Is There Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton?

Townhall.com ^ | January 25, 2016 | Guy Benson

[Kaslin]

As both Ed and Katie noted this morning, the New York Post is reporting that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's ongoing, expanded probe into Hillary Clinton's potential crimes has turned to the question of how extremely sensitive classified information "migrated" from secure government servers to Hillary's improper, unsecure private server. This prohibited crossover is "specifically forbidden," according to a former CIA official who recently weighed in on the controversy, who added that there is "zero ambiguity" on this point. At this point, we know that federal investigators are looking into habitual, serious mishandling of classified information -- including intelligence that rose to the levels of secret, top secret and 'beyond top secret' (SAP). One by one, Hillary and her allies have erected excuses for her willful, national security-endangering scheme; one by one, those excuses have crashed and burned under scrutiny. We also know that the feds are exploring whether Team Hillary obstructed justice to cover up her conduct, and whether she violated anti-corruption laws in her capacity at the State Department. Those 30,000-plus "personal" emails she unilaterally ordered deleted may come into play on those fronts. The FBI has reportedly recovered the contents of those messages, several of which have already been exposed as work-related. But where does all of this lead, from a legal perspective? Katie touched on it in her piece, but it's worth taking a closer look at analysis from former federal judge and US Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who penned a compelling op/ed in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend.  He makes the case that based on publicly-known details alone, criminal charges are in order:

Whatever the findings from that part of the probe, intelligence-community investigators believe it is nearly certain that Mrs. Clinton's server was hacked, possibly by the Chinese or the Russians...from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge—it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information. This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information. The simple proposition that everyone is equal before the law suggests that Mrs. Clinton's state of mind—whether mere knowledge of what she was doing as to mishandling classified information; or gross negligence in the case of the mishandling of information relating to national defense; or bad intent as to actual or attempted destruction of email messages; or corrupt intent as to State Department business—justifies a criminal charge of one sort or another.

Read the whole thing. But what to make of the Clinton campaign's oft-repeated refrain that according to the FBI, Hillary isn't "a subject of the investigation"? Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy explains how that "legal term of art" may -- or may not -- apply to the situation at hand, suggesting that this characterization represents a carefully-phrased technicality within the context of a politically-loaded case:

"Subject" is a term of art in criminal investigations. It refers to one of the three categories into which prosecutors fit every relevant actor. Subjects are people whose conduct is being scrutinized and who, depending on what evidence turns up, may or may not be charged. This distinguishes them from targets, who are suspects virtually certain to be indicted for an obvious crime; and from mere witnesses, whose interaction with a suspect suggests no criminality on their part (e.g., the teller in a bank hold-up, or the neighbor awakened by a fatal gunshot next door)..."Subject" is the ambiguous category. A subject has engaged in conduct that appears criminal but may have an innocent explanation. Cooperating makes sense if the subject's account is likely to convince the government not to file charges. If not, cooperation is fraught with risk, and a competent lawyer will probably advise against it. If someone's conduct is being investigated for potential wrongdoing, it is safe to assume that person is a subject of that investigation. Thus understood, Mrs. Clinton is not only a subject; she is the main subject. After all, the investigation centers on her mishandling of classified information via a private e-mail system that she improperly set up for all her government business and over which she well knew it was illegal to disseminate classified information. And if recent reporting is accurate, the investigation is now delving into potential corruption: the favorable treatment donors to her private foundation were given by the State Department she was running. Given that the investigation appears to be tracking her unique activities, how could she possibly not be a subject? What would otherwise be the point of investigating?

McCarthy proceeds to attempt to answer that question, laying out why Clintonworld can still get away with the "not a subject" line -- for now.  He says "targets" and "subjects" are targets and subjects of grand jury investigations, and that no matter how intensive the criminal inquiry may be, the FBI itself cannot convene a grand jury on its own. Prosecutors are needed for that part of the process to swing into motion. "No Justice Department, no grand jury. No grand jury, no case — period," he writes, arguing that a tenuous, temporary compromise scenario is currently playing out:

On the one hand, the Obama administration does not want to be seen by the public as obstructing the FBI; on the other hand, President Obama does not want to be seen by his base as tanking the Democrats' best shot at retaining the White House — the likely fallout if the Obama Justice Department signals that a formal, very serious criminal investigation is underway. So Obama is hedging his bets. He is letting the FBI investigate, but on its own, without Justice Department prosecutors and the grand jury. This frees the administration and the Clinton campaign to be, by turns, ambiguous and disingenuous about whether there really is a formal investigation going on.

This can't last forever, McCarthy contends. Ultimately, if the FBI gathers sufficient evidence, dominoes will begin to fall -- and if those dominoes are being propped up for political reasons, the American people will hear all about it. His conclusion, drawing on his professional relationship with FBI Director James Comey: "Besides working under administrations of both parties, he has overseen prosecutions of both Republicans and Democrats. I've known no one in law enforcement more capable of navigating through a political maelstrom. Jim is tough, he is smart, and if there is a case to be made here, he will make it. And if he makes it, it will be bulletproof. Of course, making the case would not mean the FBI could force attorney general Loretta Lynch — and the president to whom she answers — to pursue the case. The FBI cannot convene a grand jury and present an indictment. But you'd best believe the FBI can make the Obama administration look very bad if it shrinks from doing so."  And then, there's the separate but highly relevant matter of the court of public opinion. The Clinton campaign isn't doing itself any favors kicking up a dust storm of spin and blame, but they have few other options:

Jake Tapper mocks Hillary Clinton spokesman for using 'facts not in evidence' to defend Hillary
Focusing on the question of who leaked the damning evidence outlined in a letter to Congress by the intelligence community Inspector General is a lame attempt to distract from...the damning evidence outlined in a letter to Congress by the intelligence community Inspector General. How journalists got their hands on the documents isn't the story here, and it it never will be.

[Kaslin]

From the article

-- snip --

This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information.

What General Petraeus did was at the most one tenth of what Hillary did, yet the Pentagon wants to take a star away from him

[GraceG]

TONS of EVIDENCE.....

ZERO POLITICAL WILL....

As long as Hillary is running for president as the “inevitable democrat” she is safe...

If Bernie Takes her down New Hampshire and Iowa, she may very well finally be put in jail...

[Signalman]

If the DOJ refuses to indict Clinton, the FBI and the intelligence community will leak the details to the press.

Guaranteed.

[pgyanke]

Is There Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton?

Yes. The very nature of what she's done is criminal on its face. A private in the Army would have been in Leavenworth a year ago.

[SubMareener]

The rules in our SCIF at Fort Huachuca wouldn’t even allow ANY removable media to leave the SCIF without a two-man rule controlled operation supervised by the SSO, and then the media had to leave wrapped properly for classified courier deliver. This was after Manning used a re-writable disk that looked like a music CD to get his material out of a SCIF. So what Clinton’s folks did should get them ALL a cell next to Aldrich Ames.

[The Sons of Liberty]

Is There Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton?

You mean that hasn't been deleted, hidden or altered?

[bigbob]

“a good DA can indict a ham sandwich”

Hillary is the whole hog, with trimmings.

[American Quilter]

You’re absolutely right. I had a TS/SCI clearance for 20+ years, and if I’d broken ANY of the laws Hillary has, I’d still be in jail with a dishonorable discharge and a felony conviction. There’s no doubt Hillary should be indicted; the only question is whether the Obama administration will allow it. It would guarantee a Republican presidential victory this year, and the last thing Zero wants is a threat to Obamanoncare and his other “legacy” programs. On the other hand, it’s well known that the Obamas and Clintons hate each other, and he may be just petulant and malicious enough to throw her to the wolves. As narcissistic as he is, he may think his programs will survive a Republican president.

[Kaslin]

I hope the do, but most of the press will probably ignore it though.

[SubMareener]

Good thing there is no statute of limitations of espionage. However, Obama could pardon her and all her people, but I don’t think he actually likes her enough to do that.

[dsrtsage]

I would rather have the indictment after she wins the nomination

[The All Knowing All Seeing Oz]

Because she is such a “public” figure, the standard of evidence needed will be higher for her than usual. Rather than having the standard 80-95% chance of a conviction, they will want a 95% - 100% chance that the evidence would support a conviction.

That said, it would probably be impossible to find a jury of all 12 people to convict her, but that does not matter.

The evidence released in the indictment, or by the FBI agents if the indictment is killed by DOJ will be so damning, she will have to step aside.

Right now, they are working two major lines of inquiry:

1: Creating a timeline of how $ to the Clinton Foundation created benefits from USGOV to donor, and

2: Trying to find a victim of her emails. Find someone who was killed or hurt because she did not secure HUMINT. Insecure emails can be minimized. Dead people cannot.

[Ahithophel]

It seems likely, with all this elaborate maneuvering and migration, the information was put on a home brew server with intent to make it available to whomever knew enough to back in and access it.

[SteveH]

keyboard spew alert

[Petrosius]

If the DOJ refuses to indict Clinton, the FBI and the intelligence community will leak the details to the press.

Perhaps but if the emperor does not want to indict he will not indict.

[Herosmith]

I remember when I worked at a classified facility in the early 80’s and the local paper did a write-up on us. Well anyone taking that paper with the article into work had to have a coversheet attached to it once it entered the building. Then you could not remove the article from the facility. LOL!

[SERKIT]

Is There Enough Evidence to Indict Hillary Clinton?

Evidence does not count in the Clinton Crime Family. We need the rough equivalent of semen on a blue dress, except in this case, the semen cannot be viewed since no one has the security clearance to test the semen much less acknowledge that the semen exists. So, the semen is simply the result of action from a leak and the vicious VRWC. Nothing to see here, ready the coronation, and seat the most corrupt President in the history of the nation.

[PubliusMM]

The Hildebeast continues her arrogant nose-thumbing at the American people. She’s guilty. She knows it. She’s counting on Zero to pardon her of any and all wrongdoing.

I will only say this. If I had done a tenth...a hundredth...a thousandth of what she has done, relative to those emails, I would STILL be making gravel in Kansas.

She should never see the light of day as a free woman, IMO.

[libstripper]

Looks like this was an espionage/bribery operation with info in return for money.

The Clintons first did this under Slick with nuclear secrets. They left them lying around, unsecured, at Oak Ridge and other places. Then they allowed Red Chinese nationals into the facilities where the secrets could just be picked up, with neither having direct contact and lower level types left on the hook. Lots of money, in the course of things, went to the DNC and the Clintons and they walked.

Fast forward to 2009 and they decided to go digital. Classification markings were stripped from totally classified documents and those stripped documents went on her highly hackable private server. Then, miracle of miracles, the Chinese, Russians, AQ, and whoever else were somehow informed where the treasure trove was, with subsequent hostile hacking assured. Also, and entirely by innocent coincidence, the Clintons were raking in tens of millions of dollars through speaking fees and contributions to their various “charities.”

[libstripper]

You’ve got it!