HuffPost: IG Report overwhelmingly justifies indictment

[Redstreak 6,653]

The Democratic Primary isn’t about delegate count. The Democratic Primary is about defeating Donald Trump in 2016. Currently, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by 10.8 points. Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump by .2 points the other day (in an average of polls), and is now only 1 point ahead according to Real Clear Politics. In addition to poll numbers, CNN disclosed the findings of a recent State Department report “slamming” Clinton’s use of a private server.

This report is highlighted in a CNN article titled State Department report slams Clinton email use:

Thus, every legal defense of Clinton’s emails has just been shattered.

First, Clinton’s “convenience” excuse, which rests upon the notion that the State Department allowed her to use a private server, is now obsolete. As explained in the State Department report, there’s “no evidence” Clinton asked for, or received, approval for a private server.

This undermines every defense for Clinton, since the narrative must go from “convenience” and naiveté, to intentionally breaking protocol. Even before the State Department report, I stated during my recent MSNBC appearance that Clinton’s convenience narrative wasn’t enough to circumvent political repercussions.

I also had the great pleasure of appearing on Tim Black’s show, and we discussed why Clinton faces legal repercussions from this email controversy.

As stated in the report, State Department protocol and guidelines correlate to existing laws regarding record keeping and the handling of classified data. Now that Clinton can’t simply claim “convenience,” there’s the obvious intent to hide information.

Whether or not the over 30,000 emails she deleted were truly private (or about yoga) is now irrelevant; they should never have been combined with classified data, on an unguarded private server.

This isn’t Whitewater. It’s a huge story, and a controversy that will lead to the FBI recommending indictments. If you disagree, then store your Social Security number, bank account information, and address on a friend’s private server. After you’ve stored your most precious data on another person’s server, then try to sleep easy at night.

Nobody before Clinton, Republican or Democrat, has ever linked a private server to government networks used to store Top Secret intelligence.

Hillary Clinton broke State Department guidelines, which makes storing 22 Top Secret emails on the server even more egregious. As explained by CBS News in January, these files contained Special Access Program information:

It is a crime to store Top Secret intelligence anywhere other than government networks; regardless of whether or not Clinton believed her server to be more secure. Furthermore, SAP data is so secretive, the U.S. government often times denies the existence of these projects.

Now that the State Department has distanced itself from Clinton’s need for convenience, her “intent” becomes the issue that makes Bernie Sanders the clear front-runner. Delegate count won’t save Clinton when the FBI recommends indictments, and every legal defense of Clinton’s emails rested upon her convenience narrative.

The “high bar” that defenders of Hillary Clinton cite was just lowered to a level indicating she intentionally used a private server. This intent correlates to legal consequences. Intent means a deliberate act, and this deliberate act can’t be explained as “convenience.”

The Espionage Act states that whoever is “entrusted” with state secrets must ensure this data isn’t “removed from its proper place of custody” and that “gross negligence” isn’t a defense:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/state-department-report-j_b_10160816.html

 

Much more in the actual article

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Oh look an article conflating breaking the rules with breaking the law.

Here's another article that says the report vindicates her

Conflicting conclusions? Oh I wonder why  

Let me look at this author's history

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/

Yes, Bernie Sanders Will Win the Contested Democratic Convention

Superdelegates Risk a Third Political Party if Bernie Sanders Isn’t the Democratic Nominee

Bernie Sanders Must Campaign Harder Than Ever and Expect to Win

Oh my... He doesn't sound biased (or delusional) at all  

[Katharine Hepburn 4,607]

Huffington post doesn't really count as a credible news source 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, CustomGueseppi said:

Huffington post doesn't really count as a credible news source 

Well it's an aggregator. 

The difference is that this is a blog post, so it isn't even a news source. This author is framing the results of the report incorrectly. 

[Morphine Prince 109,682]

Instead of "Winter is coming" all I hear is "The indictment is coming" 

 

 

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Instead of "Winter is coming" all I hear is "The indictment is coming" 

 

 

Game of Thrones in two days.

Spoiler

Still not over Hold The Door  

 

[Redstreak 6,653]

9 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Oh look an article conflating breaking the rules with breaking the law.

Here's another article that says the report vindicates her

Conflicting conclusions? Oh I wonder why  

Let me look at this author's history

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/

Yes, Bernie Sanders Will Win the Contested Democratic Convention

Superdelegates Risk a Third Political Party if Bernie Sanders Isn’t the Democratic Nominee

Bernie Sanders Must Campaign Harder Than Ever and Expect to Win

Oh my... He doesn't sound biased (or delusional) at all  

Wow you got one conflicting out of hundreds. Even Wash Post is saying how bad it is

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

18 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

Wow you got one conflicting out of hundreds. Even Wash Post is saying how bad it is

Even Fox News hasn't spun it as a crime.  

Referring to this one?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-new-report-on-hillary-clintons-email-is-so-damning/2016/05/27/e02d4f3a-2402-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

Read it again. It only says it is damning because it reminds the of how cautious Hillary is to her own detriment. They say it creates the impression that she is hiding something. Oh my. Hillary being accused of hiding something due to her caution.

Also...hundreds? lmao

Here's another from Reuters that discusses it from a neutral perspective. Notice how they never bring up the word "crime" when it's not applicable.

This blogger is trying to link retroactively classified information as a breach as if it's relevant to the Espionage act.  He even outright lied stating that Obama's administration stated that there was top secret information.  

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Im honestly trying NOT to keep up with all of the email stuff, I just hope she doesn't get indicted or whatever, like was there even any classified information leaked or whatever? If not and its juts a matter of misconduct, just get the hearing over with and move the **** on, I personally do NOT care, just make her president already, damn

If the DNC really thought it was such a huge problem that might disqualify Clinton in anyway, they could've just thrown their coins to Bernie tbh  

[Redstreak 6,653]

34 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Even Fox News hasn't spun it as a crime.  

Referring to this one?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-new-report-on-hillary-clintons-email-is-so-damning/2016/05/27/e02d4f3a-2402-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html

Read it again. It only says it is damning because it reminds the of how cautious Hillary is to her own detriment. They say it creates the impression that she is hiding something. Oh my. Hillary being accused of hiding something due to her caution.

Also...hundreds? lmao

Here's another from Reuters that discusses it from a neutral perspective. Notice how they never bring up the word "crime" when it's not applicable.

This blogger is trying to link retroactively classified information as a breach as if it's relevant to the Espionage act.  He even outright lied stating that Obama's administration stated that there was top secret information.  

Of course it's not spun as a crime. Nothing in the IG sought to make such a link anyway, but the FBI has a much wider scope of both resources and access in their official investigation. What people are saying is if the IG report is already this scathing, God knows what the FBI will say.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

39 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

Of course it's not spun as a crime. Nothing in the IG sought to make such a link anyway, but the FBI has a much wider scope of both resources and access in their official investigation. What people are saying is if the IG report is already this scathing, God knows what the FBI will say.

Well that's the issue. This blogger is stating that it overwhelmingly justifies indictment. That's three lies in three words.

This report is an administrative inquiry. Not a criminal investigation.

This particular report only dealt with the unclassified mail, so there's nothing to be talked about in the legal department here. You don't get indicted for breaking bureaucratic rules regarding unclassified mail.

This report also highlights some inconsistencies in Clinton's previous statements. Those inconsistencies don't mean she was covering anything up either. She could have been operating under false information. You can't pin malevolent intent on everything. There needs to be proof of that of which there is very little. 

Furthermore, the Clinton campaign agrees with the IG finding that her practice of copying aides on her emails did not end up producing a full record since State’s IT systems didn’t save everything. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t take steps to comply.

The FBI is dealing with the classified mails. Those are the ones to look out for. 

If it turns out that she's indeed been in egregious violation of the law, then she should be punished accordingly. Til then, it would be wonderful if people stop employing hyperbole regarding what we currently know, or as in this blogger's case, outright lie to frame the context of the information overtly negatively to satisfy his own agenda.

[FATCAT 60,888]

Well, I wouldn't say that it's overwhelming. It does, however, overwhelmingly justify the investigation.

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

1 minute ago, FATCAT said:

Well, I wouldn't say that it's overwhelming. It does, however, overwhelmingly justify the investigation.

Yeah definitely. I sincerely hope this is over before November although I have my doubts  

[FATCAT 60,888]

8 minutes ago, LebaneseDude said:

Yeah definitely. I sincerely hope this is over before November although I have my doubts  

I hope this is over by July. One way or the other. We CANNOT go into the GE with chance of indictment. Either don't recommend, or get to it already.

(Also, PM me, I found a way to get the ATRL confirm email on command)

[LebaneseDude 6,146]

2 minutes ago, FATCAT said:

I hope this is over by July. One way or the other. We CANNOT go into the GE with chance of indictment. Either don't recommend, or get to it already.

(Also, PM me, I found a way to get the ATRL confirm email on command)

Well. I'm honestly concerned about this situation. I have been looking for actual legal sources since the media is inevitably going to dramatize the situation.

I found this:

A Romanian computer hacker now in U.S. custody, Marcel Lazar, has boasted that he breached Clinton's home server three years ago. However, Lazar, who went online by the name Guccifer, has provided no evidence to back up his claim. Also, Lazar's expertise was hacking into the email accounts of politicians and celebrities who used free commercial services, not breaking into a stand-alone email server.

Legal experts have said it appears unlikely Clinton would be charged with committing a crime. The relatively few U.S. laws that govern the handling of classified materials were generally written to cover spies and leakers. Lawyers who specialize in national security say it would be a stretch to apply these statutes to a former cabinet secretary whose communication of sensitive materials was with aides — not a national enemy.

It turns out the Justice Department also does not appear to have convened a grand jury to examine Clinton's email use, a likely step if prosecutors were weighing felony criminal charges.