I honestly wish Judge Napolitano was right but I don’t know what America he thinks we live in and what FBI he sees. He cites violations and reasons why she should be indicted regardless of her “intent” because she was sworn in. The problem is he is using silly logic; Obama swore to uphold the Constitution and he hasn’t been indicted for his violations. Where are the indictments for Lois Lerner, AG Holder, Blankenfein, et al…?
I have the utmost respect for the Judge but are my eyes lying, am I stupid or do I simply lack the foolhardy optimism that the Judge is espousing?
Even with the constant “revelations” about Hillary’s transgressions and the cult of personality that is The Donald, I think there is a 50/50 shot she is the next Emperor of ‘Murka. Hopefully I am wrong and will be dining on the below dish…
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a201/mister2wrx/crow_zpsg9ocrkrz.jpg
Hillary Clinton’s Nightmare
January 28, 2016
Hillary Clinton’s nightmare is not the sudden resurgence of Bernie Sanders. It is the fidelity to the rule of law of the FBI.
The recent revelations of the receipt by Clinton of a Special Access Program email, as well as cut and pasted summaries of state secrets on her server and on her BlackBerry nearly guarantee that the FBI will recommend that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury and seek her indictment for espionage. Here is the backstory.
It seems that every week, more information comes to light about Clinton’s grave legal woes. Her worries are in two broad categories: One is her well-documented failure to safeguard state secrets and the other is her probable use of her position as secretary of state to advance financially her husband’s charitable foundation. The FBI is currently and aggressively investigating both. What I will describe below is in the state secrets category. It is apparently not new to the FBI, but it is new to the public.
Among the data that the FBI either found on the Clinton server or acquired from the State Department via its responses to Freedom of Information Act requests is a top-secret email that has been denominated Special Access Program. Top secret is the highest category of state secrets (the other categories are confidential and secret), and of the sub-parts of top secret, SAP is the most sensitive.
SAP is clothed in such secrecy that it cannot be received or opened accidentally. Clinton — who ensured all of her governmental emails came to her through her husband’s server, a nonsecure nongovernmental venue — could only have received or viewed it from that server after inputting certain codes. Those codes change at unscheduled times, such that she would need to inquire of them before inputting them.
The presence of the SAP-denominated email on her husband’s server, whether opened or not, shows a criminal indifference to her lawful obligation to maintain safely all state secrets entrusted to her care. Yet, Clinton has suggested that she is hopelessly digitally inept and may not have known what she was doing. This constitutes an attempted plausible deniability to the charge of failing to safeguard state secrets.
But in this sensitive area of the law, plausible deniability is not an available defense; no judge would permit the assertion of it in legal filings or in a courtroom, and no lawyer would permit a client to make the assertion.
This is so for two reasons. First, failure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government need not prove intent. The failure can be done negligently. Thus, plausible deniability is actually an admission of negligence and, hence in this case, an admission of guilt, not a denial.
Second, Clinton signed an oath under penalty of perjury on Jan. 22, 2009, her first full day as secretary of state. In that oath, she acknowledged that she had received a full FBI briefing on the lawfully required care and keeping of state secrets. Her briefing and her oath specified that the obligation to safeguard state secrets is absolute — it cannot be avoided or evaded by forgetfulness or any other form of negligence, and that negligence can bring prosecution.
What type of data is typically protected by the SAP denomination? The most sensitive under the sun — such as the names of moles (spies working for more than one government) and their American handlers, the existence of black ops (illegal programs that the U.S. government carries out, of which it will deny knowledge if exposed), codes needed to access state secrets and ongoing intelligence gathering projects.
The crime here occurs when SAPs are exposed by residing in a nonsecure venue; it does not matter for prosecution purposes whether they fell into the wrong hands.
Clinton’s persistent mocking of the seriousness of all this is the moral equivalent of taunting alligators before crossing a stream. SAPs are so sensitive that most of the FBI agents who are investigating Clinton lack the security clearances needed to view the SAP found among her emails. Most FBI agents have never seen a SAP.
Shortly after the presence of the SAP-denominated email was made known, the State Department released another email Clinton failed to erase wherein she instructed her subordinates to take state secrets from a secure venue, to cut and paste and summarize them, and send them to her on her nonsecure venue. Such an endeavor, if carried out, is a felony — masking and then not safeguarding state secrets. Such a command to subordinates can only come from a criminal mind.
Equally as telling is a little-known 2013 speech that recently surfaced given by one of Clinton’s former subordinates. The aide revealed that Clinton and her staff regularly engaged in digital conversations about state secrets on their BlackBerries. This is not criminal if the BlackBerries were government-issued and secured. Clinton’s was neither. It was purchased at her instructions off the shelf by one of her staff.
Can anyone doubt that Clinton has failed to safeguard state secrets? If her name were Hillary Rodham instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, she’d have been indicted months ago.
What remains of the rule of law in America? The FBI will soon tell us.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/01/andrew-p-napolitano/hillarys-nightmare/
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a201/mister2wrx/textual%20relations_zpsxwlvjifm.jpg
Harry, just read this last night… it does a pretty good job talking about how FBI’s Comey may force the hand of the DOJ:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430343/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-fbi-director-james-comey-resign-protest
Hillary being cleared -or announced that way- of wrongdoing at the height of her campaign should she win over Sanders would propel her over the top and win the election since it would overcome much of the criticism that will be brought against her and make her opponents and critics look foolish.
I take it no one on the conservative side has ever studied “The Art of War” or even learned to play chess?
When you make your move is often more important than the move itself, and Hillary probably knows where enough skeletons are buried to control both (I’m not talking about just brain damage, she’s a liberal and that is to be expected and considered normal).
Her health is her biggest problem, that is something that could be beyond her control and end it all for her.
Anon,
I do not share your opinion.
“Cleared of all wrongdoing” propelling her “over the top” when that announcement would be followed by the resignation of a bunch of Fibbies (as they have indicated)?
If she were “innocent”, then why would there be resignations? And, of course, those same former Fibbies spilling their guts (as much as they can) about the whole thing…
It could prompt a constitutional crisis.
it may be a quaint old book, but it seems to have quotes for all occasions
Isaiah 1:23 New International Version (NIV)
Your rulers are rebels,
partners with thieves;
they all love bribes
and chase after gifts.
Billy,
I doubt there would be any resignations, and they could easily be spun to here advantage as their resigning in shame for wasting all that investigative power and time trying to come up with something that just wasn’t there. They won’t be able to say much of any substance since that would violate all kinds of confidentiality and disclosure laws that will put them in jail if they do (“whistle blowers” get prosecuted all the time for what they illegally disclose).
It’s all in the spin, and she and her insiders are a master of that.
thinker,
just like judge nap and the article you provided, i like the idea and the logic but i contend logic is not at play here. power is all that is in play.
now, what i find more interesting to the HC result is the meeting between bernie and obozo. is he buttering up bernie to keep in line because he will likely be the dem candidate cuz hitlery is gonna be fitted with an orange jumpsuit or is being told to calm down the rhetoric and take a fall in one of the upcoming rounds to hand the victory to hillary?
i honestly hope i eat crow over this issue but i am not confident that will happen.
petraus is a pawn, the clintons arent. she also probably knows quite a bit of dirt on those who inhabit the walls of govt and (so-called) justice.
if the charges are considered long enough so that it is pushed past the election it essentially won’t matter if comey resigns or doesn’t.
from the national review article:
“Not many people remember that Comey almost resigned a high-profile law-enforcement job once before, upset because he thought White House politics were overruling the law. Back in 2004, Comey was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s top deputy. The Justice Department determined that the Bush administration’s domestic-surveillance program, run by the National Security Agency, was illegal. Ashcroft was hospitalized at the time with a pancreatic ailment, and his authority had been transferred to Comey during the hospitalization. Then–White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and President Bush’s chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., went to the hospital to persuade Ashcroft to re-authorize the program. Comey and then–FBI director Robert Mueller raced to the hospital to lobby Ashcroft against signing the authorization papers. Ultimately, Bush agreed with the Justice Department’s assessment and scrapped the program. Comey later told Congress that he, Ashcroft, Mueller, and their aides had prepared a mass resignation in case the White House ignored or defied their legal assessment.”
so he stood up against illegal spying?
that’s amazing because that means we now live in the USSA knowing that the govt isn’t illegally spying on us anymore, wait a sec…
that anon above was me
Anon,
I don’t see her coming away squeaky clean and exonerated.
that would be quite the stretch.
harry p,
The Clinton’s sort of have a history of it, I don’t wee why it would change as long as they stay in favor with the elite PTB that they have been serving in the past.
And coming out “squeaky clean” isn’t necessary, just avoiding the consequences by avoiding prosecution as they have done in the past.
Keep in mind that Bill was actually impeached and the Senate declined to prosecute so he remained a highly popular President and finished his term with no consequence to him or his side for it.
IMO, it was Hillary, not Bill, that engineered and manipulated this outcome. Don’t underestimate her, Her health is the greatest obstacle she faces the way I see it and that may be what does her in. Keep in mind that Democrats and liberals aren’t really all that smart.
Hey Meathead , you’re not stupid nor are your eyes lying. She will probably get away with it. The FBI has known for decades the Clintons are criminals but have done nothing. Why should they do something now that would jeopardize their careers .
Hillary is as clean as the bath water after I wash my dog . At least my dog comes out clean…Hillary…probably not .
anon,
i realize that she doesn’t need to come away squeaky clean, as long as she can legally be on the ballot, ie not in prison, then there are her followers that will vote for her.
all she needs to do to best bernie is not get indicted. even in the D’s he is viewed as the crazy uncle. i was more arguing that her favorability slingshotting because she is exonerated (your possible scenario) is super unlikely.
bb,
i assume you were talking to me when you said “Meathead”, considering how you typically address me, i’ll take that as a compliment. you are right, they won’t jeopardize their careers and in particular retirement over a crusade to see justice served. they probably know better than most that she won’t see jailtime (even IF she is indicted) so the only ones that would burn for it would be themselves.
Comey could but that’s because he would have offers (maybe from Fux Noos) less than 5 secs after he resigned. if he disagrees with what is going on, he could come out on top, get out from the immoral org that employs him and go make more money.
She is too big to jail. law be damned, the bright side of that is it erodes the citizens willingness to obey the laws,
If I were an intelligence agent who has lost friends and close co-workers to death in order to obtain certain information, only to have that information “released” inadvertently by someone who has no respect for what that information cost;
I might consider taking action myself to end the plague, and I would certainly know people who could carry it out, if I myself couldn’t. There will be no hole deep enough, no hiding place secure enough and nowhere to run to if that assessment is made. It would be interesting if “heart attack” was listed on that person’s death certificate, since there are drugs ….
Keep your eyes open and believe no one, they lie when they’re cornered …
If your whole view of government is how much it can take from others and give it to you, voting for a crook seems only logical.
I will be surprised if FBI pushes for Clintons prosecution. We are talking about the agency that kills ranchers and ignores Black Panthers aren’t we? They will do whatever it takes to protect their pensions. If I am wrong, I will apologize right here on TBP. It could depend on how much Barak hates Hillary.
What Would John Wick Do?
For those who don’t know the answer:
John Wick has the right idea, he’d shoot motherfuckers in the face.