This should be considered a smoking gun—but will it be?
It’s early in this story, so there might be some extenuating circumstances we don’t know about yet—
But with that caveat, this should be big, big news:
In [an email] thread from June 2011, Hillary exchanges e-mails with Jake Sullivan, then her deputy chief of staff and now her campaign foreign-policy adviser, in which she impatiently waits for a set of talking points. When Sullivan tells her that the source is having trouble with the secure fax, Hillary then orders Sullivan to have the data stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel.
That should be game, set, and match, yes?
Among other things, it may depend on what the material actually was and its level of classification. However:
Ordering aides to remove headers to facilitate the transmission over unsecured means strongly suggests that the information was not unclassified. On top of that, removing headers to avoid transmission security would be a violation of 18 USC 793 anyway, which does not require material to be classified ”” only sensitive to national security.
See also this.
This email establishes mens rea when it is not even required.
Waiting for the CNN panel with Jeffery Toobin and Sonny Houstin (sp) explaining this important development.
There are so many smoking guns and clouds of spent powder the political left can’t see the world through their tear-stung eyes, so opt for another “better” world, i.e., the usual fantasy trip. Matters for them can hardly be improved. Incorrigible is a word for a reason.
Jake Sullivan is a wunderkind, but inner-circle membership on Secretary Clinton’s foreign-affairs team should leave a suspicious taint or worse stigma. It probably won’t, but it should.
sdferr,
They can see it. Their priorities and mode are just different.
Oh, c’mon! What difference does it make?
Loretta Lynch is going to prosecute? Are you kidding?
We will see a wave of Presidential pardons in one year that will pale the Clinton/Holder pardon of Marc Rich into triviality.
The Clinton corruption is of monstrous scale and half of the electorate will still vote for her.
Hillary is probably is paying the nebbish Bernie to ‘campaign’ against her, make it look like a race, ya know.
They can see the injustices alright, though I doubt either the world in the sense in which I intended that nor their place in that world, Eric. They see well enough to cry because of what they see, the potential to crumble their dreams of Hillary!, and therefore choose not to see aught but what they believe may help them escape their conundrum. Anything but seeing how to face the truth of things, which puts them and theirs in very bad stead.
Will this be reported by any media likely to be read by Hillary’s voters? Short of an indictment – which I won’t hold my breath waiting for – I doubt it.
I recently read a science fiction/dystopian novel published in the early 2000s that featured a stereotypical wise, idealistic, strong American president who bravely led the world back from the brink of destruction, a country of upstanding American citizens ready to follow his lead, and a world full of countries ready to trust in American leadership. From the Obama/Hillary era, imagining such a president and such an America felt like looking at the country and the ideals I remember through the wrong end of a telescope, or like historical fiction.
What Frog said. Hillary still has those FBI files, remember?
And here’s the real fun. Indict Hillary, Huma, Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, the Internet security guy and all others in the loop and watch them cut deals to save themselves and get Hillary.
Classic.
I work in a hospital, though not anywhere in patient care. And our HIPAA training tells us (because we ALL get HIPAA training), that when in ANY doubt, assume that it is confidential and cannot be disclosed without violating HIPAA. Same when I worked in a bank: We didn’t have federal laws governing it, just company policy, but we were told to ASSUME any/every-thing “CONFIDENTIAL” unless otherwise told so.
And it seems our State Department does not work on these same principles. Which are common sense.
But I keep reading that the FBI will protest, up to and including the director resigning, if the indictment doesn’t happen.
From what I’ve read (which isn’t much) Director Comey is a stand-up guy who is working for justice, and is not partisan. I’ve also read that if this happens, it could take down Lynch, which would be really bad for Obama (and good for the nation).
But assuming all that really happens, what difference, at this point, would it all make?
Obama goes to the mat to defend Clinton by allowing Lynch to fall on her sword, but could he escape having her replacement be forced by public pressure (see above) to go through with the indictment. After all, at this point there’s no reason for him not to do everything in his prodigious political power to get her in the Oval Orifice, I mean, Office. It’s not like their previous bad blood should matter now, and Elizabeth Warren has dropped off the face of the planet.
If I had to guess, I’d say the fix is in one way or another, but if there’s a massive protest by the FBI, would Obama and Clinton still be able to remain “above it all”? Would that be enough to jump-start some spines in Congress?
Or maybe Hillary finally goes down in flames and Joey Hairplugs gets drafted and we end up with 4 years of Grampa Simpson yelling at clouds.
Frog Says:
January 8th, 2016 at 4:14 pm
Oh, c’mon! What difference does it make?
Loretta Lynch is going to prosecute? Are you kidding?
We will see a wave of Presidential pardons in one year that will pale the Clinton/Holder pardon of Marc Rich into triviality.
The Clinton corruption is of monstrous scale and half of the electorate will still vote for her.
Hillary is probably is paying the nebbish Bernie to ‘campaign’ against her, make it look like a race, ya know.
&&&&&&
The term of art is “Stalking Donkey.”
Or, more pungently, “Stalking Ass.”
&&&&&&
If you are naturally ‘perfumed’ — a ‘legacy’ — then make sure to be standing next to a pile of $#%#.
Then,… style yourself as a rose.
Mrs Whatsit:
“a stereotypical wise, idealistic, strong American president who bravely led the world back from the brink of destruction, a country of upstanding American citizens ready to follow his lead, and a world full of countries ready to trust in American leadership.”
Post 9/11, President Bush came close to that model in real life and – it’s important to emphasize – he strived to be that kind of American president as leader of the free world.
The thing about the Bush presidency, particularly in terms of the War on Terror, the more you dig under popular and media narrative to review accounts from his inner circle and, more tellingly, the source law-and-policy decision-making material – as I have in order to learn the why of the epochal Operation Iraqi Freedom – the better Bush looks.
President Bush was not perfect under very difficult circumstances (which is not a realistic standard for that level of war-time president – Lincoln and FDR weren’t perfect, either), but he was apparently “wise, idealistic, strong”, and I’ll add, conscientious and mindful of his overarching duties as President.
However, the 2nd and 3rd factors in your formula, “a country of upstanding American citizens ready to follow his lead, and a world full of countries ready to trust in American leadership”? Not so much. They – we – fell woefully short of the 1st factor, unfortunately.
A major reason I stress the importance of setting the record straight on OIF is we urgently need the cultural restoration of the paradigm of strong-horse American leadership of the free world that manifested with OIF that yet has been stigmatized by a demonstrably false yet prevailing narrative of the mission.
Bush’s presidential leadership with Iraq, again, while not perfect, was apparently “wise, idealistic, strong”, conscientious and mindful of the overarching duties of President.
In his acting to resolve an inherited problem that seemed intractable across the board yet had come to a head, Bush’s leadership with Iraq is among the best examples, and perhaps even the best model, of presidential leadership in the modern era.
Again, Bush didn’t fall short of his presidency. We did.
You forget one important point: Obama dislikes the Clintons. I think this might mean what happens is unknown. Obama could get a lot further in his post-presidency with a Republican president. Otherwise, it is just another Democrat and Obama’s star fades quickly.
Don’t be too quick to believe Lynch won’t prosecute.
Bill walked on perjury and obstruction of justice. She won’t be charged and nobody of importance will resign in protest. If an individual takes down Hillary that person will be destroyed like……well, Monica Lewinsky. No reputation left – all your dirt exposed. No John Dean equivalents in today’s Democrat party.
I keep reading everywhere that “Director Comey is a stand-up guy”. Let’s see him stand up. If the FBI can rise above the partisan rot that infests the Administrative State, I’ll believe there’s some hope for us after all. Do I think that will happen? No, I don’t. In the last analysis, she’s one of them; one of our Rulers.
The existence of the e-mail server in the first place is a smoking gun. This is just gasoline poured onto the fire.
There is still a good chance that Hillary will be indicted. And even if she is not, there won’t be a Candy Crowley moment like in the debate in 2012, with the Republican nominee playing the gentleman like Romney did. For any debate or campaign commercial, Trump or Cruz may be hitting her non-stop for everything.
K-E:
It is true that Obama dislikes the Clintons.
However, the reason he will not release the Loretta Lynch kraken on them is that, at the moment, Hillary is in the ironic position of being the person whose election is needed to carry on and solidify his legacy.
He doesn’t want a Republican president who might undo it, particularly the executive order part of it. The only way he would allow her to be indicted is if she is doing so badly in the polls against the Republicans that she is likely to lose and some other Democrat (except I don’t know who that would be) is much more likely to win.
Obama will not sabotage her unless she is a threat to his legacy and there is another Democrat who will do better.
I continue to believe bho does not want to see hrc in the Oval Office. The dnc convention might actually be entertaining this time around.
copy of the memo from redstate
http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/01/hillary-email-felony.jpg
I dont see any extenuating circumstances that allow that, not even for lower level stuff. you have to assume that non secure is not only potentially compromised but that it IS compromised.
and redstate puts the depends on the definition of IS in this case point:
Clinton is basically saying here, “Look, just because you have an email sent from me in which I asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system, is no proof that I asked for classified information to be sent over a non-secure system.”
parker:
Obama does not want to see her in the Oval Office.
But one thing he wants to see even less than that is a Republican to follow him instead. If there’s an alternative Democrat, Obama would torpedo Clinton. If there isn’t, he’ll desist. Right now, there isn’t.
Neo:
I agree with your analysis at 10:55, but I’m wondering if “there isn’t” is an accurate assessment.
When Liz Warren bowed out of the race she had not been appealed to by a sitting president to take it on. And if she can be convinced, I think she can count on most of Hillary’s donors jumping ship to help her out — Hillary is just looking too toxic now.
Same with Joe Biden and probably a few others whose names don’t come to mind immediately.
Six months ago Hillary seemed inevitable. A little less so now.
Hillary may never be prosecuted for this (though I certainly hope she is, regardless of the “cost” to the country), but it will end her presidential chances either way.
Matt_SE:
I don’t agree that this alone would end her presidential chances. Almost anything can be rationalized. If there were a better Democratic candidate available, it might end them, but I don’t see one.
For all the cynics here, remember that a leftist can forgive anything for the sake of emotion but Hillary’s problem is that nobody likes her.
Sure, many ultra hard leftists won’t care but even more rank-and-file Democrats will not forget that she’s slime.
Nobody normal likes snuggling with a viper.
@ neo
It will end her run in a non-dramatic but nonetheless decisive way: low turnout. That’s all it will take.
F:
I initially thought Warren would run, and that there was a good chance Biden would run, too. That both declined to do so has puzzled me. It makes me think that Warren and Biden really don’t want to run, probably for different reasons for each. My hunch is that Biden is depressed by his son’s untimely death and doesn’t feel up to it. I don’t know what it is for Warren, but I think there’s something
Matt_SE:
I don’t want to be nitpicky here, but low turnout wouldn’t “end her run.” It could mean she would lose, but she’d be running right till Election Day.
I think, however, that an awful lot of Democratic voters would rationalize it away, and vote for her anyway. They would be motivated by the need to keep the awful Republican away from the White House. And LIVs may never even hear about it.
I think both knew that a three-term run from one party is rare. I think they both could see that Obama was increasingly unpopular. I think neither wanted to be the bag-holder. Finally, I think both were explicitly threatened by Hillary to “stay out or else.”
When coupled with everything else, it made no sense to risk personal destruction for a slim chance of victory.
Matt_SE:
Whatever the reasons, I don’t see any of those things changing.
@neo
Oh, it’s far too late now. The only way Hillary can lose the nomination now is indictment by Obama’s DoJ while Bernie still has enough steam to be a halfway likely candidate.
I give that about a 5% chance of happening, and she’ll still go on to lose unless the GOP does something monumentally stupid…so, like a 20% chance of that.
neo-neocon,
I realize bho does not wish to see a republican become 45. There actually are alternatives to hrc and bho has the leverage to make it happen. I am positive you can imagine his alternatives and how he can bring about the demise of the clintons. If the clintons set up shop in the WH barry will be eclipsed by the first female CINC, and the bho halo will fade as the tingle up the leg sucks up to hillary.
parker:
Actually, I don’t see alternatives to Hillary who are (1) willing to run, and (2) able to beat the Republican.
Who are they?
Matt_SE:
I’d say the chances of the GOP doing something monumentally stupid is closer to 90%.
There’s always Michelle O.
Neo, I think your hunch about Biden and his grief is wrong.That’s his excuse, not his reason.
And Warren? She would have run as effectively as McGovern. I suspect she knows that MA is not the USA; she has a nice warm bed and will keep it.
Frog:
Of course, it might be an excuse for Biden rather than a reason. But the reason I think it might be the latter is that he’s been keeping a very low profile ever since. Another basis for my belief is that what happened to Biden is known to be one of the most difficult things a human being can undergo in terms of grief.
Warren, Biden, Wyden (Oregon), O’Malley, and I am sure there are others that bho and the base would consider acceptable alternatives to hrc and her baggage train.
parker:
The base would find O’Malley way too conservative. The voters in the general would probably find Warren too leftist, especially after the Obama years. Wyden is unknown, and I believe Biden does not want to run, as I said earlier, in this thread.
I continue to be amazed that such a corrupt, amoral, unaccomplished, unpleasant, unlikable person could be the Dem front-runner. There are so many serious actions of hers that should have disqualified her from running that I can only assume that she has a yuuuuuge file cabinet/warehouse full of dirt on everyone.
The most prominent concern for me is that she is clearly dealing with health issues that would make her presidency open to behind-the-scenes manipulation from people as/much more unsavory than she is. It may take a non-human force to finally stop her – a(nother) stroke, karma, God…..take your pick!
Lizzy, people have been wondering why humans keep electing evil dictators or putting them into power, for centuries now. They don’t need to wonder, because it’s not somebody else’s problem. They can figure it out just by looking around. Look at the people and what they really are.
Still of the opinion the nominee will not be hrc. Bho is a smooth operator. He believes he can do the heavy lifting, and the msm will do his bidding.
parker:
This is one of those situations where only time will tell.
The way it works with the Clintons is….they didn’t do it. Then, when that runs out, there’s nothing wrong with it.
What college-university has a good creative writing program or focus on English?