the party of government—depends on respect for government.

If Attorney General Lynch cannot indict Ms. Clinton herself, then she must appoint a special prosecutor—if she really cares about her country and her party.

http://observer.com/2016/02/hillarys-national-security-crime-needs-a-special-prosecutor/

 

[JD8]

"God" I hope I'm buying Dennis some .22 soon.... I'm still skeptical.

 

[Glocktogo]

Don't count your chickens yet!

http://thehill.com/policy/national-...cs-say-lynch-shouldnt-decide-on-clinton-probe

Critics pounce on Lynch’s campaign donations

Critics of the Obama administration say Attorney General Loretta Lynch should be disqualified from overseeing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server because of the more than $10,000 she has given to Democrats in recent years.

With Republicans already calling for a special prosecutor to monitor the probe, conservatives are pouncing on the past campaign contributions as evidence of bias.

“The latest assertion from her allies that Loretta Lynch is not ‘political’ is totally untrue,” said David Bossie, the president of conservative advocacy organization Citizens United in a statement to The Hill. “In fact, she’s been a regular financial contributor to Democrat candidates, including to her current boss, Barack Obama.”
Former colleagues of Lynch’s described her to The Hill as a hard-nosed lawyer who rarely discussed politics in her previous jobs.

According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Lynch contributed a total of $10,700 to Democratic candidates between 2004 and 2008.

Of that money, $4,600 went to President Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Another $1,000 went to the campaign of the late Rep. Owen Majors (D-N.Y.) and $2,100 went to his son Chris’s unsuccessful 2006 House campaign. Lynch also contributed $1,000 to the failed 2008 campaign of North Carolina investment banker Jim Neal and $2,000 to the fruitless 2008 campaign of Oregon politician Steve Novick.

The contributions are under scrutiny amid increasing calls from some Republicans for Lynch to appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the federal investigation into the security of classified information on the private email server Clinton used as secretary of State.

The server is currently in the hands of the FBI, which is investigating whether classified information was mishandled. The Obama administration has said that more than 1,500 emails on the server are now classified — 22 at the highest level of “top secret” — though it is unclear how many of those determinations were made retroactively.

Clinton and the State Department insist that none of the emails was marked as classified at the time they were sent.

Conservatives have said the Justice Department should pursue criminal charges against Clinton or her top deputies for putting American secrets at risk.

But Lynch has a conflict of interest, top Republicans say, so the decision on whether to proceed with a criminal case ought to be left to someone more impartial.

In addition to the contributions, critics note that Lynch was appointed to a previous job as U.S. attorney by Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. They also point to comments Obama made last year that they say appear to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry.

“How can political appointees make decisions about an investigation into the Democrat front-runner for president of the United States?” said Bossie on Monday. “If this does not meet the criteria for the appointment of a special counsel, what does?”

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department has said that career prosecutors and investigators are working on the Clinton case and that a special prosecutor is not warranted.

Other legal experts view the call for a special prosecutor more skeptically.

“Quite frankly, if somebody in the Senate — who does the confirmation — doesn’t believe she could uphold her oath, they should have voted against her,” said Roscoe Howard, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

“Other than a flat out conflict — let’s say that one of her brothers appeared [in court] — she gets to make those decisions,” added Howard, who is now a partner at the law firm of Barnes & Thornburg.

“What I read is, when I hear somebody say that, is, ‘Yeah, you’d like somebody who is more likely to bring a charge,’ ” Howard added. “Well, it’s just not the way it works.”

Ten Republicans voted with Democrats to confirm Lynch last year, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas) — who has been among the most vocal proponents of a special prosecutor for the Clinton case — voted against her nomination.

Clinton is still the favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination, though she is expected to lose to rival Bernie Sanders on Tuesday in New Hampshire’s primary election.

Democrats have largely shrugged off the controversy surrounding Clinton’s email setup. But Republicans have hammered her on the subject along the campaign trail, and she will likely be forced to defend the issue vigorously if she becomes the Democratic nominee.

All of the roughly 50,000 pages of Clinton’s work-related emails were due to be made public by Jan. 29, but the State Department said it missed that goal last month due to an internal oversight paired with a major snowstorm that blanketed the East Coast. The department’s new schedule would push the final release of documents back until after the first four primary contests.

On Tuesday, administration lawyers are scheduled to defend the delay before a federal judge in Washington while voters are going to the polls in New Hampshire.

 

[CHenry]

This is going no where, if she was going to be indicted it would have already happened. Right wing media BS is all this continues to be.