Emails are just like Benghazi

[fhl]

From an article at hotair.com yesterday regarding the top secret emails on her server:

"Someone had to convert this data from secure systems — and most likely SCIF containment — into Hillary’s e-mail system. Even if that person isn’t Hillary, she set up the server for her “convenience” and required her aides to use it. She would have seen the intelligence, and her clearance and sign-offs make her responsible to deal with spillage of highly classified material into non-secure systems. On top of that, she kept possession of this information in her home on an unsecured and unauthorized computer — and then shared the database with unauthorized data-management companies. Those are all violations of 18 USC 1924."


These things are only prosecutable if done by republicans, though.

 

[piezoe]

At least this is Hillary's legal defense of the email situation which means that she is unlikely to be prosecuted because a trial is very unlikely to see a conviction.

Her staff members however who moved classified information from the classified email network and forwarded it to Hillary's private email account via the unclassified email network after removing classification markings are likely to be prosecuted. They are the fall people in this situation.

Depending on the exact situation, which we really don't know yet, and as a practical matter, I would guess that even those who sent the documents wouldn't be prosecuted, but would be much more likely to just be reprimanded . It is very hard to successfully prosecute these kinds of transgressions unless you can show intentional and reckless disregard for the law, or malintent. If you can show the latter, you'll have a strong case!

We are now assuming that the "intelligence official" is correct, and we therefore assume that the documents, as they existed before being sent, were marked classified. I have a strong inclination to think that somehow they were not marked, because such would be consistent with the State Department Spokesperson's statement. If I had to weigh the gravity of the classification officials statement against the official statement of Department's spokesperson, I would tend to weigh the latter more heavily because it traces to higher authority. In any case, no one has yet claimed that the documents sent to the private server were marked as received. The intelligence officials statement is in conflict with the official State Department statement. (The video of the State Department's spokesperson's statement was on Bloomberg.)

 

[ipatent]

The article I linked also said there were several levels of loyal Democrat females at the Justice Department who would have to approve any prosecution, so she's bulletproof on this. Unless a special prosecutor would be appointed, but at this late date that's unlikely and they could string things out until after the election even if that happens.

 

[OddTrader]

Those conspiracy theorists that frequent P&R have a quite warped idea of where the political center lies.

Check this below carefully, as you may like what you might find:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...ns-its-time-to-retire-that-propaganda.297599/

These are real votes...
The winner is hispanic and 3 out of the top 4 are minorities.
And no one gave a shit.
The media doesn't mention it
The candidates don't mention it.
The republicans are the ones who living the Dream.

Cruz
Trump
Rubio
Carson


http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ne-black-man-win-60-of-white-republican-iowa/


Because the DC Media believe it is a powerful weapon that benefits Democrats, nothing will ever stop them from using it. But if this same media truly believed in science and objectivity, the results in Iowa would forever end their relentless smears against conservatives as racists. Tuesday night, one of the whitest and most conservative states in the country — Iowa — gave 60% of the Republican vote to two Hispanics and a black man.

Moreover, for the first time in history a Hispanic won a presidential primary. But due to the fact that

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)

97%

is Republican, no one on the media dares say so.


Hispanic Ted Cruz handily won the evening with 28% support.

Hispanic

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

79%

shocked the world with a third place showing of 23%.


Dr. Ben Carson, a black man, came in 4th with 9%.

Total: 60%.

Meanwhile, over on the Democrat side, two people so old and so white they seem like something straight out of central casting, won 99% of the vote. Another white guy took the remaining 1%. Democrats gave their voters no other alternative.

Although our identity-politics’ obsessed media do not see this as a virtue, those 60% of mostly white Republicans are colorblind. They voted for the man and the content of the man’s character, not the skin color.

The DC Media is so eager to cover this fact up, history is being ignored. Ted Cruz is the first Hispanic to win Iowa, and for strictly partisan political purposes, the media is intentionally refusing to report that news.

In fact, Cruz is the first Hispanic to win any kind of presidential primary. That isn’t making news today for one very simple reason: the DC Media sees Cruz as the wrong kind of Hispanic, a “white Hispanic,” a sell-out… If Cruz were a Democrat, his win would be all about this historic first and what it means for America. The media would be going insane pumping this fact. Instead, they are wishing this history into a cornfield.

In the future, when a Hispanic Democrat does win a presidential primary, only then will the media celebrate that victory as a historic first. Ted Cruz will become a asterisk.

 

[Ricter]

If Hillary is indicted, then the truth wins out.
If Hillary is not indicted, then the truth the media did it.

 

[piezoe]

Check this below carefully, as you may like what you might find:

http://www.elitetrader.com/et/index...ns-its-time-to-retire-that-propaganda.297599/

I found it highly entertaining. Thank you.

 

[gwb-trading]

If Hillary is indicted, then the truth wins out.
If Hillary is not indicted, then the truth the media did it.

If Hillary is indicted, then the FBI is going to be quite content that justice is served.
If Hillary is not indicted, then the federal Democratic prosecutors got their way.

 

[Ricter]

If Hillary is indicted, then the FBI is going to be quite content that justice is served.
If Hillary is not indicted, then the federal Democratic prosecutors got their way.

If the Denver Broncos win Superbowl 50, then the Carolina Panthers lose Superbowl 50.

 

[piezoe]

The article I linked also said there were several levels of loyal Democrat females at the Justice Department who would have to approve any prosecution, so she's bulletproof on this. Unless a special prosecutor would be appointed, but at this late date that's unlikely and they could string things out until after the election even if that happens.

As a practical matter we know that the Justice Department chooses its battles carefully. If the facts of the matter are not alone sufficient to shield the Secretary than surely the political hurdles will be. I agree, she is bullet proof, unless malintent can be shown. What are the chances of that? less than zero, I would guess. Which frankly is a perfectly practical reason to drop this nonsense and get on to more productive matters.

The only reason to continue pressing this lost cause is 100% political. And isn't that what has us all so disillusioned with 'establishment' politics. Isn't the message being sent by the American electorate, "cut out the bickering and grandstanding and get something useful done!"?

 

[jem]

When I knew this stuff... Federal Prosecutors were almost always known for going after the max and allowing defendants to roll if they wanted a plea bargain. Defense lawyers were frequently picked based on their ability to cut deals for rolls. I knew roll guys and I knew guys who marketed the fact they never allowed their clients to roll.

This is not a tough battle. The FBI has her nailed for criminal violations of security laws and probably has communications showing she was selling out her office for money to the Clinton foundation.


The only way this prosecution does not happen is if Obama or Jarrett have their fingers on the scale.
In which case, since he could pardon her anyway, they will all skate. But the far more likely political scenario is that the Prosecutors go after her staffers knowing their team (obama and Jarrett) will work out a deal with Hillary to her to leave the race.

I don't see them just going after Huma and friends and letting Hillary run. In fact after last night's terrible showing... I don't see them letting Hillary run much longer. She is far too tainted and can't even get democrats to vote for her over a 74 year old socialist.

I think this will happen relatively soon.
Hillary is a disaster and they can't let her bring down the whole party or Sanders.

If the FBI file is strong... they will have to let the FBI go after her. Its too risky for the democrats to block it.

The FBI has already threatened leaks and they will have a new administration soon. Obama and jarrett may have liability too. This is not spitball. The democrats could be wiped off the map if they let her lead the party.

Look for Gore or Biden soon.

The other scenario is that Jarrett has been allowing the FBI leaks to pressure Hillary to leave.

I am not a Hillary fan. However, she is not likely to be indicted due to the email classification issues.

Nor is any of the four staff members likely to roll. At most after all the legal arguments they would get a couple years. Probation is more likely. They are perfectly willing to be quiet for a few million from the Clinton Foundation in "consulting fees" once they get out of prison.