Despite the determination of investigators at the State Department and intelligence agencies that Hillary Clinton did use her personal email system to handle confirmed classified information (and potentially compromised “hundreds of classified emails”), Clinton dismissed such allegations and assured the public that it is “pretty clear” that there was no classified information on her personal email system — a system that she used rather than the secure State Department system.
Clinton portrayed the recent bombshell report of the allegations of the Inspector General as simply some bureaucratic infighting: “What I think you’re seeing here is a very typical kind of discussion, to some extent disagreement among various parts of the government, over what should or should not be publicly released.” (Notably, the State Department itself confirmed specific classified emails on the system).
I think that it is much more than that, though the Obama Administration has been quick to downplay any suggestion of a criminal investigation and has stressed that the letter from the Inspector General was not technically a criminal referral.
Again, Clinton is stressing that she did not send or receive any material marked classified. I have previously discussed why that explanation is less than compelling, particularly for anyone who has handled sensitive or classified material. As I discussed earlier, virtually anything coming out of the office of the Secretary of State would be considered classified as a matter of course. I have had a TS/SCI clearance since Reagan due to my national security work and have lived under the restrictions imposed on email and other systems. The defense is that this material was not technically classified at the time that it was sent. Thus it was not “classified” information. The problem is that it was not reviewed and classified because it was kept out of the State Department system. Moreover, most high-level communications are treated as classified and only individually marked as classified when there is a request for disclosure. You do not generate material as the Secretary of State and assume that it is unclassified. You are supposed to assume and treat it as presumptively classified. Otherwise, there would be massive exposure of classified material and willful blindness as to the implications of the actions of persons disregarding precautions. For example, there is not a person standing next to the President with a classification stamp in the Oval Office. However, those communications are deemed as presumptively classified and are not disclosed absent review. Under the same logic, the President could use a personal email system because his text messages by definition are not marked as classified. This is the whole reason that Clinton and others were told to use the protected email system run by the State Department. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to secure such systems.
Clinton portrayed the dispute as entirely removed from her controversial decision to use a personal server — a move that gave her total control of the server and ultimately allowed her staff to delete thousands of emails before turning over emails to the State Department: “They can fight over it or argue over it. That’s up to them. I can tell you what the facts are.”
Clinton continues to struggle with her spin that she wanted to use her own server to avoid multiple devices (which has been widely ridiculed) as well as her insistence that she never received a subpoena. Her repeatedly claim that she was never subject to a subpoena has been described as false by media like CNN after it was disclosed that she had indeed been given a subpoena for the emails.
I would be surprised if the Administration opened a criminal investigation into the matter given the treatment of other high-ranking officials in such cases by the Justice Department in the past. However, to kill any investigation after this letter would be viewed as unusual and biased by many in the intelligence area. First and foremost, Clinton may have to yield to long-standing demands for access to this server. For the moment, she is clearly maintaining the original position that there was no problem so long as her communications were not marked as classified at the time — a rather preposterous suggestion since no one sits next to a Secretary of State and stamps every line as classified in communications. The use of private server obviously placed these communications at greater risk of interception, which is the whole reason we have spent hundreds of millions on the secure system for communications. I do not see how Clinton will be able to maintain her conduct as justified or responsible in the face of the overwhelming view of experts as well as prior internal memoranda on the subject.
@patriot
If the birth certificate is a forgery, please explain which piece of evidence contained upon it has been proven false or materially altered? Is it his name? His birth weight? His father’s name? Which of the 40+ pieces of information is false or misleading?
I think I have posted this before, but what the heck. If I did, it obviously didn’t sink in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnzj-hs0Z_s
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The good thing is that her numbers are dropping. Voters are finding her untrustworthy.
“The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody. The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree. If, …the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.” Frederic Bastiat
Karen,
I would be more inclined to vote for an honest candidate that I didn’t agree with politically than a dishonest one I agreed with. I would vote for an honest and trustworthy political “rookie” that I knew would surround themselves with competent advisers.
Is that from Dune?
Stalked by a ham n’ egger attorney. Get some clients, dude!
Isaac:
“The most important aspects of the US condition that need to be addressed are: creating a single payer health care insurance system administered by the government(s) with an optional private supplement, removing all private funding from politics beyond a maximum amount per person based on a formula that equates to the average per voter-example $100 per candidate, funding political campaigns based on voter support, elimination of all tax loopholes.”
1. The VA system is the single example of single payor in the US. It was riddle with fraud which actually killed our veterans. It is unwise to repeat this example since clearly government employees are still unaccountable.
2. I agree with you on limiting campaign contributions. I also want to outlaw mandatory political contributions by unions as well as bundling by corporations.
3. If you eliminate all tax loopholes, you eliminate all deductions. No more mortgage interest credit, dependent child credit, or health insurance deductions. I’m fine with that if we lower taxes to a single flat rate, or a simple tier system. You make this much, you pay this much. In fact, I would love a single tax that even the poor pay. I would increase Welfare and all other benefits so that their net income remained the same, but they would not have a “we’re all in this together” attitude instead of “us and them”. It is so easy to pass more taxes on other people. In fact, those taxes usually pass. But it’s much harder to pass taxes on everyone. Governments are much more careful with taxpayer money when it becomes harder to keep raising taxes, so that might force our government to stop waisting our money.
Karen S: “The VA system is the single example of single payor in the US. It was riddle with fraud which actually killed our veterans. It is unwise to repeat this example since clearly government employees are still unaccountable.”
Don’t knock the VA healthcare system until you’ve tried it. I’m glad I’m eligible. I think it’s excellent compared to what’s going on in the private marketplace where you get two minutes with your primary physician and re-routed to specialists who aren’t covered under your plan, admission fees at hospitals not covered under your plan, ad nauseum. VA clinic closed on the weekends? No problem. If you feel it warranted, head straight to the emergency room at the VA hospital for free.
The only problem is that since 2003 and the gods of regime change it has been inundated with needless casualties. If you think long lines in Arizona were a problem, think causation rather than the result. Fraud? No fraud in the healthcare industry otherwise, right?
Disabled veterans don’t deserve it?
A man named Isaac came here saying he was against our duopoly. He has shown that to have been dissembling since of ALL the comments made on this thread, his is by far the most duopolistic. What a phony!
The biggest selling point this lying, fat, lesbian has used is she is that she can win. Well, she can’t. And, I think the Dem power brokers are coming to see that. Here’s the Dem problem. Wall Street is just fine w/ Hillary and will do their usual strategy of giving money to both the Dem and Rep candidates if Hillary is the nominee. But, if it’s Bernie or Warren, Wall Street goes all in on whatever Republican gets the nomination. You Dems better get Crazy Joe Biden warmed up in the bullpen. I doubt he can win, but at least he’ll be funded by Wall Street.
There are so many people who have admitted that they would vote for Hillary, knowing that she is untrustworthy, because they do not want a Republican to win.
That is the difference between a responsible voter and an irresponsible one.
I would not vote for someone I felt was untrustworthy, or otherwise unworthy of the office. If there was no suitable alternative, I would abstain. Think about it. This is the person who has access to the Red Button.
Voting is a heavy responsibility, because it’s not just us who suffer when we vote in a terrible candidate. We can inflict our bad choices on everyone else. Like Obamacare was inflicted on me.
Machiavellian voting behavior is exactly why politicians behave as they do. People vote for liars, flip floppers, and other flaws because they think it’s the lesser of two evils. So there is no strong rebuke that teaches politicians a lesson to remember about maintaining the treasure of the public trust.
Obama is one of the biggest criminals in world history
This Gay Fudgepacker needs to be in prison.
http://www.buenavistamall.com/GayObama.jpg
Olly:
“Everyone here giving the “yeah but” defense for Clinton has clearly abandoned objectivity and would have no standing should this same issue arise with an individual they don’t support.”
They did not apply the “yeah but” defense for Nixon. The Watergate scandal seems so tame by today’s standards.
Of all the candidates running so far, which one is most likely to honor the oath of office? Which one can be trusted the most to fill their cabinet with qualified people that will respect the rule of law? Which candidate will actually work to unite this country?
Olly: “Of all the candidates running so far, which one is most likely to honor the oath of office? Which one can be trusted the most to fill their cabinet with qualified people that will respect the rule of law? Which candidate will actually work to unite this country?”
Jill Stein. Vote Green.
Groen
Quote of the Month: “Nick, Try to make sense, please. we depend on you.” – feyd rautha
Professor Turley,
With a view to the future, what does the landscape of a post-“tipping point” America look like?
Is it ungovernable chaos?
America plods forward in a swirl of lies and artifices, diluted and Balkanized, its foundation nullified,
with an Extreme Court sans credibility.
Isaac:
“Irrespective of any ‘scandal’ if Hillary or another Democrat is elected President, they will be fought tooth and nail by the Republicans. The Republicans have done this for the entirety of Obama’s term regardless of the issues, to the detriment of the American people. This is their way, hold a gun to the head of America and blame it on the Democrats. The spooky thing is it seems to work for too many Americans. They hear this crap often enough so they believe it.”
Answer me this. If someone was elected to the Oval Office who tried to roll back Roe v Wade, would Democrats in Congress cooperate? Go along meekly? Give bipartisan approval?
We elect politicians based on their party platform, and their promises. If anyone ran on doing their best to repeal the financial disaster that is Obamacare, then by God, they’d better fight it tooth and nail. Voters would be enraged if as soon as he got his votes, he went to Washington and then supported Obamacare.
Democrats fought Bush bitterly, and they were applauded.
I fully expect Republicans and Libertarians to fight Obama on any bill that is contrary to their own commitments to voters.
But for those who complain about Republicans, what have the Democrats failed to get? From what I’ve followed, the Democrats have gotten everything they’ve ever wanted, but they still get to blame Republicans for the failures of the policies they enacted.
For an example of a leader able to get bipartisan support, see Romney. As governor, he got unanimous support for Romneycare by actually involving all sides of the aisle. It’s scope was very narrow, and it was a conservative health care reform. Another example is Jeb Bush who’s somehow managed to improve education among minorities by huge amounts. Of course, I disagree with him on some aspects of Common Core, and had not thought of him as a serious candidate for President.
There are other examples out there. But stop blaming the political divide or the minority party for the problems in Congress. Obama has not proven to be a leader even remotely willing to cross the aisle and get cooperation. He just dictates with his phone and his pen, and then complains when people complain at the lawlessness.
http://www.buenavistamall.com/hillary_prison.jpg
randyjet:
“Thank you for the Politifact article since as it clearly states, she did NOT violate any laws that applied at the time when she was in office.”
What are you talking about??? The law at the time was that she use the State server exclusively, and that upon her exit interview, she hand over any and all communications for them to determine if they agree or disagree with her private vs State piles.
If the article failed to mention those facts, then the journalist did not try very hard.
I don’t want to get Clinton “by any means necessary.” My problem with Clinton are based on the well documented facts of her life. She is not some bright-eyed, naive idealist with no history. That lady doesn’t get a hair cut without making the news. So her history is well documented.
I literally shudder when I think of someone as lawless as Hillary in the Oval Office.
Karen, READ the Politifact article since you make many errors on the law. You should note that Prof Turley in his article does not make the same accusations as you. He deals with the one feature about the classified materials question, which is a point of contention under the law.
I will take your objections seriously when YOU demand that Sec. Rice and Powell be prosecuted for doing the same thing as Hillary. This is simply the politics of desruction using bogus charges like whitewater, Benghazi, etc..
Hillary Clinton is legally NOT Sec. of State
Obama could NOT legally nominate her as Obama is NOT the legal president of the US.
Obama held offices of Illinois senator, U.S. senator and U.S. president illegally as he is not a U.S. citizen
Politicians can get away with anything that does not outrage the general public. They know she is lying and do not care. So she didn’t secure communications when Sec. of State. That’s foreign stuff and far away. She promises that as President she will watch out for me, the little guy; tired, hungry, and poor like me. She’ll pay to bring up and educate the kids I did have, little brats, and pay for abortions as birth control if that happens. She even forgave her man for running around, like me. So what if she breaks some petty rules, like me.
People like people who are like them.
OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE
http://buenavistamall.com/obamabirthcertificatforgerystampedforgery%20op.gif
DBQ:
“In addition, my personal email account could be subject to scrutiny at any time and I could be fired, lose my licenses, be heavily fined and even see some jail time if I did use personal email for business purposes.”
The law only applied to you because you were not a high ranking politician. We’ve created a ruling government class that is literally untouchable by the law. But we let it continue.
Our politicians are as law-abiding, accountable, and honest as we, the people, demand them to be.
Hitlery Clinton is a supreme war criminal / mass murderer. She voted to attack Iraq.
About 1.5 million people so far have been murdered in Iraq.
She is guilty of massive criminality and should be in prison.