« Sara, the cops, Liberman, and Israel's future | Main | Erdogan's Red Line... Not! - TTG »

01 June 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

hemeantwell

For more on worries about her campaign, this article considers what is likely a White House ok'd leak by Bernstein of fear that the campaign is in "freefall."

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/06/gaius-publius-bernstein-the-white-house-is-terrified-the-clinton-campaign-is-in-freefall.html

"Bernstein: There is a huge story going on. I’ve spent part of this weekend talking to people in the White House. They are horrified at how Hillary Clinton is blowing up her own campaign."

John Minnerath

I've long thought the chickens in this mess could indeed come home to roost, but then I've been wrong too many times as I watched the powerful sleaze bags slip through the net.
Perhaps this time the Clinton machine, believing themselves untouchable, will find themselves nailed.

The Beaver

Ah, but she has her defenders amongst the elite journos because:
Hillary’s fibs or lack of candor are all about bad judgments she made on issues that will not impact the future of either my family or my country. Private email servers? Cattle futures? Goldman Sachs lectures? All really stupid, but my kids will not be harmed by those poor calls. Debate where she came out on Iraq and Libya, if you will, but those were considered judgment calls, and if you disagree don’t vote for her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opinion/politicians-and-the-lies-that-matter.html?smid=tw-tomfriedman&smtyp=cur&_r=0

When the new 21st century Boadicea gets to choose the members of her court next January, I guess those who marry up and well in the rich families won't have to worry about their progeniture going to wars.

ThePanzer

We can only hope the chickens do in fact come home to roost. She well and truly deserves to be hoist by her own petard.

Old Microbiologist

Don't forget that this material has to get out from the SCIF and onto an unsecured computer which isn't easy. Computers in a SCIF have no CD/DVD writers and all USB ports are disabled. Documents are kept either on the secure system or as hard copies kept under lock in a safe. So, taking something out requires significant effort and somebody is responible for controlling access and accountability. Every document is tracked so it is easy to determine when and by whom it was removed. Many heads will roll eventually.

Old Microbiologist

It has already been suggested at least one major intelligence operation was ruined due to her unsecured emails. So far, no damage has been suggested until now. This raises the stakes significantly. I have a secret hope Russia or China will do a major dump of the all 60,000+ emails. The other thing to consider is the original server was kept by the contractor when they migrated everything to the newer server. I suspect Team Hillary forgot about that being mostly amateurs.

turcopolier

OMB

Yup. They will have to build a large scaffold. pl

Jack

Sir

This is going to be an interesting tussle. We'll find out soon enough how politicized the FBI and DOJ are when it comes to indicting and prosecuting the high up muckety mucks.

Clearly, the Wall Street banksters, Clapper and Alexander got away. Petraeus got a slap on the wrist. I am very curious about the application of the law as it relates to the Borg Queen.

asx

I have never rooted more for the FBI in my life. FBI 2016 FTW. If they do/are allowed to do their job this is what we can hope for.


WHITE HOUSE
^
|
|
BERNIE
TRUMP HILLARY
/ \
/ \
MAD HOUSE BIG HOUSE

Charlie

Too bad we can't see the Im as opposed to email


I know I put the good stuff on im. Can't search it.

jsn

What is interesting to me is the quality of what happens next as an exemplar: either D O Justice acts on this in the same spirit they have acted on Assange, Manning, Snowden, Stirling etc, or Obama doubles down on the Patraus treatment for the elite and everyone who’s ever had a security clearance is formally notified once again that the rules only apply to little people.

For those implicated at the heart of the security establishment, either decision will have crystal clear implications. If it is the former, the National Security State lumbers on in its more or less current form which isn’t exactly great but embroils the “presumptive” nominee in a criminal investigation. If the latter, things could get very interesting as those feeling betrayed will be uniquely positioned to do something about it, particularly interesting is the prospect of spooks foreign or domestic having dirt with which to blackmail a sitting President.

Another great example of a status quo that, however you support it, sucks.

Jack

OM,

Considering that the Borg Queen has contempt for the law and information security, it would seem that the Russians and Chinese would prefer her information sieve.

Can you imagine how much information they would get about US government intentions if she is Prez?

Keith Harbaugh

Just want to mention two fairly detailed reports on the situation:

From the security viewpoint:
“Intel Vets Urge Fast Report on Clinton’s Emails”
A group of U.S. intelligence veterans is calling on President Obama
to expedite the FBI review of former Secretary of State Clinton’s alleged email security violations
so the public can assess this issue in a timely fashion.
by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
CommonDreams.org, 2016-05-24
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/24/intel-vets-urge-fast-report-clintons-emails
(I believe Colonel Lang knows something about this group.)

From the legal and political viewpoint:
“Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down”
by Dan Metcalfe
Lawnewz, 2016-05-29
http://lawnewz.com/politics/hillary-clintons-emails-now-might-finally-take-her-down/

dc

I found of particular interest the "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" letter to the President; link:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/05/24/intel-vets-urge-fast-report-clintons-emails

One may recall that Ford issued a pardon for Nixon ("the unindicted co-conspirator") while Nixon's handlers in the affair (including the burglars, of course) went to jail. I doubt the POTUS is going to pardon all of HRC's guilty staff, in this one.

Haralambos

Since no one seems to have put this up, I will for those here to comment upon and perhaps speculate about: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176147/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_america's_sinkhole_wars

Thank you, Col. Lang, for continuing your "service" in its various forms.


Cvillereader

If Hillary has done what has been suggested, I am puzzled about her motives. Was it only done for money? Or was there some underlying ideological reason for her behavior?

I can see Bill being motivated by nothing but appetite, but not so much Hillary. Since they don't appear to have a traditional marriage, I wonder on what basis each trusts the other. Mutual assured destruction?

Mishkilji

Paging Joe Biden,

HankP

I see a lot of opinions, and a lot of "what ifs", but not a lot of facts. HRC might get indicted or face serious legal problems, but I sure wouldn't bet any money on it. I get the feeling that everyone except me has forgotten all the BS leaks that have come out about all the Clinton pseudo scandals over the past 25 years or so. At some point you have to question why they never (except for the blue dress) seem to pan out.

walrus

When narcissists like Hilary fail, they cut and run very suddenly, I've seen it happen in a matter of hours. They simply break off and vanish leaving chaos behind them. My expectation is that Hilary is going to be offered a "deal" to go away, perhaps such a thing is already being negotiated by Hilary's people and the White House. Both Hilary and Obama must have briefed trusted people to think the unthinkable unless they are both pig ignorant which is obviously not the case.

Hilary in my opinion already knows that the jig is up as evidenced by her latest fall back defence; "cosi fan tutti" - everybody does it, suggesting that Bill Clinton set up and used the system and she continued the practice as well as suggesting Colin Powell and others in various administrations did exactly the same as herself. This new defence, to me, is an explicit admission of guilt.

Given that President Obama has to consider his own life after politics, I would expect him to wish to stay in the Clintons good graces. I would imagine that an agreement between Hilary and the White House would involve:

1. A graceful if hurried exit from the campaign, possibly for health reasons, and the endorsement of some other (female?) candidate.

2. Pleading guilty to the mildest misdemeanour available in the statute books, followed by a Presidential pardon.

3. The closing of investigations by the FBI.

To not do this leaves open the possibility of unfavourable comparisons of the treatment of Hilary with whistleblowers, including Snowden.

As for the feelings of the legions of Hilary supporters, well why would she care?

ISL

In deposition, U.S. Ambassador Lewis Lukens’s sworn testimony is that Clinton's server did not have a password.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-27/first-shocking-deposition-clinton-email-case-reveals-she-did-not-use-password

A tall scaffold indeed.

Walker

Well typed!

DWhite

At least she didn't wreck the economy. Until there are bankers and hedge funders indicted, I'm not worried about Hillary's supposed misdeeds.

Jackrabbit

This is the best description of the legal issues that I've seen:

https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/

It provides details that most are not aware of.

Jackrabbit

Is Bernie waiting for the FBI?

Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that 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(!!).

That alone should disqualify someone for the Presidency.

Yet, AFAIK EVEN NOW (after the State Dept IG Report) Bernie Sanders doesn't attack Clinton about her email server. Is it sufficient for Bernie to sit back and let Trump attack Hillary on the emails? Does it help him to 'unify the party' later? On both counts I would argue: NO!!!

Bernie's silence:
1) contributes to the view that the email server is just a partisan football;
2) contributes to the view that it is just a question of judgement;
3) undermines his 'man of principle' positioning;
4) undermines his argument that Clinton is a flawed candidate;
5) undermines his claim to have better judgement than Hillary (as explained above - her decision to operate a private email server is disqualifying);
6) makes a mockery of his self-proclaimed Democratic Party 'revolution'.

'Third-Way' Centrists, conservative 'blue-dog' Democrats, and DNC contributors (nearly half the Party, most of the elected representatives,and virtually all big-money backers) will not support Sanders. If Hillary is disqualified, they will find someone else to take her place. What they really care about is that Hillary beats Sanders in delegates and votes cast so that Hillary can be a King-maker if she can't be a candidate.

An FBI referral is only a first step. The DOJ will determine what charges to bring and will probably negotiate a plea agreement that is very favorable to Hillary if the evidence is compelling. Plus Hillary's team will be prepared to spin any charges (they already have much practice doing so).

Bernie's silence doesn't help him to win over the Party. By pulling punches (again!) Bernie is choosing Party over Principle. This seems to confirm that he is indeed just a sheepdog for the DNC as described here:

>> http://blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary

>> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-official-opposition

<> <> <> <> <> <>

Note: The emails are not the only 'punch' that Sanders has pulled. For example:

> Sanders could have done more to contest the black vote. Obama clearly supports Hillary and blacks have responded to that. Sanders could've been critical of Obama policies that have been adverse to black voters including: the poor economy; ineffective help against foreclosures; wall street bailouts; austerity; harsh policing - Obama never traveled to Ferguson and doesn't seem very interested in the issue.

> Sanders generally stays away from criticizing Hillary's time as Secretary of State. He prefers to focus on his domestic policies like free tuition.

turcopolier

KH

When McGovern started sending letters around on issues that he cared about I let my name be attached to several. I stopped allowing that a long time ago. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad