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.

Published in Law
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 51 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    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.

    Larry & all,

    With all due respect – you can’t try to do that! I’m not sure that you grasp that HRC and co. were as incompetent at wiping the server as they were at everything else. The FBI has the e-mails that she tried to delete and the FBI has her sworn testimony that she tried to delete them. If any of those 30,000 emails are government documents, less classified government documents, less TOP SECRET classified government documents this is just one more way she is amazingly indictable.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #31
  2. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    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.

    Losing Iowa and New Hampshire really doesn’t mean anything, but especially so for the Democrats because of their Superdelegate system.

    • #32
  3. blank generation member Inactive
    blank generation member
    @blankgenerationmember

    The King Prawn:

    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?

    Nobody is denying this breach occurred.   And nobody is claiming responsibility.  Stuff happens, get over it.

    • #33
  4. Lumimies Member
    Lumimies
    @Lumimies

    Aaron Miller: 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.

    This is how I’ve felt for the last few years.  What is the point in discussing the finer points of law and legal principles when nothing matters but politics and raw power?

    The same-sex marriage decision was a classic case in point.  Scholars and interested parties offered thorough, reasoned arguments.  There were thoughtful, thought-provoking and often persuasive discussions here on Ricochet.  But any thought that all this scholarship might actually be meaningful was flushed down the toilet by Kennedy’s completely emotional opinion.

    The Obama years have absolutely gutted so many parts of the law that used to actually matter.  And it’s often very hard to see the serious study of the law, or having any sense that the law might actually mean something, as anything other than completely pointless.

    • #34
  5. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Crow's Nest: If someone without Hillary’s connections and money had done exactly this same thing, they’d be in prison.

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

    Susan Quinn: I’m skeptical, too.

    Bob Thompson: These questions I don’t see asked.

    Larry3435: That’s correct. But in this case, she obviously knew that the e-mails were going to be subpoenaed.

    Bob Thompson:  Either she is a disaster or our intelligence regime is in shambles.

    Richard Fulmer: The difference between the press handling of the Valerie Plame non-incident and HRC’s secret server is instructive,

    Seawriter: I will argue that if someone as powerful as Clinton can get away without being indicted after such egregious violation of the law

    philo: Evidently, in Ruling Class circles, you can do that.

    Fake John/Jane Galt: Well it seems that she knows that she can do that, did it and got away with it.

    Fake John/Jane Galt: The day I knew that she was not going to be indicted what the day that Biden officially said he was not running.

    Fake John/Jane Galt: Why does she even need one at this point?

    blank generation member: … only her hairdresser knows for sure.”

    Douglas: Of course not. This is a Clinton.

    Manny: Will she be? Probably not,

    AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

    Sorry.  Carry on.

    • #35
  6. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    The thing is that we all know HRC is going to get away with it and we know that HRC is going to be the next POTUS. We are grumbling about it because we are not happy about it, but our happiness does not matter. It is like being in a car wreck. Everything goes in slow motion, you can see what is going to happen, you know it is going to be bad but there is nothing you can do about it but watch it play out.

    • #36
  7. barbara lydick Inactive
    barbara lydick
    @barbaralydick

    When the ‘steaming pile’ as Jonah describes James Comey’s handiwork, lands on Ms Lynch’s desk, several scenarios are possible. No lawyer I, but could one of them be the possibility that she would indeed bring an indictment, but constructed in a way that ensures Saint Hill could wiggle out of any conviction, or possibly a conviction on a very minor point – at which time the MSM in essence exonerates her of any real wrong doing?

    • #37
  8. Steven Potter Thatcher
    Steven Potter
    @StevenPotter

    To borrow the phrase that I see on Instapundit from time to time: Laws are for the little people…

    I really hope that ends up being wrong and people in the Justice department do their job…impartially.  If not, I hope there is political blowback.

    • #38
  9. Boss Mongo Member
    Boss Mongo
    @BossMongo

    Fake John/Jane Galt:The thing is that we all know HRC is going to get away with it and we know that HRC is going to be the next POTUS. We are grumbling about it because we are not happy about it, but our happiness does not matter. It is like being in a car wreck. Everything goes in slow motion, you can see what is going to happen, you know it is going to be bad but there is nothing you can do about it but watch it play out.

    We’ll see, FJ/JG.  I pray you are wrong and fear you are right.

    This is one of the few political issues/scandals about which I am intimately aware of the laws, policies and regulations.  This has been an integral part of my life for years; a part that has caused a lot of personal/family strife.  I am amazed and thankful every day that I’m still married.  If she doesn’t get indicted, I become a bitter, jaded cynic right the (CoC) then.  We’ll see.

    • #39
  10. Derek Simmons Member
    Derek Simmons
    @

    Aaron Miller: 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.

    Two hammers talking nails…..

    • #40
  11. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    James Gawron:Larry & all,

    With all due respect – you can’t try to do that! I’m not sure that you grasp that HRC and co. were as incompetent at wiping the server as they were at everything else. The FBI has the e-mails that she tried to delete and the FBI has her sworn testimony that she tried to delete them. If any of those 30,000 emails are government documents, less classified government documents, less TOP SECRET classified government documents this is just one more way she is amazingly indictable.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I have heard that the FBI has the server.  Whether they have actually recovered the deleted documents, I don’t know.  I hope you are correct.

    What really interests me about these “personal” documents is whether they discuss potential contributions to the Clinton Foundation or paid speeches, and whether any of the potential contributors suggested (oh so carefully) that they wanted something from Hillary as Sec’y of State.

    • #41
  12. Concretevol Thatcher
    Concretevol
    @Concretevol

    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.

    Sounds about right

    • #42
  13. Commodore BTC Inactive
    Commodore BTC
    @CommodoreBTC

    Andy McCarthy has faith in Comey to recommend indictment if there is a case to be made. And I have faith in McCarthy.

    But I have no faith the DoJ will listen to Comey.

    • #43
  14. PJS Coolidge
    PJS
    @PJS

    12552759_1051938274869018_5128017896092956561_n

    Facebook memes are stupid, but this cracked me up.

    • #44
  15. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    When the FBI passes the case over to the DOJ, they may or may not issue a recommendation. The case gets its own review at DOJ.

    Sec. Clinton will not be indicted and will be exonerated by the DOJ. It is possible some lower level people may face an indictment but it will be made clear that they worked without the knowledge of the Secretary.

    And you can be sure that the DOJ is fairly well tied in on the case right now.

    • #45
  16. Eric Hines Inactive
    Eric Hines
    @EricHines

    Commodore BTC:Andy McCarthy has faith in Comey to recommend indictment if there is a case to be made. And I have faith in McCarthy.

    But I have no faith the DoJ will listen to Comey.

    I agree with you on McCarthy’s good intentions.  I don’t agree that he’s right on this matter.  He may well be, but I think it’s unlikely.

    Eric Hines

    • #46
  17. Yudansha Member
    Yudansha
    @Yudansha

    Lumimies:

    This is how I’ve felt for the last few years. What is the point in discussing the finer points of law and legal principles when nothing matters but politics and raw power?

    And it’s often very hard to see the serious study of the law, or having any sense that the law might actually mean something, as anything other than completely pointless.

    This.

    Steven Potter:Laws are for the little people…

    And this.

    Boss Mongo

    This is one of the few political issues/scandals about which I am intimately aware of the laws, policies and regulations. This has been an integral part of my life for years; a part that has caused a lot of personal/family strife. If she doesn’t get indicted, I become a bitter, jaded cynic right the (CoC) then. We’ll see.

    Welcome to the party.  Come on in; the water is just as bitterly cold as you imagine.

    • #47
  18. civil westman Inactive
    civil westman
    @user_646399

    Larry 3435 is exactly correct about deleting emails. Were I a Repub strategist, I would be likening the deletions to the 18 minute gap in Nixon tapes if she is not indicted.

    In addition to obstruction, a lot of this subsequent detail is unnecessary to determine mens rea when it comes to what she has done. The “big picture” itself is very damaging. She prima facia claims she was able to conduct ALL of her email correspondence as Sec. of State without having ANY secret material pass through her private, unsecured server. That cannot be credible to any reasonable person. At the very least, it is culpable as gross negligence or willful disregard. Either suffices for criminal culpability. This case clearly reveals that there are no principled liberals left – including journalists. If there were, they would have spoken up by now. We have just described two blatant felonies, with which ordinary mortals would have already been charged.

    Were we still a nation of laws, there would be no question as to Mrs. Clinton’s future.

    • #48
  19. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Not sure if this speculation is too far fetched or not…Obama calls Bloomberg, scopes him out on his ability, desire to run as a Democrat not as an Independent for President. Bloomberg responds positively. Obama assures him that he will see to it that the party makes all the necessary arrangements for him to quickly enter the race including replacing Wasserman-Schultz if necessary. He calls Loretta Lynch and gives her a go signal to convene a grand jury in Hillary’s email scandal and Hillary’s activities on behalf of the Clinton Foundation while Sec. of State…because he’s confident she and Bill will be tied up in legal entanglements/court for years to come while he’s golfing in Hawai’i in retirement. Hillary somehow gets wind of this. Begins screaming privately in frustration to her immediate staff before going on stage at a campaign rally and then has a prolonged coughing attack rendering her voice very weak causing other speculation about her health.

    Hey, I’m bored. The mind wanders and begins connecting dots that may or may not have any proximity to one another…but then again…

    :-)

    • #49
  20. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    The thing is that I can see Bloomberg as being the end of the two party system.  Say the election goes down as Sanders, Trump and Bloomberg.  I can see both party establishment types flocking to Bloomberg as their version of a savior from the populist candidates of Trump and Sanders.  Bloomberg wins under some sort of hybrid party uniting both sides killing off both parties and starting a new era of one party rule.

    • #50
  21. Brian Watt Inactive
    Brian Watt
    @BrianWatt

    Fake John/Jane Galt:The thing is that I can see Bloomberg as being the end of the two party system. Say the election goes down as Sanders, Trump and Bloomberg. I can see both party establishment types flocking to Bloomberg as their version of a savior from the populist candidates of Trump and Sanders. Bloomberg wins under some sort of hybrid party uniting both sides killing off both parties and starting a new era of one party rule.

    The problem with Bloomberg as an Independent candidate is that there is a very real chance he could split the vote substantially enough so that no one has the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the election outright throwing it to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives who votes to place Paul Ryan as POTUS.

    • #51
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.