Even if You Believe the Left’s Excuses, Hillary Clinton Still Violated Criminal Law

Loading

David French:

Last Friday, Twitter provided a near-perfect window into America’s divided, polarized soul. That afternoon, the FBI released its heavily redacted report and interview notes regarding Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, and the responses could not have been more different.

The Right side of the Twitterverse melted down. Some of the revelations were stunning. Hillary’s team wiped her server after the New York Times disclosed its existence — at the same time that Hillary herself was publicly calling for the release of her e-mails to the public. Incredibly, Hillary told investigators that she didn’t pay attention to the “level” of classification attached to e-mail communications and didn’t know what the (C) classification meant. She conveniently “forgot” numerous key facts. And — finally — though she used 13 e-mail-capable mobile devices during her tenure as secretary of state, her lawyers were unable to locate any of them. Thus, the FBI was unable to conduct a forensic examination and was unable to definitely determine if her e-mail had been hacked.

In short, what the FBI file revealed was the extent of the Clinton deception operation, complete with lurid details — such as aides smashing old Blackberries with a hammer, an IT employee declaring an “oh s***” moment as he rushed to delete files, and Cheryl Mills participating as an attorney in the proceedings even though she was a witness and possible subject in the investigation.

There are those on the Left side of the Internet who looked at the same report, read every word, and declared that it actually exonerated Clinton. Here is former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau pointing out perhaps the most influential piece by Kevin Drum:

https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/772069843197652992

Drum is one of the more thoughtful political writers — Left or Right — and is always worth reading. So I clicked on the link confident that it would provide the most persuasive possible defense of Hillary Clinton.

It’s not persuasive. Essentially, it boils down to a decision to believe the vast majority of Clinton’s excuses and rationalizations (regardless of their credibility) without credibly dealing with the true elephant in the room, the presence of highly classified information on a private, homebrew server. Here’s Drum totally believing the explanation for wiping Hillary’s server after she received a subpoena from the Benghazi committee:

It had nothing to do with anyone around Hillary Clinton. An IT guy at PRN [Platte River Networks] realized one day that he’d forgotten about the retention order and went ahead and implemented it. The report makes clear that Cheryl Mills sent an email, which the PRN techie received, telling PRN about the preservation request from the Benghazi committee. The techie said he knew it meant he shouldn’t disturb the Clinton server, but apparently got confused and didn’t realize this meant he shouldn’t touch the old archives or the backups.

So the IT guy just got “confused.” Well, maybe, but Drum left out some rather important context. On March 25, 2015, PRN had a conference call with Clinton’s staff. We don’t know the substance of that call. Between March 25 and March 31, PRN had its now-famous “oh s***” moment and systematically deleted e-mails. On March 31, it had yet another call with Clinton’s staff, but the contents of that call were withheld through assertion of attorney-client privilege.

Do you still believe the deletion “had nothing to do with anyone around Hillary Clinton?”

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
75 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Greg: 22

I want someone who understands geopolitics is a complex game of chess and not a game of Tiddlywinks.

I hope you have some good pain pills. That kind of stupidity must really be painful.

@Greg: 24

The $25,000 payment—which was erroneously accounted for in a way that just happened to hide its nature from the IRS—looks very much like what is commonly known as a bribe.

The only thing ’embarrassing about that is ‘it was only $25K? The Clinton’s deal in millions. I’d think a Dimocrat would love the bribel scenario, it’s their normal order of business.

@Redteam, #52:

Explain the specifics of ANY alleged quid pro quo exchange involving the Clinton’s, where all of the fundamental elements are so apparent as they are in the case of the $25,000 contribution solicited by and made on behalf of Bondi.

For there to be an illegal exchange, there must be a specific favor or advantage granted in return for something equally specific. Some tight little transaction must be involved. Simply having contributed to a charitable foundation connected with a person you have some other dealings with might have a questionable appearance, but it isn’t a quid pro quo transaction. If it is, there’s probably not a single Congressman who isn’t guilty—and they’re taking money mostly from businesses such as those run by Donald Trump.

So, do you have even one specific example that actually meets the definition as clearly as Trump’s $25,000 bribe to avoid prosecution? Or are you spouting lies and accusations as freely as the clown you’re trying to put in the White House by any means possible?

@Greg:

Explain the specifics of ANY alleged quid pro quo exchange involving the Clinton’s,

Oh, for sh*t’s sake, Clinton got millions for selling the rights to the Russians for Uranium. She got millions for selling access to her office. Are you really that stupid or do you just get paid for acting? Geeeezzz

@Redteam, #54:

Are you really that stupid or do you just get paid for acting? Geeeezzz

Actually, I’m smart enough to know how to do some fact checking, and consequently informed enough to know the facts of that particular deal, which is clearly more than you can say.

There’s no indication Hillary Clinton had anything whatsoever to do with approval of the purchase. Further, the significance of the deal to national security was pretty much zero.

A recommendation for approval or disapproval of any such deal is made by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, not by the State Department. The committee consists of nine members from nine different reviewing government entities, only one of which is the State Department. The State Department’s committee representative was Jose Fernandez, not Hillary Clinton. His was only one of nine votes recommending approval of the deal. The final authority that accepts or rejects the committee recommendation is the President of the United States. So, they couldn’t have “bought” approval for the deal from Hillary Clinton if they’d tried. She had no power to sell anything.

Not only that; the deal wasn’t to export uranium assets in the first place. It was only to purchase the company with an eye to selling assets at a profit. Russia didn’t and doesn’t have any license to export U.S. produced uranium. They could only sell to domestic customers, which is where they hoped to make some money. The U.S. doesn’t export uranium. The U.S. is a net importer uranium. This is where money could be made from selling it.

Very little about the story is accurate. It’s an example of the speculative and flat out erroneous and illogical material Peter Schweizer packed into his book Clinton Cash.

@Greg: chirp, chirp, chirp……..

Facts are a bitch, aren’t they? That’s why Donald Trump seldom bothers with them. In a nation focused on truth and facts, he wouldn’t have made it out of the starting gate.

@Greg:

Facts are a bitch, aren’t they?

Do you think you will ever stumble over any? Have you ever flown with Slick on his Lolita Express flights? Hillary loves for Bill to have his getaways.
Let’s see if I’ve got this straight. Even though Hillary was paid millions for the rights of Russia to buy the Uranium from the US, they didn’t(?) get their uranium, or they didn’t ever pay her? Which is it? Did she get her money and didn’t live up to her end of the bargain? Then Russia is gonna be pissed.

And then we’ve got this guy, who wouldn’t answer a straight question with a straight answer if is life depended on it, shilling for Donald Trump while repeatedly referencing Ronald Reagan. It turns my stomach.

Ronald Reagan wouldn’t give either of these shysters the time of day. He’d figure their game out in an instant, and wonder what the hell happened to the Republican Party.

I see you haven’t made any comments about Hillary wearing an earpiece during her Forum last night. It’s kinda funny watching her move her arms and hands in synch with whatever is being said in the earpiece instead of in sync with what she’s saying. Wonder who she had answering her questions for her? Of course earpieces are not allowed for debates (yes, this was only a forum) Her hair will probably cover her ears better during the debates.

@Greg:

Facts are a bitch, aren’t they?

Yeah, and facts ABOUT the bitch are troubling, aren’t they?

Mills’ classified emails to Clinton Foundation to help Bill get speaking engagements
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bill-clinton-speech-congo-north-korea/2015/08/28/id/672396/

Hillary exchanging donations for favors goes back to Senate days; blocked stronger regulation of Freddie Mac (before housing bubble burst) for $100,000 donation
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/10/hillary-clintons-favors-to-foundation-donors-stret/

Russian company’s donations to Clinton foundation, Clinton speeches and approval of Russian control of uranium in US linked
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/22/nyt-clintons-failed-to-disclose-2-35m-donation-from-russian-owned-uranium-corp/

Donor contributes $100,000 to Clinton fund, gets mall project approved, federal assistance
http://www.seattletimes.com/politics/clinton-donor-benefited-from-legislation-backed-by-sen-clinton/

@Redteam, #60:

The amazing thing about her secret earpiece is how it became totally invisible in all but one photograph of the same event. She must be using super-secret stealth earpiece technology.

@Greg: What if she WAS wearing an earpiece and cheating… would that bother you?

@Greg:

her secret earpiece is how it became totally invisible in all but one photograph of the same event.

Your photo supplier (controller of trolls) is not serving you well. The video circulating on Facebook, she is wearing earpiece during entire video. A replay from Megyn Kelly’s show last night also shows earpiece. Your troll payer needs to help you out a little better, your struggling to make it up as you go along is working about as well as her making it up is working for her.

@Greg: My hat is off to you–you more than hold your own against these far right Trumpeteers. Unfortunately you are also backing a badly flawed candidate.
I’m with a substantial percentage of American voters that can’t stomach DT OR HRC.

@Greg: The earring could be a device…what r they gonna say hey lady lose the jewelry? lol

@Richard Wheeler: You continue to lie about who you support. A leopard can’t change his spots. You voted for Slick and Obozo, you’ll stick with the liberals. No way do you not vote Dim.

Make a prediction RW, does the whole Seahawk team sit out the anthem Sunday, or are most of them Americans?

My prediction: They stand for the anthem.

Another prediction: Kaepernick won’t be on the 49’s team on the 1st of November.

@Redteam: At least 25% Repubs won’t vote for Trump. About 15-20% of Dems won’t vote for Hillary—I’ve got plenty of company.
Why wouldn’t the Seahawks stand? Kaps status on Nov. I depends on how he plays in Sept. and Oct.–obvious.
Niners problem isn’t Kap–it’s there foolish decision to let Harbaugh go.

@ea: ea? you new? never seen your label before.
You a paid troll? Whole bunch been showing up for the election, AJ is the only one still here at present. They don’t last long.

About 15-20% of Dems won’t vote for Hillary—I’ve got plenty of company.

You’re very optimistic. After Hillary fails to show up for debate, she’s not going to have a large contingent.

Why wouldn’t the Seahawks stand?

because they’ve all said that they would act as a team. Their team leader Russell Wilson said he won’t disrespect the flag. They’ll stand with Wilson, as they should.

Kaps status on Nov. I depends on how he plays in Sept. and Oct.–obvious.

Nope, he will play very little during that time. Team won’t be happy to keep him after him showing his ass to the world.

Niners problem isn’t Kap–it’s there foolish decision to let Harbaugh go.

I doubt they ‘chose’ to let him go.

@Redteam: ea Short for ea—-sy
Seahawks haven’t been the same since “the genius” in S.B. called a pass on 3rd and goal from the one and left the best running back in the league holding his jock.
Niners ownership thought they could win without the demanding Harbaugh—huge mistake.

@Richard Wheeler:

ea Short for ea—-sy

hmmm, I had it as ‘extracurricular activity’. As in ‘paid troll’.

Seahawks haven’t been the same since “the genius” called a pass on 3rd and goal in S.B.from the one and left the best running back in the league holding his jock

Tho I like Russell Wilson just fine, I sure don’t care for Pete Carroll. (the genius?) and I don’t much care for the Seahawks, lets say I was rooting for Broncos to win SB last year.
Great ending to Broncos/Panthers game tonight. Might be last game I watch if Seattle sits for anthem.

I don’t think Harbaugh leaving SF was their idea, I think he thought Michigan was heaven and he was ready.

@Redteam: Greg fails to understand that knowing something and having the ability to do something about it is quite different, nut then Greg has always been all talk all of his life.

@Richard Wheeler, #65:

As you know, sir, one must always choose the lesser of two weevils.

I think the closeness of the match might be getting to the point where the third party option could put Mr. Putin’s Choice in the Oval Office. If the gap were a lot wider, I might consider it myself. My own first choice was Joe Biden—a man who doesn’t require a porter to carry the baggage.

@Greg: Biden’s position as court jester suits him just fine. It’s what he’s best equipped for.

@Bill:

It’s what he’s best equipped for.

True, but just barely.