Hillary’s e-mails vs Plame scandal: A tale of two administrations

posted at 2:01 pm on February 2, 2016 by Ed Morrissey

When we write stories about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, critical responses typically come in three veins. One, no one thinks laws have been broken. Two, maybe laws have been broken, but the material wasn’t significant enough to prosecute. Three, Hillary Clinton is too politically connected for the Department of Justice to prosecute.

With that in mind, my column today at The Week walks through a couple of analogous cases and points out the differences, at least thus far, in the response from the Obama administration. First, crimes were committed, and the latest revelation about the 22 e-mails withheld by State raises questions about yet another law:

Clinton admitted that she set up the private email system for her “convenience” — it was easier than operating another email account through the secured State Department system. As a price for this “convenience,” Clinton seems to have personally retained custody of classified material in both the hardware and database in her house without authorization or proper security, until surrendering both to the State Department and FBI last summer.

Unlawful retention of classified material of any level is a crime under 18 USC 1924 with up to a year in prison on each count. Exposure of sensitive national security data through either gross negligence or malice is a felony under 18 USC 793, which carries ten years in prison on each count. The exposure of NOC-listed agents could violate the Intelligence Identities Act of 1982. Two people have been convicted under this statute; John Kiriakou, the former CIA agent turned whistleblower on waterboarding, got out of prison just as this scandal broke in February 2015.

The Kiriakou case is particularly interesting. One might think that the Obama administration would have appreciated Kiriakou’s efforts to paint the Bush-era counter-terrorism policies in a bad light, and especially since he was a key aide to then-Senator John Kerry when Kerry chaired the Foreign Relations Committee. However, the DoJ went after Kiriakou aggressively in 2012 for leaking classified material to journalists, including the identity of one or more intelligence agents. They initially charged Kiriakou under the Espionage Act (whence come 18 USC 1924 and 793) as well as the 1982 law. It got plea bargained down to the latter, and he did two years for what Kiriakou describes as “whistleblowing” rather than leaking.

Choosing to pursue Kiriakou while taking almost a year to do anything with Hillary raises some interesting questions about politicized prosecution at the DoJ. That also sets up another interesting contrast between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, one that makes Bush look much more supportive of the rule of law than his successor:

Joseph Wilson, a diplomat who had opposed the war, wrote a column inThe New York Times criticizing the Bush administration’s analysis of intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein’s weapons program. A week later, Robert Novak wrote a column accusing Wilson’s wife of arranging Wilson’s assignment for the probe into Team Bush’s much-dissected yellowcake uranium claims, outing her as a CIA employee who had operated under “non-official cover” — a status considered to be classified information, and potentially dangerous to both Plame and national security.

The purposeful public revelation of Plame’s identity touched off a furor in Washington over mishandling classified information and potentially putting American resources, methods, and personnel at risk. The CIA demanded that the Department of Justice begin a criminal probe, which began shortly after Novak’s column appeared. President George W. Bush expressed a desire to get to the bottom of the leak. “I want to know who it is,” Bush declared, “and if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”

Within weeks of the scandal’s eruption, Attorney General had not just called for an investigation, but also assigned it to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. The actual leaker (Richard Armitage) ended up facing no consequences, but Lewis “Scooter” Libby got 30 months for obstruction of justice, as well as a six-figure fine. Bush commuted the prison sentence but declined to pardon Libby, leaving the conviction and the fine in place.

Compare that response to the response of the Obama administration:

In the year since the Clinton email scandal was initially exposed, neither the president nor the attorney general have acted at all. Barack Obama has publicly dismissed concerns over the emails, while Loretta Lynch has given no indication as to whether she will pursue the massive and serial violations of federal laws. It is time to ask why. It’s not unreasonable to infer a former Cabinet official and current Democratic frontrunner to succeed Obama rises above the laws applied to other Americans, and that she is exempt from close scrutiny by a politicized Department of Justice.

Of the three critical responses to this scandal, the only one of merit is the third — but that depends on whether enough information makes it into the public record to create political pressure to apply the rule of law rather than the privilege of princes. Later today on The Ed Morrissey Show (4 pm ET), I’ll talk more about this with Rep. Ron DeSantis, who demanded that AG Loretta Lynch assign a special counsel to the investigation.

 


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The GOP will still never do anything.

Oil Can on February 2, 2016 at 2:07 PM

I am just going to keep posting this, not in the expectation that anyone on the Hot Air staff will actually do an article on it (it’s not part of the Narrative), to keep educating anyone reading here that despite the “Nothing Can/Will Be Done” UniParty Line – this issue can be put on the front burner any time the FBI decides to act like a law enforcement agency.

The FBI cannot convene a Grand Jury.

The FBI, however, does not need to convene a Grand Jury.

They have made thousands of arrests where a Grand Jury was seated AFTER someone was arrested … which is the normal order of things.

From the FBI’s website’s Brief Description of the Federal Criminal Justice Process and since I can’t link directly to the graphic, you’ll have to look for yourself at the process graphic mid-page under the title:

Overview of the Criminal Process

Hmmmmm, how about that!?! Arrest is the box BEFORE the box with Grand Jury & Indictments.

Director Comey has the authority to order his agents to ARREST Hillary Clinton (or he could do it himself if he wants to make even bigger headlines) for ANY crimes she may have committed while Secretary of State.

I will guarantee Director Comey KNOWS it.

It would force Loretta Lynch to make the decision regarding a Grand Jury under the full glare of the media spotlight during a Presidential election cycle.

Except maybe the Establishment/UniParty folks don’t want that point made perfectly clear? Or part of the Narrative?

Of course, there is nothing that prevents an U.S. Attorney from convening a secret Grand Jury and issuing indictments on the FBI evidence … IF there was one who was politically ambitious and wanted to look like the ONLY CLEAN SHEET in the pile of corruption of today’s Department of Justice.

PolAgnostic on February 2, 2016 at 2:07 PM

Obama gets away with it because of the media’s lack of outrge, and just as importantly, the lack of public criticism from the GOP Congressional Leadership.

Democrats didn’t have this problem in 2003.

Democrats call for independent probe of CIA leak

They called for a special prosecutor and got one. Weird, right.

Atlantian on February 2, 2016 at 2:11 PM

I saw the other day were Obama actually opined about the Clinton emails.

That alone says that the results have already been fixed. Otherwise, Obama wouldn’t touch it.

Moesart on February 2, 2016 at 2:17 PM

Lynch won’t indict and Comey knows it. They are just waiting for this to either fade from the news cycle or a proper scapegoat to be named.

tdarrington on February 2, 2016 at 2:17 PM

My feeling is Huma will take the fall.

tdarrington on February 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM

Two people have been convicted under this statute

I’d wager there are probably more than that because I’m skeptical this statistic measures those convicted at court-martial.

When a uniformed service member violates statutory law, they’re charged with a punitive article that will then specify – if applicable – the civilian statute that was violated. For instance, a service member might be accused of one specification of Article 92 (Disobeying an order or regulation) or Article 106a (Espionage), but that specification would include the statutory violation of 18 USC 793.

I haven’t looked at the Bradly Manning charge sheet in a long, long time, but I’d bet his charge sheet specified 18 USC 793 (along with several other statutory violations). He was clearly found guilty.

Atlantian on February 2, 2016 at 2:21 PM

Imo, what we’re seeing in this country right now with Obama and Hillary goes something like this:

Obama is as if Nixon got away with everything and had a friendly press to help him, whereas Hillary is analogous to Nixon running after not before, Watergate was already well known and established in the minds of the public, but the media didn’t report on it because it reflected poorly on NixonHillary’s political fortunes which would negatively impact the $$ livelihoods of countless DemLib elites.

Sacramento on February 2, 2016 at 2:25 PM

My feeling is Huma will take the fall.

tdarrington on February 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM

I doubt that Mrs. Weiner will get burned unless Shrillery does.

MJBrutus on February 2, 2016 at 2:26 PM

My feeling is Huma will take the fall.

tdarrington on February 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM

She has a kid to think about.

cozmo on February 2, 2016 at 2:32 PM

It has to be someone big enough to make the IC happy. Hills will just pardon her anyway, then she can get a cushy 7 figure position on the foundation board. And the Clintons have a VERY persuasive nature when it comes to taking a fall for their crimes. Vince Foster unavailable for comment.

tdarrington on February 2, 2016 at 2:36 PM

The GOP will still never do anything.

Oil Can on February 2, 2016 at 2:07 PM

The FBI still hasn’t completed their investigation – or made any recommendation for / against a grand jury or indictment. Perhaps they are slow-playing it. My fear is that’s the case since there still haven’t been any info on starting interviews with Clinton’s key State Dept staffers, or the staffers responsible for the operation of the private email server.

But what galls as much as the FBI appearing to slow-play the investigation (to run out the clock?) or the complete lack of interest by Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice – is the utter and complete silence from the GOP / GOPe leadership.

It’s great that Rep. DeSantis is on record calling for the appointment of a Special Prosecutor, but where are Speaker Paul Ryan? Kevin McCarthy? Trey Gowdy – Chair of the Benghazi Select Committee? Or Mitch McConnell? Richard Burr – GOP Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee? Chuck Grassley – Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

It seems as if the GOPe wants this entire criminal scandal disappear as badly as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton want it to disappear.

Once again – the GOPe prefers to collaborate and enable the progressives. Remind Speaker Ryan of that next time he decides to BS the people by describing himself as a ‘Conservative’.

Athos on February 2, 2016 at 2:37 PM

My feeling is Huma will take the fall.

tdarrington on February 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM

…or her pervert husband could “disappear” to be found later floating face-down in the reflecting pool…as a “shut up” message to Huma…

landlines on February 2, 2016 at 2:43 PM

That also sets up another interesting contrast between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, one that makes Bush look much more supportive of the rule of law than his successor:

Yeah, but the difference is W. believes in this country and isin’t rooting for our failure.

rbj on February 2, 2016 at 2:46 PM

The fact of the matter is this:

If this kind of deception, voter manipulation and subsequent cover-up — the Benghazi affair — and the outflowing e-mail scandal were occurring under a Republican administration, the media uproar would make Watergate look like Fanny Fox in the Tidal Basin.

hillbillyjim on February 2, 2016 at 2:49 PM

In the year since the Clinton email scandal was initially exposed, neither the president nor the attorney general have acted at all. Barack Obama has publicly dismissed concerns over the emails, while Loretta Lynch has given no indication as to whether she will pursue the massive and serial violations of federal laws. It is time to ask why. It’s not unreasonable to infer a former Cabinet official and current Democratic frontrunner to succeed Obama rises above the laws applied to other Americans, and that she is exempt from close scrutiny by a politicized Department of Justice.

Anyone who expects that a member of the Aristocracy of the Democratic Party be subject to the (sneer) same laws that all of us peasants have to follow is a racist, sexist, homophobic teabagger.

SubmarineDoc on February 2, 2016 at 2:53 PM

It was reported this week that Hillary’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills< refused to speak with FBI when agents attempted to interview her.

blink on February 2, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Interesting. Hadn’t heard that. It is her right, but innocent people don’t decline to be interviewed. And those agents will likely view her refusal as just that – not the act of an innocent person. Hopefully some organized crime agents are working the case – as they might need to break Clinton’s omerta just as they broke the Mafia’s.

Just another reason as to why a special prosecutor needs to be appointed – and for the GOPe Congressional leadership to start speaking / and acting.

Athos on February 2, 2016 at 3:01 PM

I dunno; I don’t see the problem.
She had a private Email account because it’s more convenient.

Personally, I’m not going to maintain a driver’s license or pay Federal taxes, because they’re so inconvenient.
I’m sure the state and Federal government wouldn’t have a problem with that, yes?

…No.

orangemtl on February 2, 2016 at 3:14 PM

Thanks for reminding me that GWB was an idiot who wouldn’t even take care of his own people. Even Obama got that part right.

Tom Servo on February 2, 2016 at 3:14 PM

Gee, I almost want to ask for some credit.
Just yesterday I brought up Scooter Libby and compared the two cases.

Tommyhour on February 2, 2016 at 3:16 PM

It was reported this week that Hillary’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills< refused to speak with FBI when agents attempted to interview her.

blink on February 2, 2016 at 2:42 PM

Actually, I think she refused to talk to investigators from the State Department IG office about FOIA requests in 2012.

GAlpha10 on February 2, 2016 at 3:30 PM

Well as long as people just whine about it instead of forcibly removing these people and making them pay this will keep on going, see fake VA cleanup. Treason should be dealt with harshly and appropriately.

bbinfl on February 2, 2016 at 3:33 PM

Please don’t compare a great, President Richard Nixon and his coverup of a third rate burglary, with obama and his gang of thieves.

losarkos on February 2, 2016 at 3:35 PM

Compare that response to the response of the Obama administration

Libby lied under oath. Hillary hasn’t, or at least you haven’t been able to show that she has. So what comparison is there?

Tlaloc on February 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM

PolAgnostic on February 2, 2016 at 2:07 PM

I think you’re smoking something recently legalized if you honestly think the FBI is going to arrest a current leading candidate for president.

Tlaloc on February 2, 2016 at 3:38 PM

Athos on February 2, 2016 at 2:37 PM

I am an eternal optimist and are hoping that the FBI is putting together an “ironclad” case against her. Keep in mind that their IT tech’s are recovering data from the hard drives that were “wiped” (like with a cloth). That can be a lengthy process. Once they retrieve an email, they have to match it against what is being released by the State Department. If it new, and is a “official government record” that someone attempted to destroy, that adds more felony violations to the thousands we already know about. Then you have all of the scores of individuals who corresponded with HRC via her illegal, unsecure, private email system. Plus, they are also investigating connections to the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Criminal Foundation. By expanding the investigation, it would lead me to believe that they have discovered material on the server(s) incriminating HRC. All those leads have to be tracked down and documented. Even with the over 100 FBI Special Agents on the job, HRC has weaved such a tangled web, it will take some time to untangle it. I honestly doubt that the FBI Director would direct that such a huge task force be formed to investigate the security breeches and Clinton Criminal Foundation illegalities if nothing is to become of it.

GAlpha10 on February 2, 2016 at 3:40 PM

The thing of it is, we are covering emails that were released or held back by the State Dept. The FBI has the mother load on all her emails, even the ones she deleted. There is so much the public doesn’t know about this case. It will be interesting to see how the FBI handles their findings.

Static21 on February 2, 2016 at 3:43 PM

orangemtl on February 2, 2016 at 3:14 PM

Let’s be clear. She didn’t just have a private email account. I’d bet that every single person working for the federal government has a private email account. No big deal.

What is a big deal, is the she set up a separate, private email system with the “clintonemail.com” address. No one, that we know of, has ever done that and conducted the entirety of their government business through a separate, private email system.

But I see your point. If HRC can set up a separate, private email system to conduct her official government business in violation of Executive Orders, State Department regulations, and the Federal Records Act, I’m sure that the federal government won’t mind if we stop paying federal income taxes.

GAlpha10 on February 2, 2016 at 3:45 PM

Tialic…take your pills.

CWforFreedom on February 2, 2016 at 3:46 PM

Thanks for reminding me that GWB was an idiot who wouldn’t even take care of his own people. Even Obama got that part right.

Tom Servo on February 2, 2016 at 3:14 PM

Obama got that right? You think it’s the administration’s job to cover up criminality on the part of its minions? Regardless of what Bush did, what Obama has done to cover for his toadies should itself be an impeachable offense, not something he “got right.”

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 3:49 PM

Static21 on February 2, 2016 at 3:43 PM

This is, in all probability, the greatest case of negligent disregard of security protocols, widespread corruption, and illegal activities by a high ranking government official in the history of the United States. Watergate was child’s play, in comparison.

GAlpha10 on February 2, 2016 at 3:51 PM

Libby lied under oath. Hillary hasn’t, or at least you haven’t been able to show that she has. So what comparison is there?

Tlaloc on February 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM

No he didn’t. Jury foreman admitted after the trial that he only drew a guilty verdict because Bush and Cheney weren’t on trial.

SDN on February 2, 2016 at 3:54 PM

I try not to be too critical of G.W. Bush, because doing so puts my in the crowd of bat-s**t lunatics…but I make an exception regarding his handling of the lynching of “Scooter” Libby. Not pardoning Libby was reprehensible.

halfbaked on February 2, 2016 at 4:09 PM

Libby lied under oath.

Tlaloc on February 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM

You know who did lie under oath? Bill Clinton.

So I guess if that’s your benchmark for “proving wild conspiracy theories”, then there’s a precedent for that happening.

The Schaef on February 2, 2016 at 4:15 PM

Tens of thousands of protesters could hang out at the democrat convention demanding prosecution.

Think of the optics.

JoeHanson on February 2, 2016 at 4:16 PM

1. The server set up was allowed as an official server.
2. No classified information was generated on this email system.
3. No classified information was leaked to anyone, journalists or otherwise.

Comparing this to a case of deliberately leaking classified information to the public is obviously…..really, really stupid.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:18 PM

Tens of thousands of protesters could hang out at the democrat convention demanding prosecution.

Think of the optics.

JoeHanson on February 2, 2016 at 4:16 PM

There won’t be optics. News orgs will report that like seven people showed up, and strongly imply that they’re all RNC operatives.

Kind of like what they do with the March for Life reports every year

The Schaef on February 2, 2016 at 4:19 PM

2. No classified information was generated on this email system.

Then what are they redacting?

3. No classified information was leaked to anyone, journalists or otherwise.

So what did Sidney Blumenthal receive?

The Schaef on February 2, 2016 at 4:21 PM

“Tlaloc’s theme song”

Welcome to the grand delusion
Come on in and see what’s happening
Pay the price, get your tickets for the show
The stage is set, the band starts playing
Suddenly your heart is pounding
You’re wishing secretly Hillary was able to tell the truth..

But don’t be fooled by the radio
The TV or the magazines
They’ll show you photographs of how her life should be
But they’re just the West Wing conspiracy
So if you think your life is complete confusion
‘Cause she’ll never win the game
Just remember that it’s a grand delusion
And deep inside we’re all to blame
We’re all to blame

Neitherleftorright on February 2, 2016 at 4:21 PM

Forgot one:

1. The server set up was allowed as an official server.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:18 PM

So how come info from this server was never provided in service of an FOIA request, and the very existence of it was never known or acknowledged until well into the initial Benghazi investigation? If it was in line with everything else happening at State, this would have been provided in the initial collection of data, correct?

The Schaef on February 2, 2016 at 4:22 PM

1. The server set up was allowed as an official server.
2. No classified information was generated on this email system.
3. No classified information was leaked to anyone, journalists or otherwise.

Comparing this to a case of deliberately leaking classified information to the public is obviously…..really, really stupid.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:18 PM

1. Allowed by who?

2. Whenever Clinton forwarded anything containing classified information to one of her aides, it was generated.

3. Your inside knowledge of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intelligence activities is extraordinary. You really should go to work for the CIA.

The only thing stupid here is your total inability to grasp what this whole scandal is about.

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 4:24 PM

So how come info from this server was never provided in service of an FOIA request, and the very existence of it was never known or acknowledged until well into the initial Benghazi investigation? If it was in line with everything else happening at State, this would have been provided in the initial collection of data, correct?

The Schaef on February 2, 2016 at 4:22 PM

Exactly. So what is it, everditzy? Did she violate the Federal Records Act, the Espionage Act, or the Freedom of Information Act? Your pick.

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 4:26 PM

My feeling is Huma will take the fall.

tdarrington on February 2, 2016 at 2:18 PM

…or her pervert husband could “disappear” to be found later floating face-down in the reflecting pool…as a “shut up” message to Huma…

landlines on February 2, 2016 at 2:43 PM

Didn’t Narcissus die gazing at himself in a reflecting pool?
Nicely done!

topdog on February 2, 2016 at 4:26 PM

And this is surprising, why?

RedManBlueState on February 2, 2016 at 4:26 PM

1. Allowed by who?

By government agency rules.

2. Whenever Clinton forwarded anything containing classified information to one of her aides, it was generated.

a) false
b) she did not forward classified information

3. Your inside knowledge of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intelligence activities is extraordinary. You really should go to work for the CIA.

From what we know, Hillary’s server has not been hacked, while the government servees have been.

The only thing stupid here is your total inability to grasp what this whole scandal is about.

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 4:24 PM

No, there’s a whole lot more stupid here than that.

Stop being suckers. Republican scandalmania of the last 30yrs has gotten you nowhere, but has made the leaders of your party (who you hate) very rich.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:31 PM

From what we know, Hillary’s server has not been hacked, while the government servees have been.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:31 PM

You know who else has been hacked? The people to whom she has been sending this information.

The Schaef on February 2, 2016 at 4:32 PM

1. Allowed by who?

By government agency rules.

Fine. Then in that case, the department she led and was responsible for repeatedly lied to federal judges by responding in FOIA cases that they had no Clinton email. So that multiple contempt of court charges.

2. Whenever Clinton forwarded anything containing classified information to one of her aides, it was generated.

a) false
b) she did not forward classified information

You can deny news reports all you want, but that doesn’t make them any less accurate.

3. Your inside knowledge of Russian, Chinese, and Iranian intelligence activities is extraordinary. You really should go to work for the CIA.

From what we know, Hillary’s server has not been hacked, while the government servees have been.

And if government servers–with significantly more security than Clinton’s–have been hacked, then it takes an act of will to believe that Clinton’s never were. You really think that intelligence services capable of penetrating, say, the Office of Personnel Management couldn’t hack Herself’s unsecure system?

The only thing stupid here is your total inability to grasp what this whole scandal is about.

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 4:24 PM

No, there’s a whole lot more stupid here than that.

Stop being suckers. Republican scandalmania of the last 30yrs has gotten you nowhere, but has made the leaders of your party (who you hate) very rich.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:31 PM

The only reason Clinton hasn’t already been perp-walked is because the Justice Department has been thoroughly corrupted. The voters, however, will not be so easily fooled.

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 4:38 PM

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:18 PM

everditzy… better check and recheck your talking points. All three of them were erroneous or wild conjecture on your shift leader’s part.

She did not have permission to exclusively use her personal email server and account to conduct all of her business, as she obvioulsy did.

In addition, regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records. Obviously, we all know she destroyed and moved records prior to giving up her remaining records after being forced to give them up.

If she answered a classified email, and she did, she generated classified email from her system.

The issue isn’t purposeful leaks, don’t be so obtuse, the issue was/is that the server was not secure and therefore subject to external probing.

You need to sing tlaloc’s theme song too. You live in the Grand Delusion.

Neitherleftorright on February 2, 2016 at 4:46 PM

Libby lied under oath. Hillary hasn’t, or at least you haven’t been able to show that she has.

Yes, she did, she denied having classified information on her server. See below.

2. Whenever Clinton forwarded anything containing classified information to one of her aides, it was generated.

a) false
b) she did not forward classified information

Even if you are a big enough idiot, and indeed you are, to believe she never forwarded classified information, she had it on her unauthorized and illegal server, for example, this tidbit sent by Kerry from an iPad, also an unauthorized device. Having it on an unauthorized device is illegal, not reporting it is illegal, H>illary!™ and Kerry have both committed federal offenses for having and sending this.

F X Muldoon on February 2, 2016 at 4:46 PM

but has made the leaders of your party (who you hate) very rich.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:31 PM

As opposed to yours who are dirt poor?

Neitherleftorright on February 2, 2016 at 4:51 PM

Fine. Then in that case, the department she led and was responsible for repeatedly lied to federal judges by responding in FOIA cases that they had no Clinton email. So that multiple contempt of court charges.

The release of clinton emails has been unprecedented in scope. No judge has ever ruled in contempt.

You can deny news reports all you want, but that doesn’t make them any less accurate.

Unsourced news reports are meaningless. We have the words of the FBI and State Department.

And if government servers–with significantly more security than Clinton’s–have been hacked, then it takes an act of will to believe that Clinton’s never were. You really think that intelligence services capable of penetrating, say, the Office of Personnel Management couldn’t hack Herself’s unsecure system?

There is no evidence of her server ever being hacked. actually that’s not true – there is evidence that a common mass phishing email managed to get through.

The only reason Clinton hasn’t already been perp-walked is because the Justice Department has been thoroughly corrupted. The voters, however, will not be so easily fooled.

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 4:38

The reason she hasn’t been charged with anything is because there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, or even of any motive for such.

Stop being so easily fooled by the same do-nothing establishment republicans that you hate so much for continually lying to you about everything else.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:52 PM

From what we know, Hillary’s server has not been hacked, while the government servees have been.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Why of course! Those dumb Chinese, Russians, Iranians and others would never have thought to look for anything in a domain and server called clintonemail.com. That would be too obvious.

Neitherleftorright on February 2, 2016 at 4:57 PM

The reason she hasn’t been charged with anything is because there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, or even of any motive for such. The fact that the exact same thing could be said of Republican President Richard Nixon is irrelevant, because he didn’t belong to the political Party that considers itself to be Above the Law.

lester on February 2, 2016 at 4:52 PM

F-IXED.

Translated: “Nixon was innocent too!”

Del Dolemonte on February 2, 2016 at 4:58 PM

The release of clinton emails has been unprecedented in scope. No judge has ever ruled in contempt.

Show one email from this server released in response to an FOIA request prior to the discovery of the server by Congress.

Unsourced news reports are meaningless. We have the words of the FBI and State Department.

That would be the same State Department that was unable to assign any security classifications to these emails until recent months, even though she has been out of office for three years, correct?

There is no evidence of her server ever being hacked. actually that’s not true – there is evidence that a common mass phishing email managed to get through.

Yes, because that is the first thing people do when they compromise your system, is announce their presence. No doubt you expect it would look something like this.

The Schaef on February 2, 2016 at 4:59 PM

The reason she hasn’t been charged with anything is because there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, or even of any motive for such.

No evidence, other than all those classified documents on an unauthorized system designed to avoid FOIA, but other than that, pure as snow in a gutter after a coal truck drove through.

F X Muldoon on February 2, 2016 at 4:59 PM

Fine. Then in that case, the department she led and was responsible for repeatedly lied to federal judges by responding in FOIA cases that they had no Clinton email. So that multiple contempt of court charges.

The release of clinton emails has been unprecedented in scope. No judge has ever ruled in contempt.

Are you really that stupid? They were never given to the judges who demanded them in pursuance of FIOA requests, and they weren’t released by Clinton. They were released–on a slow-walk timetable that got them in trouble with the judge that ordered the release–by the State Department. The fact that no judge has pursued contempt charges doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t be fully justified in doing so.

You can deny news reports all you want, but that doesn’t make them any less accurate.

Unsourced news reports are meaningless. We have the words of the FBI and State Department.

Once again, your stupidity defies belief. The news sources in question quoted Clinton’s own State Department-released emails, along with intelligence community assessments of their classified nature.

The only reason Clinton hasn’t already been perp-walked is because the Justice Department has been thoroughly corrupted. The voters, however, will not be so easily fooled.

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 4:38

The reason she hasn’t been charged with anything is because there is no evidence of any wrongdoing, or even of any motive for such.

Uh huh. So lack of an indictment–because an investigation is on-going and incomplete–means that there is “no evidence of any wrongdoing, or even of any motive for such.” All I can say is, thank God you don’t work in law enforcement. No criminal would ever be brought to justice.

.

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 5:04 PM

The release of clinton emails has been unprecedented in scope.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:52 PM

And by the way, I really don’t know where this claim comes from. “Unprecedented in scope”? How about every email on Palin’s account for her term as governor, which by the way is <a href="“>still sitting out there for public consumption?

The Schaef on February 2, 2016 at 5:05 PM

Unsourced news reports are meaningless.

lester on February 2, 2016 at 4:52 PM

Poor lester is so stupid he didn’t read my lengthy demolition of this Lie yesterday in my response to his great-grandfather Tlaloc.

Since you seem to have missed it, some highlights:

New York Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson said in a 2008 interview that her paper and other news sources had been publishing unsourced news for centuries.

F-#1.

She then gave many examples of unsourced stories the NY Times ran with, several of which won Pulitzer Prizes, and said that none of them would have ever won those prizes if not for unsourced news.

F-#2.

Pentagon Papers.

F-#3.

Watergate.

F-#4.

Warrantless wiretaps after 9/11.

F-#5.

Abu Ghraib.

F-#6.

Thanks for making it so easy, Claude!

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 2, 2016 at 5:06 PM

Plame wasn’t a real “NOC” (“non-official cover”) because the only undercover work she ever did was between the sheets…so to speak the truth. She was a NOP (“non-official prostitute”) in reality, but the CIA doesn’t like to use that term.

BTW, the CIA (and FBI if I recall correctly) accidentally outed Plame long before the Bush era so-called scandal on Plame broke, but that’s another topic the CIA doesn’t want to discuss. The idiots had sent a letter to our Embassy in Cuba (which existed only through the … Swedish Embassy, I believe) listing some CIA employees and such. Guess what nationality most of the secretaries and such were at that Embassy .. Cubans. Anyway, Plame had been outed long before GW Bush showed up.

The picture in Vanity Fair’s “Double Exposure” pretty much sums up what Valerie’s undercover work was actually about … a scarf and sunglasses hiding her appearance on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

Karmi on February 2, 2016 at 5:13 PM

1. Allowed by who?

By government agency rules.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:31 PM

Wrong. When Clinton took office in 2009, federal rules required that government employees using a non-government email account “must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

There was no allowance or permission for having an exclusive email server and account. Nevertheless, as she did have one, she was under obligation to “ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”
Which, we all know, she didn’t.

Neitherleftorright on February 2, 2016 at 5:18 PM

The release of clinton emails has been unprecedented in scope.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:52 PM

LO effing L.

Those emails belong to the American people. Not Hillary, not her lawyer, not the government.

antipc on February 2, 2016 at 5:22 PM

The release of clinton emails has been unprecedented in scope. No judge has ever ruled in contempt.

Your mendacity and cluelessness are only matched by your dogmatic defence of the indefensible.

The only reason Clinton emails are being released are because several judges, hearing cases related to Clinton’s and the State Department’s contempt for FOIA responsibilities – and the fact that every email she and her staff handled on that server while they were part of the Federal Government belong to the people – are ordering the State Department to search and release all emails sent to / from Clinton and her inner staff while they were employed by the federal government.

If it’s unprecedented, it’s because the effort to deliberately evade complying with the Federal Records Act by Clinton and her staff is also equally unprecedented in its illegality. Judges threatened to rule State Department officials in contempt if they continued to refuse to release information from her email records. The State Department is doing so to avoid being held in contempt of court. (Besides, you’re one of the reprobates who reminded us that being held in contempt, ex Lois Lerner, isn’t really anything.)

Unsourced news reports are meaningless. We have the words of the FBI and State Department.

Yes, we have the words of the State Department which announced last weekend to the public and courts that they were unable to release 22 of the emails sent to / from Hillary Clinton on her unauthorized private email server because they contained classified information at or above Top Secret ratings. And thousands of other emails from that server were released with significant amounts redacted – with the State Department specifically saying the redactions were to hide classified information on those emails.

Clinton’s private email server was not a secure system. It was not part of the Federal Government’s secured systems or isolated from the public internet. We do know that Sid Blumenthal, whose computers were hacked, did receive classified information via Clinton’s private email server – sent by Clinton and her aides. That’s because emails to / from Blumenthal had portions redacted – and the State Dept said it redacted those sections to protect classified information.

Experts who have reviewed the configuration details of Clinton’s private email server, when it was stored at her home in NY, reported it had less than the commercially recommended security settings. Within the Intel community, without proof to know it wasn’t hacked, they have to assume it was hacked. They operate on the basis of trying to protect classified information, not, like you, trying to protect a criminal politician.

It should tell you something that this investigation has expanded in scale and scope from a few agents to over 100. The FBI doesn’t dedicate a 100+ agents into an investigation unless it’s on the scale of a major organized crime ring or an intelligence failure like those of Ames, Hanssen, and Walker Jr.

They know Clinton deliberately evaded compliance with the Federal Records Act – multiple felonies. Now they are in the process of determining how many felony counts of mishandling classified information need to be added to the ledger as well as if she and her staff are also linked with bribery, abuse of power, and corruption charges related to the Clinton Crime Syndicate.

That you attempt to defend and marginalize these callous actions speaks volumes of your bankruptcy and character.

Athos on February 2, 2016 at 5:25 PM

Your mendacity and cluelessness are only matched by your dogmatic defence of the indefensible.

Athos on February 2, 2016 at 5:25 PM

Now that is some serious writing there, my friend! Well done.

Athanasius on February 2, 2016 at 5:28 PM

Disgusting, isn’t it? Laws and standards are only things that Democrats apply to their opponents.

grumpyank on February 2, 2016 at 5:42 PM

Democratic trolls are a great reason not to vote for Democrats.

grumpyank on February 2, 2016 at 5:44 PM

1. The server set up was allowed as an official server.
2. No classified information was generated on this email system.
3. No classified information was leaked to anyone, journalists or otherwise.

Comparing this to a case of deliberately leaking classified information to the public is obviously…..really, really stupid.

everdiso on February 2, 2016 at 4:18 PM

1. No it was not allowed as an “official” server. She was allowed to use private email to a certain extent, but no one had ever set up their own server and controlled access. And who would deny her anyway, she ran the department. She cleared herself.

2. Total bullshit! She generated it when she talked to and about state business.

3. It was leaked/stolen by foreign nations because she had her own server. So yes, it was.

All of these were her decisions for “convenience” and she is to blame and hold accountable.

Patriot Vet on February 2, 2016 at 7:56 PM

“Comparing this to a case of deliberately leaking classified information to the public is obviously…..really, really stupid.”

Libby didn’t leak classified information. His conviction was for perjury. Clinton, the sneak, put classified information on an non-secured computer, which you simply don’t do when dealing with sensitive information. Standard procedure is to have separate, secure servers. Ask anyone who has dealt with Secret or Top Secret material. Clinton is sneaky, mendacious, and imperious – not great qualities for a President. But Democrats don’t care.

grumpyank on February 2, 2016 at 8:17 PM

This whole case is dragging down Clinton. Imagine what would happen if the real reason for her having the separate server in the first place was ever addressed at length. Namely that she was most likely covering up evidence of quid pro quo in the sale of State secrets for either her own enrichment or the enrichment of her family foundation.

txmomof6 on February 2, 2016 at 8:23 PM