Conservative Blogger
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Gregg Jarrett: The real reason the FBI interviewed Hillary's closest aide
Fox News has confirmed that the FBI has interviewed Huma Abedin, top aide to Hillary Clinton, as part of its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email and whether classified information was willfully transmitted on her unsecured network. The FBI may also have interviewed other current and former Clinton staffers. This suggests the case may be approaching a conclusion. Clinton, herself, could be interviewed very soon.
Abedin Is a Key Witness
Abedin is a valued source of information because she apparently used an email on Clinton’s private system. She may have voiced concerns about whether the server was violating the law or, equally important, discussed how the law could be circumvented.
She and other staffers were surely questioned about the 2,200 classified communications contained on the server, including the 22 documents that were “top secret”. How did they end up on the unauthorized system? Did the aides have clearance to read them? Didn’t they know they were classified? Were classified markings erased? Who decided to delete thousands of emails which were government property? Who ordered the server to be “wiped clean”? Depending on the answers to these crucial questions, the aides could find themselves in legal jeopardy. So could Hillary Clinton.
Clinton’s Intent Is Irrelevant
Unnamed sources close to the investigation are reported to have said that the FBI has found no evidence to prove Clinton intended to violate the law. That sounds important, but it is not. The operative legal issue is not whether she intended to break the law, but whether she knowingly and intentionally stored classified information on her unauthorized server. Here is the specific law:
“Whoever… knowingly removes (classified) documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 1924)
The statute says nothing about an intent to violate the law. It is an important distinction. Clearly, Clinton intended to create a private server for use as her exclusive means of conducting official business as Secretary of State. She also knew it was not authorized because she never sought authorization from the relevant agencies. At the same time, she knew her unauthorized server would collect, retain and transmit classified documents during her four year term and intended it to do so.
This would appear to violate the language of the statute. She can hardly claim she did not recognize classified material… because that would be arguing her own incompetence.
Ignorance of the Law
Is it possible for Clinton to argue that she did not know she was breaking the law? She can try, but in a court of law it is no defense. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. Otherwise, everyone accused of a crime would play dumb. “Gee, I didn’t know my actions were a crime!”
Moreover, Clinton knew the law because she was specifically instructed on the law when she took office. She received a “national security indoctrination” –a tutorial on the law of classified materials. Thereafter, she signed a sworn “non-disclosure agreement” promising never to convey classified material to an unauthorized person or place.
In that same agreement, Clinton was also warned that classified material can be either marked or unmarked. The content dictates its classification, not the markings. So, her previous claims that nothing was marked classified is not a defense. This is especially true since Clinton reportedly authored 104 of the classified emails herself. Surely, she knew what she was writing.
Gross Negligence
President Obama recently called Clinton’s handling of the classified emails “careless”, but not intentional, as if that makes it okay. However, carelessness is sufficient to be convicted of a crime. The following statute specifically addresses this issue:
“Whoever… through gross negligence permits (classified information) to be removed from its proper place of custody… shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” (18 U.S.C., section 793-f)
In plain language, gross negligence is the standard, not intent. Carelessness or recklessness are synonymous with gross negligence. Thus, by implying that Clinton did nothing illegal because she was merely “careless”, President Obama is either legally mistaken or deliberately communicating a falsehood.
If the president, a trained lawyer, thought he was exculpating Clinton… he was, in truth, implicating her in a violation of the law.
Cruz, Kasich camps trade postmortem shots in wake of Trump victory
Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich have quit the GOP presidential primary race but continue to snipe about who’s to blame for letting front-runner Donald Trump crush them Tuesday in the Indiana primary and end both of their campaigns.
"Post mortem's on POTUS race must include a healthy dose of Kasich,” Cruz campaign manager Jeff Roe tweeted Friday. “Defeating Trump required a head to head. Kasich kept that from happening.”
The campaigns formed a loose alliance in mid-March as Trump trounced in his home state of New York, then a week later swept in five Northeast primaries.
Cruz, in second place at the time, realized his brand of conservatism wouldn’t play well in that region and entered into a deal that would allow him to compete alone against Trump in Indiana, while allowing Kasich to compete head-to-head with Trump in Oregon and New Mexico.
However, the deal began to fray within hours of its conception, in part because of apparent voter trepidation.
Their deal was purportedly forged because Kasich refused to drop out and allow Cruz to go one-on-one with Trump.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
Weaver also tweeted: "Nothing worse than entitled losers. … #Excuses I mean ... .”
Cruz, a Texas senator, was essentially eliminated from the race before Indiana, trailing Trump in the delegate county by an insurmountable number of them.
And Kasich, who won only his home state, had just 153 delegates in the race to win 1,237 of them to secure the party’s presidential nomination.
Trump accuses Bush, Graham of breaking GOP loyalty pledge
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump on Saturday accused former primary rivals Jeb Bush and Sen. Lindsey Graham of breaking a candidates’ pledge to the party’s eventual nominee.
“Jeb Bush isn’t an honorable person. Lindsey Graham isn’t an honorable person,” Trump said at a rally in Spokane, Washington, ahead of the state’s May 24 primary.
All 17 major GOP presidential candidates in September 2015 purportedly signed the loyalty pledge, which was issued by the Republican National Committee and also committed the signees to not running as an independent or write-in candidate, or supporting a candidate from another party.
“Bush signed a pledge. While signing it, he fell asleep,” Trump told the crowd Saturday, returning to his knock on the former Florida GOP governor as “super low energy.”
The RNC declared Trump the presumptive nominee after his decisive primary win Tuesday in Indiana that knocked out his last two party rivals -- Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
Trump suggested Saturday that he is going after Bush and Graham again because they, in the aftermath of his Indiana win, are not supporting him.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
“When we went to South Carolina, he thought he had power. My 10-year-old son Barron had more power,” Trump said. “A total dope constantly on TV knocking me.”
Trump remounts Warren attack, calls her 'goofy' in effort to nix her 2016 influence
 |
| Goofy? |
On Saturday, Trump turned to his go-to Twitter account to attack Warren, of Massachusetts, whom some Democrats wanted to run for president and now as Hillary Clinton’s running mate, if the front-running Clinton wins the party’s presidential nomination.
“Goofy Elizabeth Warren is weak and ineffective,” Trump, now the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, tweeted Saturday.
Warren nearly lost her Senate bid in 2012, amid criticism that she claimed to have Native American roots to further her academic career and become an Ivy League professor.
The fury mostly died as she emerged in the Senate as strong voice against Wall Street and economic inequality.
However, Trump appears determined to revisit the controversy -- in an apparent effort to quickly dispose of Warren as either a worthy Democratic presidential surrogate or potential vice presidential candidate, as he did with his primary rivals.
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →
In rallies on Friday in Nebraska and Oregon, Trump called Warren a "goofus" and a "basket case," who as a senator has had little impact on Washington, much less the country.
Warren had insulted Trump earlier on Twitter, calling him "a bully who has a single play in his playbook."
She started her attack after Trump’s primary win Tuesday in Indiana that knocked out remaining GOP rivals Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
In a series of late-night tweets, Warren accused Trump of racism, sexism, xenophobia, narcissism and a host of other faults.
The battle lines appeared to have been drawn a couple of weeks earlier.
When Trump was asked about another Warren tweet storm in which she called him a “loser,” the billionaire businessman said in response "Who's that, the Indian? You mean the Indian?”
The response appeared quintessential Trump, considering he thrives off detecting weakness and pouncing and Warren being a target-rich environment.
From 1986 to 1995, she listed herself as a minority in the Association of American Law Schools directory. Harvard Law School cited her alleged Indian heritage in dealing with criticism that it lacked a diverse faculty. Her recipe in the "Pow Wow Chow" cookbook became the subject of derision, after charges it was plagiarized from a New York Times cookbook.
"I think she's a fraud," said longtime nemesis and Boston conservative talk radio host Howie Carr. "I think her entire success in academia and in politics is based on a lie that she's a Native American."
Carr suspects Warren was stuck professionally as an instructor at the University of Texas Law School before “checking the box” as Native American, then becoming a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, then at Harvard University’s law school.
Warren's office did not respond earlier this week to requests for an interview.
One of the ironies of this fight is that the two are vying, at least in part, for the same voters -- blue-collar workers and swing-state independents who may well decide the election.
Trump is trying to pull them right with promises of more coal and less regulation, while Warren, with her strong progressive bona fides, is pulling left with a call for more government safety nets and regulation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Tit for Tat ? ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) — A statue of abolitionist Frederick Douglass was ripped from its base in Rochester on the an...
-
NEW YORK (AP) — As New York City faced one of its darkest days with the death toll from the coronavirus surging past 4,000 — more th...
