Legal summaries of Clintonian troubles


"Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.

James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic. "  Huffington Post Archive


"Despite being a mostly liberal Democrat and a Hillary admirer, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and her aides not only violated numerous federal criminal statutes, but may have conducted a cover up to hide incriminating evidence – the likes of which forced Richard Nixon to resign as President. This article was intended to be a quick, digestable piece to help everyone get caught up on the scandal, but I really had no idea how complex this issue was. Here is the takeaway – I believe the FBI will refer Hillary Clinton for indictment for a violation of Section 1924 and Section 793 of Title 18 US Criminal Code dealing with deletion, retention and transmission of classified documents. If prosecuted and convicted, the punishment would be some combination of a fine, a year in prison or 10 years in prison. The implications for the Presidential race will be discussed.

While you’re taking that in, you’ll be happy to know the underlying controversy surrounds an issue we couldn’t possibly be more tired of hearing about – the 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. I’ll break it to you now, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but she actually had something to hide. And there is proof."


IMO despite my endless kvetching and bitching in re the Clinton Capers you all still don't seem to have enough information.  Here is more of it than you probably have time to read.  Two things.  1.  The Huff Post article was pulled off line by the management there almost as soon as it was posted.  2.  The really long piece was written by a college student.

This entry was posted in As The Borg Turns, Current Affairs, Justice, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Legal summaries of Clintonian troubles

  1. steve says:

    I seriously doubt that Clinton will be indicted under the RICO statutes, although the Clinton Foundation as a criminal enterprise has a nice ring to it.
    I have read both those articles, the first of which I thought was breathlessly overblown and I was skeptical about the second one by the college student given his lack of experience, expertise, or sources.
    I hope she is indicted if the evidence presents itself, but I tend to agree with you Colonel, that the level of speculation hasn’t been particularly informative, with some exceptions.

  2. Jackrabbit says:

    Clinton played fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure HER OWN communications.
    This was NOT a ‘judgment call’ on a policy issue but a deliberate choice to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself!!
    To any reasonable person, this simple fact is further evidence of Hillary’s corrupt elitism and unquestionably disqualifies her for the Presidency – whether she faces legal jeopardy for her actions for not.
    The State Dept IG report demonstrated conclusively that Hillary’s use of a private server was NOT for convenience; was NOT approved; and warning signs (of breach) were ignored.
    Do we even really need to wait for the FBI? And consider: 1) Sander’s silence; 2) artful dodges from establishment pundits/lackeys.

  3. dc says:

    The college student’s article was great: he sourced it well, and uncovered the labyrinth that underlies the Clinton’s public service and private profiteering. It’s disgusting. And, the ripped Huffington piece details how the DNC has been further corrupted by Hillary as well.
    Our entire democratic system must be overhauled. Money in politics simply must be crushed out, as well as can be — but the Supreme Court’s decisions on campaign finance stand in the way. I fear a constitutional amendment on political money is the only way to fix it properly. And that’s very difficult to accomplish, as we all know.

  4. Jackrabbit says:

    Other important links
    Charles Ortel investigation of Clinton Foundation
    Intelligence Veterans urge release of FBI information and a special prosecutor

  5. LeaNder says:

    I don’t have much knowledge or interest in the Clinton Foundation. But I have to admit, I would have loved to watch the debate below, but forgot or gave up by now. In any case it wasn’t available yet at the time.
    “CGI Conversation moderated by Fareed Zakaria, CNN host & Washington Post columnist
    Fareed Zakaria and President Clinton were joined by an array of leaders, such as Louka Katseli, Joseph Stiglitz, Gianna Angelopoulous, Prime Minister of Greece Alexis Tsipras, Prime Minister of Italy Matteo Renzi, and George Soros to discuss the current economic climate in southern Europe and solutions to its most pressing challenges.
    The conversation will be aired on Fareed Zakaria GPS at a later date.
    – See more at:
    If anyone can help me to find it. I am still interested:

  6. Bill Herschel says:

    “Before becoming Secretary of State in 2009, Hillary Clinton purchased a private email server to be installed in her home in New York.”
    = I am the government. Let them eat cake.
    You can not put a thin dime between this and the divine right of kings and queens. How many of you have email servers in your home? Have you ever thought about it? I can go on GoDaddy right now and have my own email address hosted on a GoDaddy server, or I can go to and have an email address on a triply secure server in Panama. But in my own home, guarded by the Secret Service?
    This is part and parcel with “We came, we saw, he died [giggle]”. She is beyond unfit to be President. I refer you again to Yves Smith’s article which enumerates the reasons not to vote for Hillary Clinton.

  7. Jackrabbit says:

    Hillary says that her use of a private email server was just a bad decision. But her evasions suggest otherwise: that she wanted to control the information and safeguard some of it from FOIA requests. Like her email to Chelsea after the Benghazi attacks saying that the attack was al Queda when the story that the Obama Administration was pushing at the time was “spontaneous demonstration”.
    >> The State Department “allowed” Clinton’s use of a private server
    “Allowed” is a very loose term that Clinton uses to suggest “approved”. But the State Dept IG Report demolishes this evasion. Dept policy was against private servers – even if their use might have been legal – AND several people that raised questions were told not to speak of Clinton’s server.
    >> Used for convenience
    Server troubles, communications difficulties, and internal friction indicate that this excuse is bogus. She didn’t even have the ‘convenience’ of a State Dept account that she could use for official business.
    >> Other Secretaries of State did the same thing
    No even close. Colin Powell used a personal email account, not a personal server, and only for a limited time/in a limited capacity.
    >> No harm, no foul: no evidence of harm to National Security
    No evidence of harm is necessary. Mishandling is illegal.
    Not only was the email system not secure from hackers but she sent the email server to a company in Colorado that didn’t have a security clearance!
    >> Clinton will cooperate with investigation
    She didn’t cooperate with the State Dept Inspector General investigation and her aides walked out of an FBI interview at one point. Now Obama’s DOJ is interceding in a private lawsuit (Judicial Watch v. Hillary Clinton) to prevent/delay her being deposed.
    >> Clinton’s shifting “nothing to see here” non-answers: 1) had no classified material on server; then 2) had no information marked classified on her server; 3) had no information that was marked classified ‘at the time’ AND email reclassification abuse.
    >> Clinton turned over all “work-related” emails
    But she did so long after she was supposed to (she’s supposed to after leaving office). She did so not by reviewing emails but by searching keywords over a certain time-period. We KNOW that she missed some emails (from Sid Blumenthal). AND she (apparently) had the server ‘wiped’ to permanently eliminate what she deemed to be non-work-related emails.

  8. F5F5F5 says:

    Thanks for these articles. Quite a descent in the rabbit hole indeed.
    As a Secretary of State she was using an unsecured mobile device to access an unsecured email server from which she transmitted defense-classified information in plain text to everybody and their uncle.
    Not only that, but her communications could be intercepted, and her Blackberry could be turned into a live recording device anywhere in the US and anywhere else in the world, at any time.
    Any corporate employee could be sacked, and any public servant could be sacked and jailed for this. Anywhere.
    I was waiting for the final nominations for the mud-slinging to begin (Trump’s alleged mob connections, Hillary’s alleged proclivities, etc), but it looks like plain old reality is catching up.

  9. HankP says:

    Here’s a take on the author that may make you question his assertions –
    And from Snopes –
    and an interview –
    I personally would not be depending on this guy as a source, but maybe that’s just me.

  10. HankP says:

    Also, as to the second guy, if you actually click through some of his links they are not proof, just opinion. For example, somewhere in there is a link “Clinton will soon be indicted” which goes to … Tom Delay. Pretty sure he’s not hooked in to the investigation.

  11. Jack says:

    It seems that Sid Blumenthal is intimately tied to the Borg Queen’s potential obstruction of justice.
    It also seems that the college students’ lengthy write-up ultimately links the Saudi’s as financiers of the extremist group in Libya that killed a US ambassador as well as one of the largest funders of the Clinton Foundation.
    As several folks have noted a deep forensic investigation of the funds flows into and out of the Clinton Foundation will be revelatory. Since it may actually bring down the “House of Cards” we can be certain that every attempt will be made to keep it from the American people.
    At this point it may very well require an independent special prosecutor like the guy who prosecuted Scooter to get to the bottom of the rotten corruption between big money and big government. IMO, ain’t gonna happen!

  12. VietnamVet says:

    Thanks again. You’ve drilled right to the core problem of the corruption of the American political process. This is starting to feel like the replay of Watergate with you playing the Bob Woodward role.
    If Hillary Clinton is not indicted, the system is rotten through. A sailor is facing 10 years in jail for taking selfies aboard his submarine but not the Secretary of State for setting up a private server at home that stored top secret emails in order to avoid Freedom of Information requests, Record Keeping requirements and Congressional subpoenas.
    I doubt that even if elected Hillary Clinton would serve the whole four years; not with her war against Russia. If she is indicted, the Democrats have no one in the bullpen and Bernie Sanders is unacceptable to the corporatists. Donald Trump will be our next President. He really reminds me of Boris Yeltsin. The American Empire will end when he encircles the Capitol Building and Supreme Court with tanks and supporters to take control of all the branches of the government.

  13. Lefty_Blaker says:

    I appreciate very much you bringing this issue to the for recently. I think the combination of the two articles (although I have not read the second in detail, yet) gets to the heart of the matter in terms of why Clinton did what she did regarding the emails. She did not want it ever exposed how much she was acting as Sec of State to the satisfaction of donors to the Clinton Foundation etal. Those 30,000 “lost” emails probably had much to implicate her in such dealings. I have seen reference to this somewhere in the past weeks and will try to dig it up.
    Now there is increased scrutiny of the corruption of the Clinton Foundation both on this type of pay to play deals and the possibility that it is a big slush fund for the Clintons. Charles Ortel who is seriously investigating the Fund on accounting and other irregularities states that it has had a similar level of improper accounting as did Madoff in his operation. The Clinton Foundation was set up before all the Madoff stuff came to light and it is clear that it was set up to a similar accounting (or lack thereof) standard.
    In fact accounting improprieties were standard practice in the the huge stock market bubble that was big part of what drove the economy under him. When the bubble collapsed, so did all the companies like Global Crossing that had typical accounting improprieties (whose CEO was a major Clinton donor). I have little doubt that Clinton set up his Foundation thinking he could get away with similar lack of accounting oversight. And now hopefully this will come back to destroy him and his wife…

  14. Fred says:

    “Our entire democratic system must be overhauled.”
    Re-write the Constitution because some people currently running or holding office are corrupt? That won’t solve the lack of integrity but will ensure the elimination of individual rights within our Republic.

  15. dc says:

    I was thinking specifically of money in politics, lobbying, and related lack of conflict of interest rules with teeth. That’s a fairly large area of our democratic (meaning “one person, one vote”) system. It would take a constitutional amendment to correct it, considering the supreme court’s watering down of good governance laws.

  16. Fred,
    I couldn’t agree with you more. The system (Constitution) is not the problem. The sorry class of people we put in place to run the system are the ones screwing over the rest of us. If there was an easy fix, we would have implemented it. It’s going to take a lot of heavy thinking and hard work to right this ship.

  17. K says:

    The pain you feel now must be profound.
    Thank you, Colonel, for sticking with this.

  18. r whitman says:

    The general population views Hillary’s email scandal as her using the wrong filing cabinet. We political junkies tend to overthink this and magnify what amounts to a minor matter. She is just another politician trying to control the record of her history while in office.

  19. Haralambos says:

    This is only tangentially relevant to this thread but of possible interest to many here. The BBC had a report up tonight on HC’s Memorial Day speech. The BBC analyst billed it as her attempt to show why she was, in effect, the best candidate to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States. The media misunderstanding of who or what the “Commander-in-Chief” commands is disappointing, especially on the BBC. Bush the Decider’s legacy lives on.

  20. GulfCoastPirate says:

    “How many of you have email servers in your home?”
    I do. Of course, I build email servers for others so it also functions as a test lab of sorts. However, it’s certainly not unheard of for people to have their own servers (especially small businesses which are sometimes located in homes).
    While you may be able to do that with GoDaddy now you certainly couldn’t 8 or 10 years ago. What you can do now is irrelevant to what Clinton did then.
    PS – Not a Clinton fan. Just pointing out some facts which seem to get overlooked here quite a bit as many people seem to have the same attitude as you.

  21. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Jackrabbit wrote: “But her evasions suggest otherwise: that she wanted to control the information and safeguard some of it from FOIA requests.’

  22. turcopolier says:

    One of the things I like about HC is that she generally states a distinction between the separate functions of President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. The US as a country has not a “Commander in Chief.” We do not have an emperor or empress. if we did I would be silent in honor of my oath as and officer. pl

  23. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Jackrabbit wrote: “Not only was the email system not secure from hackers but she sent the email server to a company in Colorado that didn’t have a security clearance!”
    This is indeed strange.

  24. turcopolier says:

    You build private servers? What do you charge and would that be better than something off the shelf? pl

  25. turcopolier says:

    r Whitman
    I absolutely disagree with your assertion that HC’s behavior with regard to national security information is a minor matter. IMO there are a number of probable major felonies involved both involving her cavalier treatment of the law on information security and the character of the CGI. pl

  26. turcopolier says:

    SWMBO says that she does not know what I like best about roses. is it the blooms or the thorns? My God how I suffer! pl

  27. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Microsoft used to sell a product called the Small Business Server. It was a Windows server with crimped versions of Exchange and SQL Server (with a few other capabilities) built in. People could run these smaller versions out of small offices and homes so it certainly wasn’t unusual in those days for those types of systems to be around. Whether her motives were pure or not I can’t say but if you want to convict her simply because she happened to have one of these systems which seem unusual to you then you are going to fail.

  28. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Yes although not as many as in the past. Getting too old and they are getting to be a commodity like regular PC’s. I still manage quite a few though including Exchange. They are not as expensive as what you would think. For a small office setting you can get a good machine built for around $2500 and then go up from there according to CPU size and number, RAM, disk space, etc. The software is separate but even Microsoft is semi-reasonable these days.
    I’ve bought a couple from these guys in the last couple of years so I wouldn’t have to do it myself and they do a good job. You can see how they have become a regular commodity now.
    In the old days I thought the machines we built were certainly better than what you could get from an HP or Dell. Mostly because you could control the hardware that went into them and the big boys put a huge premium on their servers for maintenance.

  29. While the “truth” may well out I doubt it. HRC and the Donald represent what a largely corrupt and self-dealing political elite have led to at this point in american history.
    I have no doubt that pardons may well issue yet for one or both. Therefore it is important to make clear what crimes are alleged and whether they rise to high crimes and misdemeanors.
    The demand for resolute leaders with superb self control rings throughout history. Neither HRC or the Donald qualify.
    BTW the Donald’s tax returns will end his candidacy IMO.

  30. Bobo says:

    Give HRC respect for what she has achieved in life. She has been through a lot and fought for everything she has attained and knows the ins and outs of government better than most. In this situation she rolled the dice as she knew the plus’s & minus’s of her actions in attempting to avoid FOIA requests. That is all this is. Now as history has shown us the manner in how one obscures the facts is always what catchs up to them.
    Now the only facts here will be laid out by the FBI to the Justice Department, which I believe has already occurred, and she will be provided the opportunity to explain what they already know. She has a first class lawyer who I’m sure has been heavily involved from the beginning and what better time to lay this problem out in public than early summer so she can get this behind her and off to the election. I do believe she will plead to a Misdemeanor. So within the next few weeks we will all know the facts as remember nobody in Washington works in July or August except us peons.

  31. turcopolier says:

    “That is all this is” No. There are matters of major felony violations in this. pl

  32. dc says:

    The system (as it currently exists) and the constitution are two separate situations. The constitution describes a system but our elected officials and appointed SC Judges, over time, have screwed up the system as it has become practically manifest. Because of Stare Decisis, new SC Judges will have a difficult if not impossible time correcting prior Judges’ “interpretation” of the Constitution and (not to be ignored) the language of legislation concerning political speech. It will take at least one constitutional amendment to make clear the body politic’s wish with respect to how the original language of the constitution is to be interpreted and implemented. Regardless, in short, I think we agree we are screwed.

  33. Kooshy says:

    Colonel for many years, (more than 20) we had a private server ( Dell) for our small business, but this past Jan, I switched, after I realized cost of upgrading HW and SW is more than subscribed air based sersver services. IMO like the movies we now watch, eventually everything will be cloud based and hosted remotley, better and possibly cheaper to have a cloud host server than constantly upgrade with this rapid technology change environment we are in.

  34. Walker says:

    What the “college student’s lengthy write-up” suggests is that some Saudis, not the Saudis, funded the people who attacked the embassy.
    Misleadingly, he starts by describing the alleged funders as “Saudi Arabia” before saying later:
    “this leaked email does not say that the Saudi Arabian government is directly responsible for funding the terrorists, it says that ‘Sunni Islamists’ are.”

  35. Jack says:

    I don’t believe anyone is suggesting an indictment for having a private email server. Anyone including the Borg Queen is entitled to have their own private email server. As you note many small businesses and individual citizens do.
    The question on the table is did she have authorization to use such private email server to conduct highly classified government business and in using such private email server did she violate the confidentiality agreement that she signed?
    The other questions relate to obstruction of justice, like did she handover all the emails pertaining to goverment business when it was requested by the government? It seems there was a specific email from Sid Blumenthal that was not delivered as an example. This could be determined by the screen capture of Blumenthal’s email inbox by the hacker Guccifer who also claims to have hacked her email server.
    The last question that the email server helps inform is what if any quid pro quo’s were there relative to the Clinton Foundation and was it truly a charitable organization or a slush fund.

  36. SAC Brat says:

    I believe Yves Smith’s blog has referred to this task as “Cleaning the Augean stables.”
    If it wasn’t for this website and her’s I think my compass would never point to anything, I’d be lacking a North Star. Her website has been trying to keep track of this crap just like here. Some people think this is important.

  37. Edward Amame says:

    From Snopes on the Huffington Post thing:
    WHAT’S TRUE: Frank Huguenaud published an unvetted article on Huffington Post’s Contributor platform claiming Hillary Clinton would be indicted on racketeering charges, an article that was soon removed from the site.
    WHAT’S FALSE: No one else has reported on anything similar Huguenaud’s claims, and his article provided no citations nor any credible information suggesting there was any truth to his claims.

  38. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Apparently those running on the Libertarian ticket don’t think so.

  39. GulfCoastPirate says:

    First of all, if this is a place for intelligent discussion why are terms like ‘Borg Queen’ still thrown around with respect to anyone. Couldn’t you have just as easily written ‘Mrs. Clinton’?
    Jack wrote: ‘The question on the table is did she have authorization to use such private email server to conduct highly classified government business and in using such private email server did she violate the confidentiality agreement that she signed?’
    So she needed authorization to do this? Says who? Is there a law somewhere that says she has to ask? I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know but I’d bet the answer is no.
    Then Jack wrote: ‘ the email server helps inform is what if any quid pro quo’s were there relative to the Clinton Foundation and was it truly a charitable organization or a slush fund.’
    C’mon. After all these years dealing with the right wing you don’t think the Clinton’s knew the difference even if they intended it to be a slush fund?

  40. Mark Logan says:

    No kidding. I struggle with the concept of prosecutor’s discretion and can’t even get past that. I’m not even ready to chuck that in the trash heap, because sometimes “…the law is an ass.” -Dickens (IIRC).
    Seems to me to be the key in this. My WAG is the deciding factor will be the damage done. If it becomes known that her foolish sloppiness in the e-mail system resulted in something important being leaked then Justice will have no choice, but Darrel Issa is very wrong about them having no choice now. They had a choice over torture, they have a choice over this. Hell, they even have a choice over Trump University. That’s currently just a civil suit and fraud is a criminal offense. Probable cause exists on that one too, big time.
    Perhaps it is good for Justice, which is unavoidably tainted by political appointments, to abstain from things which affect political races whenever possible, nauseating as that may be. And perhaps not…

  41. turcopolier says:

    Has “Borg” become pejorative? pl

  42. Dubhaltach says:

    How many of you have email servers in your home?
    I do. Two of them. One for my family and myself and one for a charity I help. The charity’s server is also a web server and a database server.
    Having your own email server is neither particularly exotic nor particularly expensive.

  43. jld says:

    Neither HRC or the Donald qualify.

    Likely, so… where does the problem come from?

  44. LeaNder says:

    I vaguely agree with you concerning the sources. Huguenard, didn’t feel like someone deserving my attention. Slightly arrogant, I know. But thanks, I didn’t take a closer look. Maybe will now. 😉
    Chetan Hebbale’s effort feels a bit like some type of initial brainstorming. Maybe he is too obsessed with “addressing questions” he feels may be asked. On the other hand. Easy to see it may not be so easy to wrap the story up:
    “This is why I’ve painstakingly written close to 20 pages to explain (and even litigate) these positions, and address every potential question you may ask.”
    Might have been better to start with opposing legal positions, since he also starts with the legal issues.
    Without having taken a look at the story, apart from it surfacing here. I still find the use of private mail in public office pretty puzzling. Joseph diGenova calls it “the original sin” … (one of his links)
    I have and had from the very, very start a real hard time to wrap my head around that decision. But I find it equally puzzling that she got so much support in doing it.
    And this shows up as link in the larger context:
    Ok concerning “the original sin”, I have not moved much further. Yet? 😉 Sins aren’t punished, and strictly he reports that Obama only closed the legal loophole post events.

  45. turcopolier says:

    ” … didn’t feel like someone deserving my attention. Slightly arrogant, I know. But thanks, I didn’t take a closer look. Maybe will now…” What’s the expression? “Ready, Fire, Aim!” pl

  46. LeaNder says:

    Bad editing, I agree. … 20 pages need more attention then one.
    It may have helped to work with more clear subdivisions. And from a reader’s perspective top links to chapters.

  47. turcopolier says:

    What is it you do for a living? Edit? pl

  48. SST prompts me to think of “where we are” and “where we are going” as a country.
    The political elite [mostly lawyers with failed or failing practices largely due to technology] have become even more avaricious than usual. Not just for themselves but for their posterity.
    And while never involved personally or by training with the criminal justice system [and as an agency lawyer who assisted in referral to a dozen appointed officials to the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division of DoJ (n.B. one of those referrals I opposed and a non-pros letter back from DoJ in 3 days) not one of the cases were considered adequate to prosecute. Most of that time a roommate fro Law School days headed that section.] I have studied HRC case as known by me and public and the Donald’s and here is what I have concluded.
    The Criminal Justice system has largely failed here and will continue to do so. White collar crime and political crime not well adjudicated and won’t be. Why? Prosecutorial discretion and the courts have uniformly refused to look behind that theory.
    So where does this leave US?
    IMO the Presidential election could well go to the House of Representatives with neither HRC or Trump getting the 270 Electoral votes needed to win the Presidency.
    And it appears the downstream candidates and races will be drastically impacted by the coat tails or lack thereof of HRC and the Donald.
    So it its not impossible for both House and Senate control [effective control?] to be impacted.
    The House impeaches for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors’ and the Senate tries. Based on my long years and Washington experience (I witnessed two U.S. Senators out carousing with prostitutes at a bar called Julies in Georgetown while I was there having an under-age beer [under 18] at the time) IMO the liklihood is that if elected HRC or the Donald could be impeached by a House that would like to repair its reputation by finding more than a semen stained dress as a “High Crime and Misdemeanor”.
    IMO this election is now about which elected candidate gets Impeached whether or not convicted.

  49. Haralambos says:

    Yves Smith has a report on this issue here:
    I think it provides a great deal of information on the issues, background and some links of possible interest to folks reading and commenting on this thread.

  50. LeaNder says:

    Lefty Blaker, Blaker is a word I learned in the process, thanks anyway, Charles Ortel seems to be doing a good job on the foundation.
    But from the top of my head: how do you read Speaker’s Endowment versus Endowment more generally as financial term?
    Charles Orton, Clinton Foundation:
    … and now I ponder about what has left traces, other then triggering memorytraces, from his linked report

  51. LeaNder says:

    No, never did. But occasionally recognized that it may make sense. Especially when some people sent out matters without paying attention. Basic rule: we seem to recognize other people’s mistakes a lot better then our own. On first sight … Maybe since we didn’t write them and our heads are always somewhat ahead? Random choice, admittedly. Inviting anyone’s less polite assumptions here.
    Full discovery. A Cologne women once told me she had done it for a big German publishing firm, I made the big mistake to hire her for a proofreading a translation I did. All she told me was what the writer should have written instead. … I met her in post grad studies. …
    I am retired now. And changed my mind concerning the first author. Full discovery, I had no big interest in following the reasoning along the links given above.

  52. turcopolier says:

    “I had no big interest in following the reasoning along the links given above.” We Americans need to know the extent of HC’s legal and criminal liabilities BEFORE we elect her. pl

  53. jsn says:

    The Libertarian Party has been funded by the Koch’s since they ran John Anderson against Reagan in 1980.
    Recently, one of the Koch brothers came out in favor of Hillary because he thought she would be more able to sell the Libertarian policies he prefers.
    This is in recognition that Obama eliminated all resistance within the Dem party to all the things Dems thought were terrible when Bush 2 did them.

  54. jsn says:

    Also, the laws for security of classified material under which a Secretary of State are different from what Weld is familiar with: gross negligence in miss-handling classified material does not require demonstration of intent to be a felony punishable by 10 years in the can.

  55. GulfCoastPirate says:

    It depends on the context in which it is used and I would say some around here certainly use it that way.

  56. GulfCoastPirate says:

    That’s interesting. I did not know that.

  57. LeaNder says:

    ready, aim, fire*
    No, you gotta teach me to handle the respective tools first. Limited time accompanied with a vague feeling I should be doing something else anyway? Apart maybe … Ok, I’ll reflect on that. 😉
    * … yes, I first fired associatively around here … I am a pessimist after all.

  58. Origin says:

    “While you may be able to do that with GoDaddy now you certainly couldn’t 8 or 10 years ago.”
    Not so. Since around the time Windows NT came out in the late 1990s and probably much earlier, just about anyone who wished could have set up their own email server and still can. All that is needed is a static IP address and a domain name set-up with the proper MX records and an ordinary PC running Linux or Windows. No great amount of technical knowledge is needed. I used to have one, but got lazy and deferred to others to do it for me.
    When I had my own email server, I found it quite useful because it gave me much more control over the email. While there is all of this hullabaloo over the server, there is not really any real reason other than general kvetching why Clinton should not have had her own server for her non-governmental and non-secret correspondence.
    What is possibly wrong is that she and her cohorts did not use good judgment in what they sent over the private server. That is another matter entirely.

  59. Origin says:

    I moved my email from my server to the cloud for much the same reason Kooshy. The time-cost of maintaining the server much exceeded the cloud server cost and simplified my life by relieving me of the task of watching it and managing the upgrades.
    However, if I had a special task that justified the effort, the old system could easily be resurrected without any significant expenditure. Mail servers are just not a difficult thing to set-up. They just have to be watched to make sure they are secure and working properly.

  60. different clue says:

    I thought John Anderson was running against Carter.

  61. Jack says:

    GCP:”Couldn’t you have just as easily written ‘Mrs. Clinton’?”. My.My.My Little PCness is offended. Ok. I’ll call her Crooked Hillary. That’s a more apt moniker.
    GCP:”So she needed authorization to do this? Says who?”. Does your Democrat partisanship drive you to argue points you have no clue about? Have you read the recent State Department IG report?
    GCP:”don’t think the Clinton’s knew the difference even if they intended it to be a slush fund?”. Well, it seems they didn’t care. Like Bill playing with an intern right in the Oval Office. What do you call that? Arrogance?

  62. robt willmann says:

    When you say — “White collar crime and political crime not well adjudicated and won’t be. Why? Prosecutorial discretion and the courts have uniformly refused to look behind that theory” — I think that is exactly right. The general public is starting to learn this election season that the private political parties, Democratic and Republican, are set up with rules for delegates that minimimize the impact of primary voting, plus, the party’s rules for the primary can be changed at most any time!
    With Hillary’s e-mail problem, the public is going to learn (to its dismay) about “prosecutorial discretion”. No criminal case goes forward unless a formal written charge is filed in the proper court, and the only person who can do that is a lawyer authorized to do so. And in the federal system, the prosecuting attorney also controls the grand jury and thus any indictments. The Attorney General or a U.S. Attorney can refuse to prosecute any case, no matter how solid or ugly. As you point out, appellate courts have stayed away from limiting prosecutorial discretion.
    The federal Independent Counsel law, which expired in 1999, tried to remedy the problem of some situations not being investigated for political reasons or a conflict of interest. It was quite limited itself, but it was too much for the politicians. An article about the history of that law is here–
    Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra case, whom I always liked, gave an informative press conference when he issued his report in 1994–
    A possible issue in the Hillary Clinton e-mail case is the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), with which I think you are very familiar. But Hillary might try to say the law does not apply!

  63. turcopolier says:

    I said “ready, fire, aim.” pl

  64. Mark Logan says:

    robt Willman,
    I agree, and would add it wouldn’t be surprising if the ghost of Karl Rove’s attempt to use DA’s to harass political opponents haunts the offices of Justice and will for some time to come. I boldly predict there will be no indictments of Presidential candidates until they are no longer candidates.
    May the Gods make a fool out of me…

  65. Tyler says:

    When you get done language policing maybe you can find someone to hold your purse while you faint.

  66. Tyler says:

    Snopes is well known to be a cover up outfit for progs run by two Democratic operatives who pull their “research” from Wikipedia. Try harder to muddle the waters.

  67. GulfCoastPirate says:

    Will you do it for me?

  68. turcopolier says:

    GCP & Tyler
    Stop the identity politics crap. A warning. pl

  69. HankP says:

    LeaNder –
    HRC may very well be indicted, I’m not a lawyer or intelligence specialist. I’m just remembering the dozens of times I’ve read that the Clintons were “about to be indicted” for any number of things, which never turned out to happen. So when I see assertions without proof, or a lot of Ifs, I tend to think that there really isn’t something there. At some point one has to look at a repeated pattern over decades and try to learn something from it.

  70. Edward Amame says:

    According to FactCheck, the two people who run Snopes are David and Barbara Mikkelson. She’s a Canadian citizen, he’s an independent who was once registered as a Republican. Who is the source for your claim?
    What Snopes claims are you refuting? That the article was unvetted and removed from HuffPo? What other news orgs are reporting on anything similar to Huguenaud’s claims?

Comments are closed.