FBI Agent : It's a slam dunk case. She was grossly negligent. If she wasn't, there's no such thing. We have to recommend indictment.
Comey : (Thinks silently for a several moments, then asks,) What's a good synonym for "grossly"?
Agent : Hmmmm....How about, "extremely".
Comey : (face brightens) Good. That's good. Now, another word for negligent.
Agent : Ummmm...."careless"?
Comey : (smiles broadly) Yes! Excellent! That's it. She was "extremely careless". And I don't see that wording in any of the relevant statutes. We'll go with "extremely careless".
Within the confined space of a WSJ op-ed, former U.S. AG Michael Mukasey presents the case for Hillary Clinton's indictment on multiple misdemeanor and felony counts and then goes on to bash FBI head James Comey and current AG Loretta Lynch for their dereliction of duty in not bringing the former Secretary of State up on charges.
...In July (Comey) announced that "no reasonable prosecutor" would seek to charge her with a crime although Mrs, Clinton had classified information on a private nonsecure server -- at least a misdemeanor under one statute; and although she was "extremely careless" in her handling of classified information such that it was exposed to hacking by foreign nations -- a felony under another statute; and apparently had caused the destruction of emails -- a felony under two other statutes.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbi-directors-dishonorable-choice-1477863402
Retired CIA officer Charles S. Faddis has no patience for Clinton apologists. --
I have worked in national security my entire life. Most of that has been in the intelligence community surrounded by classified information. For twenty years, I worked undercover in the Central Intelligence Agency, recruiting sources, producing intelligence and running operations. I have a pretty concrete understanding of how classified information is handled and how government communications systems work.
Nobody uses a private email server for official business. Period. Full stop.
(Faddis isn't quite correct here. Government officials, including Barack Obama, knew of the Clinton email arrangement and did nothing to stop it. Nobody actually "allowed" it. Saying it was approved was just one of Clinton's egregious lies).
Classified and unclassified information do not mix. They don’t travel in the same streams through the same pipes. They move in clearly well defined channels so that never the twain shall meet. Mixing them together is unheard of and a major criminal offense.
If you end up with classified information in an unclassified channel, you have done something very wrong and very serious.
Accidentally removing a single classified message from controlled spaces, without any evidence of intent or exposure to hostile forces, can get you fired and cost you your clearance. Repeated instances will land you in prison.
Every hostile intelligence agency on the planet targets senior American officials for collection. The Secretary of State tops the list. Almost anything the Secretary of State had to say about her official duties, her schedule, her mood, her plans for the weekend, would be prized information to adversaries.
It is very difficult, in fact, to think of much of anything that the Secretary of State could be saying in email that we would want hostile forces to know.
As we wait for more information on the latest revelations, let’s quickly note what we already know Hillary Clinton did.
While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private email address for official business. Instead of using a State Department account, she used a personal email account, housed on a private server located in her home in Chappaqua, New York. The Department of State exercised zero control or oversight in this process. No government security personnel were involved in protecting them.
When the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked to see these emails, the Department of State said they did not have them. Clinton’s lawyers then went through all the emails on her server. They turned over 30,000 emails they decided were work related and deleted all of the rest.
How they made the decision as to which emails to share and which to destroy remains unknown. Active government officials were not involved in this process.
Hillary says she did not use the account to transmit classified information. This has been proven false. The FBI found over 100 messages that contained information that was classified when sent, including numerous email chains at the level of Top Secret/Special Access Programs. They don’t get any more highly classified, it’s the virtual summit of Mt. Everest. One theme pertained to the movement of North Korean nuclear assets obtained via satellite imagery. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out this is extremely sensitive information.
The FBI found another 2,000 messages containing information that should have been classified at the time it was sent. How much more classified information may have been in the tens of thousands of emails, which Clinton’s lawyers erased, is completely unknown.
(Not completely. The Russians and Chinese certainly know. Possibly the Iranians and North Koreans too. Oh, and the British and the Israelis know for sure. Fortunately, the latter two are our friends).
(Not completely. The Russians and Chinese certainly know. Possibly the Iranians and North Koreans too. Oh, and the British and the Israelis know for sure. Fortunately, the latter two are our friends).
Hillary Clinton supporters like to ask rhetorically, “Well, what about Colin Powell?” Nice try, but using your own private email address which received 2 emails determined to be classified later, is nothing like deliberately operating a home brewed server, and then see it handle thousands of classified e-mails.
It’s like asking, "what about the guy who received a stolen apple?" while equating his actions to those of bank robbers who stole $10 million.
Anyone else who did such things in the government would long ago have been tried, convicted and sent to jail.
You decide if you want to send her to the White House instead.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/303499-hillarys-emails-matter-a-retired-cia-officer
Meanwhile, Ben Shapiro and Mark Steyn are both having a grand old time analyzing the circumstances of the Clinton scandal's latest revelations.
Shapiro --
http://www.dailywire.com/news/10355/5-reasons-fbis-new-email-investigation-hilarious-ben-shapiro
Steyn --
This passage is priceless --
Thursday's Wikileaks brought forth the revelation that, at the highest levels in the Hillary campaign, senior officials had been wondering what precisely is the difference between credibly accused sexual predator Bill Cosby and credibly accused sexual predator Bill Clinton. My post on the topic prompted Professor Larry A Feig of Tufts University to write to me:
Cosby drugged women you assholeI'm not a PhD, but I think there should be a comma between "drugged women" and "you asshole".
Larry A Feig, PhD
Professor of Developmental, Molecular & Chemical Biology
Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences
Tufts University
Two points to Professor Feig:
1) You should have sent your response to Hillary campaign official Ron Klain, senior foreign policy advisor Jake Sullivan and campaign chair John Podesta, who were the ones trying to agree to a line on this particular topic.
2) Still, thanks for giving us the view from one of America's most prestigious safe spaces. If I understand Professor Feig correctly, the critical distinction is that it's totally unacceptable to sedate your victims so they wake up afterwards wondering what the hell happened, as opposed to ensuring they remain conscious for every violent, traumatic moment of the rape. "Zzzzzz" means "no", but "no" means "sure, go for it, just make sure I stay awake." You might want to put some ice on that theory, professor.*
http://www.steynonline.com/7577/occam-weiner
*I'm at risk of ruining the line by explaining it, but here Steyn is alluding to the Juanita Broaddrick rape allegation against Bill Clinton. "Put some ice on that", he told her after chewing up her lip.
And lastly -- From Time magazine (!!) -- Unless this is a parody, and I don't think it is, the writer is irredeemably stupid. And insane. Between the lunatic left and the alt-right, it's clear why we get the candidates we do.
http://time.com/4551711/hillary-clinton-emailgate/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment