Why Has B***h Clinton Not Been Arrested?
Feb 4, 2016 08:19:03 #
Sources, Methods and Lives
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
This has not been a good week for Hillary Clinton. She prevailed over Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic p**********l caucuses by less than four tenths of one percent of all v**es cast, after having led him in polls in Iowa at one time by 40 percentage points. In her statement to supporters, standing in front of her gaunt and listless looking husband, she was not able to mouth the word "victory" or any of its standard variants. She could barely hide her contempt for the Iowa Democrats who deserted her.
Sanders isn't even a Democrat. According to official Senate records, he is an "Independent Socialist" who v**es to organize the Senate with the Democrats, and sits on the Senate floor with them. Clinton, of course, is the heiress to the mightiest Democratic political apparatus in the land. Hence the question: What do the Iowa Democrats know that caused thousands of them to flee from her?
They know she is a crook.
On the Friday before Monday's caucuses, the State Department, which Clinton headed in President Obama's first term, revealed that it discovered 22 top-secret emails on the private computer server to which Clinton diverted all her governmental email traffic. This acknowledgement marks a radical departure from previous State Department pronouncements and is a direct repudiation of Clinton's repeated assertions.
She has repeatedly asserted that she neither sent nor received anything "marked classified" using her private email server. The State Department, until last Friday, has backed that up by claiming that while the substance of at least 1,300 of her emails was confidential, secret or top secret, they were not "marked" as such when she dealt with them.
These are word games. First, under the law, nothing is "marked classified." The markings are "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret," and Clinton knows this. Second, under the law, it is not the markings on the email headers that make the contents state secrets; it is the vulnerability of the contents of the emails to impair the government's national security mission that rationally characterizes them as secrets.
Clinton knows this because she signed an oath on Jan. 22, 2009 recognizing that state secrets retain their secrecy status whether "marked or unmarked" by any of the secrecy designations. She knows as well that, under the law, the secretary of state is charged with knowing state secrets when she comes upon them.
Yet, in order to further Clinton's deceptive narrative, the State Department has consistently claimed that it retroactively marked at least 1,300 emails as state secrets.
It did this until last Friday.
Last Friday, the State Department revealed that 22 emails it found on Clinton's private server were in fact top secret, and were in fact marked top secret, and were in fact sent to or received from President Obama. This is a revelation that substantially undermines Clinton's political arguments and is catastrophic to her legal position.
Politically, Clinton has lost the final argument in her public arsenal that she did not recognize top-secret data unless it was marked as top secret. She has also lost the ability to claim, as she has repeatedly, that she neither sent nor received anything marked classified, as meaningless as that phrase is.
Legally, the ground under Clinton continues to crumble. The more she denies, the more she admits. How can that be? That is so because her denials are essentially an admission of ignorance, forgetfulness or negligence, and, under the law, these are not defenses to the failure to safeguard state secrets entrusted to the secretary of state. They are, instead, recognition of that failure.
Late Monday afternoon, before the Iowa caucuses convened and after Clinton's political folks had lobbied their former colleagues at the State Department to re-characterize what they found and revealed late last week, the State Department reversed itself and claimed that the 22 emails were not "marked" top secret. It was too little and too late. The cat was out of the bag and Iowa Democrats knew it. Few really believed that the State Department would state publicly that the 22 emails were top secret and then state publicly that they were not, without a political motivation and irrespective of the t***h. All this is infuriating to the FBI, which perceives these word games as mocking its fidelity to the rule of law.
Sanders' presence in the Democratic primaries will continue to give Democrats who mistrust Clinton a safe political haven. But he is not Clinton's real worry. Her real worry is an FBI committed to the rule of law and determined to fortify national security by gathering the evidence of her mishandling state secrets.
Let's be as blunt about this as the FBI will be: Causing state secrets to reside in a nonsecure, nongovernmental venue, whether done intentionally or negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage.
And there is more. When asked about the consequences of Clinton's brazen exposure of state secrets to anyone who knows how to hack into a nonsecure computer, an intelligence operative winced as if in pain when he remarked that the nation's then chief diplomat surely c*********d the "sources, methods, and lives" of her colleagues.
Even Democrats who see Clinton as a symbol of their long-time wish for a progressive female in the Oval Office are beginning to recognize that anyone who has jeopardized American lives for political gain is unworthy of their v**es, unworthy of their trust and unworthy of public office.
Judge Andrew P. Napolitano
This has not been a good week for Hillary Clinton. She prevailed over Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Iowa Democratic p**********l caucuses by less than four tenths of one percent of all v**es cast, after having led him in polls in Iowa at one time by 40 percentage points. In her statement to supporters, standing in front of her gaunt and listless looking husband, she was not able to mouth the word "victory" or any of its standard variants. She could barely hide her contempt for the Iowa Democrats who deserted her.
Sanders isn't even a Democrat. According to official Senate records, he is an "Independent Socialist" who v**es to organize the Senate with the Democrats, and sits on the Senate floor with them. Clinton, of course, is the heiress to the mightiest Democratic political apparatus in the land. Hence the question: What do the Iowa Democrats know that caused thousands of them to flee from her?
They know she is a crook.
On the Friday before Monday's caucuses, the State Department, which Clinton headed in President Obama's first term, revealed that it discovered 22 top-secret emails on the private computer server to which Clinton diverted all her governmental email traffic. This acknowledgement marks a radical departure from previous State Department pronouncements and is a direct repudiation of Clinton's repeated assertions.
She has repeatedly asserted that she neither sent nor received anything "marked classified" using her private email server. The State Department, until last Friday, has backed that up by claiming that while the substance of at least 1,300 of her emails was confidential, secret or top secret, they were not "marked" as such when she dealt with them.
These are word games. First, under the law, nothing is "marked classified." The markings are "confidential" or "secret" or "top secret," and Clinton knows this. Second, under the law, it is not the markings on the email headers that make the contents state secrets; it is the vulnerability of the contents of the emails to impair the government's national security mission that rationally characterizes them as secrets.
Clinton knows this because she signed an oath on Jan. 22, 2009 recognizing that state secrets retain their secrecy status whether "marked or unmarked" by any of the secrecy designations. She knows as well that, under the law, the secretary of state is charged with knowing state secrets when she comes upon them.
Yet, in order to further Clinton's deceptive narrative, the State Department has consistently claimed that it retroactively marked at least 1,300 emails as state secrets.
It did this until last Friday.
Last Friday, the State Department revealed that 22 emails it found on Clinton's private server were in fact top secret, and were in fact marked top secret, and were in fact sent to or received from President Obama. This is a revelation that substantially undermines Clinton's political arguments and is catastrophic to her legal position.
Politically, Clinton has lost the final argument in her public arsenal that she did not recognize top-secret data unless it was marked as top secret. She has also lost the ability to claim, as she has repeatedly, that she neither sent nor received anything marked classified, as meaningless as that phrase is.
Legally, the ground under Clinton continues to crumble. The more she denies, the more she admits. How can that be? That is so because her denials are essentially an admission of ignorance, forgetfulness or negligence, and, under the law, these are not defenses to the failure to safeguard state secrets entrusted to the secretary of state. They are, instead, recognition of that failure.
Late Monday afternoon, before the Iowa caucuses convened and after Clinton's political folks had lobbied their former colleagues at the State Department to re-characterize what they found and revealed late last week, the State Department reversed itself and claimed that the 22 emails were not "marked" top secret. It was too little and too late. The cat was out of the bag and Iowa Democrats knew it. Few really believed that the State Department would state publicly that the 22 emails were top secret and then state publicly that they were not, without a political motivation and irrespective of the t***h. All this is infuriating to the FBI, which perceives these word games as mocking its fidelity to the rule of law.
Sanders' presence in the Democratic primaries will continue to give Democrats who mistrust Clinton a safe political haven. But he is not Clinton's real worry. Her real worry is an FBI committed to the rule of law and determined to fortify national security by gathering the evidence of her mishandling state secrets.
Let's be as blunt about this as the FBI will be: Causing state secrets to reside in a nonsecure, nongovernmental venue, whether done intentionally or negligently, constitutes the crime of espionage.
And there is more. When asked about the consequences of Clinton's brazen exposure of state secrets to anyone who knows how to hack into a nonsecure computer, an intelligence operative winced as if in pain when he remarked that the nation's then chief diplomat surely c*********d the "sources, methods, and lives" of her colleagues.
Even Democrats who see Clinton as a symbol of their long-time wish for a progressive female in the Oval Office are beginning to recognize that anyone who has jeopardized American lives for political gain is unworthy of their v**es, unworthy of their trust and unworthy of public office.
Feb 4, 2016 08:28:30 #
buffalo wrote:
Sources, Methods and Lives br Judge Andrew P. Napo... (show quote)
Why don't you ask the CIA, FBI and the State Department?
Feb 4, 2016 08:32:30 #
Dummy Boy wrote:
Why don't you ask the CIA, FBI and the State Department?
They won't return my calls.
Feb 4, 2016 08:35:00 #
Feb 4, 2016 08:49:39 #
robmull
Loc: florida
buffalo wrote:
They won't return my calls.
And "WE" wonder why he calls himself "DUMMY BOY???"
Feb 4, 2016 08:54:46 #
robmull wrote:
And "WE" wonder why he calls himself "DUMMY BOY???"
Dummy Boy is okay, he just gets flack, like I do, from both sides. Hey...an ex-submariner can't be all bad. :D
Feb 4, 2016 09:18:44 #
buffalo wrote:
They won't return my calls.
Buffalo, you know it's politics. Heck, I read in the WSJ, that the state department is investigating...so what...what does that mean if doesn't involve legally pursuing anything....like destroying her political career.
What options do they have?:
1. Treason
2. ...which she could plead to obstruction of justice
I just don't get it...unbelievable...6 congressional committee meetings...interviewing her....and nothing...guess everyone else in congress has skeletons in their closets.
Feb 4, 2016 09:25:16 #
Dummy Boy wrote:
Why don't you ask the CIA, FBI and the State Department?
Why don't you dumbass?
Feb 4, 2016 13:06:13 #
ssgtgood wrote:
Why don't you dumbass?
Why don't you go rub sand in your eyes?....dumbass.
Feb 5, 2016 10:54:58 #
Dummy Boy wrote:
Why don't you go rub sand in your eyes?....dumbass.
Hey its not me that wears a tin foil funnel for a hat. Neither do I call myself DUMMY BOY. You're a stupid POS if I ever saw one.
Semper Fi
ssgtgood
Feb 5, 2016 11:22:00 #
ssgtgood wrote:
Hey its not me that wears a tin foil funnel for a hat. Neither do I call myself DUMMY BOY. You're a stupid POS if I ever saw one.
Semper Fi
ssgtgood
Semper Fi
ssgtgood
...boohoo...whaaaaaaaaaaaa...
Feb 5, 2016 11:30:00 #
Hey SSgt: Give Dummy boy some slack. You'd whine and cry also if you forgot to take the chicken bones out of your used tinfoil hat. Which probably also explains his avatar's expression.
Feb 5, 2016 11:30:54 #
autocthon wrote:
Hey SSgt: Give Dummy boy some slack. You'd whine and cry also if you forgot to take the chicken bones out of your used tinfoil hat. Which probably also explains his avatar's expression.
No, it's because I had to pull out of the race....
Sep 2, 2018 08:20:08 #
The USA is now an immoral bankrupt warmongering police state flooded with i*****l i*******ts.
Americans b***h and complain that they are victims of the Jews, but how can Americans say that they aren't responsible for anything?
If the Jews tell you to be immoral and you are immoral then whose fault is that?
If the Jews tell you to go in debt and you are in debt then whose fault is that?
If Americans h**e wars then where are the war protests?
If Americans h**e i*****l a***ns then where are the protests?
If Americans love freedom then why do they beg for more laws?
Do Jews outnumber white people?
Can't white people start movie studios, media companies, and stock markets?
Are Americans crippled r****ds?
How can Americans sleep at night while the USA collapses?
How can Americans look in the mirror today without feeling disgusted?
Americans b***h and complain that they are victims of the Jews, but how can Americans say that they aren't responsible for anything?
If the Jews tell you to be immoral and you are immoral then whose fault is that?
If the Jews tell you to go in debt and you are in debt then whose fault is that?
If Americans h**e wars then where are the war protests?
If Americans h**e i*****l a***ns then where are the protests?
If Americans love freedom then why do they beg for more laws?
Do Jews outnumber white people?
Can't white people start movie studios, media companies, and stock markets?
Are Americans crippled r****ds?
How can Americans sleep at night while the USA collapses?
How can Americans look in the mirror today without feeling disgusted?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.