Woodward: Obama Commenting on Clinton Investigation "Proves We're In A Political Situation Now"

Real Clear Politics ^ | April 10, 2016 | Ian Schwartz

[Strac6]

Commenting on Hillary Clinton's private server and President Obama weighing in on the Justice Department probe on this week's FOX News Sunday, Watergate journalist Bob Woodward said Obama not only touched a hot stove, "he put his arms around it" with his defense of Hillary Clinton during an ongoing investigation.

BOB WOODWARD: He is anticipating the defense where one of the elements is intent. President Obama said, look this is carelessness. What they're going to be able to say is no crime because there was no intent. If you talk to people in the White House, State Department, Pentagon, they all send these classified messages around. It's the way of doing business. They're argument is, 'Hey, I'm over in the Middle East so I need to do this.' I think this is what we're going to see. (Clinton's claim will be) Big mistake. Carelessness. No intent.

CHRIS WALLACE: What do you think of the idea of a President weighing in like this in the midst of an FBI investigation?

WOODWARD: Well, it proves that we're in a political situation here now. Hillary Clinton is running for president. There have been lots of questions. I think (there are) serious, unanswered questions about the e-mail. But if you can establish there was no intent and there is carelessness in the system --

WALLACE: What about the president weighing in?

WOODWARD: Look, he's a political figure and that's up to him. Karl (Rove) made the critique, I think, you know, always better in a case like this, with a sensitive case, it's a hot stove, don't touch it. He not only touched it, he put his arms around it!

[Chewbarkah]

Evidence in the public domain already shows that Clinton was warned about the Blackberry being massively vulnerable. She is guilty of gross, deliberate mishandling of restricted data, at a minimum. Obama has no way of knowing her intent or the actual effects of her actions on national security. Proving either is not required under the laws that govern this issue, for good reason. Obama knows that and is lying to trick the gullible,

Chris Wallace should have asked Obama if he was familiar with the content of all Hillary’s messages, including those she had deleted by her minions. Then ask Obama and Woodward whether someone that “careless” with national security could ever be trusted to be President.

[Strac6]

Totally correct and on point.

[Strac6]

All well said by all of you, but if I was trying to prosecute her for violation of Federal Statutes regarding the “exposure” of classified information, I would probably not bring any charge involving “intent.”

Here’s why. If I try to prove intent, I have to get into her state of mind, her purpose, and many things that can explained by defense counsel as having other purposes, etc.

We know those other explanations would be BS.... but remember The People v. O.J. Simpson.....

In addition, I would get very little extra from proving intent than I would get for proving a “failing to secure” charge.

In addition, if I “assume the burden” of proving intent, then if I can only convince, let’s say 6 members of the jury that she released the classified information with intent to damage the US, but all 12 agree on a failure to secure charge, I always run the risk of having the jury throw out the entire set of charges because I didn’t prove the most serious.

While I’m trying to tell the jury about my lesser charges (the ones without the need to prove intent) the defense is telling them I can’t prove my most serious... so the rest must go to. I know it’s BS, but it often works.

Now, on the issue of using INTENT in other ways, I’m going to be screaming all day long that she erased her hard drives, after she had been caught, with the firm, sole and purposeful INTENT to get away with her crime, because as I ask the jury “When you saw Mrs. Clinton make that “do you mean wipe the computer with Pledge wax” comment, (as I’m waving my hand just like she did) do you think for one moment she didn’t have a firm intent to cover up her actions, to tell any lie, to try any distraction so she could try to weasel her way out of being called to justice before you men and women of the jury. This was no accident. Do you now agree that was her intent that day.... and that was her intent every day”

I’ve got 12 heads nodding YES!

But regarding the CHARGE of failing to preserve with INTENT do damage the US, the bottom line is, why give myself a much harder job, that has very little added benefit to me if I could prove it, at the risk of losing it all?

Bottom bottom line, Lay up and take the chip shot.

[GOPJ]

Liberal Elites get passes... they don’t have to follow the laws like the little people. They’re above the law. That’s how it works in every hellhole in the world - including ours.

Bob Woodward should know that... his paper gives passes to liberal elites too...

[az_gila]

BOB WOODWARD: He is anticipating the defense where one of the elements is intent. President Obama said, look this is carelessness. What they're going to be able to say is no crime because there was no intent. If you talk to people in the White House, State Department, Pentagon, they all send these classified messages around. It's the way of doing business. They're argument is, ‘Hey, I'm over in the Middle East so I need to do this.’ I think this is what we're going to see. (Clinton's claim will be) Big mistake. Carelessness. No intent.

---

Ahh... Old, should be retired, Bob is omitting one thing in his excuse...

They “all did it” on the State Dept. computer system, not a BlackBerry into a private server in someone's bathroom.

[Chewbarkah]

I fully agree that introducing “intent” would be a mistake. Your OJ reference is apt. The initial case argued against Clinton should be ultra simple and designed to eliminate the excuses jurors and even judges will try to latch onto. All involved will not want the responsibility of convicting Hillary, due to politics and personal safety. If there is strong evidence that she actually sold information for donations and favors, that’s a separate case that should be brought after conviction on the first counts. Could a DC jury be trusted on this? Nope.

We can envision the ironclad case that could be presented against the woman, but if she were actually indicted and prosecuted, the DoJ would likely choose the least winnable route and present it as badly as possible. This one would be better handled as a plea bargain, as unsatisfactory as that may seem.

[Strac6]

Thank you.

Remember, her greatest fear is a case of fraud, unjust enrichment, failure to pay income tax, etc. from a Clinton Global Initiative matter, that was found due to the exploration of the emails.

Example.

Officer Friendly stops Doe due to a broken taillight.

On approaching car Friendly has Doe roll down driver’s side window.

Upon window being rolled down, Friendly, as a result of her training and experience, detects a strong odor of marijuana from inside Doe’s car.

Friendly orders Doe out of car and conducts a “safety pat-down of Doe. She notices a large lump in Doe’s pocket.

She finds lump is a pistol, for which Doe has no carry permit.

Friendly’s PD conducts ballistics tests on pistol and links it to prior murder.

Doe swings, because everything was a logical extension of a legal prior act on part of Friendly.

[houeto]

You two made this a thoroughly enjoyable thread. Very informative. Thank you both very much. I am sick to death of reading threads with FReepers at one another’s throats over Cruz/Trump.

[Strac6]

I might suggest comment #273 of post “N.J. judge hears challenges to Cruz eligibility” for some “light bedtime reading.”

:)

[Chewbarkah]

That was a long compilation. After years of following the Obama NBC issue, I have several questions of fact, not of law, regarding Cruz:
1) Was Raphael Cruz a US citizen or legal permanent resident under US jurisdiction when Ted Cruz was born in 1970? If yes, TC is a NBC.
2) Age of Cruz’s mama in 1970?
3) Depending on answer 2, when had she lived in the US, when outside the US, etc.?
4) Had Cruz’s mother legally renounced her US citizenship at the time of TC’s birth? (US citizenship is not lost casually or by actions or laws of other nations. It requires swearing an oath before a US consular officer, after one is at least 18.) I’ve never seen even an allegation that Cruz’s mama did this. If she did, there would be records.

I can’t remember the answers, but knew them at one time, sufficiently to satisfy myself that something like your argument holds.

Hillary birthed up birtherism her damn self (well, Barry did act as midwife, by promulgating for 20 years that he was born in Kenya. Soebarkah is a NBC if he was lying, hardly a rare event). Since Hillary’s shills would start attacking Cruz about NBC (perhaps on NBC...) ten seconds after he was nominated, adjudicating this before the fact seems useful.