Hillary Should Be Indicted, But Will Obama Permit It?

Tweet

Transmission and storage of top secret government data by means of Hillary's home server was a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793(f) - Gathering, Transmitting or Losing Defense Information, but will Obama allow her to be indicted?

In a must-read New York Post article entitled "‘This was all planned’: Former IG says Hillary, State Dept. are lying" by Paul Sperry, we are told of the opinion of Howard J. Krongard, who was the US State Department's inspector general from 2005 to 2008. Sperry writes:

"The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal e-mails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency e-mail address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.

. . . .

He says 'the key' to the FBI’s investigation of Emailgate is determining how highly sensitive state secrets in the classified network, known as SIPRNet, ended up in Clinton’s personal e-mails.

. . . .

FBI agents are focusing on three of Clinton’s top department aides. Most of the 1,340 Clinton e-mails deemed classified by intelligence agency reviewers were sent to her by her chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, or her deputy chiefs, Huma Abedin and Jake Sullivan, who now hold high positions in Clinton’s presidential campaign."

So of course, the emails in Hillary's servers were not marked "Confidential," because her aides, who allegedly removed the top secret data from SIPRNet and sent it to Hillary, did not mark it as such. However, Hillary's claim that the emails are not marked confidential is a red herring, given that criminal liability is not predicated upon such labeling.

Krongard says that Hillary will not be indicted:

"For one, he says, any criminal referral to the Justice Department from the FBI 'will have to go through four loyal Democrat women' — Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, who heads the department’s criminal division; Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates; Attorney General Loretta Lynch; and top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

Even if they accept the referral, he says, the case quickly and quietly will be plea-bargained down to misdemeanors punishable by fines in a deal similar to the one Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, secured for Gen. David Petraeus. In other words, a big slap on the wrist."

Indeed, criminal charges will not be filed against the IRS's Lois Lerner, so why shouldn't Hillary enjoy the same benefits?

However, there is another powerful reason why Hillary will not be touched: Her email correspondence with President Obama via her private email address. You will recall that Obama claimed on 60 Minutes that he had no knowledge of Hillary's private server.

Or stated otherwise, the United States is fast becoming a banana republic with one set of laws for those serving the president's interests, and another for the plebeians. This outrage, and not Obamacare or the unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran, could well be Obama's lasting legacy.

David Brooks, "Stay Sane America, Please!": What About Hillary?

Tweet

David Brooks begins his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Stay Sane America, Please!" by observing:

"In January of 2017 someone will stand at the U.S. Capitol and deliver an Inaugural Address. This is roughly the place where Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan once stood. I am going to spend every single day between now and then believing that neither Donald Trump nor Ted Cruz nor Bernie Sanders will be standing on that podium. One of them could win the election, take the oath, give the speech and be riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. I will still refuse to believe it.

Yes, I know what the polling evidence is telling us about Trump, Sanders and Cruz, but there are good reasons to cling to my disbelief.

First, these primary campaigns will not be settled in February. They won’t be settled in March or April. Sometimes a candidate can sweep Iowa and New Hampshire and cruise to the nomination. But that candidate has to be broadly acceptable to all parts of the party. Trump, Cruz and Sanders are not."

Oddly enough, there is not a single mention of Hillary in Brooks's opinion piece.

Indeed, a candidate must be "broadly acceptable to all parts of the party," but shouldn't a candidate also be broadly acceptable to all parts of electorate? Americans' opinion of Hillary is horrifically unfavorable, and it stands to get much worse if she is indicted.

Brooks calls for America to "stay sane"? What about Mrs. Clinton? Consider the following from Edward Klein's October 10, 2015 New York Post article entitled "Clinton’s camp says she ‘could have a serious meltdown’":

"Hillary is furious — and while Clinton advisers think that may save her, it’s making the lives of those who work for her hell.

'Hillary’s been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work,' says a campaign aide. 'She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she’s become shrill and, at times, even violent.'"

Brooks goes on to say in his opinion piece:

"America has never elected a candidate maximally extreme from the political center, the way Sanders and Cruz are. According to the FiveThirtyEight website, Cruz has the most conservative voting record in the entire Congress. That takes some doing."

Apparently Brooks has forgotten that Obama was elected president notwithstanding the fact that he was ranked the most liberal senator in 2007. Is it beyond the realm of imagination that Obama will be replaced by the most conservative senator given the president's poor job approval rating? I don't think so.

[Yesterday, I stated that Iran was behind the abduction by a Shiite militia of three Americans in Baghdad. Well, Iran has already initiated the bargaining with respect to their release.]

Maureen Dowd, "Sarah Palin Saves Feminism": Sorry, Sarah Pales in Comparison With Hillary

Tweet

In the grim aftermath of Sarah Palin's endorsement of Donald Trump on Tuesday, Maureen Dowd informs us in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Sarah Palin Saves Feminism":

"But Sarahcuda shows that we are truly the equals of men, capable of narcissistic explosions, brazen hypocrisy and unapologetic greed."

And all this while I thought that Hillary was the first to break that barrier. Narcissistic explosions? Consider the following from Edward Klein's October 10, 2015 New York Post article entitled "Clinton’s camp says she ‘could have a serious meltdown’":

"Hillary is furious — and while Clinton advisers think that may save her, it’s making the lives of those who work for her hell.

'Hillary’s been having screaming, child-like tantrums that have left staff members in tears and unable to work,' says a campaign aide. 'She thought the nomination was hers for the asking, but her mounting problems have been getting to her and she’s become shrill and, at times, even violent.'"

Brazen hypocrisy and unapologetic greed?  Honestly, can you think of a better example than Hillary allowing her foundation to accept millions of dollars from Muslim countries guilty of abominations against women and from banks guilty of conspiring to undertake currency manipulation?

Specifically with respect to Hillary, Maureen declares in her opinion piece:

"Women should support her because if she founders, it will be bad for women."

Sorry, Maureen, but I beg to differ. If Hillary is indicted for receiving top-secret emails via her home server, it will be good for everyone, inasmuch as failure to indict Hillary would amount to an indictment of the American criminal justice system.

Frank Bruni, "Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Debate Magic": Ignore Those "Damn" Emails

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Debate Magic," Frank Bruni writes of Tuesday's Democratic debate:

"But she was seldom rattled, though the discussion of her use of a home-brewed server for her emails as secretary of state did prompt a visible stiffening of her posture, a conspicuous strain in her smile. Will she ever, ever find language that takes full ownership of her mistake and that puts real flesh on her continued claim that she’s being as transparent as possible?

It was possibly her worst moment.

It was perhaps Sanders’s best. Surprisingly, he called for an end to talk about the emails, saying there were more important issues to focus on."

Indeed, Sanders delighted Hillary & Co. with his declaration, "I think the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails." However, as observed in an October 11 New York Post editorial entitled "Fresh evidence keeps sinking Hillary Clinton’s email defense":

"The FBI’s probe has now expanded to include another private server she used, a backup service with Connecticut-based Datto Inc.

And now the Associated Press has confirmed that her main server was the target of repeated cyberattacks from China, South Korea and Germany. And those came after she left office, when her team belatedly agreed to use some threat-monitoring software.

In other news, a FOIA request from the watchdog group Citizens United has uncovered the fact that Hill’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was forwarding classified info to the Clinton Foundation — so staff there could support Bill Clinton’s work in Africa.

Add to this new details about Hillary’s emails with longtime aide Sidney Blumenthal — emails that somehow didn’t make it into the data she finally handed over once word broke that she’d failed to share her work product with the government.

Her extensive communications with him include the naming of a CIA source (obviously classified) as he pushed for action in Libya — action that would benefit his clients."

Sorry, Bernie, but I think we must await a determination from the FBI before dismissing Hillary's failure to safeguard American government communications, because the United States is indeed not Denmark. Hillary's 2016 Republican opponent will not be so kind.

Maureen Dowd, "The Speaker, the Pope and the Exorcism": The Devil Wears Pantsuits

Tweet

In a New York Post article entitled "Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with" by Deroy Murdock, we learn that Hillary Clinton is being accused of conduct which would put Miranda Priestly from "The Devil Wears Prada" to shame. As reported by Murdock:

"“‘Good morning, ma’am,” a member of the uniformed Secret Service once greeted Hillary Clinton.

“F— off,” she replied.

That exchange is one among many that active and retired Secret Service agents shared with Ronald Kessler, author of “First Family Detail,” a compelling look at the intrepid personnel who shield America’s presidents and their families — and those whom they guard.

. . . .

“We spent years with her,” yet another Secret Service agent notes. “She never said thank you.”

• Within the White House, Hillary had a “standing rule that no one spoke to her when she was going from one location to another,” says former FBI agent Coy Copeland. “In fact, anyone who would see her coming would just step into the first available office.”

One former Secret Service agent states, “If Hillary was walking down a hall, you were supposed to hide behind drapes used as partitions.”"

Charming.

Meanwhile, in her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Speaker, the Pope and the Exorcism," Maureen Dowd provides us with a "hillarious" imaginary conversation between departing Speaker of the House John Boehner and his boneheaded presumptive successor, Kevin McCarthy. Dowd writes:

"“Kevin, did you make another mess I gotta clean up?” the Speaker growls. “Stop blubbering. That’s my department. Obviously, you really stepped in it with that Benghazi crack on ‘Hannity.’ You told Sean that I get a B-minus as speaker? I give you a D for Dumbo."

Might McCarthy's blunder save Hillary's candidacy? Has Christmas arrived three months early for the Clintons? I don't think so. You see, rather than help douse the flames of Hillary's email scandal, The International Association of Fire Fighters has decided not to endorse her, and instead, has opted to await Joe Biden's entry into the fray.

Care to imagine Hillary's response to this latest setback? My guess is that it didn't bear semblance to Tiny Tim's "God bless us, everyone."