The FBI isn’t happy.
It shouldn’t be. This was blatant political interference with an ongoing investigation (as was his “not a smidgen of corruption” comment about the IRS).
[Update a couple minutes later]
Oh, just noticed this obligatory “But Booooosh!”
Mr. Obama is not the first president to generate criticism for weighing in on cases. George W. Bush was criticized when he told an interviewer that he believed Representative Tom DeLay of Texas was innocent of illegal fund-raising charges. Mr. DeLay’s conviction was overturned last year.
Did I miss the part where the prosecutor in Texas worked for the president?
A much older case is when Nixon weighed in on Charles Manson’s guilt. That was another one where it wasn’t as big a deal, because it was a local prosecution, not a federal one.
[Update a while later]
“Gross negligence” and Espionage Act violations.
I’ll bet a lot of the agents working the case would like to see the book thrown at her. But Lynch will never do it.
A felon in the WH? Wouldn’t be the first time. Watch her pardon herself and the media go along.
Trump is our next prez., may god have mercy on U.S.
I am convinced that HRC still will be our next President.
My read on the law (I may be wrong) is that a president can pardon themselves, except in cases of impeachment. So, could Hillary pardon herself for crimes committed before taking office? IMHO, yes, and that’s just one of many reasons I oppose giving her the power to do so.
Going further on the law; IMHO, the sub-chapter F (gross negligence) provision looks like a slam dunk for conviction. It’s already been proven that classified information did indeed transit that server repeatedly. The issue of whether it was marked classified at the time is legally irrelevant under the statutes, and is further immaterial because some of it was classified due to source (refereed to as born classified).
Further, classified data was disseminated via this system to people not cleared to have it (Sid Blumenthal being a proven case).
However, just the fact that the classified data resided in an unsecure private system (would anyone care to attempt to argue that it didn’t?) is gross negligence per the statute. Here’s subsection F in full;
“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Was Sec State Clinton entrusted with lawful access and control of the classified info by being Sec State (and the security clearances that accompany the position)? Yes. (anyone think otherwise?)
Was Hillary Clinton aware that the server existed, and was being used to send and receive classified info? If she either sent or received any herself, or was aware of others with access doing the same, the answer is yes.
Did Hillary Clinton immediately report this situation to her superiors (which would be the President and congress), which would be the one plausible defense? Obama has stated publicly, at least once, that he was unaware, so no.
Does anyone see any way this isn’t a slam dunk prosecution (other than by means of illegal political meddling with the FBI)?
The FBI doesn’t prosecute people. All they can do is provide recommendations to the Department of Justice.
@ Rand,
That’s when I meant by illegal meddling with the FBI; the JD refusing to act for political reasons if the FBI provides them with a solid case. I phrased it rather poorly.
That’s not really “meddling with the FBI.” If they said, “We don’t like your answer, give us a better one,” that would be meddling, but if the FBI provides evidence of crime, and Justice simply declines to prosecute, that is not.
@ Rand,
I agree, kind of. It’s political meddling (of the sort seen in dictatorships) no matter where in the chain it occurs. If the meddling is solely via the JD, I agree it’s not meddling with the FBI (which can’t prosecute, nor make a recommendation to prosecute). My hunch, however, is that it won’t be a case of meddling on one place or the other, but both. We’ve already seen it via Obama’s on camera comments on the investigation, and those comments IMHO carry influence with some in both agencies, because both are federal agencies. (But, as I say, my original comment was very poorly worded in this regard, and I should have included the JD).
On the other hand, in the interest of fairness and giving Obama all due benefit of the doubt, I think we’re expecting a bit too much of him if we expect him to exercise the self control needed to keep quiet on such issues. If you want proof of my contention, just ask any pre-elementary teacher as to whether or not their dimmest charges can exercise the self control needed to keep their mouths shut on sensitive issues where silence would be the sensible option.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Loretta Lynch decides to honor her oath and prosecute under 18 USC 793 sub F.
Doesn’t the Justice Department have to get an indictment? I know a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, but I don’t think a tag team of Rudy Giuliani and Torquemada could get a D.C. grand jury to indict Hillary. So why should she worry?
Lynch doesn’t concern me that much. If the FBI recommends that Clinton be punished for her criminal neglect of classified documents, she will not be elected president regardless of what the Justice Dept decides to do about it. If it would happen soon enough, she wouldn’t even be nominated. The Democratic Party would go into a tremendous turmoil, Bernie Sanders might be nominated (or maybe Joe Biden), and it would be a lot of fun.
Obama makes it sound like these are off the cuff remarks but in his presser the other day, he made it clear he is very deliberate about what chooses to talk about when it comes to Hillary, the IRS, and that professor Gates (?).