Maggie's Farm

More on the email scandal.

Wretch at Belmont Club says:

"Hillary won’t be prosecuted because to do so would open a can of worms. Hillary Clinton could not have handled such a vast number of sensitive documents in that manner without the tacit knowledge and tolerance of a large number of high ranking administration officials. At the very least those to whom she sent such emails or who sent her material on her server must have been aware of it.

In March, president Obama admitted he knew about Hillary’s email private email server. The Daily Mail reported:

The White House confirmed on Monday that President Barack Obama knew about Hillary Clinton’s private email address because he emailed her at it during her tenure of secretary of state.

When Obama said in an interview that aired Sunday that he found out Clinton used a private email account to conduct official business at ‘the same time as everybody else learned it through news reports,’ what he meant was that was the first he’d heard of her exclusive use of use of personal email and of her private server, his spokesman clarified this afternoon.

‘The president, as I think many people expected, did over the course of his first several years in office trade emails with his secretary of state,’ White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.

‘I would not describe the number of emails as large, but they did have the occasion to email each other.’

Could it be that the president did not know of Hillary’s practices over an extended period involving so many messages? How could it be possible except for the incompetence of her boss? Charles Cooke’s dictum bears repeating in this context: “legally speaking, however … intentions are wholly and utterly irrelevant. In this area of federal law, the standard isn’t intent, it’s negligence.”

Negligence. There is no plausible way of advancing this Clinton scandal without turning it into an administration scandal.

Of course it might not have been negligence so much as a Secret Mission. Her ultimate defense is “someone authorized it” or “we did it for reasons that I cannot disclose.” Cloak and dagger. What were you cloaking? And who were you stabbing? Nobody wants to go there."

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/08/12/cloak-and-dagger-again/



And a Crowley piece from the Wash Times

In a nutshell she says 0bama is going to take HRC down. He wants Biden to win because he can then be the puppet master. He cannot control Shrillary. So . . . as was done when he ran for office, he will try to take out the opponent before the vote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/29/monica-crowley-obama-a-threat-to-hillary-clinton/?page=all

Good question fjord. You are of course referring to the $6b that disappeared from State during Shrillary's reign.

I don't know if it is even being looked for. She could have stolen some or all of it to be sure, but it could also have been spent as allocated and is 'missing' due to sloppy record keeping. Government seems to hold themselves to a lower standard of record keeping than they have set for the rest of us.

40 years ago when I was taking a management accounting course, our prof said that government auditors thought they had done a good job if a million dollars was all they couldn't account for. The paper work was that bad. It is probably much worse today as there is so much more money sloshing through the system.

re mudbug

Or perhaps it is playing out like this:

0bama has demanded HRC pay some sort of price for the FBI and Justice Dept to conduct a faux investigation that will clear the Hildebeast of any wrong doing. That would have the added benefit of getting all the officials referred to in Wretchard's post at Belmont Club off the hook.

What's particularly distressing though is the way the law is selectively enforced, a hallmark of the 0bama administration.

From Glenn Greenwald:

"When it comes to low-level government employees with no power, the Obama administration has purposely prosecuted them as harshly as possible to the point of vindictiveness: It has notoriously prosecuted more individuals under the Espionage Act of 1917 for improperly handling classified information than all previous administrations combined.

NSA whistleblower Tom Drake, for instance, faced years in prison, and ultimately had his career destroyed, based on the Obama DOJ’s claims that he “mishandled” classified information (it included information that was not formally classified at the time but was retroactively decreed to be such). Less than two weeks ago, “a Naval reservist was convicted and sentenced for mishandling classified military materials” despite no “evidence he intended to distribute them.” Last year, a Naval officer was convicted of mishandling classified information also in the absence of any intent to distribute it.

In the light of these new Clinton revelations, the very same people who spent years justifying this obsessive assault are now scampering for reasons why a huge exception should be made for the Democratic Party front-runner. "

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/08/12/hillary-clinton-sanctity-protecting-classified-information/