Posted on 07/02/2016 4:16:09 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
NO DOUBT it's difficult to refuse a visit with a former president of the United States. Still, Attorney General Loretta Lynch should have found a polite way to excuse herself when Bill Clinton dropped by her airplane, parked next to his at a Phoenix airport Monday. Given that Ms. Lynch has ultimate responsibility for the federal investigation related to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server to conduct official business while secretary of state.
Our view of the matter, stated in previous editorials and supported by a fair reading of the law and publicly available evidence, is that Ms. Clinton committed a grave error in judgment, compounded by a willful violation of internal State Department rules designed to ensure records were properly preserved with maximum protection against cybersecurity risks. She has been less than clear and forthright about all of this in her public statements. However, her conduct does not seem to rise to the level of indictable crime, because she did not set up and use the server with the legally requisite criminal intent or even with "gross negligence," as it has been defined in relevant case law.
Ms. Clinton is a candidate for president and, indeed, the presumptive Democratic Party nominee. She and, more importantly, the voters who would ultimately judge her deserve some clarity about her legal liability - one way or the other. It appears that a direct interview with the former secretary is one of the last pieces that the Federal Bureau of Investigation needs to finish this puzzle. Both Ms. Clinton and the FBI should make it happen as soon as possible, and then the latter should publish its findings with all deliberate speed.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“Oh, I don’t know. During a bit of unpleasantness in the early 1990s, I arrived at my office one day and there were two FBI agents with guns sitting on a couch across from desk who wanted to talk to me”
Precisely, they did not call ahead and put in their cookie and coffee order....the point being to catch you unprepared. In this case, she will have competent counsel, paid for by the foundation probably, and be on her home turf. No chance for any slippage. If she were taking the fifth, there would be no interview so one knows in advance this is nothing more than a housekeeping interview so the FBI can answer the question of whether they spoke to her.
A prima facia case of illegal activity goes by the board. No branch out to the Clinton Crime Family foundation either. The beat goes on and the country takes another spin about the bowl on the way down the tubes.
After reading the damning admissions in that editorial, how could the post possibly come to the conclusion that it’s time to move on?
“Just a friendly chat.”
Fascinating story! The fact that there were two is especially dangerous. The way it works is, one asks the questions and the other takes notes. When they get back they type up the official record. There is no appeal to that official record. If they got it wrong you either lied to a federal agent then, or you are lying now by saying something different than what is in the official record. I would have told them I was happy to speak with them after I got a lawyer. Sounds like you were lucky.
The friendly chat approach is how they nailed Martha Stuart.
I am SURE the Wapo Editorial Board would write the same exact thing if it was a Republican!!!!! /s/puke
Her “misstep” was nothing more than that. Just an unintentional bureaucratic snafu that while yes, it did send the “wrong signal”. It should be looked at in the larger, more important context of how much good she will do for the “childrun”.
” because she did not set up and use the server with the legally requisite criminal intent or even with “gross negligence,” as it has been defined in relevant case law”
In their wet dreams
Her private email server didn't even have basic security enabled. If emails containing classified into traversed the network unencrypted, than it would be trivial for their content to be read.
This email server just didn't set itself up by accident, it was willfully done; and for what purpose? Hillary is one of those elites who think they know everything but are too stupid to realize their own limits of knowledge. She likely thought her own server would allow her to hide information, undoubtably so she could concoct private and illegal schemes involving bribes for favorable treatment by the State Department. Instead, the "private" email server ended up being security swiss cheese, open to the world.
” It should be looked at in the larger, more important context of how much good she will do for the “childrun”
Yeah, that’s the ticket. In Canckles own words little “Trucking Retards”
The facts that are already public provide prima facie evidence of several felonies. They’re talking smack.
Didn’t Chillary’s e-mails lead to Navy Seals being murdered?
I see the ComPost is sticking with this strawman no matter how many times it gets torn down.
Ms. Clinton committed a grave error in judgment,
But we should trust her with nuclear weapons?
It's just like when you go to the grocery store on Saturday and run into your neighbor. Well, the elite version of meeting at the grocery store, anyway. With private jets instead of cars. And a private hanger where the public is excluded. With FBI agents keeping out the riffraff. But other than that, just like running into your neighbor.
Yes time to clear Hillary of all wrong doing.
Hillary can’t handle email. But we can trust her with nuclear weapons.
Note the phrasing: “as has been defined in relevant case law.” In other words, WAPO admits that Hillary violated the statutes as written. Their strategy is to pretend uncited case law might get her off on a technicality, even if she is guilty as hell. This will be the core of Hillary’s legal defense if/when charged.
Then there is the question of how would WAPO know what Hillary is not guilty of, without being privy to the evidence, recovered files, and secret testimony of Pagliano, and numerous other witnesses we have likely never heard of. Are they, gasp, “rushing to judgement”? Or do they have informants illegally leaking from within the DoJ or FBI? It’s one or the other.
Next, it is interesting that for a long time it was laudable for the case to drag on forever, with the FBI claiming there was no set time table, but now there is pressure to “wind it down” for the convenience of the Democrat’s Convention. The agenda is to “exonerate” this poor victim so that the media can go 24/7 with Hillary’s triumph over the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy at the Convention.
What year are you living in? 1955?
It is absolutely not "one or the other". WAPO has no idea of the facts.
They are constructing the Narrative. For the architects of the Narrative, what actually happened, what the law actually says, and what precedent from other cases dictates is of ABSOLUTELY NO SIGNIFICANCE WHATSOEVER.
However, her conduct does not seem to rise to the level of indictable crime, because she did not set up and use the server with the legally requisite criminal intent or even with “gross negligence,” as it has been defined in relevant case law.
Here is where they have it wrong - DEAD WRONG. No “criminal intent” - or ANY intent - is required to establish violation of the “Federal Records Act”. She “failed to take care” of public documents, period, in a grossly negligent way, which is indicative of why her IT guy is getting immunity and/or pleading the fifth.
There was criminal intent to avoid FOIA production
Crooked hillary is now and always has been a criminal. If you don’t believe me, ask Vince Foster
The insider trading scandal with Herself’s Son-In-Law and his “Greece Grease” debacle should be quite enough to indicte in and of itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.