I believe some, if not all, of the communications between Obama and Clinton should be classified. To classify them now, however, would imply wrongdoing on both their parts since they knew they were communicating via private, unsecured e-mail. Essentially, Obama is invoking executive privilege because the effect of doing so — viz., non-disclosure of the e-mails — is the same as the effect of classifying them would be . . . but without the embarrassment that classifying them would entail.Now we come to the rub: it's not just that the President is protecting his party's nominee. His own gross negligence in allowing her to get away with it might rise to the level of a crime.
Conflict of Interest
Andrew McCarthy writes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Bush II's communications leaked like a siege to the Democrats.
This is part of the reason. The Democrats love their spy games in DC. It's why FDR and other Democrats used the FBI to get the goods on their political enemies.
siege=sieve
That's twice now. That v under the g on the keyboard.
McCarthy has it wrong. Those emails are classified by the data they contain. Marking them now, however, would imply....
Eric Hines
Andrew McCarthy was, and is, a partisan hack. His particular opinions on the matter are as of little interest to me as those of Hillary herself (mostly because they are likely identical).
Marking them now, however, would imply....
Actually marking them now simply is complying with federal law. Regardless of what her supporters would have you believe, the failure to mark the documents does not, has not, and never will make them unclassified. The classification comes from the data itself. Failure to properly mark them simply is the commission of a different felony. And frankly, their tacit admission in public, to the press, that the documents were not properly marked should be used as evidence in court against them. Every email sender who sent one of these without proper classification markings is guilty of failing to properly mark classified materials. Everyone who forwarded or replied in a thread to the original (without removing the material or adding the proper classification) is likewise guilty. And as for her ridiculous claim "it wasn't classified at the time, and it's a matter of different departments disagreeing on if it was actually classified" that's honestly the biggest admission of wrongdoing. For you see, the State Department cannot ever be the declassifying authority on data originally classified by another department. State may not declassify signals intelligence, because they did not classify it in the first place. Nor can they declassify satellite imagery, or human intelligence gathered by the CIA. Only the President or the respective originating authority can declare a piece of intelligence as declassified. The only reason I assume the FBI has not yet called for an indictment is that either they are being told not to by the Administration (which frankly, I currently doubt, but is a possibility) or they are still gathering charges (so as not to bring forward a few counts of failure to properly handle here, a few of failure to properly mark there, and then to have charges keep dribbling in).
But to me, it is plainly evident she mishandled classified information, and failed to properly mark classified materials.
Andrew McCarthy was, and is, a partisan hack.
I'm not certain what's behind this statement. I've been interested in his opinion on the case as a former Federal prosecutor, though clearly he misses out on some of the nuances of classification law. Why do you think he's a hack?
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. I had him confused with former Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry. My fault entirely.
Oh, OK. :) I was surprised to hear you didn't think much of him. He had a reasonably distinguished career as a prosecutor of Islamic terrorism.
Post a Comment