Hillary Clinton

The FBI Is Investigating Whether Hillary Clinton Violated the Espionage Act, According to Fox News

Also, lots of people think Clinton is a liar.

|

The latest spy-thriller-worthy plot point in the ongoing real-life drama over Hillary Clinton's exclusive use of a privately run email account comes via Fox News, which reports, via an anonymous source, that… 

An FBI "A-team" is leading the "extremely serious" investigation into Hillary Clinton's server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to "gathering, transmitting or losing defense information," an intelligence source told Fox News. 

The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793

A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings. The campaign's standard defense and that of Clinton is that she "never sent nor received any email that was marked classified" at the time. 

It's worth noting here that Clinton's opening bid on the email controversy, which has since been modified and updated in numerous ways as it has proven to be less than perfectly accurate, was the following quote: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material." Anyway, take the Fox News report with appropriate skepticism given the lack of clear, on the record sourcing. Even still, it's a reminder that there are lots of potential time bombs that could be hidden in the email story. 

In other Hillary Clinton email news this week: 

Her campaign has shifted its approach to questions about her email. After some awkward jokes (she loves Snapchat because the messages disappear automatically! the server was wiped…with, what, like, a cloth or something?) she's finally taking the issue seriously

Probably related: The New York Times interviewed 75 Democrats and Clinton supporters, and found that they don't think she's handling it particularly well. In particular, they don't like her jokes. Also, despite Team Clinton's outward projection of confidence that the issue is trivial and will soon disappear, the Times reports, "aides have privately told supporters that the email issue is not going away anytime soon." 

Also probably (definitely) related: This week's Quinnipiac University poll found that 61 percent of voters don't believe that Clinton is either honest or trustworthy. Indeed, for a lot of voters, the first thing that comes to mind when they're asked about her is her lies. As Politico reports

When voters were asked the first word that came to their mind about Clinton, the top three replies were indictments of her trustworthiness. The No. 1response was "liar," followed by "dishonest" and "untrustworthy." Overall, more than a third of poll respondents said their first thought about Clinton was some version of: She's a liar.

This may, I suspect, be at least partially due to the fact the she keeps saying verifiably untrue things

NEXT: Fake Profiles Part of Ashley Madison Scheme, Planned Parenthood Suing Alabama, No Free Speech on Supreme Court Plaza: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “A separate source, who also was not authorized to speak on the record, said the FBI will further determine whether Clinton should have known…”

    What laws did he break by sharing this information with the press?

    1. Exactly. The real scandal here is the leak!

      1. Same thing as with Snowden. The criminality he reported was buried under his “crime” of reporting it in the first place, and now his has to rely on Putin to avoid death, disappearance, or dungeon.

    2. This is what the progs are posting on FB. Anyone have any follow-up on this?

      http://www.politicususa.com/20…..email.html

      1. Of course there is no policy against Hillary using a private email account. What a fucking piece of fluff. The problem is not about using a private email account. My fucking gawd, how stupid do they think everyone is? The problem is about her using a private SERVER FOR OFFICIAL STATE DEPARTMENT BUSINESS! Please, someone beat these idiots a little more with the stupid stick.

        1. This is how they make it sound like she didn’t violate the espionage act when she really did. It isn’t stupid so much as it is disingenuous.

          1. You are both right. It is stupid. I thought he was saying they had no policy
            at the State Department against using a private e-mail account (to conduct State Dept. business). Which would make no sense, but could have technically been a loophole.

            But, my proggy “friends” are certainly buying it. Seems it been the republicans and the media just making stuff up, blowing it out of proportion, etc.

        2. Yeah, but the progs cloudy the water so badly that the average dilrod can’t believe FOX News can get away with jumping all over poor Hillary for having a personal email account.

        3. Not to mention sending out Top Secret information over an unsecure line.

  2. Wow – great that people are finally on to Hillary. The dedicated will STILL VOTE FOR HER. She could actually win. You know it.

    1. But she has to! It’s the only way she can pardon herself!

      1. It’s her turn to pardon herself!

    2. Everyone knew Nixon was a crook long before he even ran.

      1. I’m not sure about that.

        1. Maybe not to post-Watergate levels, but he was famously crooked even when he was VP. It’s not necessarily a deal-breaker in a politician. Not that I like Hillary or wish she were President – I just have my doubts that the scandals will impact her electability.

          1. Circle (formerly Square)|8.28.15 @ 5:48PM|#
            “Maybe not to post-Watergate levels, but he was famously crooked even when he was VP.”

            Cite?
            Not in any of the stuff I’ve read about him.

            1. Yeah. I remember him being considered shifty hence the nickname Tricky Dick

              But I don’t remember open financial crookedness.

              1. He wasn’t crooked. His pursuit of the Alger Hiss case put him in the crosshairs of the leftists for the rest of his life. Nixon was vicious and spiteful at times, but no outright crooked.

            2. Nothing scholarly – just tidbits here and there. Per Wikipedia, he’d been known as “Tricky Dick” since 1949, and of course the “Checkers” speech is legendary both for its disingenuousness and its amazing effectiveness. And in the pop culture of the late 60s, early 70s, the untrustworthiness of Nixon seems like just a generally accepted running joke, regardless of political affiliation.

              Not saying this was fair – it’s entirely possible that, per his own claims, he was no more corrupt than any other politician, but it seems he had a reputation, rightfully or not, that went way back (and didn’t seriously impact his electability).

      2. Not to this level of brazeness

        (is brazeness a word ?)

        She is almost open about it with the donations from the Keystone Pipeline group from Canada donating 2.3 MILLION to the Clinton Family Slush Fund and the donations to the same from some little podunk country that wanted to increase the approved level of arms sales from the US among others.

        1. Yes – level of braziosity can be debated. I would not draw a 1 to 1 comparison.

          My only point is that brazen criminality is not necessarily a deal-breaker in politicians, especially for partisans.

          Hell, Bill Clinton got re-elected in 1996, and I can personally attest that everyone knew that guy was a crook by that point . . .

        2. The same people who cry Kochtopus about two libertarians they never even heard of before the Harry Reid witch hunt say you need more evidence to prove Hillary did anything wrong.

          1. Well you know by their views whether or not they’re evil. Duh.

        3. I pray that she is finally brought down and put in prison for at least one of her vast multitude of crimes and villainy. She truly is pure evil.

      3. Hillary makes Nixon look like a piker.

    3. She could, no matter how serious the breach was. The only thing that would prevent her form winning with any certainty is if she were indicted before the election.

      1. ^ This. There need to be actual charges prior to the election.

      2. I disagree. I think she is beyond winning at this point. Way too many “independent” women would not support her. I really think she’s toast but she’s like the headless chicken . . . running in denial.

    4. Here’s how I look at it; if Hillary still doesn’t win, some other equally rotten, disgusting and vile creature will.

      1. yup.

  3. The question really isn’t “whether”. It’s more “how many times and how wantonly”.

    1. Keep in mind her crimes are ramping up and they’ve only sifted through 20% of the emails. Emails she reviewed and voluntarily turned over. And she’s already had enough violations in that 20% (out of the ‘good’ 50%) to warrant jail time. I doubt the remaining 80% will be any more or less kind to her.

      If the FBI can recover the deleted 31,000 emails she’s done. There’s simply no way there’s not rampant criminality in that batch, criminality that likely involves more than mishandling classified info. It wouldn’t even surprise me at this point to find out she sold classified info for donations to her slush fund.

      1. I only wish these things could land her the death penalty. Her rapist husband too.

  4. Hillary Clinton to Nation: Do Not Fuck This Up For Me

    http://www.theonion.com/articl…..for–38416

    1. If we do, no doubt, our 300 million plus deaths will be ruled suicides.

  5. whether Clinton should have known, based on the quality and detail of the material, that emails passing through her server contained classified information regardless of the markings.

    I, for one, would be interested in knowing what the applicable law is re: strict liability, negligence, and intentionality.

    The No. 1 response was “liar,”

    Maybe there is hope for humanity.

    1. Gross negligence is the standard. She easily crossed that hurdle the moment she decided to setup her own server.

    2. And use her own off-the-shelf handheld devices to access it.

      1. Why not? She knew she had already sold all the classified material for all she was going to get for it anyway. No point in expending effort guarding what’s already gone.

  6. Here’s how Obama could get some legit cred from me. Seriously:

    Announce that Hillary’s continued participation in public service has been compromised by the scandal and the investigation so far.

    Offer to pardon her, conditional upon her agreement to never seek public office or hold any public position. The pardon agreement will also contain a plea of nolo contendere, to be entered to a raft of indictments if she ever breaks her promise.

    In short: Go away, never come back, and if you do, wear that orange pantsuit, because you’re going to need it serving your time.

    1. I’d stock up on about 8 years worth of whiskey if I were you.

      1. Everybody here finds you an insufferable pain in the ass. That being said:

        That was pretty damned funny.

        1. Ain’t that the truth.

        2. +1

          Also, you forgot “unbelievably arrogant”

    2. Well, naturally, if she turns the deal down, turn the FBI loose on her.

      Tell the team investigating her (and the DOJ lawyers prosecuting her) that, for every count that she is convicted on, one of them will get a promotion. If she walks, they are all fired. If she walks on prosecutorial malfeasance of some kind, they are all fired and lose their pensions.

    3. If I thought that Obama had anyone in his administration that had the sense God gave a turnip, this is what I would hope to see. I don’t believe he does. I don’t think there is anyone in the Democrat party above the local Town Council level that has the sense to pour pee out of a boot. They have been telling each-other their fairly-tales for so long that they cannot spot reality when it’s about to bite them on the bum.

      Which is really too bad, because they have a lot of political clout, so they could conceivably go on winning elections for quite a while, while still being completely divorced from reality. Also, the Republicans are only very slightly better, and IF the Democrats implode, they aren’t going to handle being the sole remaining party well.

      In any case, we are going to see Democrats sailing straight over waterfalls for a while now. They learn s-l-o-w-l-e-y.

      1. Do you listen to Republicans talk?

        1. Tony, why would it matter to you? From your endless repetition of transparent, and moderately unintelligent Liberal Democrat talking points it’s obvious that you don’t listen to anyone to the right of Jimmy Carter. Oh, you may drop in here to exchange a little saliva-in-the-eye, but none of it makes more impression on your tiny mind than a bug does on the front facing of a running tank.

          1. Well I’m here all the time reading libertarian and crypto-conservative horseshit.

            1. Tony|8.28.15 @ 5:46PM|#
              “Well I’m here all the time reading libertarian and crypto-conservative horseshit.”

              From your posts, it’s pretty doubtful whether you can read at all.

            2. Reading and comprehending are two seperate issues.

        2. Yeah, Tony has a point.

          With the exception of a handful of people, pretty much every politician at the national level is a drooling simpleton or sociopath.

          Obama is a narcissistic bufoon. Jeb Bush is a fucking idiot. Clinton is a fucking shameless criminal who while clever, has only a sociopath’s grasp of principles (and is stupid enough to think the personal server was clever.

          For years I have been predicting that the U.S. govt would follow it’s brother the CCCP onto the ash-heap; that only the comparative strength of the U.S. economy it was parasitizing was allowing it to outlast the soviets.

          The politicians running the place is more evidence that it is a doomed and dying enterprise. Only nuts want to work within it. Some clever and unscrupulous people will act as patrons for the nuts (like the guys giving money to both HRC and Jeb) in oreder to extract rents from it. But the sane and principled are running away.

          1. it’s such a fine line between stupid and clever…

            1. +11

          2. The main problem is that they’re determined to suck the last parasitical dollars and power from it that they can, and then they will leave the rest of us to pay for it while they jet off into the sunset.

          3. pretty much every politician at the national level is a drooling simpleton . . .

            I don’t think there are very many low IQ morons on the national political level. They’re evil… amoral and evil, but they’re no idiots.

            1. Agreed. And to so underestimate people as cunning, ambitious, and dedicated as high level national politicians, is too kind as their evil is not accidental. It is deliberate, thoughtful, and planned.

    4. I am seriously surprised that this has grown to the level of an FBI investigation.

      You can bet you last dollar that Hilliary has the low down on some Obama misdeeds, probably more than he has on her.

      She could probably blow his desired legacy all to hell if he seriously fucks her.

      1. “…if he seriously fucks her.”

        An image that will haunt me…forever.

        1. That’s why Bill left it to Web Hubbel!

    5. Offer to pardon her

      Fuck that noise. He already did her a massive favor at public expense when he tossed her the department of state as a consolation prize. Bubba pocketed millions from that.

      -jcr

      1. Consolation prize? He shortened her leash.

        Can you imagine what grief she could have given him if she’d stayed in the Senate? She would have been far more powerful as Senator Clinton — the most powerful person in there with her unique ability to get press and to stick needles in his ribs with even the faintest criticism. She could have watched his entire Cabinet collapse from the safety of the Capitol building and simply acted like a member of a competing branch of government. He would have been begging her for favors once a week. Going to work for him was her biggest mistake ever.

        At this point, Obama’s legacy depends on a Democrat succeeding him in office. Would he for one moment trust the uber-narcissists and his arch-enemies, the Clintons, with that precious legacy?

        I hate to think that Obama is smart, but he might have played a long game that even the Clintons, with their decades-long plots on the White House, could not anticipate. I think the slow destruction of her campaign has begun. Obama let allow her to be indicted, and after she drops out, he’ll pardon her. His pardon will be the gravestone to her political career, and possibly to the entire Clinton machine. When Sasha and Malia’s stars eventually rise, Chelsea will be throwing fine china at the walls and screaming that they are cunts.

        1. I think you’re forgetting that she was completely ineffective in the Senate. All the rest of the Senate democrats knew that she was only there because the voters in NY wanted to console her after the Lewinsky debacle.

          -jcr

  7. No one can stop Hillary. Not the FBI, the CIA, or the PTA.

    1. What about PETA? Surely PETA can stop her?!

      1. Too busy eating tasty animals.

      2. No, no, no. PETA deals with an entirely different type of bitch…

  8. In particular, they don’t like her jokes.

    Well, she doesn’t come down to where you campaign and slap the dick out of your mouth.

  9. Say, Peter:

    I swear I saw a story that picture was taken during the Benghazi disaster. And that her initial email dump contained no emails from the day that picture was taken.

    Any way to track that down/confirm it? Because its just delicious, that she expects us to believe she didn’t send a single work email during Benghazi, but was nonetheless busy on her blackberry sending personal emails.

    1. She was looking up cat memes. She doesn’t find them amusing.

      1. She doesn’t find them amusing.

        Further evidence she’s a heartless monster!

      2. Like this?

        This one is for you, FoE.

        1. Both cats nail it, I gotta admit.

        2. Don’t talk about cats like that!

  10. An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server

    How serious could the investigation be if they’ve put Hannibal Smith, Faceman, B.A. Baracus, and Howling Mad Murdock on the case?

    Although on the plus side, if they get captured by Shrillary’s goons and locked in a shed full of tools and scrap metal they would be able to build some kick ass machine to escape without actually killing anyone despite firing hundreds of rounds of ammo.

    1. Mac: The reason that shit hasn’t been working out for us is because we are not working with our full crew! I’m the brains, [to Dennis] you’re the looks, Charlie’s the wild card, and Frank is the muscle.

      Charlie: Well, what’s Dee?

      Mac: She’s the useless chick!

      1. Nicole is Sweet Dee?

    2. You HAD to light the Episiarch signal, didn’t you?

      Oh… HI Episiarch!

      1. I love it when a plan comes together, Paul. Just like your mom.

      2. I thought the Episiarch signal was random Star Trek references.

        Paul, I’m laughing at the superior intellect.

        1. No, this is the Episiarch signal.

  11. Hillary’s minions are now putting it out there that she already has 20% of the delegates necessary to secure her nomination before the the primaries even get started. They’re trying to re-establish her inevitability to dissuade the upstarts from denying her right to the nomination. Of course, her minions did that in 2008 also, and a bunch of superdelegates eventually deserted her.

    The server scandal is peculiar since it is rare for a Clinton scandal to get traction in the MSM. Benghazi and Fast’n’Furious (there’s no way ATF was exporting illegal firearms to Mexico without the knowledge of the SoS.) were far, far worse. It almost seems that Obama wants Clinton to fail.

    1. I wish Bush would go around bragging how many superdelegates he has. I’m guessing Eric Cantor has more votes all by himself than the state of Wyoming.

      1. I think superdelegates are only used by the Democrats. It’s how the rank and file primary voters are kept from having the final say over who gets the nomination.

  12. It’s a good thing that FOX News is such a well-respected purveyor of honest journalism that we don’t have to wait around to see if its anonymously sourced story shows up on CNN so we know it’s real.

    1. My God, Jay Leno had fresher material than you do.

    2. lol faux noiz

    3. Dream all you want, but she is going down in flames and hearing you gnashing your teeth as it happens will be almost as beautiful as her flaming out.

      1. Slow down. This is Hillary we’re talking about, and Democrats voting for her. The more criminal-ey, the better.

    4. Re: Tony the Marxian,

      It’s a good thing that FOX News is such a well-respected purveyor of honest journalism that we don’t have to wait around to see if its anonymously sourced story shows up on CNN so we know it’s real.

      Nothing says honest journalism like “Find the plane in this here map!” 24/7 coverage.

    5. I know that is an attempt at sarcasm, but more people trust and respect FOX News than any other cable news network for many reasons including the fact that outlets like CNN have a habit of ignoring or whitewashing stories that are embarrassing to Democrats.

    6. FOXNEWFOXNEWSFOXNEWSFOXNEWWWWWWS

      I think it’s cute that you think CNN is somehow the way we would know if this was true. The channel that had an anchor wonder if a missing plane was swallowed by a black hole.

    7. shows up on CNN so we know it’s real

      You mean like the stories they allowed Saddam Hussein and his government to feed them?

      Tony proves yet again that we can never reach peak Derp.

  13. Hey look everyone, the retard is desperately trying to get someone to interact with it. It’s really kind of sad.

  14. What sort of cases do the FBI “B” teams investigate?

    1. Kids with dope, and dogs that need shooting.

      1. Rent boys.

        1. Watergate.

    2. Internet commenters

    3. People with questionable internet handles and avatars.

  15. ButtPlugged had better be licking those cankles harder and faster. I think he needs help. Maybe Tony and Botard have been doing their tongue exercises.

    1. Cankles . . . I just got it Calves merge with Ankles. She is such a hag.
      Am I wrong to think people shouldn’t vote for her because she looks like an over-stuffed bag of shit?

  16. This week’s Quinnipiac University poll found that 61 percent of voters don’t believe that Clinton is either honest or trustworthy.

    Next time she stops at Chipotle the cashier is going to ask to see some form of ID from her.

    The New York Times interviewed 75 Democrats and Clinton supporters, and found that they don’t think she’s handling it particularly well. In particular, they don’t like her jokes.

    Those 75 Democrats would probably start to harass a few interns just to get away from her jokes, too…

    1. “Next time she stops at Chipotle the cashier is going to ask to see some form of ID from her.”

      Thanks OM, first laugh of the day.

  17. The last appearance I saw of Hillary facing jouranlists, she had the distinct look of fear, like somenoe who’s committed a homicide and knows all too well that they are not likely going to get away with it.

    And this, this is like one of the most embarrassing things I have ever seen. Talk about someone who has been caught off guard with their pants down.

    stumbin, bumblin, stumbin…

    1. “like somenoe who’s committed a homicide and knows all too well that they are not likely going to get away with it”

      Wait – you mean *that’s* going to come back and bite her, too?

      1. +1 Vince Foster

        1. Great, now we have to -2 Vince Fosters to fix the equation!

    2. For the wife of a scandal-ridden politician who has been doing this herself personally for 15 years, the Clinton team is astonishingly incompetent at…everything. It’s scary that this is some of the top ‘talent’ government has to offer.

    3. Who’s the dude on the right?

    4. Palmieri isn’t very sharp with her communication skills.

      Let’s hope she’s quicker on her feet with other stuff pertaining to Hillary’s ‘don’t I have a right to privacy’ bull shit.

    5. The look on that woman’s face… and the disconnect of emotion between the eyes and the mouth… (the furrowed brow, the defensive panic in the eyes, and the forced smile) speaks volumes.

      nevermind the “trying to find the ‘right words’ desperation-response to every question”. If there were a good answer, it would be simple. Instead, its kind of a “jesus, i need to throw something at this that sounds good… this? …no, this? …how about this…. christ… THIS?”

      1. Hillary Clinton spox. Job duties: Sit on hot frying pan and smile. Clean up elephant dung with bare hands while wearing high heels and too-tight girdle and smile. Step into piranha-filled tank and smile.

  18. I wonder if the Ds will ever consider whether this harpy is to be trusted with high office rather than just wondering if she’s ‘electable’?

    1. Only the BernieBots

    2. Who cares if she can be trusted? You vote for the person who you think will win. Only losers vote for losers. Duh. Everyone knows this.

  19. I still think it’s bizarre that Huma Abedin, her closest aide (or “aide” if you listen to rumors), has extensive links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Her family has many links, plus she was listed as Assistant Editor with the Institute For Muslim Minority Affairs from 2002?2008, a group linked with Wahhabists and Al Qaeda. So through Hillary’s unsecured email server we’ve got Top Secret data, including TK (Keyhole satellite) imagery, that’s a hop or two away from Muslim radicals. It’s just insane.

    1. That would be some deep deep undercover.

      We want you to marry a jew and fornicate with a shriveled hag, for Islam.

      1. There’s an app for that in the Koran.

      2. Still better than being a suicide bomb, though, right?

    2. Didn’t NRO write about Hillary’s friendship to Alinsky last year? My memory is vague and the bourbon is pumping right now for me to remember details.

      1. Somebody wrote about that, yes. She was apparently a big fan.

        1. She wrote him love letters in her younger days.

    3. Well, when you’ve got an Iranian agent as co-president I guess everything else looks more sane by comparison.

  20. It gives me some small hope for humanity that #1 son, who is 20, DVR’ed “The Warriors” and insisted on watching it with me. Popcorn and beer….and, “Warrrrriorrrrrrs! Come out and playyyyyyy!”

    Hope for the future…

    1. It’s even better when you have an appreciation for how much of a fucking slog hoofing it from the upper northeast Bronx all the way down to the southwest tip of Brooklyn is. I’ve done it by train and it takes a fucking long time (probably 1.5-2 hours? Maybe a little less depending on whether you catch express trains reliably?); doing it on foot while under constant attack is…wow. If it were real, of course. But I like that they picked one of the longer feasible journeys across Greater NYC you could make as the challenge of the movie.

        1. Neat, I actually haven’t seen that. I should. Though, in looking at summaries, to be honest he could have walked from SoHo to “uptown” (that’s all they call it in the summaries) in not that long of a time. Though I suppose in 1985 that might have been more daunting, from a safety perspective, than it is now.

        2. I loved that movie.

          Maybe the best one, other than The Warriors, was The Out of Towners (the original, not the horrible Steve Martin one).

          Also, Desperately Seeking Susan could fit into this genre.

          1. OMG, I mean Taxi Driver was the best one. And Midnight Cowboy.

            1. Midnight Cowboy is so goddamn depressing. But that’s what makes it good.

              1. Requiem for a Dream. Makes Midnight Cowboy look like Undercover Brother.

              2. Midnight Cowboys left a permanent depression scar on me.

                Man.

              3. Much easier when you drive around in a 1989 Chrysler LeBaron convertible!

    2. Nerd alert:

      My pool team is called The Warriors, and we have t-shirts with a collage from the movie.

      That is all.

      1. But are you any good?

        1. The best.

            1. Yup. Anybody comes close to beating me, I just sweep their leg.

  21. Isn’t the Espionage Act one of those Wilson Administration law he used to go after critics?

    1. Yes. And the one that the Obama administration has used more times than all other presidents since Wilson combined.

  22. Bill is probably hoping she gets put away so he can move his mistress in officially. He can’t stay married to a convicted felon, after all.

  23. “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email

    I suppose she means she never sent it *to herself*… or possibly never exchanged docs with someone else on her server? (e.g. HOOOMA)

    ” There is no classified material.”

    I suppose the present tense means either, “’cause I erased that bitch” or is a philosopical statement along the lines of “There is No Spoon”, where she just magically declassified material post-facto by declaring it so.

    1. “cause I erased that bitch”.

      Well, right there is a cover up, probably a felony. And if there’s no backups of this stuff she ‘erased’, stored off site, then there’s another felony.

      1. And I’m willing to bet she lied about when she wiped her server. She had no reason to do so until she thought she’d be getting a subpoena.

  24. I’m sure this has been said before, but here’s what I don’t get:

    If she conducted *all* of her State Department email business on this private server, how can she possibly deny that she sent any classified information in any emails? Wouldn’t that require that not a single one of the State Department emails contained any classified information at all?

    1. how can she possibly deny

      Because she’s lying.

    2. That’s the one question I would ask if I were a reporter.

      I guess if I were a lying sociopath, I would answer that hey I’m just a humble grandma who don’t know much about the internets mails and all I know is all of the classified material I handled was in hard copy form only viewed and discussed at the office.

    3. Sending e-mails is not how stuff gets on your computer. It’s the receiving e-mails that does that. She didn’t deny receiving e-mail containing classified information at first, then she changed to denying she had ever sent or received any e-mails containing information marked classified. People send you an e-mail discussing classified information and you send back e-mails discussing classified information, that’s not itself classified information is it? Oh, it is? Oooops, my bad. How was I supposed to know that? Isn’t that what the stamp is for, to let me know what’s classified and what’s not? Somebody should look into who was responsible for letting me know these things. Heads should roll for dropping the ball like that. Bad things could have happened with the SoS running around not knowing what’s secret information and what’s not. When I’m elected President you can be sure there will be no doubt what government information’s secret and what’s not – it’s all going to be Top Secret. Ain’t nobody gonna know shit about what I’m up to.

      1. No, if you have a server that is hosting the email server software, both sending and receiving emails are stored on the server. There could be local copies also on your local drive, depending on how the server and clients are configured, but again, both incoming and incoming emails are stored.

        Let’s take a typical work related situation. The server that hosts the email server, will reside on a server owned and operated by the business. Copies of both incoming and outgoing emails are stored on that server. You can also store copies, or not, on your local drive. There are federal laws mandating the backup and offsite storage of emails for both private business and government business. In the case of the State Department, those laws are a lot more strict than for your average business.

        Now, consider this. Somehow or other, Hillary has circumvented federal law and was using a private email server for official State Department business. No one does anything that risky and illegal for any good reason.

        When the citizens of a country accept this level of lawlessness and corruption, they are finished as a free and prosperous society. Hello, banana republic and tin pot dictator.

        1. Well, no edit button. Correction on first paragraph. ‘Both incoming and outgoing emails are stored on the server’.

        2. No, if you have a server that is hosting the email server software, both sending and receiving emails are stored on the server

          No, not necessarily. That depends on both how the server and the client are configured. For the first few decades of email use, most servers were not set up to retain any messages.

          (For Clinton’s cell phone, it was probably set up that way, though.)

    4. And this is why HRC’s cleverness is vastly overrated. She set herself up for this fail by not even bothering to activate a state.gov account. Had she done what plenty of other crooked govt hacks have done – keep a .gov account for your legit business and an alias/private account for your shady business – she would have had plausible deniability.

      The only reason I can think of for that brazen lack of foresight is that her bubble must be gigantic – she has to think of herself as queen.

      1. Well, those who consider themselves the political ruling class have become more and more careless. They’re convinced they can get away with anything and they keep testing the waters. Never has this been more on display than during Obamas 2 terms. And the sheeple continue to be sheep. Basically, Hillary, convinced by all the things she and her hubby have survived, and further encouraged by Obama’s unprecedented reign of lawlessness is convinced that she can lie, cheat, and whatever else is necessary to win herself the crown.

      2. I think there are good reasons for what she did. If she had conducted official business on official servers, it would be easy to trace and figure out what exactly she did. By getting rid of her messages, you have to look through thousands of mailboxes on hundreds of different servers to figure out what she said and did, something that would take a long time even if someone bothered to do it.

    5. I have had a US government security clearance before. If, in the process of sending/receiving official e-mail, I were to discuss the details of pretty much anything the Secretary of State was considering or reaching a decision on (not that I was ever privy to information of that level) that would have been considered classified in and of itself.

      It is practically impossible for the SoS to send an e-mail related to work which would not be classified.

    6. “If she conducted *all* of her State Department email business on this private server, how can she possibly deny that she sent any classified information in any emails? Wouldn’t that require that not a single one of the State Department emails contained any classified information at all?”

      This. A thousand times this.

      1. She and Jack Ma exchanged yoga routines, so?

    7. What she is now saying is that she didn’t send or received email marked classified as opposed to her original statement where she stated she never sent or received classified emails. A slight change in her language albeit a very revealing one.

  25. Hillary has brazenly come a long way from making 24K a year at Rose Law Firm. Grasping might be the way to describe her–just ask former partners Jim McDougal or Vince Foster…oh, wait, they’re dead.

  26. I’ve been noticing lately on other message boards, WaPo for example, that a lot of non-conspiracy theory posters have started to question whether or not part of the reason Hillary set up this server to retain official state department emails, is that she was providing high level US government information to foreign entities, off camera, for political donations funneled through the Clinton Foundation.

    I mean if true, I don’t know if that’s a crime or not. Is that a crime?

    1. Most anything can be a crime. It all depends upon how much the enforcers dislike you and how far they are willing to stretch the law.

      1. I was thinking about Treason, that’s a low level one, right?

        1. She could commit murder on live television and get away with it. Who’s going to prosecute her? Seriously. Who?

          1. Obama, if Biden is his guy. Think about it. Also, there is no love lost between Hillary and the O. His deal with Bill will only go so far, and I can see Bill telling Obama to sell the hag down the river in exchange for some other favor.

            Don’t get me wrong, she’ll not go to prison like the serfs for committing a tiny fraction of the shit she’s gotten away with, but they will tell her to step aside, or else.

            1. Both sides have shit on the other. It’s like the Cold War; at best a couple of proxies will go down.

            2. I dunno. I doubt anything will happen. She’s a steamroller. We’ll see.

            3. Obama

              I never doubted this, but you’ve intrigued me with the possibility that Bill is making a deal with Obama behind her back.

    2. Sounds very much like a crime.

      But you know the ole Roman saying, eh?

      The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the society.

      Or something along those lines. POINT BEING – and it does make a difference Hillary – is they can ignore her outright thus further eroding the integrity of American laws or slap her with just about anything they want if they really want her.

      Look at what she did to that poor chooch who made that video that (allegedly) sparked a coordinated attack in Benghazi.

      Other than that, if you believe anything she says or defend her in any manner, you’re a fool or a stupid piece of cold cut. And cold cuts are best served cold.

      Whatever that means.

      /sips bourbon.

      1. Wow. ‘That’ thrice in a sentence. Must be a Reason record.

        /another sip.

      2. Yep. When you’ve got so many laws that it is impossible to follow them all, then anyone, literally anyone, can be prosecuted for something. Rule of law descends into rule of man. Piss off someone with connections and you will be prosecuted for something. Have the right connections and you can literally get away with murder.

    3. I doubt even she is that stupid. She’s just paranoid and a control freak.
      I think she’s got about as much chance of being elected as Perry. Clinton himself never got more than 49% of the vote and she’s just got way too much baggage. My “liberal” mother declares she’d never vote for her. In fact, she was going on about Trump the last time I saw her.
      We are witnessing the end of the Clintons in my opinion – enjoy it while it lasts.

      1. Of course as part of the deal to concede, she’d avoid prosecution. Couldn’t have one of the elite exposed in court for being a felon.

    4. If it’s a crime, but Hillary didn’t know it was a crime, then she’s innocent. Isn’t that how it works?

  27. In the rest of the country, if you know that there is a pending investigation and you destroy potential evidence, you are guilty of obstruction of justice. Even absent any subpoena.

    Yet apparently she had her server professionally wiped after clearing out any potentially embarrassing or incriminating emails.

    Anyone remember Scooter Libby? They prosecutors in that case already knew where the leak came from before they talked to him, but they still went forward with a perjury trap and prosecuted aggressively. Over an answer to a question that they claimed delayed their investigation.

    I’d say we passed that point with HRC a long, long while back. But the former FLOTUS is no Scooter Libby, so no indictments yet…. or probably ever.

    1. I know a bit about IT storage laws. Mostly because of my friends who work in the industry, several of them lawyers.

      Make no mistake, if ANY of these emails were official State Department business and they were not backed up offsite for a specific period of time, that is a crime. A very serious crime.

      The server itself is most of the problem. Shouldn’t have ever existed in the first place. All of Hilary’s State Department business should have been done on official State Department servers, and even the emails received should have been been done on specially secured devices which did not store permanent copies on that device.

      My gawd, a lot of Americans are stupid. Banana Republic here we come. Get the gatorade for the plants. Plants love electrolytes.

      1. I worked on systems that were approved for processing classified information, and I know way more than most about the whole thing. Indeed, the existence of the server itself in that capacity is a massive crime. There is no way in hell DSS (or its DoS equivalent – whatever it’s called) certified that server (and there’s a huge set of documents on exactly how to comply), and if by some miracle they had, the certification and all the paperwork would be instantly producible due to documentation requirements and she’d be in the clear.

        That nothing like that has been even suggested is enough evidence that there was never an approved information system in that house in Chappaqua. What’s going to be interesting is how this affects that hosting company in Colorado and ANY and ALL infrastructure that server touched (which is, basically, the entire internet, but practically, there apparently were some blades in a facility in New Jersey involved too).

        1. The American public has been dumbed down the the point that they are no more than sheep like creatures.

      2. Typical: politics get tough and you go shopping for luxury clothing!

  28. “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements”

    If the Obama regime is shamed into taking this to trial, that’s the statement that would hang her.

    -jcr

    1. It depends on what the meaning of “am” is.

  29. No Clinton has been able to capture 50 percent in an election. That streak will continue.

    The Clintons have never been particularly adept at elections, just luck and a cooperative media.

    1. *national election, I mean.

    2. Yeah, 1992 was kind of a perfect storm for Clinton. Republican voters were pretty disillusioned with the establishment, and some egomaniacal billionaire ran a third party campaign, allowing Clinton to be elected President with only 43% of the popular vote.

      Good thing that could never happen again.

  30. Obama really hates Hillary, doesn’t he?

    1. Still waiting for an explanation of why anyone would like her, including the MSM sycophants who are responsible for her political career.

      1. Sanjuro Tsubaki|8.29.15 @ 11:01AM|#
        “Still waiting for an explanation of why anyone would like her, including the MSM sycophants who are responsible for her political career.”
        They don’t have to like her, just ride her pants-suit-tails into a position where they have access (if they’re ‘journalists’) or power if the are politicos.
        There were plenty of folks who hated Stalin and rode to power with him regardless. Troksky for one, until he challenged Stalin.

    2. Above all, he distrusts her (and her husband and their spawn). That is why she is doomed. The only question is the extent to which he dismantles that machine, Chelsea being its quietly revving engine waiting to come online, but completely dependent on the mother switch, which Obama is twirling his fingers over as we speak.

  31. Unfortunately, voters like being lied to.

  32. If Hillary is elected President, her email problems will be over, but the country’s problems with Presidential scandals will only be beginning.

    Hillary Clinton is a crook, and she’s been a crook since the days of the Resolution Trust Corporation, at least.

    One of the Democrat’s biggest vulnerabilities is that they tend to project Obama’s charisma onto their other candidates–none of whom really have that kind of charisma. Long term, seeing Hillary Clinton in the White House might be one of the few things that can save the establishment Republicans. She’ll be so crooked and her administration so scandal ridden, people may turn to establishment Republicans for some kind of semblance of clean government–and just for that reason alone.

    George W. Bush was almost certainly elected for precisely that reason–scandal fatigue. It’ll happen again if Hillary is elected. She can ruin the Democratic Party like no one else can.

    1. I get that Obama is supposed to be charismatic, and most of the time I can kind of see that when people are said to be charismatic, but with Obama, I just don’t get it. He comes off, to me, as cold, thin-skinned, and vindictive. Pretty much the opposite of charismatic.

      It must be inner racist coming out.

      1. Obama has ‘liberal’ charisma. It’s like the emperor’s clothes. Only liberals are affected by him. The rest of us see through the bullshit that he’s an empty suit – he is an inveterate liar, narcissist, incompetent and is arrogant. He has accomplished NOTHING in his term and yet, liberals are convinced he is the second coming of Jesus. It’s a form of insanity to think the lion in the cage is cute and cuddly. Since they never go into the cage they are never disabused of their stupidity. The essence of stupidity is being unable to learn – this describes the liberal.

        1. “Keepin’ it real” is just as stupid as “acting presidential”, but voters care more about personalities than issues.

      2. I remember when Reason first covered him. He gave the keynote speech at…I think it was Kerry’s nomination convention. The reaction in the press was like they’d just found the new Michael Jackson. I remember writing in the comments at the time that these liberals in the media must never go to church–because regular church goers (especially in the South) see the same thing Obama did in that keynote ever week.

        …but they call those preachers, Charismatic.

        Charisma is a funny thing, and libertarians are probably less susceptible to it than other people. I prefer Rand Paul to Ron Paul, but, still, I think it’s generally true that Ron Paul was more charismatic than his son and would be–even if they were the same on the issues.

        When we say that Al Gore was less charismatic than Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, I don’t think we’re just talking my personal personal preferences, anyway. I suppose that charisma has something to do with instantly liking somebody, identifying with them to some extent, being willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assuming that their intentions are good despite whatever else you may have heard. I think Obama has all of that–even though I despise him.

        1. And I think Hillary Clinton has none of that. I don’t think anyone identifies with her, is willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, instantly likes her, or is willing to assume that her intentions are good despite what we know about her. Obama has gotten a lot of mileage out of his charisma–and the Democrats should be aware that Hillary isn’t going to benefit from any of that. If she’s the face of the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party is going to have a big PR problem.

          P.S. When I’m talking about charisma here, it’s part of what Virginia Postrel is writing about when she writes about “glamour”.

          I just googled this up:

          “Glamour, [Virginia Postrel] writes, should not be confused with style or beauty. It is not something people, objects or places possess, but rather something inherent in our perception. Mystery ? one of its central components ? distinguishes glamour from its close cousin, charisma, defined here as the personal magnetism that can inspire other people to follow a cause.”

          Yeah, the chances of me being willing to follow a progressive/democratic socialist like Obama are between zero and nil, but he does have that pull with a lot of people. Compared to Obama, however, Hillary Clinton has very little personal magnetism–not even with people who might agree with her.

          1. This time with the link!

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12……html?_r=0

        2. It seems weird to me that people regard Obama has having charisma. The first time I saw him I thought “sociopathic liar”. I didn’t doubt that he had the ability to influence people, I just saw that influence as primarily malevolent. It’s like recognizing a talented con man.

          Ted Bundy was handsome, “charismatic” and a mass murderer of women.

          However, Obama always struck me as a creation of someone else, a kind of malevolent Galatea with whom not just his Pygmalion, but the entire Democratic party fell in love.

          1. Yeah, charisma isn’t necessarily a good thing.

            You know who else had charisma?

  33. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.onlinejobs100.com

  34. I find it difficult to believe that the Obama administration was unaware of Clinton’s escapades. This “A Team” rhetoric sounds like Chinese opera to me. A deal will be struck at the right time and Clinton and no charges will be filed. Don’t know what the cost will be, but the winner will be the “lame duck” who’s still running the show. Illegality? Abuses of power? Transparency? What is this, 1972 or something?

    1. We may even now be underestimating the dysfunction and distrust in that administration. One of Hillary’s e-mails said something like “I heard there’s going to be a cabinet meeting, am I invited?” It’s not as if Obama ever intended from the outset to listen to a single word she said or to value her over Valerie Jarrett. She probably worked in her little hutch and occasionally phoned in, which was as much contact from her as he wanted.

  35. So, has her comments evolved from I didn’t send or receive classified emails to I didn’t send or receive emails marked classified? If true, seems like an admission that she at least received classified emails even though unmarked as such.

    1. She also said something to the effect that “The way you know something is classified is that it’s marked that way.” She can stall off public opinion with that lie for a while, but the FBI must be looking at her like she’s the crazy lady on the street corner.

    2. Yeah, and the problem with that tack is that sending unmarked classified info, ESPECIALLY if it originated from other classified sources, is also a big no-no. It means the original sender mismarked the originating email, or even worse, Hillary removed the classification before resending it.

  36. They know she broke the law. What they’re investigating is whether there’s a chance that she’ll win the election and inflict reprisals on the bureau if they admit that she’s a criminal.

    -jcr

  37. Watch her charm her way out of this. Hah, just kidding. Charm, lol.

  38. Last night’s debate was surreal when this subject came up, albeit obliquely. It’s not about e-mails, it’s about national security. As SecState she could not do her job in an unclassified environment. Even if she read classified paper documents and they were not scanned or transcribed onto her unauthorized, unsecure and unclassified private e-mail server, any discussion of classified topics would be classified. And while she could say that anything that was sourced only from State Department sources might be unclassified, NO department head or other classification authority has the authority to declassify another department or agency’s classified documents. If anyone was interested enough to file a FOIA request to the State Department (Judicial Watch, for example), it would be fairly simple for their system administrators to get a count, by classification, of all message traffic that was addressed to or from the SecState during the time she served. The nature of the SecState’s job and the number of issues and sources (every US embassy and consulate in the world), means that the 400+ classified documents that have been identified to date on her server is merely the tip of the iceberg.
    What is scary to me is that a very large portion of the electorate just blows this off as if it’s nothing because she’s Hillary (unlike GEN Petraeus and other recent mere mortals).

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.