Hillary Will Be Indicted

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
1,940
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Mark Tapscott 11:41 AM 01/07/2016

Hillary Will Be Indicted, Says Former US Attorney

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/h...dicted-says-former-us-attorney/#ixzz3wfbeWMrU


A former U.S. Attorney predicts a Watergate-style showdown in the Department of Justice if Attorney General Loretta Lynch overrules a potential FBI recommendation to indict Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

“The [FBI] has so much information about criminal conduct by her and her staff that there is no way that they walk away from this,” Joseph diGenova, formerly the District of Columbia’s U.S. Attorney, told Laura Ingraham in a Tuesday radio interview. “They are going to make a recommendation that people be charged and then Loretta Lynch is going to have the decision of a lifetime.

“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable.”

DiGenova is referring to the Watergate scandal’s “Saturday Night Massacre” Oct. 20, 1973, when President Richard Nixon sacked Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned in protest.

DiGenova is well-sourced throughout the law enforcement community and his assessment has to be taken seriously. But interviews with other knowledgeable Washington insiders present a somewhat less concrete scenario developing around the former secretary of state.

At the center of Clinton’s difficulties is her use of a private email account and a home-brew server located in her New York home to conduct official business while serving as America’s chief diplomat between 2009 and 2013. Several of her closest aides also used the private server.

Clinton clearly didn’t abide by federal regulations requiring officials like her to use government computers and email accounts to conduct official business and take all of the necessary steps to preserve all such correspondence concerning official business.

As first reported by The Daily Caller News Foundation, Clinton emailed Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden Sept. 7, 2010, asking for advice on what she, President Barack Obama and Democratic campaign officials should do to prevent a Republican victory in the upcoming congressional elections.

“Do you and CAP have any ideas as to how to change the dynamic before it’s too late? Losing the House would be a disaster in every way,” Clinton told Tanden. The CAP chief responded at length with clearly partisan recommendations, noted her supposedly non-partisan think tank’s polling efforts to identify winning themes for Democrats and described her conversations relaying her advice to Obama and other senior White House officials.

On its face, the Sept. 7 Clinton email appears to be a violation of the Hatch Act, which bars partisan political activities by officials using government property while on official duty. But Clinton found a clever way to get around the law, according to a senior non-profit official with extensive experience investigating such activities. The official spoke on condition of anonymity.

First, that official said, by not preserving her email records until after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton avoided an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which handles Hatch Act violations. The reason is simple — OSC has no authority over former federal employees in Hatch Act matters.

Second, by refusing to comply “with Federal Records Act requirements to use an approved system for preserving records, [Clinton] arguably did not engage in political activities while on official duty or while using federal resources because she communicated with a personal computer,” the official said.

In other words, “had Secretary Clinton used a State Department e-mail address and a government computer and had Secretary Clinton complied with federal record-keeping and open government laws, [her] violations would have been discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act and could have been remedied while Secretary Clinton was still in office.”

Thus, don’t expect a Clinton indictment for a Hatch Act violation.

But Clinton is far from out of the woods, according to a congressional source who is deeply involved in the multiple investigations of Clinton. This source, who also spoke only on condition of anonymity, pointed to the hundreds of Clinton emails that contained classified information.

“Her problem is the sheer volume of emails that were deemed classified,” said this source. “Her first defense was that she didn’t send any classified information in her emails. But that claim has been clearly rendered false because so many of the emails were later marked classified.”

As the Department of State has released the Clinton emails she provided after leaving office, more than a thousand were marked classified after being reviewed prior to their public release. So what about Clinton’s subsequent distinction that she sent no information in her emails that was “marked classified” when it was sent?

“The volume matters because a reasonable person knows somebody like the Secretary of State, who is allowed herself to classify materials, who has handled it for 25 years or more, at some point the law says you are responsible for recognizing classified material when you see it. That gets to the negligence issue,” the issue said.

Negligence is critical because Clinton signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in 2009 regarding classified information that stated, among much else, that “Sensitive Compartmented Information involves or derives from intelligence sources or methods that is classified or is involved in a classification determination …”

Clinton and several of her closest aides must have read information “derived from intelligence sources or methods” on a daily or near-daily basis.

There is an ominous sentence buried in that agreement Clinton signed: “Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violations.”

What if Clinton is indicted for negligence in handling classified information? DiGenova predicts a showdown within a couple of months that will put Lynch in the same hot seat that prompted Nixon to fire Cox for getting too close to the truth about Watergate.

A Republican with direct knowledge of the investigation predicted political chaos if Lynch doesn’t decide to prosecute Clinton, a chaos that “would be the gift that keeps on giving right through the election.”

With or without resignations of FBI officials to protest such a decision, there would be a blizzard of news releases from congressional GOPers condemning Lynch, followed by hearings in which both the attorney general and FBI Director James Comey would be put under oath and asked about their actions.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/07/h...dicted-says-former-us-attorney/#ixzz3wfbEskG2
 
OP
Baron Samedi

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
1,940
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
I don't think this will happen, I just thought it interesting enough to being to the board.

Justice is political, and politics come before justice in this country. The law is less important than who is in charge of the Justice Dpepartment. Law is for little people.
 

Mark_Henderson

very stable genius
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Messages
8,800
Reaction score
513
Points
113
Age
56
Location
Titletown
I'll believe this when it starts to show up in less biased outlets than The Daily Caller. The House Republicans misstepped when they chose to grill her about Ben Ghazi. They should have focused on the email, which is more potentially something real.

Also, I'm not clear how uncommon Hillary's set up with the private server/mobile device thing was, or whether some other federal officials did something similar. That doesn't excuse her for the bad judgement, but it would matter whether it was a practice that others commonly engaged in. I remember that Congress subpoenaed Dick Cheney's email (a legally binding subpoena), I think relating to whether he retaliated against the guy who went public that the intelligence about Saddam getting yellowcake from Niger was bogus. Cheney claimed that all the emails had been deleted and they no longer existed, and I think that legally they're supposed to be archived, but Cheney skated on that.
 

patswin

WTF
Joined
Jan 18, 2004
Messages
11,951
Reaction score
2,203
Points
113
Location
Gelatinous, Mass
Yeah you'd hope it's more confirmed than that article, I agree. I'm not keen on the partisan news sites and there's a lot of them. But that US attorney is in fact a player so perhaps he knows what he's talking about.
But just say the FBI did present that to Lynch would anyone even know if she declined to pursue it? This is a big reach of course.
 

sprocketboy

Surrounded by Donkey Fans
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
2,468
Reaction score
352
Points
83
Location
Colorado
What cracks me up about this whole email thing is how the MSM seems to think it's no big deal.

If a Department of State employee not named "Hillary Clinton" ever pulled this kind of stunt, said person would most definitely be fired, would probably be disqualified from future federal employment, and might even be, as my Air Force Training Instructor liked to say, "a guest at Fort Leavenworth, making big rocks into little ones." :coffee:
 

patswin

WTF
Joined
Jan 18, 2004
Messages
11,951
Reaction score
2,203
Points
113
Location
Gelatinous, Mass
What cracks me up about this whole email thing is how the MSM seems to think it's no big deal.

If a Department of State employee not named "Hillary Clinton" ever pulled this kind of stunt, said person would most definitely be fired, would probably be disqualified from future federal employment, and might even be, as my Air Force Training Instructor liked to say, "a guest at Fort Leavenworth, making big rocks into little ones." :coffee:

Truth is stranger than fiction, because that exact circumstance occurred.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-staffer-state-department/
 

AkPatsFan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
6,655
Reaction score
740
Points
113
Location
Eagle River, Ak
What cracks me up about this whole email thing is how the MSM seems to think it's no big deal.

If a Department of State employee not named "Hillary Clinton" ever pulled this kind of stunt, said person would most definitely be fired, would probably be disqualified from future federal employment, and might even be, as my Air Force Training Instructor liked to say, "a guest at Fort Leavenworth, making big rocks into little ones." :coffee:

Actually, there's nothing funny about this whole thing because it is a big deal. She should be held fully accountable for what she's done but she will get away with it. After all, she is HiLIARy Clinton.

As for the rest of your post, it is spot on.
 
OP
Baron Samedi

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
1,940
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Guess who's the recipeint of this payroll.....these are not campaign donations, but personal payments....



http://thefreethoughtproject.com/hi...m_campaign=Facebook+Stout#JTXiIzYs3tDHM2yp.99
 

shecolt

Active member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
478
Reaction score
235
Points
43
That thread title was a teaser that had my hopes up that Hillary was actually being indicted.

I know that many don't understand the popularity of Trump, but I find the popularity of Hillary to be more puzzling.

Anyone care to explain to me why so many continue to support this woman?
 

HSanders

omitted out of respect to Mrs.Jastremski
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
25,211
Reaction score
3,278
Points
113
Location
on Pats Planet
Anyone care to explain to me why so many continue to support this woman?

Good question. My personal opinion is that the country is trending more and more left just based on observation, not any data. She is the perfect heroine for a good deal of those people. I'll leave it at that because I don't want to be tempted to get nasty and personal.
 

peacepipe

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Florida
The dailycaller? You can get just as credible news from mad magazine. They've been caught making up stories before. There is no indication of any indictment coming,just some anti-Hillary propaganda.
 
OP
Baron Samedi

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,659
Reaction score
1,940
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
That thread title was a teaser that had my hopes up that Hillary was actually being indicted.

I know that many don't understand the popularity of Trump, but I find the popularity of Hillary to be more puzzling.

Anyone care to explain to me why so many continue to support this woman?

She's a democrat with a vagina. That's all that matters to the ones I know.

"I want to vote for the first woman president."

Nowadays, sexual organs are as legitimate a reason as any other.

I figure by 2024, we'll be electing the first transgendered president.....issues are irrelevant, they just have to be democrat.
 

peacepipe

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Florida
That thread title was a teaser that had my hopes up that Hillary was actually being indicted.

I know that many don't understand the popularity of Trump, but I find the popularity of Hillary to be more puzzling.

Anyone care to explain to me why so many continue to support this woman?


Everyone understands why trump is so popular with the Republican base. He's not hiding who he's trying to appeal to.
 

peacepipe

New member
Joined
Nov 29, 2015
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Points
3
Location
Florida
I'll believe this when it starts to show up in less biased outlets than The Daily Caller. The House Republicans misstepped when they chose to grill her about Ben Ghazi. They should have focused on the email, which is more potentially something real.

Also, I'm not clear how uncommon Hillary's set up with the private server/mobile device thing was, or whether some other federal officials did something similar. That doesn't excuse her for the bad judgement, but it would matter whether it was a practice that others commonly engaged in. I remember that Congress subpoenaed Dick Cheney's email (a legally binding subpoena), I think relating to whether he retaliated against the guy who went public that the intelligence about Saddam getting yellowcake from Niger was bogus. Cheney claimed that all the emails had been deleted and they no longer existed, and I think that legally they're supposed to be archived, but Cheney skated on that.

Colin Powell used his private server as well. At the time HRC was SOS there was no law against using your private server. You can't break a law that doesn't exist.

FYI, HRC is not under criminal investigation so there will be no indictment of HRC.
 

patswin

WTF
Joined
Jan 18, 2004
Messages
11,951
Reaction score
2,203
Points
113
Location
Gelatinous, Mass
Colin Powell used his private server as well. At the time HRC was SOS there was no law against using your private server. You can't break a law that doesn't exist.

FYI, HRC is not under criminal investigation so there will be no indictment of HRC.

I beg to differ but will gently correct you. It is a criminal investigation and the FBI is conducting it. Some basic searching is all thats needed and that's not just the story from the partisan web sites.

It is not to say she'll be indicted however.
 
Top