…have until the end of the week:
I noted that Judge Sullivan recently reopened the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Judicial Watch to obtain emails from Huma Abedin, the top Clinton aide who is married to infamous and disgraced former Congressman Anthony Wiener. Judge Sullivan reopened the case when he learned that Clinton and her staff used personal email accounts to conduct government business. This is a flagrant violation of the Federal Records Act and jeopardizes national security—prompting rapidly escalating concerns of countless ramifications internationally, nationally, and criminally.
Over at the WaPo, Marc Thiessen explains Hillary’s very serious legal problem:
The Clinton e-mail scandal reached a new level of seriousness when the intelligence community inspector general found classified information from five intelligence agencies in e-mails housed on Clinton’s private server. It is against the law to remove classified information from government facilities and retain it after you have left office and have no official reason to possess it.
Just ask Sandy Berger. In 2003, Bill Clinton’s former national security adviser was caught removing five classified documents from a secure reading room at the National Archives, as he prepared to testify before the 9/11 commission.
A Justice Department investigation ensued and in 2005 Berger reached a plea agreement in which he was allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material instead of a felony. He was sentenced to two years of probation and 100 hours of community service and was stripped of his security clearance for three years. Prosecutors and defense lawyers agreed on a $10,000 fine, but the judge raised it to $50,000. In 2007, in order to shut down a disbarment investigation by the District of Columbia bar, he relinquished his license to practice law.
That was for unlawfully removing and retaining just five classified documents.
Clinton has apparently been caught removing at least five e-mails containing what we now know to be classified information and retaining them on her personal server in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., after she left office. And in the weeks ahead, that number will probably grow to the hundreds, if not thousands.
Hey, laws are for the little people.
With any luck (for those of us who value saving what’s left of the Republic), they’ll hold hands and do a Thelma-and-Louise type exit.
If Hillary! quits, citing these right-wing conspiracy-driven distractions, the Dems will go bananas. Sanders is their Trump, he might actually lose what should be a Dem win. My Magic 8-Ball tells me Warren will be “reluctantly” drafted, and go on to an easy win against Jeb! Bush. Be careful what you wish for, I think Warren is even worse than Hillary!. Of course, I’m planning on voting for the Cthulhu/SMOD unity ticket (“One shared vision of the end”) anyway.
Bush is not going to get nominated. He has money, but is not well-liked by voters.
He has money, but is not well-liked by voters.
When has that ever stopped the Republican establishment before?
Neither party has any established candidate voters really like, because both are just trying to keep the pork trough full rather than solve real problems the voters care about. Bush vs Clinton would really epitomize the complete ideological bankruptcy of the political establishment.
We vote.
[comment too short so I added this. dumb rule.]
Jeepers. The comments in the WaPo article are great. Bunch of Clinton supporters who simply will not deal with pretty obvious crimes.
Edward Snowden had to flee for his life after doing less.
Many thought Sandy Berger got off easy.
Yes, many thought that, because he did.
Sandy Berger got railroaded! As a former national security adviser, he had no prior experience dealing with classified documents. It was thus perfectly reasonable for him to believe that taking classified documents was okay. He just snuck them out and stashed them under a handy construction trailer for later retrieval because, well, who amongst us hasn’t done that with important national security documents?
Nothing to see here…
/snark
The nature of law has changed. It’s sole purpose, and why it has gone beyond the bounds of reason, is to catch everybody in its net. Exemptions for those in power is a feature.
Rule of law requires fewer, simpler laws that apply equally. Every exception is an example of tyranny.
Tyranny should not be confused with harsh laws. Tyranny is unequal laws.
Clinton and her staff used personal email accounts to conduct government business. This is a flagrant violation of the Federal Records Act
So use of a personal email account for government business is, in and of itself, “a flagrant violation of the Federal Records Act” when Clinton does it, but not when Colin Powell, Karl Rove, and much of the Bush White House staff do the same? This outrage is quite selective.
Clinton has apparently been caught removing at least five e-mails containing what we now know to be classified information and retaining them on her personal server in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., after she left office.
The IG found classified information on emails that Clinton handed over to State. We don’t know that Clinton sent those emails, or that the contents were classified when the emails were sent. She hasn’t been caught “removing” anything. Analogies to Berger are premature.
We don’t know that Clinton sent those emails, or that the contents were classified when the emails were sent.
If they were classified “later” they were classified at the time. Their lack of marking didn’t mean they were unclassified. Part of Hillary’s job responsibility was knowing what was classified and what was not.
If they were classified “later” they were classified at the time.
Huh? If the information was only classified after the email was sent, then it wasn’t classified “at the time”.
Part of Hillary’s job responsibility was knowing what was classified and what was not.
We don’t even know that the information was classified while she was Secretary of State. All we know is that when the IG looked at the emails that State was in the process of making public earlier this year, they found information that is classified as of 2015. The IG isn’t investigating Clinton, it’s investigating the way State is releasing Clinton’s emails.
Huh? If the information was only classified after the email was sent, then it wasn’t classified “at the time”.
It wasn’t “classified” after it was sent. It was recognized as classified after being sent by people who weren’t incompetent corrupt liars like Hillary Clinton. It was always classified. Classification is a definition of the kind of information, not a marking.
Classification is a definition of the kind of information, not a marking.
I don’t claim any expertise in this area, but according to the relevant executive order, information is only classified once a classification authority classifies it as such. A piece of information can be unclassified one day, and classified the next.
I don’t claim any expertise in this area
It’s a good thing, because you clearly know nothing about it.
“A piece of information can be unclassified one day, and classified the next.”
Which illustrates how stupid it is to store them on Hillary’s home server. Her having stored classified information at home in this manner is illegal. Also illegal, is her keeping classified information after she left office. Also also illegal, is her sending classified information to her political wet works team aka Blumenthal.
The information changing status wouldn’t be a big deal if it wasn’t in her house at the time and stored in the popper manner.
Which illustrates how stupid it is to store them on Hillary’s home server.
I agree. And you can make the same argument about any government official who 1) deals with sensitive information that might be classified and 2) uses a private email system, e.g. Colin Powell and Jeb Bush.
Not that using a government email system is a panacea; government systems aren’t exactly hack-proof. But at least in theory they should be easier to secure than private systems.
I am glad we can agree on the stupidity of the Democrat’s chosen one for President but the issue goes beyond that to the destruction and altering of evidence. At the very least, she should be held to the same standard as Petraeus.
…when Clinton does it…
We’re making progress, at least you acknowledge she committed the crime.
I also am content to also pursue Rove, Powell, and all other Bush administration personnel who committed the same crime, and prosecute them fully. My outrage is not selective at all.
Isn’t that cute? Jim thinks that something becomes classified when it’s stamped “CLASSIFIED” and if it has no such stamp it’s not classified.
#ProTip. If I read something from a classified document, and then write it in an email, it didn’t become unclassified in so doing, even if I didn’t write “CLASSIFIED” on it.
Rand, that’s a wonderfully concise and clear explanation/example of how classification works in the real world.
Remember General Petraeus? He was convicted of giving his GF some personal notes (she was working on his biography) that contained classified information. Where the notebooks stamped classified or declared classified in any way? Nope, but the information, due to its sources, was, and he was convicted for it.
The exact same metric applies to the classified information in Hillary’s e-mails if it was sent to people who don’t have the needed clearances, or was sent by non-secure means (at least the latter applies in every case).
The notion espoused by some that it’s somehow okay because “the information hadn’t been classified yet” is an outright falsehood, whether they realize it or not.
Rand, that’s a wonderfully concise and clear explanation/example of how classification works in the real world.
Well, apparently not clear or concise enough for “Die on this Hill” Hillary defenders to understand.
He was convicted of giving his GF some personal notes (she was working on his biography) that contained classified information. Where the notebooks stamped classified or declared classified in any way? Nope
Some more detail on those notebooks :
It seems safe to assume that the source materials for Petraeus’s notes were clearly marked as classified. If you could show that Clinton similarly transcribed information from documents marked as classified into emails that she sent through her private server, you’d have a parallel between the two cases. To date no one has shown that Clinton was the sender of any of the emails, or that the information was classified when she sent it.
“To date no one has shown that Clinton was the sender of any of the emails, or that the information was classified when she sent it.”
It doesn’t matter if she sent it, she stored it. Also, you are asking for evidence that was destroyed. You always do this. You say, “Show me the emails!” When part of the scandal is the destruction of evidence.
Destruction of evidence can be an admission of guilt but not innocence.
If I read something from a classified document, and then write it in an email, it didn’t become unclassified in so doing, even if I didn’t write “CLASSIFIED” on it.
Of course not. But if you read some information that isn’t marked as classified, and write it in an email, and only later learn that a classification authority has deemed that same piece of information classified, you can’t retroactively be accused of mishandling classified information. At most you can be accused of not recognizing that a piece of information should be classified, but there you’re talking about a subjective judgement.
Pro tip: Hillary was a “classification authority,” with access to the highest classified material in the nation. It was a fundamental part of her job to know what was and what was not classified. Do you really imagine that she spent her entire tenure and doing her supposed job without ever sending or receiving classified information via email? Or do think she used carrier pigeons? Or what? There is a reason these rules and laws are put in place.
She is a multiple felon, and a liar. Not to mention incompetent. And you and your corrupt political party have been tolerating it for decades.
“At most you can be accused of not recognizing that a piece of information should be classified, but there you’re talking about a subjective judgement (sic).”
Um, okay.
So what you’re saying is that Hillary consistently exercised extremely poor judgment, didn’t understand what sort of information would typically be considered classified, but just never anything that was ‘provably’ illegal.
Because that’s a MUCH better light in which to see someone who wants to be Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces. Someone with poor decision-making skills who doesn’t have a clue about what could potentially be considered classified.
I would think that, in the position of Secretary of State, the default position would be that the vast majority of information I received was classified. Then again, I possess critical thinking skills, a conscience, and I love my country. YMMV.
As a Democrat, this will probably come as a shock to Jim, because it’s so rare with the top people in his party, but there are some people who actually believe that the people running the federal government should actually know WTF they’re doing, and actually care about following the law. Otherwise you might get things like the Chinese getting hold of all the personal data of every federal employee.
It was a fundamental part of her job to know what was and what was not classified.
As a classification authority, it was a fundamental part of her job to decide what was and what was not classified.
Do you really imagine that she spent her entire tenure and doing her supposed job without ever sending or receiving classified information via email?
Nobody in the government is supposed to send classified information by Internet email, regardless of whether the email account is on a government server or a private one; but obviously it happens. For all we know it happened with her predecessors as well, but since their emails were not made public, nobody ever checked.
As a classification authority, it was a fundamental part of her job to decide what was and what was not classified.
Yes, and she clearly did a terrible job at it.
I think it was stupid of Hillary Clinton to use a private email account, just as it was stupid of Colin Powell to use a private email account. But I doubt those choices were even in the top ten worst decisions either one made as Secretary of State. The attention being paid to Clinton’s email isn’t about her competence, or criminality, or national security; those are just excuses. If those were the issues people cared about, they’d be just as worked up about Powell’s email. This story is 100% about the 2016 presidential election.
This isn’t about a “private email account.” It’s about a private server. But we know you’ll continue to attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue of Hillary’s incompetence and corruption.
Yes, and she clearly did a terrible job at it.
How could you possibly know? All we know is that there was information in five emails on her server that the State IG considers classified. That isn’t nearly enough detail to establish that she “did a terrible job” at deciding what should and shouldn’t be classified.
Five emails out of a tiny sample. She claimed that nothing was classified.
You can be held accountable for mishandling classified information if it is sitting in your home and your server was already hacked.
This isn’t about a “private email account.” It’s about a private server.
I’m not sure what distinction you’re trying to draw here. Do you mean “private server” as in “server not run by the government”, or “private server” as in “server used exclusively by Clinton and her associates”?
I mean private server, as completely under her personal physical control. And yes, used exclusively by her and her associates.
“, you can’t retroactively be accused of mishandling classified information.”
Sure you can if the information was still being held by Hillary after it was made classified at her home in a manner that is illegal. And if her server was hacked, which it was.
I mean private server, as completely under her personal physical control.
I agree that running her own server was a dumb move — it’s hard for people who don’t run servers for a living to run them well. But doing what Powell did — getting an account with a regular commercial provider — isn’t wise either. The security might or might not be better, and you have the added exposure to hacking by the provider’s employees. And in either case the government has no ready access to the information, for archiving/FOIA/etc purposes.
Jim still pandering the same lie. Clinton was welcome to use her personal email server to conduct business with the DNC. What Rove did was use his office at the White House to conduct business with the RNC, which Obama does with the DNC today. This was ruled as reasonable use of Government property.
Sending State Department emails regarding State Department business on a personal email server, so that they are not available for public review is against the federal records act. Sending, receiving, and keeping classified records is a violation of the Espionage Act and perhaps of other laws depending on the classified content.
But hey Jim, if you think you can convict Karl Rove, have at it.
At least he stopped accusing Walker and Jeb for violating federal laws when they were state governors.
What Rove did was use his office at the White House to conduct business with the RNC, which Obama does with the DNC today.
Rove used his private email to discuss, among other things, the firing of U.S. attorneys. [The cynic would say that this was RNC business, since the U.S. attorneys were fired for failing to help Republican candidates by pursuing bogus voter fraud prosecutions. But as much as there was a political angle, the supervision and firing of U.S. attorneys is a government matter.]
This was ruled as reasonable use of Government property.
What ruling are you referring to?
But hey Jim, if you think you can convict Karl Rove, have at it.
I don’t think that Karl Rove or Hillary Clinton or Colin Powell can be successfully prosecuted for discussing government business on a private email account, because discussing government business on a private email account isn’t against the law.
I don’t think that Karl Rove or Hillary Clinton or Colin Powell can be successfully prosecuted for discussing government business on a private email account
No one here thinks that, either, but you excel at knocking down straw men.
Leland asks me if I think Karl Rove can be convicted. I answer that I don’t. So you accuse me of knocking down a straw man. Really?
If the government business is classified, then discussing it via private email is against the law. Which is the most pertinent difference between Rove, Powell, and Clinton.
After seeing how Obama runs the hiring and firing at the DOJ, your complaints seem rather hallow. We have never had a DOJ as influenced by politics as we have today. Just look at the Civil Rights division. Nothing but Democrat party politics there and that had a big impact on employment.
Which is the most pertinent difference between Rove, Powell, and Clinton.
1. Then drop the “using a private email account is a flagrant violation of the Federal Records Act” argument (which is what started this sub-thread).
2. What makes you so sure that none of Rove’s and Powell’s email contained classified information? How would we know?
It’s not my thread, but I don’t disagree with the argument. That there is a pertinent difference between Rove and Powell’s use versus Clinton, doesn’t mean Clinton didn’t violate other laws. As I said, if you think Rove and Powell violated the Federal Records Act, go prosecute them. Go ahead, I won’t stand in the way.
Same answer as above, if you want to claim Rove and Powell had classified information, go prosecute them. Go ahead, I won’t stand in the way.
Your arguments Jim are really sophomoric even giving you the benefit of doubt on truth. Prosecute Rove and Powell if you think they broke the law. Don’t expect others to excuse Clinton, because you can’t actually show Rove and Powell did anything like you claim. And we get it, you are lying about it, because you many times mention Jeb Bush as well, which simply, whatever you want to claim he did, did not violate FEDERAL RECORDS ACT, because Jeb was a GOVERNOR. So that you make that claim shows you are just being a partisan hack willing to lie brazenly as if that’s impressive.
As Rand points out, this makes zero sense. She was Secretary of State, she deals with sensitive and secretive issues. These documents weren’t classified yet because she hid them from the classifiers, by putting them out of their vision on an outside server.
Dude, she got hacked. Everything that was on her server is in the hands of hackers and governments. She destroyed emails and altered ones she did turn over.
It is astounding that a security breach like this is not treated with the importance it deserves. But then again it pales in comparison to the other Obama security scandals of Snowden, Manning, and OPM hack.
How about we hold Hillary to the same standard as Petraeus? Or is the law something that is only applied to non-Democrats?
But then again it pales in comparison to the other Obama security scandals of Snowden, Manning, and OPM hack.
I agree, those were all much bigger deals. But they aren’t as easily connected to the election, so they don’t get as much attention.
Since you seem to be unfamiliar with what she did, let’s recap.
She had a private server in her own home, with which she conducted all her government business. She didn’t properly secure it or back it up. She used it to send, receive and store classified information. By her own admission, she deleted thousands of emails on it without anyone other than her and her lawyer being able to see them, so we have no idea what she deleted. In so doing, she broke multiple federal laws, while disposing of evidence sought by Congressional investigators under subpoena (i.e., obstruction of justice, also a federal felony).
And you have no problem with any of this?
She didn’t properly secure it or back it up.
Nor do we know how well Colin Powell’s email was secured or backed up.
She used it to send, receive and store classified information.
We don’t know that, at least not yet. Nor do we know how often other Secretaries of State sent, received or stored classified information in email.
By her own admission, she deleted thousands of emails on it without anyone other than her and her lawyer being able to see them, so we have no idea what she deleted.
Ditto Colin Powell, who deleted all of his email, Federal Records Act or no Federal Records Act.
she broke multiple federal laws
Or so you imagine.
And you have no problem with any of this?
On the contrary. Using a server in her home rather than the State Department email system was, as I wrote elsewhere in this thread, a stupid thing to do. But most of what you are accusing her of was also done by Colin Powell, and his actions haven’t gotten 1% of the attention or criticism, from you or anyone else. The obvious conclusion is that the focus on Hillary Clinton’s email server (just like the focus on Bill Clinton’s sex life) is purely about politics.
Nor do we know how well Colin Powell’s email was secured or backed up.
He was either using a government server, or a commercial one, with standard security and backups. He was not using his own personal private server under his physical control.
We don’t know that, at least not yet.
We do know that, unless you think that the Inspectors General are incompetent, or lying. It’s why the FBI is investigating.
Ditto Colin Powell, who deleted all of his email, Federal Records Act or no Federal Records Act.
Colin Powell, unlike Hillary Clinton, not having his own private server, could not delete all his email.
But most of what you are accusing her of was also done by Colin Powell
Not that I’m a big or even little fan of Colin Powell, but this is simply a lie.
He was either using a government server, or a commercial one, with standard security and backups.
He was using a non-government server. We have no idea how “standard” the backups and security were. I doubt anyone’s ever even asked.
We do know that, unless you think that the Inspectors General are incompetent, or lying.
The IG has not reported that Hillary Clinton used her server “to send, receive and store classified information.” That’s your extrapolation.
Colin Powell, unlike Hillary Clinton, not having his own private server, could not delete all his email.
He claims to have deleted all of it. Maybe the hosting company kept a copy or backup somewhere, maybe they didn’t. I’m not sure which would be worse. In any case, the emails were made unavailable to the National Archives and any courts or FOIA-bearing journalists or Congressional investigators who might have been interested. And not just the ones that Powell deemed personal, but all of them.
He was using a non-government server. We have no idea how “standard” the backups and security were. I doubt anyone’s ever even asked.
We have zero reason to think it was non standard.
The IG has not reported that Hillary Clinton used her server “to send, receive and store classified information.”
No, not literally, but their report clearly implied it.
He claims to have deleted all of it.
I don’t know whether he claimed that or not, but unlike Hillary, it was not possible for him to do so and spoliate the evidence beyond recovery.
I don’t know whether he claimed that or not, but unlike Hillary, it was not possible for him to do so and spoliate the evidence beyond recovery.
Do you really think those emails are recoverable? It doesn’t matter whether he had the server in his basement, the result was the same.
I think they were at the time. And, of course, those who sent or received them could still have copies, unlike Hillary, in which she and Huma (and others) worked completely on a single server under her physical control. And of course, they weren’t under subpoena.
But other than that, yeah, it’s exactly the same thing. [eye roll]
I think they were at the time.
Based on what? Do you even know what service he used? Earlier in this thread you seemed to think he might have been using a government server (he says he wasn’t).
And, of course, those who sent or received them could still have copies,
Wait a second. How is it that the “we can get the emails from the senders/recipients” argument seems totally reasonable to you when we’re talking abut Colin Powell, but totally worthless when it comes to Lois Lerner? And what makes you sure that none of Powell’s associates were also using private email accounts?
Powell’s emails to his colleagues about the decision making behind the Iraq war are much, much more historically interesting and consequential than anything Hillary Clinton might have emailed about Benghazi. But Powell didn’t run for president, so nobody cares that those emails are lost forever.
Based on what? Do you even know what service he used? Earlier in this thread you seemed to think he might have been using a government server (he says he wasn’t).
Based on the fact that a) almost all mail servers, whether commercial or government, do backups and (as I said) b) most people who he had sent or received email from would have copies.
Wait a second. How is it that the “we can get the emails from the senders/recipients” argument seems totally reasonable to you when we’re talking abut Colin Powell, but totally worthless when it comes to Lois Lerner?
I don’t think it’s totally worthless when it comes to Lois Lerner.
And what makes you sure that none of Powell’s associates were also using private email accounts?
I have absolutely no reason to think so, but even if they were, there would almost certainly be back ups. Very very few people have their own private email server.
The Secretary of State having her emails hacked is a pretty big deal and absent those other historic level scandals, this one would also be considered majorly historic. It still is of course but the dense pack of incompetence and scandals means that even Iran getting nuclear weapons isn’t seen as a big deal.
Jim, you’re a liar. Every time you attempt to defend the indefensible you lose even more credibility.
Begone, troll.
Hard to believe that she’ll make it to the primaries; she’s bleeding support. But not among dedicated Democrats; as far as they’re concerned it’s all right-wing scaremongering _by definition_.
enh, all she has to do is not quit. The only thing that would remove her from the race is a jail cell and even then it wouldn’t really matter to the Democrat base.
Remember that her husband lied under oath to a grand jury, and directly to the public, about having a tawdry affair with an intern. Then, after the truth had come out in every humiliating detail, his approval rating reached 73%. Voters care about scandals, but they care even more about other things.
I predict that it will take a lot more than this email story to keep Hillary Clinton from wining the Democratic nomination and, in all likelihood, the White House.
All you seem to be saying is that Democrats have zero standards and that following laws, rules, and regulations is only something Democrats want the other to do, which explains why you guys always want to increase regulations.
It looks a lot like Jim Crow 2.0.
Not relevant. Clinton pathetic personal character doesn’t change the public’s perception of his being a competent president. Mrs. Clinton’s “scandals” all have to do with being incompetent (some of them have to do with being corrupt and for hire). Most Americans are hopefully coming to see her as being nobody who belongs in this job.
In Jimworld no law is broken unless there is a conviction and the talking points also agree.
The funny thing is he keeps bringing up Colin Powell as a defense. If Colin Powell, like Gen. Petraeus, was careless with classified data, then prosecute him. Same with Karl Rove, except the only claim (other than Jim’s lying distortion), made against Rove was using his office in the White House to conduct private business with the RNC. The only thing “lost” was those emails, requested by a Progressive Non-Profit started by friends of Hillary, and their lawsuit to obtain the “lost” emails went no where. That lawsuit was a civil case. If Obama wants to prosecute Rove on criminal charges, go ahead, I won’t shed a tear.
In my opinion, the Obama administration is aiding and abetting this take down of Jim’s dream girl.
Note that you won’t see Obama using Benghazi as that would suck him into the culpability vortex.
But I wouldn’t put it past the Clinton-leones to strike back with it if all hopes of the White House are lost.
That would be fun, especially if Biden joins the race.
Well, you gotta say this about Baghdad Jim. He isn’t just a slavish, knee-jerk Obama/Obama Gang. He goes into full Walter Duranty mode for whoever the Hive’s standard bearer. If he were around in the 1990s he’d probably be insisting that Bubba did NOT have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. Until the stained.blue dress surfaced of course..
As it happens, when the Lewinsky story broke I wanted Bill Clinton to resign. I find it hard to like politicians who don’t follow the rules. But over time I came to see that even if Clinton clung to his office out of narcissism, there was a point to his defiance. He could see, as eventually most of the public saw too, that the campaign to drive him from office was a hypocritical political witch-hunt that should not be encouraged or appeased. In hindsight I think his resistance, as self-centered as it undoubtably was, was a good thing for the country.
The Clintons are never going to be my favorite politicians, but the rule-following boy scout types I prefer are vanishingly rare at the top level of politics. On the spectrum of corruption/lawbreaking/sleaziness among national politicians the Clintons are about par for the course; they certainly aren’t squeaky clean, but they aren’t Nixon or LBJ either, and that’s despite the fact that they’ve been investigated more thoroughly than any politicians of their era. And in particular, their failings have not been central to the performance of their duties. Bill Clinton’s treatment of individual women may make him a terrible person, but it didn’t keep him from being a better-than-average president. Hillary Clinton’s handling of her email server showed poor judgment, but not remotely to the same degree as her support for military action in Libya and Syria, or her vote for the Iraq war. Even then her foreign policy judgment strikes me as superior to that of her Republican opponents. And on domestic policy there is, for someone with my opinions, no comparison.
Which is why I support her election next year. Not because she hasn’t made big mistakes, or because I particularly like her, simply because I think she’ll do a better job as president than anyone else who has a shot of being elected (damn you, 22nd amendment).
FWIW, here’s the statement that the Intelligence Community IG made re. the emails with classified information:
A few points:
1. The information was considered classified by the Intelligence Community when the emails were written, and therefore the IC doesn’t think the information should have been transmitted on an unclassified email system. It isn’t stated whether the senders knew, or should have known, the information’s classification status.
2. It doesn’t say whether Clinton sent or received the emails. I’ve assumed that Clinton only handed over emails that she’d either sent or received.
3. The note about how this wasn’t a criminal referral presumably refers to the spectacular fast one that Trey Gowdy and/or staff played on the New York Times, getting the Gray Lady to print and then quickly correct a false story alleging that the IGs had made a criminal referral into Clinton’s conduct. Clinton scandals have been catnip to the Times since 1992.
It isn’t stated whether the senders knew, or should have known, the information’s classification status.
Irrelevant comment made by someone completely ignorant of how classified information is handled.
This is the equivalence of carrying about whether the sender knew about the classified nature of the material. This Marine is facing 3-15 years for possessing material she is constitutionally permitted to have.
http://nypost.com/2015/08/05/fbi-investigation-of-hillarys-emails-is-criminal-probe/
Source says it really is a criminal probe.