Will She Be Indicted?

 

hillary_orange1There are several known facts about Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s abuse of national security via her private, unsecured email server. At least two emails had TS/TK information in them, more emails had SAP information in them, another had HCS-O information in it (the exposure of which puts a human source at risk of his life), roughly 1,300 emails had information of varying levels of secrecy in them, and at least one email instructed a subordinate to bypass handling rules by stripping off the markings of a paper and sending a document though non-secure means.

Some very worthy gentlemen suggest that Clinton will be indicted, since regardless of intent, the mere mishandling of classified data is a felony, and data are classified or not based on the information involved, not on markings on the paper carrying the information. Ex-Attorney General for the United States Michael Mukasey is one. Power Line cited Andy McCarthy, of the National Review and the National Review Institute, and Bill Otis, an erstwhile federal prosecutor, are two others. However, these folks are basing their confidence in large part on their supposed knowledge of FBI Director James Comey’s character and on the pressure his recommendation to current Obama AG Loretta Lynch to follow through and indict would present.

I think those folks are … optimistic. Keep in mind, for one thing, that Comey is the same FBI Director who is assaulting Americans’ free speech rights through his demand that government be able, on its own recognizance, to decode our encrypted correspondence and for no better reason than that inquiring Government minds want to know. Keep in mind, further, that Lynch is Obama’s pick, and she’s already shown her bent with her push to reverse voter ID laws and thereby to impair, if not destroy, legitimate voters’ votes by making it as hard as possible to sort out those ineligible and prevent them from voting. Keep in mind, finally, that Clinton is a Democrat. Fellow Democrat President Barack Obama will not allow an indictment to go forward, especially since this particular Democrat is campaigning on the basis of Four More Years of Obama.

I’ll believe there’ll be an indictment when one actually is handed down, and it presents serious charges and specifications rather than being a token.

There are 51 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Retail Lawyer Member
    Retail Lawyer
    @RetailLawyer

    I have read those learned opinions and remain very skeptical as you do.  What none of them address is WHEN she would be indicted.  If one is coming, it would seem every Democrat would have wanted the indictment a few months ago.  And there was certainly enough evidence to have indicted her then.  And so to indict her at this late stage would give the appearance (to the activist left) of some vast right wing conspiracy to steal the election.

    • #1
  2. Crow's Nest Member
    Crow's Nest
    @CrowsNest

    If someone without Hillary’s connections and money had done exactly this same thing, they’d be in prison. There is no clearer sign than that which could indicate the erosion of the rule of law in our nation.

    We, the People, should demand an indictment, and we should keep the pressure on our elected officials of both parties to have her indicted and in leg irons.

    • #2
  3. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    We hear a lot of talk about the confidential information that Hillary maintained on her unsecured server.  That’s fine, but there is something worse here.  Maybe it’s because I’m a litigator, but I don’t understand why Hillary seems to have gotten away with destroying some 30,000 e-mails based on her unsupported claim that they were “personal.”  Just to make it perfectly clear – you can’t do that.

    If a civil litigant did it, they would be sanctioned.  If a criminal defendant did it, they would be indicted for destroying evidence and obstructing justice.  If a lawyer participated in it, they would be disbarred.  You can’t just destroy evidence, and then say “trust me, there was nothing important in there.”

    Not only do we never hear about this anymore, I have never heard anyone ask Hillary the questions.  “How did you determine that these 30,000 e-mails were ‘personal’?”  “How long did it take?”  “What criteria did you use?”  “Did someone help you go through them?”  “What instructions did that person have?”  “Other than e-mails about ‘yoga,’ what other kinds of ‘personal’ e-mails were these?”  “Did they relate to negotiations for contributions to your ‘foundation’?”  “If these e-mails were worth saving in the first place, then why did you decide to destroy them?”

    Dammit.  Hillary is a lawyer.  She knows perfectly well – you can’t do that.

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I’m skeptical, too. Not only does Obama want to continue his legacy, but her indictment would “make him look bad” through association. I wouldn’t put that concern past him. Sigh.

    • #4
  5. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    I remember when Barack Obama was nominated, and during the campaign issues were raised about some of his background (weed, Reverend Wright, Ayers,the communist guy, can’t get his name right now), I wondered how handling classified subject matter would be handled. Nominees, when campaigning have to be briefed on classified matters, I think. Now, even without an indictment, how can Clinton even be considered for a clearance.(Has her previous clearance been pulled?) Are people at these levels(close to the Presidency) exempt from requirements any other person would have to pass?

    These questions I don’t see asked. Am I out of it here? I’m not even sure I know the purpose for having such clearances anymore.

    • #5
  6. Eric Hines Member
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Retail Lawyer: What none of them address is WHEN she would be indicted.

    I’m less concerned about this particular aspect.  A proper investigation should take as long as it takes–not longer and not less.  The bleatings of activists have value only to “journalists” suffering their usual writer’s block.

    Larry3435: I don’t understand why Hillary seems to have gotten away with destroying some 30,000 e-mails based on her unsupported claim that they were “personal.” Just to make it perfectly clear – you can’t do that.

    My understanding of this is that material can’t be destroyed only if there’s a reasonable expectation of a suit, however much later, in which such material could be relevant.  As you suggested, I think such a reasonable expectation could be shown in Clinton’s case, but not in every case.

    I recall some talk, after the initial revelations about classified material on her private server, about her security clearance being revoked.  I haven’t heard whether it actually was pulled.

    Eric Hines

    • #6
  7. Larry3435 Member
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Eric Hines:My understanding of this is that material can’t be destroyed only if there’s a reasonable expectation of a suit, however much later, in which such material could be relevant. As you suggested, I think such a reasonable expectation could be shown in Clinton’s case, but not in every case.

    That’s correct.  But in this case, she obviously knew that the e-mails were going to be subpoenaed.  That’s why she went through the exercise of sorting through them in the first place.

    When I become aware of a potential claim against one of my clients – even a letter from a lawyer or an administrative charge – the first thing I tell the client is to send out a memo instructing all their employees – don’t destroy any documents!  Not if they relate in any way to the potential claimant, or the job that person held.  Whether you think they are relevant or not, don’t destroy any documents.

    • #7
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    When I was in an SES position at the Treasury Department, I had Top Secret Compartmentalized Security clearance. I was not involved in intelligence activities and classified materials generally, but my responsibilities included activities for a ‘need to know’ for that one specific area, and it was classified ‘Top Secret”. I knew what this meant so when I was engaged in matters related to the classified activity, my family had no knowledge of where I was, how long I would be gone, or what I was doing. I guess I was just a naive senior-level bureaucrat since I fervently guarded this information I personally had in my brain although none was ‘marked classified’.

    Would anyone here liked to guess how much classified information has been delivered orally by Clinton to persons not cleared for such?  Either she is a disaster or our intelligence regime is in shambles.

    • #8
  9. Tom Davis Member
    Tom Davis
    @TomDavis

    It might be nearly as tough on the Dems not to indict Mrs. Clinton as it would be to indict her.  If there are mass resignations from the top echelons of the FBI and massive leaks as a result of refusing their advice, it ain’t going to look very good.  Even the NYT will make reference to the Saturday night massacre of October 20, 1973.

    • #9
  10. Richard Fulmer Member
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    The difference between the press handling of the Valerie Plame non-incident and HRC’s secret server is instructive, though hardly surprising.

    • #10
  11. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    If Hillary Clinton is not indicted, and I ever do get indicted on a Federal charge, I am going to try and get my case dismissed on equal protection grounds. I will argue that if someone as powerful as Clinton can get away without being indicted after such egregious violation of the law it is patently unconstitutional to indict someone as powerless as I am given less egregious behavior. I am unlikely to get the charges dismissed, but I will take it to the Supreme Court trying and will also argue to the jury they should acquit on Equal Protection grounds.

    Seawriter

    • #11
  12. philo Member
    philo
    @philo

    Larry3435: Just to make it perfectly clear – you can’t [destroy evidence].

    Agreed. Yet the EPA (see Browner, Carol) and IRS (see Lerner, Lois) seem to have a persistent habit of doing just that and nothing happens to them either. Evidently, in Ruling Class circles, you can do that.

    • #12
  13. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Larry3435:Dammit. Hillary is a lawyer. She knows perfectly well – you can’t do that.

    Well it seems that she knows that she can do that, did it and got away with it.  So it seems that all your fine knowledge of the law is incorrect and her knowledge of the system is correct.

    • #13
  14. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Susan Quinn:I’m skeptical, too. Not only does Obama want to continue his legacy, but her indictment would “make him look bad” through association. I wouldn’t put that concern past him. Sigh.

    The day I knew that she was not going to be indicted what the day that Biden officially said he was not running.  I believe that was when they knew they had this situation contained and did not need Biden as a back up plan.

    • #14
  15. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Eric Hines:I recall some talk, after the initial revelations about classified material on her private server, about her security clearance being revoked. I haven’t heard whether it actually was pulled.

    Eric Hines

    Does it matter if it was pulled or not?  I seem obvious that people will send her secure info is she asks for it without any thought to security considerations.  Why does she even need one at this point?

    • #15
  16. blank generation member Member
    blank generation member
    @blankgenerationmember

    … only her hairdresser knows for sure.”

    • #16
  17. Douglas Member
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Will she be indicted?

    Of course not. This is a Clinton.

    • #17
  18. Manny Member
    Manny
    @Manny

    She really should be, and this is not partisan.  Will she be?  Probably not, but she can’t win the election.  It will be worse for the Dems if she is not indicted.

    • #18
  19. Mountie Coolidge
    Mountie
    @Mountie

    I have no faith in the FBI

    http://www.redstate.com/2015/07/08/bombshell-fbi-doj-colluded-irs-lerner-bring-criminal-charges-conservatives/

    • #19
  20. Mountie Coolidge
    Mountie
    @Mountie

    I also have no faith in OSHA or BATF

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/348756/true-scandal-jillian-kay-melchior

    • #20
  21. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    This is why I don’t listen to Law Talk. Epstein and Yoo are very knowledgable lawyers, but they focus too often on how laws should be interpreted rather than on how they will be.

    During the first year of Obama’s presidency, his Attorney General Eric Holder ended an open-and-shut case of voter intimidation against the Black Panthers. He continued to use law as a political weapon. There is no reason to expect Holder’s replacement to be more virtuous.

    Whatever the evidence, there will be no prosecution of Clinton unless it is in President Obama’s interest. To that end, accusing Republicans of tampering with the election is the best theory I’ve read.

    After the lies Democrats spread regarding Al Gore’s “stolen” election, another such accusation could be devastating to American politics.

    • #21
  22. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    So the latest allegation is that her minions “cut and pasted” parts of top secret documents and transmitted them to her offsite unsecure server.  Her big excuse at this point is that documents weren’t “marked” top secret. (that is not a legal defense)  We already had an email directing her employee to remove top secret markings before transmitting and now cutting and pasting info.  How can any of this be rationalized is beyond me.

    • #22
  23. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    By the way, imagine how much more fun politics would be if we simply harassed each other with embarrassing pictures of each other’s candidates.

    Eric Hines:hillary_orange1

    • #23
  24. Douglas Member
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Concretevol:So the latest allegation is that her minions “cut and pasted” parts of top secret documents and transmitted them to her offsite unsecure server. Her big excuse at this point is that documents weren’t “marked” top secret. (that is not a legal defense) We already had an email directing her employee to remove top secret markings before transmitting and now cutting and pasting info. How can any of this be rationalized is beyond me.

    I think she’s counting on the public going “Email? So what? It’s email. It’s not bullets or bombs. I don’t care. So what?”

    And I actually think that’s a pretty good bet on her part. I think outside of the Right, most people just don’t care. They’re tired of hearing about it, even. Would a normal person go to jail? Sure. But she won’t. Not over this.

    • #24
  25. Eric Hines Member
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Aaron Miller:By the way, imagine how much more fun politics would be if we simply harassed each other with embarrassing pictures of each other’s candidates.

    Eric Hines:hillary_orange1

    That’s not my image selection.  I had no image associated with my post; whoever cross-posted my piece to the Main Feed added the picture.

    I prefer just to stick to the subject at hand.

    Eric Hines

    • #25
  26. PHCheese Member
    PHCheese
    @PHCheese

    After Hillary loses Iowa and New Hampshire she will have a sudden illness and drop out of the raise. The FBI will call for an indictment ( how can they not). Justice will not indict her but may indict aides. In any case pardons will happen quickly.

    • #26
  27. Richard Fulmer Member
    Richard Fulmer
    @RichardFulmer

    If she falters in the early primaries, Biden might jump in.  If that happens, watch for Obama to give the green light to the DoJ.  (Well, I can dream, can’t I?)

    • #27
  28. The King Prawn Member
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Concretevol:So the latest allegation is that her minions “cut and pasted” parts of top secret documents and transmitted them to her offsite unsecure server. Her big excuse at this point is that documents weren’t “marked” top secret. (that is not a legal defense) We already had an email directing her employee to remove top secret markings before transmitting and now cutting and pasting info. How can any of this be rationalized is beyond me.

    It’s actually worse than that. The classified and unclassified systems are physically separated one from another. A person cannot send email from a classified account to an email address that is not on the same system. You cannot cut cut/paste. They had to deliberately remove the data from the secure system and deliberately introduce it onto an unsecure system to send it to her. What kind of monster boss is she that she induces so many people to deliberately and knowingly break the law on her behalf?

    • #28
  29. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    I have been talking to some apolitical friends. I mentioned indicting HRC and they were shocked. They have not heard about it. They could not believe that the GOP was still harassing HRC over some old emails.

    • #29
  30. The King Prawn Member
    The King Prawn
    @TheKingPrawn

    Fake John/Jane Galt:I have been talking to some apolitical friends. I mentioned indicting HRC and they were shocked. They have not heard about it. They could not believe that the GOP was still harassing HRC over some old emails.

    Explains a lot. Not just on this subject.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.