Law, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Technology and Society, War Commentary

Hillary’s FBI Interview

7 Comments

Salon (of all places) has ten questions that could derail her political career (and possibly send her to Club Fed):

Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets. They mean business, and lying to an FBI agent is a felony, so Hillary Clinton and her aides will be forced to tell the truth. The doublespeak involving convenience and retroactive classification won’t matter to seasoned FBI agents whose reputations are on the line; the entire country feels there’s a double-standard regarding this email controversy.

Because there is, of course. But much of the Democrat machine is in denial, and cannot imagine a world in which a Clinton would ever actually have to be accountable for their crimes.

[Update a while later]

Any one or more of these four laws should mean jail for Hillary and her top aides. Here‘s the linked article.

7 thoughts on “Hillary’s FBI Interview”

  1. Again. This will never, ever go to trial. Obama will pardon her if she loses either the election or the nomination, claiming she made a mistake in “honest” service to the government and was mislead by her underlings in order to keep the trail from reaching the WH. If she wins the nomination (becoming doubtful) and the election she will tough it out through impeachment. If impeached and convicted her successor will pardon in order to regain control of the national agenda. Huma and Sid will pay for her sins. The Clinton’s are like Christianity in reverse.

    1. As far as I’m concerned, trial is not the main issue. I would like the FBI to recommend prosecution for felonies, and I believe that would end Clinton’s candidacy. A lot depends on when it would happen. A whole lot of liberals would be very suddenly jerking their heads out of the sand and trying – Huh?!, What? – to figure out what to do now.
      And I’m not so sure that the Obama DOJ would refuse to prosecute; the optics are awful. They might cut a deal that includes Clinton dropping out, if that happens at a time when she could be replaced.

  2. It was difficult to read the article. If not multitasking, I would have moved on after the 2nd auto play advert. Once I finally got to the article, it is typical of modern media news. I’ll give it props for somewhat admitting the agenda that the author prefers Sanders. But half the questions would be inappropriate to ask. For example, how can Hillary answer the question: “Did President Obama or his staff express reservations?” Answer: “Shouldn’t you ask Obama or his staff?”

    The only 2 relevant questions are: “Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a your private server?” And “What did you say instruct to Bryan Pagliano to do in setting up the server?”

    Perhaps asking about the blackberry is interesting, but it is like asking a bank robber why they double parked on the street. Sure it is a crime and the question may lead to other questions, but the answer could simply be “I was in a hurry to use the restroom inside”. Hillary can answer the question as she already has, “I wanted something simple to use”. The important answer is why she took it upon herself to remedy the situation and under whose authority did she use to have government resources routed for her private use.

    1. As with any such questioning, the goal is to trap the witness between perjury laws and self-incrimination. Witnesses can get in trouble easily.
      You’re supposed to know the answers before you ask. Remember that they will have interviewed others on the same questions. If the FBI is already sure that a crime was committed, and the only question is who is responsible, you may have trouble finding someone to take the fall.

      1. Indeed, but the problem is I can answer most of those questions (I already know the answer from Hillary) without saying anything damning to her candidacy or in violation of the law. I even provided 2 examples. The point is that most of the questions provided can be avoided without perjury or incrimination. They are to coin a phrase: “stupid questions”. Sure, witnesses can get in trouble easily, but only if the investigator is smarter than a HuffPo Sander’s supporter.

        Here’s a valuable question that’s not asked: “Secretary Clinton, you make an argument for the private server based on your preference of security devices. Where you authorized to give that same preference to your advisors and who provided you that authorization?”. Back when her husband was President, Al Gore made an argument that no legal authority prevented him from making campaign phone calls from the White House. Well, there is a controlling legal authority for handling classified data, and that authority does not exclusively reside with Secretary of State, and Hillary would have had to work with the Director of ISOO to accomplish much of what she did.

        Another question, “E.O. 13526 states ‘Original classification authorities who do not receive mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended.’ When was your last training? Did you grant yourself a waiver as the Agency Head? Is the waiver on file and available for FOIA?” She has wiggle room here so long as each of those Top Secret emails were classified by State, and not some other agency. I do not think that is the case. In which case, only that agency head, Obama, or Biden could grant a waiver, and there would be a record of it.

Comments are closed.