Saturday, January 30, 2016

Clinton and her e-mails again


The issue:

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's home server contained closely guarded government secrets, censoring 22 emails that contained material requiring one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes three days before Clinton competes in the Iowa presidential caucuses. 
State Department officials also said the agency's Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus are investigating if any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of Clinton's defense of her email practices.

The scalded, scolding response from the Hillary sycophant.

The response from the White House:

Asked Friday if he had "certainty and confidence" that Clinton will not be indicted over the email controversy, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said any decision to prosecute Clinton would rest with the Justice Department. 
"That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors," Earnest said. "But again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction."

The response from former federal prosecutor Joseph DiGenova:

However, as we previously noted, the implications are tough for the DOJ: if they indict, they crush their own candidate’s chances of the presidency. If they do not, someone will leak the details and the FBI will revolt… The leaking of the Clinton emails has been compared to as the next “Watergate” by former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova this week, if current FBI investigations don’t proceed in an appropriate manner. The revelation comes after more emails from Hillary Clinton’s personal email have come to light. 
“[The investigation has reached] a critical mass,” DiGenova told radio host Laura Ingraham when discussing the FBI’s still pending investigation. Though Clinton is still yet to be charged with any crime, DiGenova advised on Tuesday that changes may be on the horizon. The mishandling over the classified intelligence may lead to an imminent indictment, with DiGenova suggesting it may come to a head within 60 days. 
“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [US Attorney General Loretta Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general,” he said. 
“The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if she refuses to bring charges.” 
The FBI also is looking into Clinton’s email setup, but has said nothing about the nature of its probe. Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing, based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that she intended to break any laws.

And the characterization of DiGenova by Media Matters.

Right-wing media are reporting discredited Republican lawyer Joseph DiGenova's baseless claim that Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed "numerous federal crimes" with her private email use, failing to note that Clinton is not the target of the FBI's investigation and that the probe is not criminal in nature.

Make of it all what you wish.

2 comments:

Gadfly said...

What, you didn't link to Trey instead of Ted, or does he not have a post up about the emails?

My take is that it will be a nagging minor background drip up to Super Tuesday. Won't predict past that.

Gadfly said...

And, let's not forget that Media Matters is an establishmentarian shop run by a Hillz sycophant.

And, even though it's a GOP hack saying so, if any officially "classified" emails went on that server, then per a discussion by NPR, it WOULD be illegal. (Near the bottom.)

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

And per PDF link off that page, that would be a criminal offense. See "Section 1924"

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title18/pdf/USCODE-2009-title18-partI-chap93-sec1924.pdf