In the latest batch of emails, evidence that Hillary ordered an underling to deliberately mishandle classified information.
I’m sure you’re as shocked as I am.
In a sane world, this woman would never have gotten anywhere near any position of responsibility or consequence, let alone be the putative nominee for president by a major political party.
[Update a few minutes later]
“If she were a Republican, the mainstream media would have (appropriately) disgraced and branded her as a traitor by now.”
Yup. Because she is.
Apparently, a state department spokescritter is trying to excuse this by saying that they don’t know if the documents were actually sent, or were classified.
My reading of the relevant statutes is that just giving the order is a felony (if it was actually sent, that’s more felonies).
As for the excuse that they don’t know if it was classified, baloney. You don’t need to use a secure fax for unclassified material. Also, such material wouldn’t have the headers Hillary ordered removed.
My guess; the FBI will be all over this, if they aren’t already. And, if somebody tries to stifle the investigation, the FBI will start leaking like a sieve (as they’ve done in the past with far less cause). I’m betting they recommend indictment soon, and Lynch may or may not do it. If she doesn’t, I’m betting congress impeaches her, and the senate trail will be interesting.
Now for some more blatant speculation on my part; I don’t think Biden’s comments yesterday (the day before this bombshell) about regretting not running for president were in any way coincidental. I suspect he’ll run once Hillary is indicted or otherwise withdraws.
“Apparently, a state department spokescritter is trying to excuse this by saying that they don’t know if the documents were actually sent, or were classified. ”
She need only agree to receive it without the markings to have violated the law:
“(c) Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note, of anything connected with the national defense, knowing or having reason to believe, at the time he receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain it, that it has been or will be obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by any person contrary to the provisions of this chapter; or ”
This is the clause used to sting traitors without actually exposing classified information. An agent merely has to offer something that may be classified. All the violator has to do is believe that what they are receiving is classified and agree to obtain it. Nothing has to actually be sent or even classified.
Thank you, Leyland, that’s interesting news indeed.
She clearly believed it to be classified, otherwise there would be no headers to be removed. As an aside, I think this explains why the headers were missing from the other classified material in her e-mails (over 1300 and counting).
I’ll also note than when two or more people are involved, it falls under conspiracy statutes as well, for everyone involved.
The law, by the way, has an exception for the “heir apparent” to the presidency when all of the presidential-appointment patronage jobs are on the line. Who wants to enforce the law and then spend the rest of their career as a Wal-Mart greeter?
“Apparently, a state department spokescritter is trying to excuse this by saying that they don’t know if the documents were actually sent, or were classified.”
Did Sullivan’s emails go missing to? This should be easy enough to check even if Hillary destroyed this particular email.
They don’t know if the documents were actually sent?
Surely they can just go down and ask the NSA. Right? Right?
This really is a “smoking gun.” Instructing someone to remove classified markings from a document and send it in the clear is an unbelievable violation of the law. It will be very telling how the media handles this. If they simply try to spin it on her behalf, then they lose all credibility in my view (whatever they have left). But if someone, anyone, has the initiative to just interview someone who knows the security system, they will find that this is an incredibly serious matter.
I don’t think the FBI will ever recommend an indictment, however. They know that the DoJ will likely say no, and whoever puts his or her name on the recommendation will face the unwelcome possibility that Hillary will be elected president. And if that happens, anyone who crossed her will be dead meat.
“In a sane world…”
When did “sane” become synonymous with “honest”?
Looks like the talking points Hillary was demanding might well be for her conversation with the Russian foreign minister a few hours after that, on Libya and Syria. If so, and as indicated by Sullivan having to be ordered to send them by another route (and Hillary ordering the headers removed) , they were surely classified.
So, what’s Hillary’s defense going to be? I think I see one avenue for her, one that fits with all the other classified stuff found in her e-mails sans the classification markings. She’ll simply claim that she thought it was just fine to send classified stuff unsecure so long as she took the markings off first, because she thought it was the markings, not the data, that was classified.
In other words, I think she’s going to go for the “I’m totally stupid” defense.
Have to disagree. I think the ultimate defense is going to boil down to: “Here are others (Republicans) who might have done the same thing; this is all just another example of the vast right-wing conspiracy, along with their media enablers, attempting to smear an innocent Woman and prevent her from working hard for the hard-working American middle-class”.
I can’t find a link but Bill was asked earlier this week about his past abuses of women and his response was in effect: “Well, there are always going to be people who want to take away good Americans votes”.
I think the defense here is going to be deflect-deflect-deflect combined with “Why are all these people trying so hard to destroy this good woman? You should be looking at the motivations of these people, not Hilary’s behavior”.
Curt, I agree with your disagreement on my comment. 🙂
I think you’re right, sort of, that that will be her defense, except that will be her political (public) defense. She won’t try that in court, where it’s useless. My guess on her legal defense is she’ll argue diminished capacity of some sort, perhaps mental impairment due to her concussion.
I hope very much that I am wrong, but I observe that we live in a society where application of the law is arbitrary to the point of whimsy.
Laws are for little people. Hillary will never be charged. She could get caught on camera entering (or being ejected from!) the Russian embassy holding a suitcase full of Trident missile submarine blueprints. She could preside at a Black Mass complete with human sacrifice, and streaming live worldwide Internet video. Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, and if you object too loudly they just might put you on the No-Fly List, or worse.
Arizona CJ, you said “Looks like the talking points Hillary was demanding might well be for her conversation with the Russian foreign minister a few hours after that, on Libya and Syria. ”
The (admittedly few) news reports I saw didn’t specify the subject of the talking points. Where are you getting any suggestion or indication of the subject of the talking points?
@ Bob-1
I found a reference to it, but it’s not where I first saw it (I can’t seem to find that one again).
http://www.tass.li/
It’s at the bottom, where a state department spokesperson mentions Hillary’s discussions with Leronov, the Russian FM, and the topics.
Thank you, and thank you for looking for the original too.
I predict that the political defense (as opposed to a legal defense) will be: These were my talking points for my interaction with the press, and my talking points didn’t need to be classified, as any information in my talking points were for me to share with the press, if I chose to do so at my press conference.
This is the second smoking gun. The first was the emails that showed she lied about a video causing Benghazi. The email showing she ordered classified information sent, is the second. So when is one going to drop about her trading State Department favors for Clinton Foundation donations?
I Martin Joseph O’Malley, do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully . . .
He would be lucky to carry Maryland. He got one person to show up to a rally in Iowa the other week and even he wouldn’t commit to voting for him.
Scratch that, he wouldn’t carry Maryland.
OK, this is not what I want to happen, just my observation of how this will “go down.”
Senator Cruz wins Iowa — he has put all is eggs in that basket, especially with respect to the “ground game” to get his supporters to the caucus sites. Mr. Trump is certainly appearing in Iowa, but he has nothing going on there of that scale.
If Mr. Trump’s ego doesn’t get in the way, especially on being challenged that he is a “loser” when he has so many words to put down other “losers”, he is poised to win New Hampshire. Again, if he maintains operational discipline, he is poised to win “yuge” in South Carolina, and then it is panic time for the GOPe. Bush . . . Bueller . . . Bueller? . . . Christie? . . . Rubio?
For the Democrats, the Hillary-as-inevitable is all about patronage and the Clintons and their Foundation have anyone and everyone wanting a presidential appointment in their thrall. Bernie? Sure is popular in Madison, WI, but get real people, you want a plum post and you are going to side with him no matter what all the college-town liberals want?
So what happens when the Front Runner gets some water splashed on her and starts crying, “I’m melting, I’m melting . . . you fool, I’m melting!” Getting that gummint job is then melting away before your eyes.
President Trump, yuck! When that happens, “they” will put a broomstick up Governor O’Malley’s backside. You’ll see . . .
The Democrats are screwed without Hillary and they burned their boats so don’t have any options other than the three poor ones they present their voters to allow the illusion of choice.
Sanders fans are so passionate, that if Hillary drops out and the party leaders select O’Malley, there will be an insurrection. The socialists and black bloc anarchists that make the base of Democrat activism, aren’t going to play nice. It would be interesting to see if they get beneficial treatment the media gave OWS and gives BLM or if they get treated like Bundys.
@ Woden
IMHO, the lying about Benghazi wasn’t a legal smoking gun, because although utterly reprehensible, it wasn’t a criminal matter (hrmmm or was it? It was if she lied to Congress).
This one, though, is clear proof of a federal felony (actually, several) including violations of the espionage acts. IMHO, that makes the Benghazi lie a smoking pistol, while this one is more of a smoking cannon – much bigger.
I agree her Benghazi lie wasn’t illegal, I am not sure if she was under oath when speaking before congress. It was just a smoking gun that she, and the administration, lied.