It's hard to believe that it took until now before someone finally asked Hillary Clinton what she will do if she's indicted for breaking federal law regarding the handling of classified information. When Clinton became Secretary of State, she insisted on setting up a private e-mail server and using a private e-mail account to send and receive all of her e-mails, both government and non-government related. While she has repeatedly claimed she never sent or received classified information on her private server and e-mail account, documents released by the State Department in response to public records request released under court order have established that thousands contained classified information, including dozens that were considered top secret. Clinton reacted angrily to a question from a panelist in the Univision-sponsored debate that aired on CNN last night on whether she will drop out of the race for president if she's indicted. "Oh, for goodness . . . and it's not going to happen so I'm not going to answer that question," she tersely replied.
UPDATE: Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, who is neither Republican nor conservative, reacted strongly on his blog to Clinton's continued misrepresentations on the law concerning her use of a private e-mail server to send classified information and the complete refusal of the media to challenge her misstatements.
. . . It is bizarre that the media does not address the glaring disconnect between what Clinton is saying and what the law actually demands. SF-312 reflects the obvious standard that classified information does not have to be marked. More importantly, as President, Clinton could never allow subordinates to operate under such a ridiculous construction of the rule. It would mean that classified statements that she makes in a SCIF or in the oval office would be free to be released or discussed in unsecure forums because no one stamped her oral statements classified as they were uttered. Yet she has been asked this question dozens of times and has given the same answer with virtually no reporter raising the actual language of the federal law or the practical implications of what she is suggesting about the scope of classification laws.
I have rarely seen a major legal issue in a presidential campaign that is being discussed with so little connection to the actual laws or legal standards. I understand that politics can be a fluid and rather superficial field. However, law is based on actual statutes and standards. The disconnection between the actual law and these questions is disconcerting.
The audience-pity was a nice touch. Amazing that a bona fide criminal has orchestrated her crimes into little more than a hate campaign from the mean old Republicans.
ReplyDeleteGod save the queen ...
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteOf course this amoral, unethical, life-time liar will most likely go free. We are now a nation of men, not laws.
Evidence the absolutely chilling news that the Obama administration DOJ actually pursued discussions that to disagree could be a basis for indictment or prison.
Tell me again we do not live in a police state under an ever hardening tyranny of career politicians.
Wouldn't be an issue if she was a man. You misogynists and gay haters just spin out of control when you aren't in your tight little comfort zone. Reagan loses hundreds in an embassy attach he wasn't prepared for and you're fine with the man. Hillary loses a few good men, suddenly she's a pariah. Worthless fracking emails nobody cares about except stupid republican men looking for an excuse to trash her. No substance to "Benghazi". No substance to "email." You just like to whine. We hate the woman. We hate the woman.
ReplyDeleteIf her private server was set-up to receive and send both personal and government related E-Mails, it stands to reason that any E-Mail to Hillary's server in her capacity as SOS would be Government Business. Thus, the server would handle confidential up to Top Secret messages. Did she have a different E-Mail address for personal and the government messages???
ReplyDeleteHillary has been careful to parse her explanations as best she can. She wants to convince people that the entire E-Mail server question lands in the they are persecuting me basket. So then Hillary can claim the E-Mail issues have been settled and feign anger at the questions. Benghazi E-Mails are a different issue entirely.
You are correct the McMega-Media press has demonstrated an extreme reluctance to push the issue. Then again the McMega-Media would never have questioned Hillary on all the money she collected on speaking tours if Bernie Sanders had not brought it up.
As I have said before here do not expect the Obama DOJ to pursue this to hard.
Just another bogus scandal to wade through. All of the Secretaries of State, in the era of emails, used both Federal and personal email accounts for correspondence. Under 36CFR Chapter XII, Subchapter B, Section 1236.22(b) this was allowed with the provision that emails be archived. This regulation was amended in 2014, two years after Clinton served as Secretary of State. Secretaries Albright, Rice, Powell, and Clinton conformed as to what was allowed at the time perhaps with the exception of Powell who did not archive emails sent and received through his AOL account. Unless emails are sent as classified to begin with, it is not possible to know what determination will be made retroactively. Under GWB, Powell was given the authority to unilaterally classify his correspondence. It would even seem that Hillary was ahead of the curve by having a private server rather than having one run by AOL.
ReplyDeleteHey Gary, looks like the liberal bottom feeders finally found your site!
ReplyDeleteI'm still waiting for someone to ask her about Vince Foster. With friends like the Clintons you don't need enemies..
ReplyDeleteNo problem with angry, old, sociopaths posting either!
ReplyDelete