51 thoughts on “The Hillary Email Probe”

1. Yes, and the defense is that Hillary is too incompetent and uninvolved to be charged.

   Oh yes, that one will play.

   1. “the defense is that Hillary is too incompetent and uninvolved to be charged.”

      Works for Obama who only learns about things his agencies do in the newspapers.

2. She’s now being investigated for violation of the Espionage Act. So what does she do: she calls Pro-Life supporters “radical terrorist”, compares the GOP to ISIS, and likens her Republican challengers to NAZIs loading people into boxcars (although Trump did use NAZI troops in an ad recently, so who knows about that guy). She’s flinging mud and it’s still summer 2015.

   She’s toast. Democrats are now scrambling to find someone under the age of 70 to replace her and avoid Sanders. Fauxcahontas is 67, so she might charm to youth vote.

   1. “She’s now being investigated for violation of the Espionage Act. ”

      This from an administration whose Justice Department only investigates Republicans and Tea Party members….

      Obama is serious

      1. Isn’t the DOJ investigating Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)?

         1. Yeah only because Menendez made himself an enemy of Obama as well by opposing him. The investigation is a swat-back.

            And in case you hadn’t noticed, Clinton is a Democrat as well.

            That was a ridiculous comment and you ought to know better – have the facts first, and then do a tiny little bit of analysis please, ok?

            Sheesh.

      2. Bah. Obama wants shakedown money. You can’t build a billion-dollar slush fund on $5 donations. I believe Obama’s “chance” meeting with Bubba at golf a while back was to negotiate how much the Clinton Foundation would have to donate to the Obama Foundation to avoid an indictment during the campaign. The longer the Clintons wait, the more Obama’s going to want, so they should settle soon.

3. https://twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/637340831221809152

   I came upon this from Glenn Reynolds the Instapundit.

   Remember, if you are going to be the piñata, beware of sharks, especially in an impending train wreck!

4. One of the Alinsky tactics is ridicule, but Mr. Trump has shown how to “punch through” the ridicule — kind of like military anti-ambush tactics.

   But by doing so, has this immunized Mr. Biden from ridicule for his gaffes and unscripted comments — Mr. Trump has established the precedent of saying the outrageous?

5. Last night Charlie Sheen tweeted that he’d love to be Trump’s VP, ending with #TrumpSheen16

   The government we deserve?

   1. Charlie Sheen is a Republican?!

      Republicans: the party party.

6. The part that’s boggling in this is not politicians-behaving-badly.

   It’s that everyone else pretty much had to know there were violations and went with the flow.

7. I have to agree with my girlfriend, KfH, that the ideal presidential race from an entertainment point of view would be Biden vs. Trump. The debates alone would be hysterical – like two ventriloquist dummies with no one driving. Dumbererer and Dumberererer.

   1. “I have to agree with my girlfriend, KfH,”

      Marry that woman. You wont find another one with matching three letter nom de plume.

      1. Hahahahaha! 🙂

      2. The only combo I can think of the could top this is: KfC & MkD
         The wedding could be subtitled – The Hunger Games… and of course we know who’d be catering the reception… heh

8. Setting aside the issue of Clinton aides taking classified info of a secure airgapped network, stripping off the classification makings, and sending it to her, the fact of the matter is that if Hillary Clinton sent anything classified (whether it was marked or not is irrelevant) over that unsecure network, it’s a felony. It is likewise a felony (under the espionage act) if she sent it to anyone not cleared to see it, such as Sydney Blumenthal. And, apparently, Blumenthal gave congress copies of his e-mails when called to testify. (I wonder if there was an immunity deal?)

   I also wonder what the Republicans would do if they do have such a smoking gun? Tactically, their ideal move would be to stall and let Hillary become the nominee, THEN hit her with it.

   I wonder if that’s why the Dems are starting to panic and look for alternatives, such as Biden. I hear there’s even a Draft Dukakis movement. If so, obviously, they’re going for the youth vote (he’s 81).

   1. if Hillary Clinton sent anything classified (whether it was marked or not is irrelevant) over that unsecure network, it’s a felony.

      Apparently the statute in question requires intent — to commit the crime Clinton would have had to intentionally sent classified information (i.e. information that she knew was classified) to someone not authorized to see it. And the prosecutor would have to be able to prove her intent beyond a reasonable doubt. That was possible in the Petraeus case because Paula Broadwell recorded an interview in which he openly stated that he was giving her classified information that she wasn’t authorized to see. That that sort of smoking gun evidence against Clinton (e.g. a forwarded email from her with a introductory comment along the lines of “I know that you aren’t supposed to see this sort of classified information, but thought you’d be interested…”) may not exist.

      And, apparently, Blumenthal gave congress copies of his e-mails when called to testify.

      Blumenthal’s emails had been leaked by a hacker, so it wasn’t as if he had the option of keeping them private.

      1. 18 U.S. Code § 793

         (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, 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.

         1. Game, Set, Match.

            Once again a trifle of research shreds whatever Jim says.

         2. Thanks for the legal cites, George.

            The only thing I’d like to add is that, while that statute certainly applies, other do as well. One example is Title 18 Code 2071

            (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

            (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

            Bolding mine.

            If I was a Democrat, I’d be hoping that this scandal blows up sooner rather than later, because we’re fast approaching a point where it’ll be too late for other candidates to effectively enter the race (due to the need to build a nationwide operation, which takes a lot of time). Otherwise, they’re effectively betting the farm that Hillary Milhous Clinton can survive this investigation for long enough to get elected.

         3. Thanks, George, for looking that up. That section does only require “gross negligence”, i.e. falling significantly below the ordinary standard of care. But given that the previous administration also discussed classified information over insecure email, even proving that Clinton was grossly negligent (given what we know today) would be a stretch. It appears that having classified information leak into unclassified email messages was standard operating procedure at State long before Clinton got there.

            1. We have no evidence that Colin Powell ever discussed classified information on his personal email account. Unlike Hillary, he didn’t have his own private server, and he also had a government email account.

            2. The transmission of now-classified information across Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email is consistent with a State Department culture in which diplomats routinely sent secret material on unsecured email during the past two administrations, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

               Unlike Hillary, he didn’t have his own private server, and he also had a government email account.

               Is your argument that routinely sending classified information over an email system that has been breached by hackers only crosses the line into gross negligence when it’s a private server, and/or when you don’t have a government email account?

            3. At a minimum, getting a government email account indicates some level of willingness to follow the rules. And yes, handling classified documents on your own personal unsecured server would fall in the category of gross negligence in any sane world.

               But a shorter answer to your question, from someone who has been responsible for handling classified documents, is “yes.”

            4. Ah – that AP article is very close to what I suggested would be Clinton’s claim: everyone in State is sloppier with the rules than those guys out making missiles and stuff. It’s not a bad argument; it will certainly be effective with Clinton supportors. We’ll see about the FBI. I would have thought there was a big difference between the sloppiness that is inevitable for people out in the field, and the negligence involved in a insecure permanent setup. If that’s what happened.

      2. Jim,

         Not all of the Fed statutes in question require intent, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume that they do.

         If, hypothetically, one of Hillary’s aids sent her an e-mail saying, “The CIA just sent this over”, followed by quoted material sans classification markings, it’s still a violation. The reason is that just about anything from some sources (such as CIA) would be, especially to anyone with a security clearance, obviously classified, markings or no markings.

         Also, merely allowing something she knew (or can be reasonably assumed knew) to be classified to reside anywhere unapproved (such as her server) would be a felony.

         The statutes pertaining to classified information are harsh. Just ask two former CIA directors who had to plead guilty. The two are Petraeus and Deutch. The latter had agreed to a guilty plea for keeping classified info on a home laptop, but Clinton pardoned him on his last day in office.

         Both ex-directors were, as I recall, stripped of their security clearances and thus barred from holding any office requiring one, which certainly should be the case for anyone mishandling classified info.

         Hillary Clinton might be able to deflect some of the charges by pleading gross incompetence on her part (a person with massively high clearances utterly oblivious to the basics of how to handle classified info) but that won’t work for all of them.

         My guess as to how all this will play out; if Hillary wins the election, on her first day in office she’ll burp, feign embarrassment, and mutter (loud enough for the microphones to overhear) “Oops, pardon me.”. A president’s power to pardon is, after all, absolute (save in cases of impeachment). 🙂

         1. Hey, instead of the successor president giving a blanket pardon to the former president after having left the office in disgrace, the preceding president can give a blanket pardon to the president-elect entering the office under a cloud . . .

            Cool!

      3. As we’ve discussed before, I still think that by far the most likely source of classified information is: any exchange between the Secretary of State and some foreign official. If Clinton used her private email for official business, she was sending and receiving messages that were classified from the get-go.
         If it turns out that that’s true, her only possible defense would be that she never knew that – which is absolutely ridiculous. Huh, they forgot to brief her on classified information, or she just wasn’t listening at that moment.
         I don’t think we know enough yet what exactly is in all her emails, but if that is the case, she would seem to be completely guilty of many counts of a serious felony charge.
         The only defense I can imagine is that the rest of us just don’t understand what a Secretary of State’s job is like. The rest of you joes have to follow all those rules, but my job is so critical that I have to go with whatever works best and fastest; the future of Libya may depend on it!
         That kind of defense would probably work fine with Democratic voters, who are anxious to see a defense for Clinton. Whether it works with the FBI to save her from an indictment would depend on whether it’s actually true: did the last ten Secretaries of State follow the rules?

      4. “Blumenthal’s emails had been leaked by a hacker, so it wasn’t as if he had the option of keeping them private.”

         Yes, and the emails he turned over showed that Hillary did not turn everything over as claimed and that she altered emails she did turn over.

   2. >I also wonder what the Republicans would do if they do have such a smoking gun?

      Hahahahahahahahahaha!! Oh, wow, let me wipe the tears from my eyes.

      They wouldn’t do a damned thing.

9. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is the “why”.

   Why would Hillary Clinton go to all the trouble of having a server set up, and then take the risk of using it?

   The “convenience” excuse simply does not wash, because it is clearly far from convenient, and also assumes a profound stupidity on Clinton’s part (that she’s incapable of coping with two e-mail addresses, and has to have only one).

   Therefor, there must be some reason. It’s also reasonable to assume that if someone goes to great, illegal lengths to hide something, it’s worth their effort to hide.

   One prime suspect; the massive foreign donations to the Clinton foundation during Clinton’s tenure as SecState; Pay to Play on a vast scale.

   And a note to Clinton supporters who object to this line of speculation; blame your mendacious candidate. She clearly invites this sort of speculation and accusation by her own actions (secret e-mail server while accepting hundreds of millions in foreign money while SecState).

   Exit question; Senator Melendez is under indictment for pay-for-services offenses . What evidence is there against Menendez that there isn’t, on a far grander scale, against Hillary Clinton?

   1. The same “why” question applies to Colin Powell — why did he use a private email address rather than one at state.gov? There must be some reason.

      1. Jim, I’m not all that familiar with the Powell issue, but if he was using a private email account for official biz, and if it was against the law or rules at the time he did so, then of course the same suspicions apply.

         Okay, some quick googling reveals that the email retention rules date back to 2005. Powell left State in 2005. IMHO, a key question is, did his use of private e-mail while SecState overlap with the new rule? If so, he was clearly in violation.

         It also appears that his defense largely consists of “I didn’t see any reason not to”, which I do find a bit suspect. I’d find it vastly more suspect if he had a personal foundation raking in hundreds of millions in foreign donations during his tenure. If it’s found he sent or received classified info on that account, I’d be in favor of prosecuting him.

         Also, using a private e-mail address isn’t quite the same thing as setting up a secret private server in one’s basement (the former is bad, the latter is even worse), and using it in order to avoid using an official address. That’s an even higher level of suspicious activity, and begs even more the issue of “why?”.

         BTW, if you’re looking for a Republican official to use as a counter example, you don’t have to look far to find one who is also seeking the White House; Jeb Bush did the same thing (secret private server used for official biz) while governor. Granted, he wasn’t subject to Federal or State Dept. rules, but it’s still shady as heck (and may have broken state laws), and begs the question of “what was he hiding?”

         1. Basement? Toilet. The server was in the toilet service closet.

            “Press handle to delete . . . sploooosshhhhhh!” Hoo boy, that one . . .”

         2. Neither Powell nor Clinton broke any laws or rules merely by conducting government business using a non-government email account. The retention rules didn’t prohibit use of non-government accounts. Your question was why they chose this (legal and permitted) option, and you suggested that the motive must be suspicious. But I can imagine a lot of different motives, ranging from shady to entirely innocuous. The fact that they used private email accounts doesn’t tell us that either one of them was hiding anything.

            1. “Retention rules” . . . as in retention tank?

               The double entendres just keep coming along . . .

      2. What is your point? Why do you constantly bring this up?

         1. Um . . .

            1. Because it is there?

            2. Colin Powell is also running an influence peddling operation masquerading as a charitable foundation and is the odds-on favorite to be elected President?

            3. After endorsing Obama for President, Colin Powell is equally disliked by Conservatives, who would like the FBI to investigate him while they are at it?

            4. I’m a ‘bot and not a flesh-and-blood commentator?

            5. I am a patriotic American who cringes at the thought of a Biden-Warren ticket?

            6. I secretly work for Donald Trump?

            and last, but not least . . .

            7. Food fight!

         2. 4a. I’m not a ‘bot (though I sometimes play one) but I do rely on the mother ship.

      3. Powell said it would be inappropriate to comment on Clinton’s email use. The State Department’s policy on personal email accounts dates back to 2005, the year Powell left the administration.

         “When I entered the State Department I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly,” he said. “I started using [email] in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st-century institution and not a 19th-century [one]. But I retained none of those emails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails.”

         Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/colin-powell-hillary-clinton-email-state-department-115870#ixzz3kPQ5xWkH

         Really not hard to find the info on Powell, Defilade Jim, member of the Flakabteilung.

10. Yes the emerging “narrative” is that everything classified in the Hill’s emails wasn’t classified at the time. Only later… Can’t wait to see if the O goes with that or leaks a smoking gun…

11. Oops

    “Hillary’s classified missives weren’t sent to just State Department personnel. She also disseminated highly classified information to private citizens who did not have security clearances. In this 2009 e-mail exchange, for example, Clinton sent confidential classified national security information to Sidney Blumenthal, a shady former Clinton White House operative who the Obama White House banned from federal employment:

    The bulk of Hillary Clinton’s message to Blumenthal was redacted, under codes 1.4(D) and 1.4(B) because classification authorities determined it contained classified information “which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security[.]” As was the case with other e-mails where Clinton originated classified information, authorities determined that the information was classified at birth and did not allow declassification until November of 2024 — 15 years after the e-mail was written and sent by Hillary, rather than 15 years after the information was marked.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/01/breaking-hillary-intentionally-originated-and-distributed-highly-classified-information/

12. Oh dear….

    “Blair e-mailed Clinton again the next day, copying Sullivan, Clinton’s aide, apparently on a private e-mail account of his own. The entirety of that e-mail has been redacted from public disclosure as part of the FOIA release. Why? Because it has now been acknowledged as classified information and formally marked “Confidential” by State Department reviewers. The markings that accompany the redactions (which took place just this week as part of the release) explain that the redacted portion is classified under parts 1.4(B) and 1.4(D) of President Obama’s Executive Order 13526. Thus, it falls within the categories of information classified as “foreign government information” — 1.4(B) — and information relating to “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources” — 1.4(D).
    ……
    Those markings are relevant because they blow up the Clinton campaign’s insistence that Mrs. Clinton and her colleagues did not know that the information at issue was classified at the time. Clinton is, of course, correct that the e-mails were not formally marked classified at the time they were exchanged, but that is only the result of a failure by Mrs. Clinton and her staff to mark them and handle them through the proper channels used for such foreign communications. The information contained in the e-mails was plainly classified at the time they were sent and received — by order of the president.”

    So not only was classified info transmitted through the homebrew server…..they were mishandled by Clinton in that they were not properly marked.

    There’s more

    “xecutive Order 13526, issued by President Obama at the beginning of his term, addresses the classification and handling of national-security information. It provides that “foreign government information” — which includes “information provided to the United States Government by a foreign government or governments, an international organization of governments, or any element thereof, with the expectation that the information, the source of the information, or both, are to be held in confidence” — must be treated as classified. The president made a determination in the Executive Order that disclosure of these confidential foreign communications “is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” ”

    “The State Department now acknowledges that the Blair communications — just like scores of other Clinton e-mails involving sensitive diplomatic communications in Africa, Afghanistan, and elsewhere — are classified “Confidential” as foreign-government communications. Their determination simply confirms that the information was classified all along and that Clinton and her inner circle should have treated the e-mails containing it with the care required by our national-security laws and regulations. Instead, they were regularly passed between insecure private e-mail addresses, handed off wholesale to the private Internet company that maintained her server, and shared with who knows how many lawyers and staff as part of her own private review process.”

    “Putting aside the legal technicalities, Clinton’s plea of ignorance defies common sense. ”

    Indeed

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423371/hillary-clinton-emails-tony-blair-classified-information

13. Uh Oh:

    “As Breitbart News revealed, Hillary’s email account clintonemail.com was operating with the same IP addresses as presidentclinton.com, an email account managed by the private Clinton Foundation and used by top Clinton Foundation staffers. The IP addresses were based in New York City, meaning that they were sharing the same email network at the same physical location, likely at one of the Clintons’ Midtown Manhtattan offices. Additionally, Chelsea Clinton’s work email account chelseaoffice.com was sharing the same email server.

    wjcoffice.com, an email account used by Bill Clinton staffers, including his former communications director Jay Carson, also shared the same IP address as clintonemail.com.

    Breitbart News has also discovered that clintonemail.com and presidentclinton.com were using the same IP port: port 443.

    That Hillary Clinton shared a server with the Clinton Foundation and the offices of her husband and daughter raises further concerns about the illegality of her private email use, since other Clinton-World employees not affiliated with the State Department certainly had physical access to her server and the classified information on it.”

    1. “The fact that both of these email servers have the same IP address means that they were operating on the same network, and sharing physical space…A geographical search for the IP address that both servers shared at registration traces to Midtown Manhattan…The Denver-based firm Platte River Networks told Breitbart News that it physically moved Hillary Clinton’s private email server out of the basement of her Chappaqua home in 2013. But the Clintons could have moved the server from Manhattan to Chappaqua before Platte River got there.”
       That’s the part that is freaky and incredibly guilty-looking, if it is verified.

    2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/staffer-who-worked-on-clintons-private-e-mail-server-faces-subpoena/2015/09/02/8b1e6438-51c2-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html?postshare=9271441241742808
       ‘ “While we understand that Mr. Pagliano’s response to this subpoena may be controversial in the current political environment, we hope that the members of the Select Committee will respect our client’s right to invoke the protections of the Constitution,” his attorney, Mark MacDougall, wrote.’

14. This is sure to help Hillary as the optics are so positive:

    “Hillary Aide Who Set Up Email Server Tells Congress He Will Take the Fifth”

    For those of us with a befogged view of things, the relevant part of the 5th is:

    “….nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,…”

    Which says a lot about “himself”.

    1. Obviously, he has a perfect right to take the Fifth; what’s important here are the optics. It looks bad.
       Mind you, I would do the same. Anyone should understand that telling Federal investigators anything under oath is a really bad idea, even if it is true. They may come looking for a fall guy.

15. “Obviously, he has a perfect right to take the Fifth; ”

    Absolutely.

    But it doesn’t make things better for Hillary.

    And if he can be flipped……

16. I like the quip in the latest NATIONAL REVIEW:

    “Hillary has been wearing orange pantsuits. Someone’s been planning ahead.”

Comments are closed.