Punish her accordingly.
Posted on 01/23/2016 12:05:06 PM PST by Kaslin
Hey kids, what time is it?* According to former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, it’s time for Loretta Lynch and the Department of Justice to do their jobs and charge Hillary Clinton with mishandling classified information — at the least. Nodding to the expansion of the FBI’s probe into areas of corruption, Mukasey argued in Friday’s Wall Street Journal that the 1300-plus pieces of evidence already on hand more than justifies initial charges — and cites David Petraeus as a precedent:
No criminality can be charged against Mrs. Clinton in connection with any of this absent proof that she had what the law regards as a guilty state of mind--a standard that may differ from one statute to another, depending on what criminal act is charged.
Yet--from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge--it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.
This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information.
Actually, under 18 USC 793, prosecutors don’t necessarily need to show a “guilty state of mind” (or mens rea) for a conviction, or even show that information had previously been classified. It would be easier to get a conviction if they could show both, but nothing in this statute requires information to have been classified — only that its exposure would do damage to national security. Subsection (f) only requires “gross negligence,” not malice of purpose. Mukasey more than makes a case for gross negligence in the second paragraph of the excerpt.
But prior to this excerpt, Mukasey’s already made a pretty good case for mens rea, or at least eliminated the argument that Grandma Clinton thought comms security involved wiping things with cloths:
Further, Mrs. Clinton's own memoir, "Hard Choices" (2014), apparently written at a time when she wished to stress how delicate were the secrets she knew, and how carefully she handled them, reports that she "often received warnings from Department security officials to leave our [BlackBerrys], laptops--anything that communicated with the outside world--on the plane with their batteries removed to prevent foreign intelligence services from compromising them.
"Even in friendly settings we conducted business under strict security precautions, taking care where and how we read secret material and used our technology," Mrs. Clinton tells readers. She even read classified material "inside an opaque tent in a hotel room. In less well-equipped settings, we were told to improvise by reading sensitive material with a blanket over our head."
Try to square this with the 1,300-plus transmissions of classified information through an unsecured, home-brew server. The same woman who bragged about her adept compliance with classified access under unusual circumstances also forced her aides to send information based on Top Secret/Compartmented programs through an e-mail server located at one time in a bathroom in an unsecured and unauthorized location. Note too that Mukasey and the WSJ published this before news broke that the Inspector General informed Congress that at least one e-mail involved extremely sensitive human intelligence classified at the SCI/HCS level — information that conceivably get intelligence sources killed if exposed. Hillary knew full well about the need to secure this information, but she wanted to evade legitimate Congressional oversight more than she wanted to comply with the law. And that is a case for criminal intent, even if prosecutors don’t actually have to make one.
The question isn’t just why charges haven’t already been filed against Hillary Clinton. It’s also why no charges have been filed with the expanding universe of people who were aware of this system and yet did nothing to alert authorities to its use, people such as Stephen Mull, who warned Huma Abedin of the issue in 2011. There are a number of legitimate targets for prosecution. And it’s time that the Department of Justice began lining them up.
Little ones first so they'll sing first? Or all at once so they all sing at once?
Paralysis of analysis - is it safer for the Democrats to simply sidle up to Herself and “strongly suggest” that her campaign for the Democrat nomination to the Presidential race be abandoned; or do they bring formal charges, with the resulting collateral damage to the rest of the Democrat party; or do they just let Herself go ahead with gaining the nomination, and face the voters in November?
Man, that is just going to be trickier than arithmetic.
The Democrats may have to take one right in the heart before they get the message.
Nixon did not have this much $#!+ headed his way when he resigned, and the Republicans suffered for years afterward.
Punish her accordingly.
Obama DOJ will never ever charge Hillary.
They don’t have to. She’s already being tried.
One thing that argues against it is the fact that if you take these charges seriously, you have to consider that the sitting POTUS is responsible for having named a corrupt Secretary of State, and not realizing that the server was a national security issue - and not putting the kibosh on it.Obama really should also be on the hot seat over this. Trust me, any Republican POTUS would be.
Of course not, but the Pentagon is considering demoting General David Petraeus, even though what he did was 1/10 or even less than what she did.
Without a doubt.
It is long past time to charge Hillary. In fact she will never face proper charges. At most she will face some weak, small charge that makes it seem she presided over a clerical error...if any at all.
Nothing. Will. Happen. To. Her.
That would not surprise me one bit.
< defense type=”clintonesque” >
“This is a witch hunt that has been engineered by the vast right wing conspiracy to undermine my candidacy. It is purely political and shameful”
< /defense >
The Clinton’s have stolen enough. You’d think they were greedy, or something. Wanting the White House again could be the end of them. I hope so.
Ah, but have you forgotten about Chelsea? Hubbel?
From the story:
“No criminality can be charged against Mrs. Clinton in connection with any of this absent proof that she had what the law regards as a guilty state of mind...”
IOW, As long as Mrs. Clinton thinks she can do whatever she wants with impunity, she can.
She should have been charged long ago. But better late than never. That is if L. Lynch feels like doing her job. She might be too busy going after those who dare to speak out against Muslims.
Maybe we can start with the one dealing with the massive sale of US uranium assets to Russia for huge bucks by a "charitable friend"?
At what point does massive criminality descend into blatant treason?
The Clintons do nothing for free. Everything is for sale at the right price, including the United States
As recipient of the email, she knew of the personal risk involved, as did the SENDER!
In view of the incredible risk, both the Beast and originator of the email expected huge monetary returns.
Just who sent this email and to whom and for what purpose did someone or country pay an enormous sum?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.