Absolutely devastating interview regarding HRCs private server.
This Washington Journal interview conducted by C-Span on March 18 is fascinating, absolutely jaw dropping and mesmerizing -- because it is incredibly sober and well informed. Joseph diGenova is a former U.S. Attorney for the District of Colombia, and has an active law practice and a high level security clearance. It becomes immediately apparent that he truly knows what he is talking about, and has no axe to grind.
I hadn't seen it until now. It's 49 minutes long, and I strongly recommend watching every minute of it. Having made that recommendation, I won't bother to try to recapitulate any of it, because I wouldn't know what to leave out. But I will make the rather bold statement that having watched this, it is very hard not to conclude that regardless of whether Hillary Clinton is indicted, and regardless of what one thinks of her politics or anything else that she has done, that the decisions that she made and the actions that she took regarding her private server should be absolutely disqualifying for the office of the Presidency of the United States.
Please watch it. I will look forward to reading comments.
(Addendum: I don't think I entered the tags correctly. Any help appreciated; this is my 1st diary here.)
UPDATE: Just discovered this morning that the video doesn't appear on iOS devices. I've added the link at the beginning of the diary.
Comments
Consider the source.
Joe DiGenova has a long, long history of politicizing justice for his personal gain, as does his wife, one Victoria Toensing (Toensing was the talking head who infamously insisted that outing Valerie Plame as a CIA agent couldn't possibly be a crime, since her status was "no real secret"). He is also a discredited Benghazi conspiracy nut, who insisted in January that Hillary would be indicted "within 60 days" over EmailGate.
- Joseph E. DiGenova, 5 January 2016.
It's well over 60 days later, and there's still no definite evidence that the FBI will charge Clinton with anything. It may come to something in the end, or it may not - but I suggest that DiGenova - and everyone where, too - should let the FBI do its work without trying to "analyze" to the Nth degree every head angle, nod to the cameras or hand-wave done by the FBI agents. There might be a "there" there, or there might not. Wait until the FBI have completed their investigation, then see what they say.
In the meantime, remember the principle of caveat emptor when it comes to the mainstream media, and always conduct due diligence!
Self-exiled from DKos, ahead of the arrival of the Clinton Thought Police.
Markos' transition from gatecrasher to gate-polisher is now complete.
Just Another Talking Head
The public doesn't know who Joe DiGenova is, so the corporatist media can present him as an "expert" to lead the public astray, away from the truth.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
I am face-palming now.
The source is the Espionage Act. Section 32 Paragraph 793, g.
When someone attacks the source of information, when the violation of the Espionage Act is so clear and glaring, when the Espionage Act has been spun by the DOJ into an obscene dragnet used against jounelists such as the case of Barrett Brown, you REALLY have to be JOKING.
I am sick to DEATH of Republicans who can't tell the truth at ALL on the Economy, being RIGHT.
This is a total inversion and shows that some among us will quickly surrender their honor for wishful thinking that in Hillary's case, it is Okay..
It is NOT OKAY. It is NEVER OKAY!!!! This kind of sloppiness gets ships sunk and people killed.
Schedules, Sat photos, the real names and locations of assets. If it was your child that was killed as a result of Hillary's convince, What would be your attitude?
No, it's not OK.
But - and it's a big "but" - we don't know what happened. Let the FBI do their job without getting out the pitchforks. I'm actually reasonably confident in their integrity - Obama's not the kind to politicize justice, and I don't think he'll break type now.
Self-exiled from DKos, ahead of the arrival of the Clinton Thought Police.
Markos' transition from gatecrasher to gate-polisher is now complete.
I understand that diGenova is considered right wing.
However, if you listen to the entire interview, his comments truly do not come across as politicized, but rather very sober, well informed, and legally grounded. He does NOT make any judgements about Hillary's specific guilt or innocence, but instead talks about the legal standards for handling classified and official government communications, and does make it clear as a general statement that an unencrypted private server used for sensitive if not classified official government communications, and that is totally unavailable for FOIA requests, is a priori not legal. He also makes the point that Colin Powell and others whom Hillary insists did "exactly the same thing" in fact, did NOT do exactly the same thing, and explains clearly why he says that.
Even if you put aside the issue of legality, the monumental lack of judgement (and/or her sense that she is above the law), despite her vaunted experience, or more accurately especially in light of her vaunted experience, should be extremely concerning to all of us.
diGenova himself agrees with you -- let the FBI do its work. He never suggests otherwise.
What Good Political Operatives Do
They handed him his script, and he memorized his lines until he could present them as if he really meant them.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
So you're saying none of this is honest?
particularly the bolded part?
If you're saying that's scripted bullshit, you need to either understand how wrong you are or explain why those things are wrong.
It's to Defend Hillary
Nothing said here is going to advance her investigation as much as it is to sweep it under the rug. THAT is what this political operative is charged with achieving.
Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.
In other words,
you're not denying that what he said was fact-based.
How, exactly, do those facts being presented by anyone, "sweep it under the rug" or "defend Hillary"? That makes no sense whatsoever. If you mean "because it was on TV and nothing will come of it", well, yeah, I can make that case for just about anything said about any pol on the telly today, and it could have come from anybody.
So no, what "this political operative" had to say did no such thing. He laid out some facts, facts that appear to be sound, clear and in no way based on anything other than what he knows about the law. Those facts say to me--assuming they are facts, which no one has refuted here yet--that what we know about Queen Hills, and what might be a motivation for protecting her behavior, to the point of criminal activity to hide it. Ferinstance, what if it was to cover up her shitty, shady circumvention of government law--say, so she could make sure SHE saw ALL OF HER EMAIL before anyone or anything else ever did, including the government server backups and the FOIA AND (what passes for) government information system security? What you see going on in this primary says to me that she had every motivation to do so, starting with her skeezy "Foundation" and her "Election Strategy" with Little Debbie WasserNeocon-Shitz. Those things must be hidden, lest she is disqualified from her next Position of Power.
Please, deny the case. Refute the case. Point out exactly where DiGenova is wrong and provide some sources to counter him with facts of your own. Demonstrate where he is wrong. Because teeth-gnashing over his ulterior motives for "saying things" to a live TV monitor doesn't make me forget that the guy laid out a case that says what she did and what she had that IT guy do was criminal.
don'T think neo is refering to the judge. EOM
I don't know what that means, and
it also doesn't refute anything DiGenova had to say.
So what about it? Maybe you could tell me exactly what I am missing in regard to the specifics DiGenova lays out in the posted piece?
No, I think Neo is talking about the DiGenova
But another commenter here, who seem intent on focusing on DiGenova instead of the information.
DiGenova is absolutely right about the law, and its frequent application by the DOJ to everyone BUT Hillary.
di Genova is...
STILL a right-wing shill, whether you get that or not. If his lips are moving, he's lying.
Same with his wife.
::sigh::
That's what a good OPERATIVE does. They look plausible while they lie their asses into and through the meat grinder.
Otherwise, he'd create a PHONY persona and you wouldn't relate his face and voice to the lies he'd be spreading online. He's DAMNED GOOD operative, a shill, a liar. Otherwise, he'd just be an internet troll, a phony id.
Like Hillary isn't a Democrat, diGenova is a RIGHT-WING-OPERATIVE.
******************************
Muerte al fascismo. Muerte a la tiranía. colapso total de los que promueven tampoco. A la pared con el unico porciento%
And?
Come on, someone tell us what DiGenova has wrong.
Please, be specific. Obviously, I have missed it.
Exactly
I don't give a shit who the guy was if what he's saying is fact-based. Attacking him does nothing to his argument, especially when he's not the only one making it.
prog - weirdo | dog - woof
You didn't just drink the KoolAde,
you're sweating it.
******************************
Muerte al fascismo. Muerte a la tiranía. colapso total de los que promueven tampoco. A la pared con el unico porciento%
A lot of things about Hillary are not OK
Rigging these primaries is also not OK.
Beware the bullshit factories.
Facts are facts
no matter whose mouth they come out of.
I embedded...
the video that I thought was the one that you wanted. I couldn't find one that was 49 minutes long but this appears to be the interview you mentioned. To embed a c-span video select the iframes code rather that the old object code. If you know which video you wanted you can replace this one, or if you need help point me to the right video and I'll embed it for you.
Thanks!
I actually tried the iframes code first, but that didn't work and the old object code did work. I've also just now added the link to the c-span story containing the video at the beginning of the diary, since the video isn't appearing on iOS devices. (This is my first diary here, so I'm still figuring out the quirks
Thank you for the diary
And for putting up with our quirks!
prog - weirdo | dog - woof
Like him or not
DiGenova brings up a pointed fact, one that gets buried in noise by Team Clinton every time it gets presented to the public. And that is an unencrypted private server, set up for the Secretary of State of the United States of America BY a government employee so the Secretary could get her PRIVATE email and keep it off the GOVERNMENT server--along with her GOVERNMENT mail--where her private server makes it all ineligible FOIA requests--is illegal as fuck.
It sure does.
What was she hiding?
Twain Disciple
The FOIA issue has always been Issue #1 for me.
I recall thinking when this all broke that HRC was determined to avoid another records subpoena like what happened to Bill & her when they were in the white house.
You can not have a democracy without accountability and accountability is not possible if you can not find out stuff. In my calculus the private sever is incompatible with democratic institutions. Period/Full Stop.
Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor.
illegal
Actually, Hillary's record-keeping shenannigans are considerably more illegal than that, as most fuck is quite legal last I checked.....
[ducking!]
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I've been of the mind for awhile now
as I alluded to upthread, that it was to hide communications about the Clinton Foundation, donors, and communications back and forth with DWS about the primaries and the superdelegates.
It's ironic
The most in depth explanations about the email server situation are coming from conservatives, but there doesn't seem to be any adequate refutation for any of these points by anyone else. Just that the FBI is doing interviews, and nothing. How is an interview of a chief prosecutor on CSPAN going to get in the FBI's way?
It isn't
but just bringing up the subject begs questions it seems some people still don't want to read answers or hear any discussion about.
At all.
Anywhere.
And isn't that just fascinating?
At the very least...
...that HRC would arrange for an unsecured private server to be set up in her home is itself an act of gross negligence. She signed a non-disclosure agreement which definitely stated that classified material may be "marked or unmarked" and also states that it's her responsibility to mark information classified if found that has not been so designated and that needs to be. The investigation so far has found material that was classified on her server, period. Information in her emails that was classified by the State Department included information Hillary shared with her friend Sidney Blumenthal, who had no security clearance - acts like that by lesser individuals cost them not just their security clearance, but their jobs. Her defenders treat this like it's no big deal, but the patronizing,cavalier attitude she takes in some instances, and which she then switches to an air of innocence due to having no technological ability or awareness, is glaring evidence of a basic evasiveness and dishonesty.
She is seeking the office of President of the United States and has shown few qualities that that I'd want in a person seeking that office. A woman president would be wonderful and I hope to see one in my waning lifetime, but ideally it should be the right woman and Hillary is not that person.
(I'd also like to know more about the uranium deals and Boeing contract/Clinton Foundation donations alluded to in this interview).
Thanks mucho for the link to this interview flitedocnm.
"So it goes."
Kurt Vonnegut
You're very welcome, and thanks for the excellent comment.
I agree with you completely.
The ad hominem attacks — even here on c99 — are telling, and depressing. To those making the comments above that only seek to discredit diGenova: When all you've got in response to an interview like this is an ad hominem attack on the interviewee, and no factual refutation of anything that was said, you've got nothing.
Double rec'd for the KV quote. One of my heroes.
Yes, indeed
but they're way easier to see here, at least IMO. As such, it seems kind of dumb to even try pushing such bullshit. If all you've got is to denigrate the person, and you refuse to directly acknowledge ANYTHING the person says--particularly if what they say is demonstrably factual--then you are a "blogger" that I have absolutely no use for. No time. No inclination to take seriously. No respect.
I think a *lot* of folks here, particularly refugees of GOS, catch on to that kind of bullshit much, much faster than the average part-time poli-sci blog cruiser. You'd think the Hillbots would get that by now, wouldn't you?
Got to listen to opposing sides sometimes.
Factual and/or misleading information is not restricted to one party, their "shills" or another and I agree that:
Ultimately, the private server was for more than just convenience - though we can surely dicker endlessly with the Clintons about what the meaning of "convenience" is. When there are records found of Hillary using her cabinet appointment to broker contract deals between foreign governments and American corporations (like Boeing and GE) that somehow resulted in large donations to the Clinton Foundation, I am extremely disgusted: our tax dollars at work...
KV is my hero, too. His writing got me through my formative years and his, "Wampeters, Foma and Granfalloons" has what I still believe are some of the most brilliant essays ever written.
Thanks again for the video link...and for the kind words!
"So it goes."
Kurt Vonnegut
Yes, THIS ^^^^^^^^^
part. Indeed:
Endlessly dickering about the meaning of convenience would be fine with Team Hillary, long as you don't talk about the fact that (at least IMO) the setup wasn't about convenience at all. It was about bypassing FOIA and any set of prying eyeballs that might be scoping out Clinton's emails for things like "security purposes". IMO, it was imperative that she see ALL email before any security, any government scanbots or ANY OTHER EYEBALLS saw it, so it could be sorted properly by her and THEN hidden or destroyed if needed.
Malice aforethought here, from top to bottom. Gotta hide the top-dawg back-and-forth over the upcoming primaries, and the Foundation/campaign finance, and planning for as few debates as possible. And that whole thing where a bunch of state superdelegates were flat-out bought in advance.
Not for nothing, but it worries me quite a bit to have learned that the DNC paid off a huge bill recently for "document" and "hard drive destruction" services.
I thank you, too, flitedocnm. All political shills should be
viewed with a grain of salt, IMO; but, because he's a Republican shill, doesn't mean that the truth never passes from his lips.
I've listened to several interviews with him on XM Radio, and believe that he's credible on a couple of points/issues. The key is to check out all the allegations--then, disregard the ones that don't hold up.
Frankly, I wish that more folks in the Dem Party Base would look at pols in their Party, with a fraction of the skepticism that they are capable of heaping on right-wing shills/talking heads.
Maybe then, we wouldn't have a corporatist neoliberal Dem Party that's far right of Ronald Reagan.
Mollie
"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen or even touched. They must be felt with the heart."--Helen Keller
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Yup
I've got an essay in me somewhere about the differences between mis-information and dis-information. One day soon, I'm going to turn it loose here....