Reality Check: Hillary will face no legal consequences for email scandal
Unlike TOP, this site will remain reality-based, and that goes double for presidential politics.
With that in mind, we need to acknowledge that while Hillary obviously broke the law, she will never suffer from this offense.
“Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service, and because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act,” the audit report said. Bottom line: Mrs. Clinton violated the Federal Records Act.However, what is probably the most troubling about all of this is that, despite these blatant violations, there will be absolutely no legal repercussions for Mrs. Clinton for this offense. She’s off the hook! Why aren’t all the pundits screaming about that?
As LawNewz.com‘s contributor, Dan Metcalfe, wrote about several weeks ago, anyone who violates this law (and leaves office) will face zero consequences. That’s because it is a civil law, not a criminal law, and penalties only apply to current federal employees. Employees, like Clinton and Powell, who leave office, can skirt punishment. The Federal Records Act is in place not only to provide the American public with some level of transparency but also “to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.”
“There are absolutely no penalties provided by law for this misconduct,” Metcalfe said. He would know, Metcalfe was the founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy. He was essentially “the federal government’s chief information-disclosure ‘guru.’”
“This report unsurprisingly finds gross violations of the Federal Record Act’s requirements by then-Secretary Clinton and her personal staff, not to mention inexplicably poor oversight by State’s top records-management officials as they simply let her do as she pleased,” Metcalfe told LawNewz.com, “Even taking a charitable view, it serves as an indictment of Ms. Clinton’s conduct on the civil side of her ledger, documenting misconduct that would surely lead to dismissal were she still employed there.”
As Metcalfe pointed out, The Federal Records Act, if violated in this way, does allow action to be taken against a government employee– but only administrative action. Both Clinton and Powell are not in office, so they can’t be punished. As for the Freedom of Information Act, there are sanctions provided under (a)(4)(F)(1), but again, those penalties only apply to someone who is still working for the federal government. While there are consequences if you are found to have intentionally destroyed federal records, the audit did not make a finding that this happened.
To put it another way, any dreams of Hillary in handcuffs are fantasies unless evidence of other law breaking emerges.
But Hillary will still have to face the music during a deposition, right? Probably not.
The Obama administration is trying to prevent former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from being deposed in an ongoing open records case connected to her use of a private email server.Late Thursday evening, the Justice Department filed a court motion opposing the Clinton deposition request from conservative legal watchdog Judicial Watch, claiming that the organization was trying to dramatically expand the scope of the lawsuit.
Judicial Watch is “seeking instead to transform these proceedings into a wide-ranging inquiry into matters beyond the scope of the court’s order and unrelated to the FOIA request at issue in this case,” government lawyers wrote in their filing, referring to the Freedom of Information Act.
The Obama Administration has Hillary's back.
Comments
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.
Nationalism is, I think, not quite dead.
Or else Mr. Snowden would be.
One guy in the military actually came out and said he believed that the State Dept, under Hillary, had compromised two so-called "counterterrorism operations" in the Pacific. If that's true, and she remained unrepentant and reckless, a lot of people, powerful people, could be seriously pissed.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Spot on!
Spot on!
"YOU must be the change you wish to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi
I hope so!
Even if she got indicted before the convention and they still picked her, it would Bernie a very good reason to try Green or Independent.
I agree that it is entirely possible.
FBI Director Comey is supposedly a "straight arrow" type. I don't know too much about him, but it is a good sign that when the Clinton camp was spinning the server investigation as a "security inquiry", Comey said that there ain't no such thing, we do criminal investigations.
But will Justice go forward with an indictment? Remember, it must also be approved by Public Integrity, the DOJ dep't with exclusive power to determine whether public officials (elected or appointed) should be charged with crimes. Public Integrity can be frustrating to some in LE, but it's really a good idea, on balance. It prevents retaliation from administration to administration.
DOJ could indict her and probably should. But if the FBI recommends charging her and Obama/Lynch/DOJ refuses to do so, there could be a "compromise" of sorts. If others ARE indicted and Hillary Clinton is not, she could still be named as an unindicted co-conspirator. That term alone could sink her ship.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
I think a recommendation for indictment by the fbi
Is enough to tank her campaign.
I mean Jesus, just read what I wrote: A recommendation for indictment from the FBI of a presidential candidate.
More than just a Straight Arrow
Comey has been gunning for the Clintons for decades. His appointment alone tells me Obama wasn't going to tolerate letting Hillary tarnish his legacy.
http://time.com/4276988/jim-comey-hillary-clinton/
"Polls don't tell us how well a candidate is doing; Polls tell us how well the media is doing." ~ Me
"a foreign country"?
Don't you mean "lots of foreign countries"?
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
Romania, Russia, China, probably Israel...who else?
Romania must have the goods, because they had Guccifer. Neither Russia nor China would neglect an opportunity like that. Israel always wants to know what its "strongest ally" is up to. And anybody with a functioning intelligence program could easily let themselves in on the game....
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
add Germany to the list (I forget where I saw that)
(Germans are probably still miffed about the US spying on them/everybody)
Germany, France, the UK
all have intelligence programs that function very well, so they're all candidates to have a piece of this. I bet even Canada knows more than they're telling....
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
You are probably right that she won't face any
Consequences for using the private email server, but there's still a chance that the FBI will take some type of action for the cross over of the emails used for her duties as SOS,other state department personnel and the people in her foundation that had access to the state department activities.
I can't find the article I read that made the case for her being charged under the espionage act. I'll keep looking because it was damning.
Sidney Bluementhal didn't have security clearance to send classified emails from Libya. He was telling her about great business opportunities for the foundation or the friends of the Clintons to get in on those deals.
There seems to be two separate investigations going on. One is from the OIG of the state department and the other one is from the FBI.
Jams wrote that there's still the court of public opinion and we know that her supporters don't give a damn, but the republican voters do and this along with other things that she and Bill have done will bring them to the polls.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Here are two links
Speaking about why she should and could be charged under the espionage act.
And Bluementhal didn't have security clearance and he was banned by the Obama White House from doing any business with the government.
So that's another order that Hillary decided that she was above following.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/01/breaking-hillary-intentionally-origi...
Obama needs to let the investigations continue and if they have evidence that she broke the law under the espionage act, he needs to allow charges to be made. But there was plenty of evidence that Petrayous was guilty under the espionage act but instead of him sharing a jail cell next to Chelsea, he was fined $100 thousand dollars and got to keep both his rank and pension.
Two justices systems indeed, right Chelsea, Edward, Thomas, John and Risen.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Of course
If former president Bill Clinton had access to the server, which he clearly did, then he had access to that classified information as well. I would think that Hillary could not by law tell even her husband (who would not have ongoing security clearance) of certain ongoing operations.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye." de Saint-Exupery
need to know
is supposed to be the rule for classified information ... however I learned many years ago that corruption is the rule when it comes to this stuff. Watched 2 company goons throw an employee out of the building within 1 hour whom had contacted the DoD regarding classified information being passed to him that he was not cleared to view... the owner of the company later ran and won a political seat in the state after selling the little company for a cool $50 million. They had to get rid of me later on because I knew too much and have been black balled in the industry ever since. Corporate life is easy if you're cleverly corrupt, it sucks royally if you have ethics, integrity, work hard and know your stuff. The grifters are always working to undermine you so they're not exposed.
Ok, "big bucks", spill the beans
If you have the goods, let's have it.
Be a Friend of the Earth, cherish it and protect it.
Be afraid.
Be very afraid. The American people are not going to keep taking this lying down.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
the people
have been laying flat on their back for 15 years ... has something changed? My apologies for my cynicism though I found a small sense of hope with the current corrupt election season... hope is a dangerous thing for the corrupticons running the show these days so they are working quite diligently in crushing it.
I could not disagree more. Where have you been?
Ahhh.... reality check? Seriously?
No offense, but are we living on the same planet?
First of all, your link/quote deals with the Judicial Watch FOIA case, NOT the FBI/DoJ criminal case, which, given the recent revelations this past week, suggest that there seems to be evidence of espionage and high treason, (ie: with INTENT) since Military Operations were put at risk due to INTENTIONAL leaks at the State Dept.
INTENT.
And then there was the hacker who, apparently, agreed to testify that he had hacked into Hillary's email, which proves that her email was breached. And then there was also leaked to the press this past week that there are now 2 or 3 more FBI criminal investigations in progress of senior level people in the Clinton world, like Terry Mcauliffe, to name but only one. And there was.... wait for it ... Tony Rodham's name mentioned, that would be Hillary's brother. And now it seems that Bill Clinton himself could be the FBI's real ultimate target, what with Terry Mcauliffe being named. Look him up and then get back to me.
And what about the IG report on Wednesday? HELLO!!!!!!????
Have you guys NOT been watching the news??????
Seriously, I don't think you are paying attention to the media ramp up of FBI intel that the Obama administration has been strategically releasing to the press, in fact, it is my firm belief that not only is there going to be a Criminal Indictment, I actually believe that indictment is imminent, days away. Hell, let me take this one step further, I am betting that the indictment bombshell drops next week, and if I had to name a date, my guess would be next Wednesday, June 1st, exactly 7 days after the damning IG release.
Mark my words, folks, Hillary is done.
#DeadWomanWalking
Look, I realize us DK refugees have been brainwashed by the Clinton-Denial-Syndrome that we were subject to for FAR TOO LONG, but we really need to break ourselves out of their media bubble and start paying attention to the news that is flooding BOTH RW and LW media over the past 4 weeks, and over the past 18 months. The FBI investigation which FOX NEWS has been diligently responsibly accurately covering is NOT a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
IT IS FACT.
And remember, as much as we have been trained to ignore FOX NEWS, but I think the old adage of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies in this instance. Because FOX NEWS has been publishing FACT BASED NEWS about the CLINTON FOUNDATION for 18 months but we all in the DK BUBBLE have NOT been paying attention.
And to anyone who thinks that Obama is covering Clinton's back, I think you are ignorant to the fact that Obama despises and never trusted Clinton. The entire FBI investigation AND the very FACT of the existence that there even WAS an FBI investigation was started by, and leaked by, Valerie Jarrett, Obama's most trusted inner circle. From my research, I firmly believe that the entire FBI investigation was Obama's idea. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he was planning this way back when Hillary first became SoS. They told Hillary then that she needed to stop with her Clinton Foundation shenanigans, but did she? No. And then she had the freakin' gaul to use her own home brewed private email server? I bet they were watching her like a hawk and collecting incriminating intel on her from DAY ONE. And don't be fooled by any words of praise that came from Obama about Hillary (yeah, Hillary is "wicked smart" ... HAHAHA) ... . those comments were pure political misdirection optics smokescreen to hide his goal.
FACT: Obama went out of his way to choose Comey. THAT is all that you need to know to KNOW that Obama means business. Obama would not appoint Comey as head of the FBI if he did not intend to indict Hillary and Bill and the entire Clinton Foundation web of corruption. DUH!!! Comey is an honest man with impeccable integrity who just so happened to have been involved in investigating the Clinton corruption 20+ years ago but got shut down due to undue political influence. What does that tell you?
What. Does. That. Tell. You???
Hillary's political career is over and I think the Washington DC insiders and Democratic Party elite all know it, and THAT is why they are all distancing themselves from Hillary and lining up behind Bernie. And I think Hillary knows that the indictment is imminent, which is why she and her surrogates have ALL been desperately pressuring Bernie to withdraw, when such a desperate effort by Hillary given her delegate lead, makes zero sense. I mean, think about it, why ARE they all attempting to get Bernie to withdraw, now, today, this past week or two? Why? Many people over at TOP have been asking that question. Well, I will tell you why I think she's been making this desperate plea right now. I think it is because, in Hillary's deranged psyche, she believes that if she is declared the Democratic Presidential Nominee BEFORE she is indicted, then Obama would not dare to indict her.
Well, guess again.
FACT: Over the past 2 weeks, in spite of Hillary and her surrogates criticizing Bernie and pressuring him to withdraw, claiming that he is hurting the Democratic Party, we have 3 items which prove that the DEM PARTY ELITE are distancing themselves from Hillary and are lining up behind Bernie:
I want you to think about that for just one minute..... because if those three items are not a "tell" in the political world, I don't know what is. Pelosi AND Reid? It doesn't get any more senior than that, in the Democratic Party today. AND they are now FINALLY talking about firing DWS???
What more conclusive evidence do you need, folks?
#1) Pelosi refuses to criticize Bernie.
Pelosi praises Bernie Sanders
Pelosi defends Sanders: A 'positive force' for Dems
#2) Reid refuses to criticize Bernie.
Reid: 'Lay off' Sanders criticism
Apparently, Someone Missed Harry Reid's Memo On Tuesday
#3) They fire DWS.
Hill: Insiders say Dems likely to fire DWS from DNC before convention.
And yes, they have been floating Biden, yes, but how much do you wanna bet that in the 11th hour, Biden all of a sudden, DECLINES to run and endorses Bernie.
Joe Biden praises Bernie Sanders for 'thinking big'
Yes, I honestly actually DO believe that Obama has been playing 11th Dimensional Chess, far more than anyone could possibly realize. Hell, I bet Obama recruited Bernie to run for President in the first place, informing Bernie that the FBI would be indicting Hillary in the 11th hour, just like Axelrod took out Obama's Republican opponent in the 11th hour, when Obama ran for state senator, way back when. Mind you, I have zero interest in convincing anyone of this or arguing with ANYONE about this, because what would be the point. We will all know soon enough, so don't bother disagreeing or trying to convince me otherwise, you are spitting in the wind. I repeat, we shall all see soon enough.
June 1st -- Hillary Rodham Clinton gets indicted. That's my call.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
Wow, quite the rebuttal ;->
Hey sensetolisten...
you may feel confident of your opinion, but cut the condescending crap, we don't play that here.
It's your site, JtC.
So your word is law.
I am rather jaded and quite frankly, pissed off, from the rampant DailyKos denialism that we've all been subject to, for far far too long. I've had to censor my candor and raw thoughts for far too long. I posted an essay about this same subject not too long ago and the comments were dismissive, and I felt, condescending to me, to be honest with you, so I never responded, because, as I said above, what would be the point.
We shall all know soon enough, eh?
I have read/watched about 100 articles/videos this past week of the current news bombshells, and I honestly believe our community has been blinded to what is going down.
Case in point: As I pointed out, this entire essay is quoting the Judicial Watch FOIA case, and completely ignores the fact that THAT JW CASE is NOT THE MAIN CASE here.
Can you appreciate how off that is?
The FBI/DoJ CRIMINAL investigation is the case where Hillary has broken criminal law.... we're talking ESPIONAGE ACT and HIGH TREASON and ACTS AGAINST THE STATE ---- but this entire essay IGNORES that ENTIRE SUBJECT. Seriously, after reading this essay I stepped away and didn't even respond for 30 minutes, I was so appalled at the utter ignorance that the argument being made here represents, and it was made here with great confidence and authority.
Do you honestly NOT see what is the deep and disturbing problem here?
And you find MY comment condescending?
Well, I found this entire essay condescending.
I am sorry, but yes, I was harsh, because I think we have all been so terrible brow beaten into a state of utter blindness that we are not seeing what is happening, so I wanted to make it brutally honest and clear, HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, from my rather in depth following of this, is about to be indicted for CRIMINAL ESPIONAGE AND HIGH TREASON.
Yes.
I realize that this is virtually unfathomable to many, but I seriously believe this imminent, and I could provide about 100 links and articles to substantiate why this is a virtual certainty, as far as I am concerned.... NOT wishful thinking.
You want to label me as "condescending" and ban me, so be it, then you are no better than Markos, in my book.
I presented FACTS.
This essay is an outright LIE .... because it promotes a COUNTER-FACTUAL ARGUMENT under the heading of "REALITY CHECK" .... and you call me "condescending?"
With all due respect, I believe you owe me an apology, and I believe this diarist owes ALL OF US an apology, but like Markos owns DialyKos, this is not my site, this is your site, you own it, so you are the boss, so if you want to chastise, censor and ban me, for speaking the FACTS in a non-sugar coated manner, so be it. I lived under that rule for far too long with that sell-out corporate Hillary shill, Markos.
I really thought you were different, JtC. I really thought c99 was different. I've been telling all of my friends about this place, in fact, I've been singing your praises, but maybe I was wrong.
I will step away from this site for at least 24 hours, and if, when I check back after a day or two, my account has been shut down, then I will know where you stand.
“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell.”
― Harry Truman
Sensetolisten
I have been posting comments for over two weeks about how she can and should be charged under the espionage act.
I have 2-3 comments on this thread about this. Did you read them?
And I have also included links that showed that her actions disrupted operations of the military as you wrote in your first comment which I agree with.
And others have posted about this too.
It's not just the fact that she had a private email server, it's the reason why she did.
I hope you are right about Obama setting her up and that an arrest is imminent.
I'm LOLLING right now thinking about how her supporters are going to react if that happens.
--
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Not speaking for JtC
I get your passion. I understand it takes a long time to recover from the damage top does to people. I don't believe anyone is going to ban you. It wasn't what you said, it was how you said it. I believe JtC was speaking to your tone. It did project at others the anger and frustration you say you feel. The last thing this site wants is its users angry, sniping, and fighting with one another.. Right or wrong, angry or not, frustrated or not, we still want civil conversation between friends even when they disagree.
I don't agree with this essay. I think it is incomplete. As far as it went, I think gjohnsit is right; but bigger picture, I mostly agree with you. This is and must be a big deal. Regardless I like and respect gjohnsit and I'm not going to yell at him or anyone else about it.
June 1 is my b'day. It would be the best birthday present ever. I'm really hoping you are right, and I think your comment minus the tone would be a great essay. I hope you get to leave top behind soon.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Early birthday best wishes. n/t
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Thank you and the tippers very much. n.t
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Also, in his defense, this particular discussion at TOP
would cause anyone to feel like they were going slowly insane. THE TALKING POINTS! THE TALKING POINTS! I could recite them in my sleep at this point.
The beauty of modern man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain.
- Robinson Jeffers, Rearmament
My only disagreement is Pelosi, Reid, & DWS rumblings,
fall into the 'let's all get together and have a nice peaceful convention (where we nominate Hill), okay?' category. After Harry's intentional corruption of the system in NV in Hillary's favor, and this talk about replacing DWS (while sidelining Bernie), I see it as just another diversion.
Agree with mbm that talk of--or a move to--dump DWS
is simply an attempt to pave the way for a smoother convention, and acceptance of a FSC nomination.
Scores of articles say this. Many spell it out--Warren has always been a top fundraiser, even before DWS rubbed activists the wrong way (so to speak).
Warren could help Clinton unite Democrats, but her support comes with a price
In a nutshell--Warren is positioning herself to be an inside player. The DNC used her Tweets to Trump to raise money, for instance.
Here's several quotes:
Clearly, the Dem Party Elites are feeling smug that most of Bernie's supporters will come on board. Boy, are they in for a surprise.
Mollie
elinkarlsson@WordPress
"If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went."--Will Rogers
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Sensetolisten...
I could care less about the gist of your comment, right or wrong time will tell. I hope you are right.
It's this condescending attitude:
I'm absolutely sure you could have made your case without adding that dripping condescension.
I can ignore the fact that you then go off on me in your reply, that flows off my back like water on a duck.
And if you can't see your tone as condescending, then yeah, we are going to have a problem. And no, I will not apologize for calling out your tone.
There is too much content here now for me to read all of it and I don't see everything, nor do the mods. So if you feel that you've been aggrieved at any time, that's what the "Contact Us" link is for.
The only fact that matters in the end
is that the Clintons of this world are never indicted for anything, any more than the Richard Nixons or Dick Cheneys are.
It has little to do with law, and less to do with justice. It has everything to do with class entitlement and raw power.
...and no, you won't be banned from C99.
Hillary Clinton 2016: I'm a proud progmoderate!
Exactly
I'm one who said yesterday that the chances of legal consequences for Lady Clinton are nil. And I'm far from being in a "daily kos bubble" - in fact I stopped visiting there in March and couldn't care less about it now.
Also I would be glad to be wrong. I'm not refusing to consider "facts" or that in theory she could be charged, and by all rights should be. (And JtC makes a good point that being insulted doesn't do anything to change my mind. Actual facts would - but that rebuttal is unfortunately short on those; proclaiming things facts in all caps doesn't make them so.)
I read news from a large variety of sources and points of view. I think this quote from today's Chicago tribune sums up what I think is reality:
Again, I'd love to be wrong. Occasionally, powerful people do get prosecuted. I certainly don't mind being challenged on my beliefs and don't claim complete knowledge or infallibility. But it can be presented without the insults. I'm holding back on expressing some of my impressions about some of that rebuttal. I'll just say that I see no evidence to support the idea that the people who hold the levers of power are secretly working to bring down Hillary.
In July of last year the DOJ prosecuted
a US service member in Afghanistan for inadvertently storing classified information on a personal device. Justice even said that it wasn't a big violation, but they were "making a point" about the importance of mishandling classified info. John Deutch, Gen. Petraeus, and Sandy Berger were all prosecuted for the unauthorized removal of classified information.
I think the legal experts were operating under the impression that Hillary had State's approval, and now, I think everyone understands it's a big deal. Or at least, I haven't seen any real legal experts except Clinton hacks make an argument about why it isn't a big deal.
The beauty of modern man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain.
- Robinson Jeffers, Rearmament
I think the issue is
that Clinton won't be adding an orange jumpsuit to her wardrobe any time soon -- but there's still a chance that enough can be revealed to get her out of the race. Maybe the party leadership (minus DWS) goes to her and gives her a chance to gracefully bow out -- some sort of "health crisis" for either herself or Bill, perhaps, that can't be disproved but would leave the Clinton "legacy" intact and even engender a certain amount of sympathy.
You should make a rebuttal essay then
I encourage it.
I've seen this one too many times on TOP
"You owe me an apology for saying something that i disagree with."
Haven't we seen this too many times on DKos?
If you read something you disagree with then you response to it like an adult. Then everyone can see both (or more than two sides) and decide for themselves. That's constructive!
Am I wrong in this essay? It's entirely possible. But make your case. I won't be offended.
But taking something personal that was obviously not intended for you is just a waste of time and shuts down debate. Let's leave that childish BS at TOP.
I thought Obama's praise of Bernie
at the correspondents dinner was surprising. Between that and his line about Libya being a mistake, he does not seem to mind if Hillary were to be seated below the bus axles.
It may boil down
to how much mud Clinton's actions splashed on Obama's own legacy. Obama could conceivably want to prosecute if only to make sure that he's not tarnished.
I don't think Obama ever liked Hillary
And having to give her State to get her to concede after the primary must have really burned him.
Sensetolisten
You might come across as a bit rough, but I what you have written could certainly be an article of it's own.
Agree. Thank you,
Agree. Thank you, sensetolisten.
~ Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle. ~
I hope you're right.
I don't listen to MSM news anymore. Like Bernie supporters, they're so irritating.
The pivot by Pelosi is news to me. If she and Reid have turned, then something going on. I'll have to look into that further.
Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.
Interesting connection of dots.
I thought the dem leadership was backing off in realization that they need Bernie's voters and money.
dfarrah
Obama is certainly capable of actually playing 11th-
dimensional chess where his own personal interests, or particular political projects he's invested in, are at stake. (Not so much when it's the country's general benefit or the party's benefit at stake).
And yes, he's never liked Hillary, for pretty good reason actually, and he's more than capable of nursing a grudge for years and then unleashing a devastating blow from behind a smokescreen.
I basically agree with your assessment, except that I interpret the DWS thing differently. She's being offered to us as Hillary's sin eater--essentially a scapegoat. And yes, I think that offer comes from the Obama Administration, essentially--at least, that it was their idea, probably pitched to Hill Dems as a last-ditch effort to save the party's reputation. It could even have been pitched as an attempt to save Hillary's reputation as well. The proposition could have gone something like this: "Sacrificing DWS might placate people and salvage Hillary's reputation and campaign; if it doesn't work, then at least we can salvage your reputation, the party's, and our chances of retaining the White House." The follow-up would be to try to shoehorn either Biden or Warren in as a replacement candidate at the convention. I hope it's Biden.
In my dreams, Bernie has been notified of these moves, probably around the time of the WHCD, though he would not have known about them ahead of time--not exactly his crowd, nor his methods. And that explains the ever-increasing freakout of the Clinton machine, demanding more and more loudly that Bernie quit the race, and gives him one more reason not to quit.
This storyline has the virtue of explaining a great many things--but obviously, I don't know if it's true.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I completely agree with your assessment
of DWS as being the sacrificial lamb here although I also believe she will be rewarded by the Clintons for being a good soldier. I have always thought that Obama and the Clintons were not particularly friendly and I can see no reason why he would want to do her any favors. IMO, I think Obama has a very good idea of what is coming down in the FBI investigation and that Biden is Plan B. For months Biden has been saying complimentary things about Bernie. To me this is to soften up the Sanders supporters should Plan B get executed. Now we have Pelosi and Reid saying nice things. I think the insiders know that the Clinton campaign )and the Democratic party as a result) is in deep trouble. Huge losses in 2010 and 2014, with zero chance of getting the House and practically zero chance of getting the Senate back, the Democratic party needs a win and a safe candidate for it. The last thing they want is for Sanders to be their standard bearer but they also want to save what they salvage the White House, so Plan B (Biden) is it.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
That's what I think too.
Now comes the co-optation stage, also known as "C'mon, Wall St, you can get another mouthpiece--wave some money around!"
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I don't agree with you, but
I admire the depth of your conviction.
That was AWESOME!
I need a cigarette after reading that. And I don't smoke.
"Polls don't tell us how well a candidate is doing; Polls tell us how well the media is doing." ~ Me
other politicians have gone to jail for less
I'd like to believe there is justice in our American system. The e-mail issue is really just the tip of the iceberg.
What lies below the surface is the deeper crime. WHY she needed a secret server and complete control over release of her correspondence. IMHO, the real crime is where she crossed the conflict of interest line with the Clinton Foundation while serving as Secretary.
Alabama's ex-governor Don Siegelman went to jail for a $500,000 campaign contribution, not millions in charity donations. He didn't approve arms deals or uranium land sales, but merely a non-paying appointment on a state regulatory board. He served his state for 26 years, but now is in solitary confinement.
If even a tenth of "Clinton Cash" is true, it is a sickening travesty to democracy that Bill would accept "donations" and "speech fees" from the same folks needing approval from the State Department during Hillary's tenure. No doubt this unraveling of the international money trail is what is taking the FBI so long to wrap up the investigation.
Don Siegelman...
What they did to that man was pure evil, IMO. Karl Rove at his "finest." Shoot, just by the preponderance of circumstantial evidence it could clearly be seen he wasn't guilty of anything more than a "tsk, tsk" .. if even that! But they needed to get him out of that office for some reason. Sure wish I knew all the in's and out's of the story behind that story... but I think you could water board Rove and he'd still not tell you anything. Talk about making my blood boil!
Is his time up yet?
No excuse for Obama not pardoning him.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Obama has a million ($$$) excuses for keeping a good man down.
No, Obama's done nothing for him
It's like Don's a "persona non grata" where these politicians are concerned. Like I said, I'd love to know the real story behind the public story. Although, knowing the players involved, it could be as simple as he got in a Repub's way who wanted the office... or one just like it. But once we had a Democrat in Office, it just floored me no one would act on Don's behalf. And this in particular because our Demo PTB couldn't take trying BushCo off the table fast enough once they were in power, as well as doing absolutely nothing with regards to the "moral hazard" banks, hedge funds, and other high financiers got away with.
This is something I've been saying from the beginning.
The only repercussions she might face will be setbacks in polling and GE campaign progress. I think there's a very slim chance she has to drop out before the convention. Very slim. Other than that she has more or less got away with it.
Tom DeLay did go down. Eom
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Hillary is a historic figure.
In the worst way. The Clintons are a stain on our history.
I think the shoe we were waiting for was the IG report
that just came out, that not only showed Clinton had lied on multiple occasions, but caused her to lie about the report's contents, just to underline the powerful arrogance behind her casual dishonesty. Expecting this DOJ to stop hunting marijuana users and go after a Friend of Wall St. is not realistic.
She may be a friend of Wall St--
but indications are she has pissed off the Security State.
While I don't expect her to do jail time (much too rich), couldn't Wall St find another mouthpiece, one that doesn't interfere with (so-called) "counterterrorism operations" and expose the US security state's dirty secrets for all overseas to see? And use?
I'm thinking that Wall St may be asked to find another front man. Or front woman. (That would be Biden, probably; or, in a horrible and sickening twist, it could be Warren, but my guess is that the rich guys on Wall St wouldn't trust her to keep in line, and have too much personal animus against her anyway.)
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
There's also the way that many of the tv pundits
Have come out and said that they believed that she lied about the emails.
When even Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd turn against her as they did when Mika hosted morning joe, then I think that they see the writing on the wall.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Mrs Greenspan could not bring herself to say "lied"
I consider that a "tell".
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Mrs. Greenspan is clearly conflicted about this. Maybe its time
for her to retire and avoid any further conflict of interest that may arise.
Whatever perceived collective outrage there may be by the MSM,
such as that exhibited by Chucky Todd, Airhead Mika and Mrs. Greenspan, will most certainly be met with a series of phone calls, party invitations and/or insider small talk by their counterparts, with the express intention of reminding these media lapdogs that they all belong to the same Big Club, and that it's less than noble (or whatever kind of blackmail is necessary) to give up the charade, lest we all go down someday for something similar or other.
Just as the odious catch all euphemism was thrown around in the music industry when I was there, it applies to this as well: "hey, you gotta play the game."
Very few of these people are genuine, authentic journalists. They're riding a gravy train of access, ridiculous money and perceived friendships, but all based on keeping the scam going. They'll be falling over themselves next week, after a few choice calls are placed to remind them of how it works "playing the game", to find ways to dismiss the story.
Rinse' repeat, every time. Show a little journalistic spunk for a minute, then quickly have it reeled in because you're reminded forcefully that that is not what you were hired to do.
"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"
- Kurt Vonnegut
The mainstream media shift when the big power centers
in this country want them to, which means the big power centers are turning against Clinton--or at least, against Clinton as president.
*Why* this is, is an uncomfortable question. I hope it's for the reasons I laid out in other comments: Wall St can find another frontman/front woman: one that's not pissing off and messing with the Security State and its projects; one that doesn't expose American secrets for the entire digitally-skilled world to see.
Otherwise, it might mean that my darker suspicions are correct, and that somebody powerful actually has wanted us to hate Clinton all along, and that's why she's running this hideous anti-campaign; that the idea is to get us so horrified by Clinton vs Trump that we will accept *anything* in exchange, without even the formality of a vote; that this will eventually be used in an attempt to discredit the whole idea of voting itself. Wouldn't that be, basically, just an extension of what the superdelegates already are: a statement that the people's choices are not to be trusted?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
If my darker suspicions were correct, then Bernie
would be making the case for democracy itself--or, rather, for the existence of a republic. In other words, his presence and the success that he's had argue convincingly that the American public is to be trusted; that they *don't* want Hillary, or Trump. That makes it more difficult to make the case for simply installing people into high office without voting.
Having said all this, I think the more credible possibility is my first, simpler narrative: Hillary has pissed off the security state; the security state is informing Wall St that it can fucking well find another frontman.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Ms Greenspan Should Not Be Allowed To Cover The Election
Really, I mean really, does anyone think this Neo-Liberal aristocrat married to a man who single handedly may be responsible for the implosion of our economy does not belong with all her baggage on TV
'Conflict of interest'
would assume that the propagandist's in the establishment media are conflicted about interests. Mrs. Greenspan has no conflict with the interest's she's paid to represent. Rachael's another propagandist, they all are. The interests of the public knowing the truth is indirect conflict with their interests. I took the cable box back to Comcast the day after they got rid of KO and I no longer watch the official news-speak. Even online it's hard to find any news or opinion that is not in direct conflict with the interests of the public globally. It's in their interests to paint the day time night and call this reality.
My boxes are gone. Satellite dish remains.
Just to fill up with snow, and for resale value. I pay no heed to MSM news except to see where they want us to go. TOP was my go-to, until that stopped. Now here, with Joe and gjohnsit. I don't get out enough. Found the latest escape hole in the deer fence this afternoon! Not fully blocked. Yet.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Even Bill Maher, who was bagging on the Bernie or Busters
Was significantly critical about Clinton and this email issue having the potential to put Trump in the White House.
Bernie was on this episode as well, if you didn't see he he did an even more impressive job of being "The Adult in the Room" than normal.
The man just ooozes Presidential Respectability and shows what America needs, More Statesmen and less Politicians.
Here is a link to the interview for those of you that don't watch TV or get HBO.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9AwjZWboIk]
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
They wouldn't impeach Bush.
They would not prosecute anyone involved with lying us into wars.
They took prosecution off the table for the financial crisis.
So what makes anyone realistically think that they'll blink an eye over Hillary Clinton doing this?
They are both the accountant and the auditing firm. So no person responsible for an infraction is ever actually held accountable for their actions.
So much for checks and balances
edit: corrected an error
The Day Obama Said He Was Going To Turn The Page
was the day I lost faith in him. It is and was critical for history to define through investigation and the courts who, what, where, how and why about the financial crisis and the invasion of Iraq
For my family, it was the biggest back stab
Obama has let me down at almost every step of the way. History is never kind to those who looked away from war criminals or those who continued their efforts.
"Love One Another" ~ George Harrison
I think Obama is a good man, but
As a supporter and voter what I dod not understand was his strong ties to the financial Oligarchs and the Neo-Liberal's, at least on economic policy.
Good post. Reality based matters.
No
This blog covers only half the story, and that incompletely. It totally ignores the ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI.
That is not reality. That's like seeing the world completely through one hemisphere of the brain and calling that reality, no matter what everyone else says.
Saying Hillary won't go to prison for the civil matter - that's accurate. Saying she won't go to prison at all, ignoring the criminal matter, and then calling that reality - that seems like willful obfuscation.
I'm pretty sure that's not what gjohnsit intended. But for you, you, TomP, to also ignore this and praise the blog... that surprises me.
The more people I meet, the more I love my cats.
Since the diarist only
addressed the civil action, why would you assume that he was also talking about the FBI investigation?
All the diary title needs is a qualifier.
dfarrah
Because
of the definative header and the fact that the blogger (diarist? Why hello, fellow flee-er from the folly that is FOP) ignores the criminal side of the equation. If this was something coming against Sanders, giving only one, cherry-picked side of the story, we would call foul and say it is propaganda.
And I didn't assume he was addressing the FBI investigation. That lack was my point. You can't just cut an apple in half and say, "Here, have an apple."
The more people I meet, the more I love my cats.
Freedom of Information Act
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private server for one principal reason, that was to assure that her correspondences would not be subject to the Freedom of Information Act (http://www.foia.gov/).
Per Daniel Metcalfe; "There is no doubt that the scheme she established was a blatant circumvention of the Freedom of Information Act, atop the Federal Records Act,” he said, reviewing a transcript of Clinton’s remarks during her Tuesday news conference. Clinton told reporters she deleted approximately 30,000 personal emails from her private account that she also used as secretary of state.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/foia-hillary-clinton-email-daniel-...
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
Progressive, Independent, Gnostic, Vermonter.
And this is the heart of the matter
The private server, outside of State and FOIA prying eyes, at bare minimum gives the appearance of impropriety and, considering owner of said server, the appearance of nefarious gain and hiding of potential shenanigans.
The ONLY reason to have a private server is to circumvent existing law, specifically FOIA and probably others. Having that server for recipes, foundation stuff and yoga is fine. The using of the server for official PEOPLE'S BUSINESS is unacceptable. State IT techs could have easily and efficiently set up her blackberry if that is all she wanted to use instead of the laptop/desktop set up. You can't retrieve encrypted attachments is the only problem with the blackberry. But she could have used state.gov addresses for general correspondence and have a staffer retrieve any encrypted data. I mean think about it:
1. SOS would have had a staffer or deputy COS with her at all times to retrieve any of these documents
2. Most if not all heads of departments, especially at cabinet or political appointee level, NEVER respond to general emails - their staff does. Sensitive or better is handled directly at the principal level (or their appointed deputy).
The deputies having access to that server (if memory serves from what I've been reading - lots of disinformation lately), makes me fear that something in those 30,000 emails that were deleted are hiding something. What I do not know. But why did she need to keep things secret from the President and the rest of State?
Also, why is the MSM not making clear that this is not just a private email account like the other SOS's, but that she had to have all her records on a server NOT connected to the @.gov network for official archiving under FOIA? That's the part that gets me - why no clarification and discussion? You just know that the Repukes will be waiting in the wings to start hammering this point home after the convention.
Who can say? If I had to wager, I would say that the FBI
will do their job and most likely make a criminal referral because of the National Security aspects, and possibly some public corruption aspects. The FBI DID seize her server, they are recovering emails, and they are investigating and interviewing people. I doubt they waste their own resources unless they have some underlying theory of criminal activity they are pursuing. It's hard to believe that Hillary's assertion of "everything I did was allowed" will stand up to rigorous examination.
IMO Hillary will be coming up very shortly to her biggest rock and hard place - when the FBI actually calls for her interview. That interview would be fraught with hazards for her, since plenty of people have gone down for dissembling to the FBI. On the other hand, asserting the fifth, on the advice of her attorney after saying for a year she would fully co-operate, could not have worse optics.
The Kossack Sanders reddit has an article posted about supposedly the Clinton campaign has approached the Obama administration about a pre-emptive pardon. IMO, I can't see Obama tying his own two terms and legacy to allowing Hillary to walk away unscathed from facing the consequences of her own actions while in high office. I don't think he bears any personal responsibility for her actions as regards the server, I doubt he knew anything about her server and all his email communications with her would have been covered by executive privilege and "deliberative process" anyway. I would hope that if PO had been having any really sensitive discussions with her he would have used secure means to do it.
Plus, one has to make the observation that many of Hillary's actions show her deliberately rejecting the President's own guidelines about email usage and record retention. I'm sure he was as surprised as anyone to see how lucrative the intersection of the Clinton Foundation and the State Department and speaking fees turned out to be for Bill and Hillary.
There's also the future turf wars aspect of the Democratic Party to consider. If Hillary gets back into office, Obama's tenure will be basically as a placeholder between Clinton administrations and the Party will go back to being a machine basically owned and run for the Clintons and their cronies. I'm not saying the Obama would prosecute Clinton to further his own political branding and legacy, but I'm saying I don't see anything in it for him to protect and burnish the Clinton brand in defending self-serving activity I doubt he had anything to do with. I could see him saying "Meh. Let her deal with her own actions" and let the chips fall where they may. And come to think of it, the biggest failure of his administration in the eyes of many, was the failure of the Obama Justice Department to prosecute white collar criminals. A Preemptive pardon of HRC would be cementing that image of one Rule of Law for peons and another for the connected with a gigantic trowel.
" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "
If all the scuttlebutt was true about
Clinton promising Obama the Clinton Foundation would stay separate from SoS business, did Obama just trust her "pinky swear"? There were quite a few "pay to play" business deals done on Clinton's watch, deals that benefited the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family. Where was Obama during that time? Asleep? As much as I fault the Clintons for this SNAFU I can't help but fault the Obama Administration for keeping their heads in the sand.
It wasn't just a promise.
There was an MOU, and it was provided to the Senate before she was confirmed.
She & bill did not abide by it.
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/understanding.pdf
Obama? I'd be more likely to believe
that he's actually involved in trying to bring her down.
She has done some things that seriously pissed him off, beginning with her campaign tactics in '08.
She was too powerful for him to punish up front, so he let her have enough rope to hang herself with. And waited. (that would be why he accepted her pinky swear).
Best served cold, and all that.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Let's make a deal - pardon Siegelman *first*
and then he can do as he likes with Hillary. Not that I think this will ever happen....
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
The Only Way To Save The Dem Party & The Country
may be to put Clinton in Jail
As posted the violation of
As posted the violation of The Records act is a relatively minor offense and will not lead to punishment. The OIG report establishes that HRC's use of private e-mail was not acceptable practice by the State Department, it was NOT approved and she was warned to stop the practice and use the official State Department address.
These facts are damning for the larger FBI investigation into the handling of classified information. Having classified documents on your private e-mail in your home and sending those documents to individuals (Blumenthal) outside of the government is the bigger issue. If the FBI does not find criminal activity it will be one of the biggest breeches of justice in our modern history of our government.
The information from the OIG report helps to connect the dots of The Clinton's over the past 8 years. The fund raising for their foundation, decisions as SOS and the use of a private server to avoid FOIA are interrelated. This is why she did not want the "personal accessible". It would be interesting to see the result of investigative journalism of this hypothesis.
Judge Sullivan can deny the Justice Dept.
motion on Hillary testifying in the JW suit. He has already expressed his skepticism over Hillary and surmised that she was trying to thwart FOIA. I don't think this door has been closed yet.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
Forgotten the FBI?
You are entirely right that the IG report by itself does not put Hillary at risk for criminal charges. That's what the FBI investigation is about. Potentially, they could ask for Hillary's indictment on a range of grounds, including Gross Negligence under the Espionage Act, and Obstruction of Justice. All good things come in time to those who wait.
Mark F. McCarty
Charge her with
being craven & stupid
I think she's going to get off
scot-free. If we still had a rule of law, checks and balances, and separation of power she would be indicted and prosecuted. There is no legal remedy left for abuse of power or crimes by the 1% ruling elite anymore as they were 'taken off the table' by both parties during the Bush regime.
The lawlessness was expanded and made legal by the Obama administration. Congressional investigations are just absurd kabuki shows where the pols get to blow hard and nothing is reveled. Karl Rove flaunted the law and didn't even bother to show up when subpoenaed. No frog march for him.
The Obama administration was indeed a place holder for the Clinton machine. The administration was chock full of Clintonites, banksters and Republican neocon endless warriors. Holder, Rahm, Summers, Clinton, the list is endless. I think Obama was just the backup spokesperson for the Clinton machine even though she lost. Even on a political level there will be no consequences one other then a few sacrificial goats. Savvy business people like the Clinton's are not criminals they are doing god's work.
The powers that be are not held to the law or forced to leave the political arena. The internecine political fighting is not about anything other then naked power plays. Almost all the Democratic pol's in office has backed Hillary and this election is a farce. None of them want to open up this can of worms as they are complicit and it would undermine the confidence of the public.
This right here. Obviously we can not trust the government.
PIVOT -
(yes, this is an issue pivot and not a thread jack)
The comment being responded to brings up a very good point about where we stand with the government and how government conducts itself beyond the checks and balances which should be in place and are not being adhered to by those elected to office.
The example surrounding a lack of trust in government can be used to highlight the opinions on gun ownership in this country.
There are those who turn around and say 'trust the government' when it comes to the anti-second amendment crowd, who were somewhat vocal over at cesspool central. Lines can and do (especially at cc) get blurred between reasonable controls on gun purchases and ownership vs. those who say they are fed up and ant to ban all the guns, saying they are fine if the government cuts the bill of rights down by one.
- forgetting that they already cut it with surveillance (4th amendment)
and that the government is actually doing what it can to erode other rights of citizens as well.
Before we give up rights.
Before we use the opening "If the founding fathers only knew…"
Before emotional reactions to the situation overtake reasonable thought…
And before someone says 'well it's like X in this other country'
we need to be very careful before asking the government to take away our rights to do X.
One day, it might be safer if we all didn't enjoy the right to free speech. because speech can be dangerous, and incite people to do things, and hurt people's feelings, and if the founding fathers only knew what kind of capability we'd have today to speak to one another, so easily, with multiple methods and devices, those founding fathers would have never, ever, been so willing to let the people have free speech given the inherent dangers of it all.
Those anti second amendment people sometimes forget that the rationalizations they use for giving up one right, can be used to take others.
The people of this country do not exist to provide the political class with position. Those positions exist to provide the people with freedom through fair laws that apply to all, including accountability to oversight, and providing for national defense as well as the general welfare, and the general welfare should include NOT SHIPPING JOBS OUT OF THIS COUNTRY.
But no, we are where we are and if we (commoners) decide we want to do something about it, the nobles tell us to check their privilege.
edit: some corrections (spelling, spacing, etc.)
Please do a standalone essay on this.
It is an important point, along with the complete bastardization of the US Constitution by powerful forces and collusion. A much-needed discussion about steering the ship. To go all nautical on ya.
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
Pages