Whatever you say, WaPo**
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 ...
Most certainly. But the federal criminal act was in porting classified information in any form over to the server or one of its accounts. It takes considerable intent to subvert protections used by classified AIS to move information from them to unclassified systems. These instances were federal criminal acts. Every one of them.
Even if this witch or her underlings claim to have ‘sanitized them’ or ‘edited their content to remove blah, blah’ THEY WERE STILL NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO SO WITH APPROVAL FROM THE ORGINATING AGENCY.
Good Intentions (tm) are everything in the liberal worldview - results are not important. Look at Obamacare. They tried to Do Good, that's all that matters.
Sorry if my comments went over your head. The basic meaning is 100% consistent with what you parroted back.
Living in 1955 sounds pretty good.
Yup, and that's the issue with Hillary supporters. Whether there was criminal intent or not, she has admitted, openly, she violated the Act. We may all feel there was criminal intent, her supporters don't think she had criminal intent - my point is no one needs to prove ANY intent, criminal or otherwise for a conviction. Case law supports that notion.
Coming from a paper that cheered the conviction of Scooter Libby, the guy that didn’t reveal Valerie Plame’s employment at the CIA.
Yes, true when you are talking about liberals in general. But we are talking about Hillary Clinton here. There is not one bone in her evil body that contains an iota of ‘good intent’ when it comes to others besides herself.
Whatever you say, WaPo**
Disgraceful. Wonder how much she paid Jeff Bezos for this piece of crap?
The comPost has conveniently overlooked the smoking gun:
There's an email chain in which Clinton demanded that an aide remove the classification markings from a message on a secure State system, and send it to her on her insecure email system.
This is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to evade the law and rules for handling classified information.
The content was apparently unclassified, because it wasn't redacted during the pre-publication review. But, there's a process for reviewing classified documents and downgrading them. Clinton didn't follow it.
They also completely misreport that Clinton “stopped by her plane.” No, Clinton & Lynch clandestinely arranged a meeting on a THIRD plane. The only reason they are running cover on this is because THEY got caught.
the next person to state we need an investigation or a special prosecutor concerning the Clintons should be flogged
it’s the quickest way I know of, of cutting off any information on the subject, and making it politically neutral
in two years they just announce nothing was found, three more scandals will have taken place, and the Clintons will be two more years down the road, still in the midst of governance or policy shaping
“Interview” took place at FBI HQ in DC
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-investigation-election-2016/
Thank you.
It doesn’t rise to the level of an indictable crime...
Where have we heard that before? Ah yes, when her husband was accused of committing perjury.
Liberals excused it because he lied about sex, as though that makes lying in the front of the court OK.
Today liberals are excusing it because Hillary lacked the intent to commit a crime as though that makes committing a crime OK.
Try using lack of intent with a police officer or judge after you’ve broken the law, and they’ll laugh at you.
Washington Post editors may be right the Americans are stupid to the point they’ll believe anything they’re told.
Hillary won’t do time for things you and I would go to prison for. Heck, she’s received special treatment her entire life.
Why would it change now?
bttt
And the esteemed board of WaPo knows this how exactly?
It would for any of us little people..
Bump #53
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.