Passing TS/SCI information to someone not cleared to receive it is a felony each time you do it. We don't know how many recipients were on those two TS/SCI emails in Mrs. Clinton's account, but we do know that she passed them personally at least twice: once to her attorney, and once to an IT firm that was not cleared to handle classified material.
These facts aren't in dispute. That's a maximum penalty of 40 years. She could get less, and indeed I would expect the sentences to run concurrently in any case. Still, at this point we aren't arguing the facts anymore. We're now arguing whether this is a case of "knowingly" doing wrong that should be prosecuted under 1924, of "gross negligence" that should be prosecuted under 793(f), or whether it is merely a case of an unlawful transfer that should be prosecuted under section 793(d) which requires neither knowledge nor intent but merely being guilty of having done it.
The penalty is the same even if intent can't be proven. I understand she's arranged a meeting with the President. Meanwhile, The Observer calls for a special prosecutor.
10 comments:
*Cough*
OK. So exactly WHO was HRC's direct supervisor during those times?
The guy with the power to pardon her.
Amusement potential, not in a good way:
1. Hillary wins the election, despite being under a cloud. The media cover for her, and most people think it's all just "some concocted Republican scandal of the week" if they're allowed to hear about it at all.
2. On Jan 20th 2017, at 11:59 AM, Obama issues a full and unconditional pardon to her for "any actions with regard to unlawful transfer or negligent handling of classified material via email during or after her tenure as Secretary of State".
3. Hilarity ensues.
I would not put it past Obama to do such a thing. Particularly since he seems to hate Hillary.
He's far from the only one. Hating her seems to be usual. I don't think anyone alive really wants her to be President. We seem to be committed to it as a kind of national penitence, just the same sort that got Obama elected. It's like people have become convinced that the country is basically contaminated by its sins, and a flagellant order has taken over in electing our leadership.
Yes, a zealously flagellant order.
I think Obama could actually pardon her now and she could still be elected. Obama could give a big speech about how the pardon wasn't because she did anything wrong, but rather it was to end the ridiculous witch hunt by those horrible, mean, awful, no-good Republicans who are just trying to distract you from her presidential campaign and get a Republican elected.
I think a lot of Americans would buy that.
I agree that simple legal matters change when they hit a certain political level. Bill Clinton misled a grand jury, and was disbarred for it. Nothing else came of it.
The argument in the Hines household has it that Obama would issue the preemptive pardon as a quid pro quo for HRC dropping out of the race. That's an entirely plausible thing for Obama to do, except:
The counterargument is that he won't make that deal because there's no plausible candidate present or in the wings. HRC is his only hope for survival of his "legacy."
Eric Hines
Does he want Hillary to drop out of the race (or by extension not to be elected)? It's not like he's running. Maybe he doesn't care one way or the other about that.
I wouldn't make a deal with her. There's nothing to keep her from keeping to it, and every evidence that she'd break it as soon as she had what she wanted.
On the other hand, that's also true of Iran.
It would , IMO, be a grave mistake to think the zero has not contemplated a third term. In Africa recently, he said he could win a third term, if it were allowed.
For example an event that "necessitates" a suspension of transfer of power,especially if it involved the death of the incumbent prior to inauguration due to some terrorist attack.
Post a Comment