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 ...
Plus ça change! WaPo Editorial Board now Hillary's Bimbo Eruption Squad.
How do they know? Is the Washington post involved in the investigation? For all they know Hillary and her Saudi sidekick Huma could have been selling off top secret info: Espionage. Currently we have a former FBI agent by the name of Robert Hanssen serving 15 consecutive life sentences in Colorado supermax for doing the same exact thing. If Hillary WAS involved in espionage and they do not hold her to the same laws that Hanssen was subject to, then Hanssen should be released.
Secondly, these cretins completely and intentionally ignore the facts about classified data from very highly classified sources was promulgated about Ms. Clinton's private, unclassified willy nilly like they were Afternoon Tea Invitations. No one gets access to classified data of that nature without first having signed NDAs and affidavits that also stipulate to do otherwise is a FEDERAL CRIME with both monetary and jail times as punishment.
What these self-styled 'journalists' intend is to relegate this whole debacle to the equivalent of a "bl@w job is not an impeachable offense." Just like they did with Bill Clinton.
Given what is publically known I don’t see how the Post could conclude there was no wrongdoing on the part of Clinton. The rose tint in their glasses must be nearly black.
I read the Clinton FBI interview is supposed to be today. If Clinton continues with any of the various versions of her story during that interview she will be lying to a federal agent, among other things. Does Clinton believe because she says something that it becomes true? I have actually known people like that. The amazing thing is others let them get away with the lies because nobody wants the sh*tstorm that results when you call them on it. But, then, the FBI and judges deal with liars every day.
Yes, the interview is today. It is at HER home.
Shouldn't it be on FBI premises rather than her home turf to make her a bit uncomfortable? In a windowless room illuminated by a single bare light bulb hanging from a wire.
Please, please tell me if Hillary had been a Republican, she would still be afforded this sort of treatment by the Washington Post. At least the National Enquirer from time to time admits to making up their material.
Hillary can’t speak longer than 30 seconds without lying. Next time she talks, time it for yourself. The woman is the absolute definition of a pathological liar and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that she will lie to the FBI. Whether they do anything about it is another story. The problem seems to be we have too many pussies in this government who are unwilling to do anything about the Clintons, so as a result we now have a situation where these two grifters could very well end up back in the White house. The only one with the gonads to stop them is Donald J. Trump, and all he gets is hell for it by the very pussies who refuse to do anything about the Clinton criminal cabal or the Islamic agent posing as our President.
“Shouldn’t it be on FBI premises rather than her home turf to make her a bit uncomfortable?”
Oh, I don’t know...I believe that if the FBI suspected me of a crime that they would solicitously come to my home for the interview. (/s)
Yes, this does imply that the interview is just a formality, that they are going through the motions for the sake of appearances. On the other hand, it could be to make Clinton feel so comfortable that she continues with her present lying monolog and thus is lying under oath.
It does give the appearance that who you are matters. Justice not only isn’t blind, but has her hand out for a payoff.
Instead of winding it down, they need to wrap it up - with a straight jacket and behind bars...
Amazon’s newspaper in the tank for the crooked Clintons.
So, after giving a decent account of the facts of the case as we know it, WaPo comes up with this?
WaPo should subject its articles to an "ordinary person" test. Would an ordinary person be prosecuted and serve time in prison for the same actions? Of course they would. Anyone who wants access to government computer systems has to sign acceptable use policies and take annual OPSEC training--I doubt Hillary was exempted from those. And if she was, that's another matter. Willfully disregarding the rules about proper computer use is serious.
Nothing with these people ever “rises to the level”.
Was that term (other than when covering floods) ever in widespread use before the advent of the Clintons onto the public stage?
‘
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.
Just a friendly chat.
Eighteen months, two proffers, four lawyers, use immunity from a Federal judge and a grand jury later, I never saw the inside of an FBI office, much less a bare light bulb hanging from a wire in a windowless room.
They know there will be no indictment....they are just making themselves look like king makers. The Clinton/Lynch meeting this week was like a beacon shinning the green light. The only thing left was to ensure the Foundation e mails did not come out until long after she is elected.
This is a combined media/democrap/GOPe cabol dictating that power is not going to leave the DC elites.
Time for a second REV is at hand.
Maybe now they can work full time on the money laundering Clinton Foundation instead?
This latest fumble--er, I mean faux pas--with Bill and Loretta is just frosting on the cake.
“The problem seems to be we have too many pussies in this government “
The rest of the world can see it too.
While in China two years ago I had a Chinese fellow walk up and tell me exactly that: “obama WEAK MAN, obama PUSSY!’
So are all of US for tolerating this shipload of BS that is going on.
Her “intent” is irrelevant. Negligent handling of classified information is enough for a fine and imprisonment, if I read the law correctly.
Quite the scheme, eh? Make a big enough donation to the Clinton Crime Foundation and we’ll leave the information you seek on our open-air server. That sure sounds like espionage, not negligence.
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.