Home | About | Donate

Hillary Clinton’s Damning Emails


#27

More important than Hillary’s Emails, is the Emails of Congress and other members of our government who were monitored. As Ray McGovern pointed out, If they had the goods on Hillary they could just sit on them, and if she was elected President they could use them to blackmail her into doing their biding. This has been done many times before.J Edgar Hoover kept his job through 5 presidents by having a folder on all of them, with damaging and criminal evidence. He let all five presidents know what he had, and promised that none of it would ever get out. This is a petty case of blackmail to keep ones job. Since before 9/11 our government has been spying on everybody. Why were there little concerns for a good investigation of 9/11? Why did Congress so overwhelmingly support two illegal, and criminal wars. When the governments torture programs were exposed, why did so many good people in Congress, take impeachment off the table? Some may have feared getting Anthraxed. Some may have feared being hit by a bus, and others may have had concerns about their jobs, their families, or their being prosecuted for criminal wrong doing. If they have a full copy of Hillary’s server,which they most likely do. it would be interesting to see what Emails she deleted.


#28

Good piece, but it would have been more informative if it had cited a few of the federal laws that Mrs. Clinton has clearly violated:

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally: “*** (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, *** willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information “*** (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, *** or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

Regarding 18 U.S. Code § 793(f), the President has already said Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information “exhibited carelessness.” Per the Oxford Online Dictionary, “carelessness” and “negligence” are synonymous, and negligence is the standard of GUILT in 18 U.S. Code § 793(f).

Regarding 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b), “removes” and/or “conceals” applies to sending to or maintaining government records at a non-governmental location (such as Mrs. Clinton’s basement email server), where they were NOT located when the State Department attempted to respond to FOIA requests. Also, private citizens are NOT allowed to possess government records, and Mrs. Clinton was required to return ALL government records in her possession to the government BEFORE she left the State Department, just as a corporate executive has to return corporate records to a corporation before leaving a corporate job — because the records belong to the corporation, not the executive.


#29

Click Reply immediately after the original post (the one-paragraph introduction at the top of the Comments section).


#30

The woman is nearly 70. I doubt that she’s drunk… more like EXHAUSTED. These campaign circuits are no less demanding than Rock Stars during 50-city tours in 30 days.


#31

Thanks — I guess I sort of figured that out eventually. Nice of you to offer help. It says a lot for the people here.


#33

Concerning your reference to Ford’s pardon of Nixon prior to being charged, tried, or convicted: It is my understanding that, while the president has the power to pardon, the only legal authority regarding the power to pardon PRIOR to being charged or tried or convicted of a crime is the Supreme Court ruling, Ex parte Garland, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 333 333 (1866).

The syllabus of the Court contains item 9 directed to the scope of the power to pardon:

“9. The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment. The power is not subject to legislative control.”

It’s noteworthy that this was an “ex parte” decision, which means that the Court reached its decision WITHOUT either hearing or considering opposing arguments associated with this interpretation of the power to pardon. I believe it might be easily overturned if brought before the Supreme Court again, this time WITH opposing arguments pointing out, for instance, that one purpose of public trial is to publically establish the FACTS regarding the conduct of the defendant. This would be particularly important in the case of a government official. As Justice Brandeis stated in his dissenting opinion in OLMSTEAD v. UNITED STATES 277 U.S. 438 (1928):

“*** Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. ***”

I believe it’s also noteworthy that the Court’s decision in Ex parte Garland is from 1866 — the period just after the Civil War and the assassination of Lincoln — and the US was more interested in healing the nation and putting the Civil War behind it than in re-litigating the Civil War by putting on trial every person that might be charge with an offense for having participated in the War.

Summary: If Obama were to pardon Clinton prior to trial and conviction, I would assume MANY would oppose that pardon and challenge it in court, including re-visitation of Ex parte Garland, this time NOT ex parte but with opposing arguments.


#35

This is the latest ‘help hillary’ strategy: Democrats! Stop Parroting GOP Lies That Hillary Clinton Is Dishonest! (Jill Abramson says she’s honest so stop saying she’s not.)
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/02/stop-parroting-gop-lies-hillary-clinton-dishonest.html

The article is written by an unidentified Rmuse who offers a quote from Jill Abramson saying Hillary is 'honest and trustworthy" with absolutely no supporting evidence.

Claims she has never allowed donors to sway her vote (again no supporting facts) and blames her bad rap on the GOP and leftist Democrats.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of youtube vids documenting Hillary’s prevarications, obfuscations and 'misspoken" testimonies. She is dogged by scandal and why won’t she release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman Sachs?


#36

Yes — I believe we are in complete agreement — especially about the Watergate circumstances related to Fords pardon. I don’t know how recently (if ever) you’ve revisited Ford’s televised public announcement (I believe it’s available at the C-Span website), but it’s interesting by way of several self-contractor statements. At one point he states that his ultimate responsibility is to the nation, not his concern for Nixon’s alleged suffering(s) or that of his family — but somewhere else in the same statement, he says (as I recall — it’s been a long time) that Nixon has suffered enough.
Anyway, one thing I remember about it is that after Pardoning Nixon, Ford went golfing — I believe just to get away from the inundation of complaints about what he had just done. People complained by the thousands, or millions, but the public coverage quickly shifted to the old “and in other news” ploy. But as you say, in this Clinton case, there’s no “national nightmare” (Ford’s words) to awaken from — rather, the opposite is the case, as there will be a national nightmare if government officials are allowed to so wildly deviate from the law and not only not be held accountable, but go on to become president and have control of the Justice Department and under it, the FBI.
The people need to really not let up on holding Clinton accountable, because it’s hardly a matter of partisan politics, but has everything to do with what this country is, and what it will become.


#37

Just replied. Sorry about the typos — I’ve been at this all day, and even under the best of circumstances, I’ve never been a good proof-reader of my own writing. It’s like my brain makes the same mistakes while reading what I’ve written as I make while writing.


#40

The business about Mrs. Clinton’s intentions is the intriguing part, from a strictly legal point of view:

The president insists he doesn’t think Hillary intended to compromise national security, but intent is not an element of that particular crime. Negligence — the failure to take adequate precautions and/or failure to observe proper procedures — is how guilt is determined concerning mishandling classified information. Whether someone “intended” to cause a risk to national security is wholly irrelevant (except, perhaps, in determining the amount of the fine and/or length of the term of imprisonment):

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information “*** (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, *** or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

The President has said Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information “exhibited carelessness,” and though he carefully avoided using the legal term, “negligence,” the FACT is that “carelessness” and “negligence” are synonyms (per the Oxford Online Dictionary definition of “carelessness” and probably any other dictionary).
Although I think the author of this article may have missed it (as most writers seem to have missed it), in the interview a week or two ago with Chris Wallace, the President essentially called Mrs. Clinton GUILTY when he said she “exhibited carelessness” in handling classified material.


#41

Again, it’s like you’re reading my mind. I’ve always thought the Ford pardon of Nixon is what sent our government accelerating into lawlessness. Worst precedent imaginable. Would’a been far greater for the country, no matter how difficult, to go ahead with charging Nixon. After all, he would have had the option of pleading guilty, and then being pardoned — but they would’ve had to identify ALL of the conduct for which he pleaded guilty. The pardon was a clear attempt to circumvent the purposes of the justice system. That’s what really stunk about it. I didn’t like Nixon, but I could not have cared less whether he served time in prison. That wasn’t the point.
Nice talking to you. This was my first visit to the website. Seems like I’ll probably be back.


#43

Is this a fact?


#46

CommonDreams proprietary commenting system is a disaster. I just hunt around for a while and occasionally give up. Best of luck.


#47

Two easy predictions:

  1. Hillary will be the Democratic nominee for President.
  2. She will never be indicted for anything.

It’s called ‘pragmatism’ at work.


#48

It doesn’t take a conservative conspiracy effort to point out what a dishonest person Clinton is. She demonstrate this well enough by her own actions.


#49

I have researched and what you need to understand is that when HRC was given the position of Secretary, she had to undergo extensive training on the handling of classified materials at all levels of classification. You can go and look up the laws themselves. In the case of classified materials “intent” does not even get you off the hook. The law actually holds you responsible even if your actions were simply negligent in the handling of the materials. Obviously, the law would read this way or everyone who committed a violation would claim ignorance or negligence. She was given the training and she appears to have been arrogant and ignored it. I cannot say whether she is guilty or innocent, that is up to the powers that be. But, it is very difficult given the wording of the law to come about with a decision that does not definitely leave her and her campaign extremely vulnerable which in turn leaves the entire liberal voting population at risk. Maybe it is not so much not us doing the research as it is that certain Hillery supporters are not doing the research and just wanting to encapsulate themselves in denial to a situation that could bring about for them the kind of disappointment that you are talking about for Sanders supporters. I am a 40 year Democratic voter, but to insinuate that someone is excluded from doing wrong simply by their being a Democrat is nothing less than fantastically naive. And to believe so just because that person tells you that everything is fine is even more fantastically naive. I don’t believe that she should be running for any office until all of these investigations have been cleared up one way or the other. If it was that easy for republicans to put someone under investigation just because they wanted to, then all presidential candidates on all sides would be under investigation and that simply is not the case.


#51

She has already done all of the above. It drives me more nuts that she is getting away with all this and people are still voting for her. She has gotten away with all the voter suppression too. Dammit! Why would anyone still vote for her?
She is female? So am I but I would never ever vote for her.


#52

Check out this story titled “Hillary’s emails hacked - Russia Kremlin deciding whether to release 20000 emails hacked.” it’s a story published today (5-10-16) apparently confirming that Hillary’s emails WERE hacked despite her ongoing public denials, and it has a link to a story published 3-20-13 (I think the date was) — NEVER mentioned by the mainstream media — which actually published some of the hacked emails (LONG BEFORE HILLARY RELEASED HER EMAILS), as referenced in the first link.

I tried to just give you the links, but this comment process (severely defective on a number of levels) wouldn’t allow me to do it. Again, though, the information in these articles appears to be highly credible and contradicts Hillary’s bogus claims that her emails were never hacked (like Hillary, of all people would even know). Anyway, don’t forget:

18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally: “*** (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, *** willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information “*** (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, *** or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”


#53

By the way: If you can’t find the stories I just mentioned in my reply earlier today (5-10-16), I just posted them on my Facebook page. I think they stay there on the main page for a day or so, and after that will be available on my timeline for this date (again, 5-10-16).
I think Hillary’s about to take a tumble. I don’t see how the Justice Department can refuse to indict now, with concrete evidence of hacking of highly sensitive information that should have NEVER been on her email server and/or received through anything other than a secure government email server. But she didn’t want to do that, because she was getting info from Sid Blumenthal, and Obama had prohibited Blumenthal from being involved with the State Department.