Free Markets, Free People

That ever changing Clinton email defense may be running out of excuses

Anyone who has ever worked in or around classified material understands how draconian the rules concerning their use are.  If revealed to unfriendly eyes, it could mean lives.  Namely the lives of sources or their handlers.  And, not only that, it would likely give those who oppose us a look at the means and methods by which we gather intelligence.

Hillary Clinton threw that all out the window when she made a decision, at the beginning of her term as Secretary of State, to use a private server located in a bathroom somewhere outside the government’s secure nets.  There was no gradual migration to that server for “convenience” (something she first tried to claim), but instead a very deliberate act and decision to circumvent the restrictions she’d face within such a government net.  Oh, and to be able to dodge accountability.

So then she dropped back to another excuse.  No classified material was ever sent to that server.  When that one blew up, the next excuse was that no material “marked” classified was ever sent.

Here’s the thing, however.  Unless you’re a complete idiot, you know what does or doesn’t fall within the realm of classified … especially if you’re the Secretary of State.  And its not like this was all new to her.  She’d served as a US Senator and been privy to classified material before and was certainly briefed on how to handle it.  One can’t imagine, given the stringent rules surrounding the handling of classified material, that she didn’t receive additional briefings when she took State.

She chose to ignore them all.

And her latest excuse?  Well, Chris Cillizza pretty much declares it dead:

That defense hit a major snag on Friday when the State Department announced that it, too, had found “top secret” information on Clinton’s server — 22 emails across seven separate emails chains. The information, the State Department said, was so secret that those emails would never be released to the public.

The Clintonian response?  Well, it’s classic, you have to say that:

The Clinton team quickly pivoted. “After a process that has been dominated by bureaucratic infighting that has too often played out in public view, the loudest and leakiest participants in this interagency dispute have now prevailed in blocking any release of these emails,” said campaign spokesman Brian Fallon.

Calling for the release of the allegedly top secret emails is a smart gambit by the Clinton folks since it makes them look as if they have nothing to hide while being protected by the near-certainty that the State Department won’t simply change its mind on the release because the Clinton team asked them to.

That’s right, ask for the emails to be released and when they’re not, for obvious reasons, claim someone (VRWC) is trying to smear you.

But what were in those emails? John Schindler says it’s pretty volatile stuff … something anyone would know, markings or not, was very highly classified:

Discussions with Intelligence Community officials have revealed that Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails included Holy Grail items of American espionage such as the true names of Central Intelligence Agency intelligence officers serving overseas under cover. Worse, some of those exposed are serving under non-official cover. NOCs (see this for an explanation of their important role in espionage) are the pointy end of the CIA spear and they are always at risk of exposure – which is what Ms. Clinton’s emails have done.

Not only have these spies had their lives put in serious risk by this, it’s a clear violation of Federal law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, enacted due to the murder of the CIA’s station chief in Athens after his cover was blown by the left-wing media, makes it a Federal crime to divulge the true identity of any covert operative serving U.S. intelligence if that person has not previous been publicly acknowledged to be working for our spy agencies.

You probably recall  Valerie Plame was a NOC and the stink her supposed exposure brought.   The media was all over that … but this?  Yeah, they’ve mostly been forced to report on it, but not very enthusiastically.

If this is the case, Ms. Clinton has committed a very serious breach of security that is and should be punishable by conviction and jail time.

The problem, as has been stated recently, is she’s a powerful politician … not one of the little people.  And we’re becoming more and more acquainted with how the “law” works now for the powerful among us, aren’t we?

Interesting times.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

118 Responses to That ever changing Clinton email defense may be running out of excuses

  • Madam Felon.
    And she can’t trot out the Obama bodies and skeletons without exposing her own.

    I expect they’ll call her to the White House sometime after Iowa and explain to her that her health is going to preclude a continued run for the Presidency of the United States.
    Joe will take over for her, reluctantly of course.

    She should consider herself lucky this isn’t Soviet Russia – she’d disappear for a while, we’d be informed she had ‘caught a cold’ and by June we’d have to pause for a state funeral to a wonderful woman, mother, and American Hero of great potential, struck down before she could achieve greater things as President of the United States (sniffle sniffle).

  • Someone, probably several someones, in the Clinton gang intentionally removed highly classified information from a secure network and moved it to an unauthorized insecure one. Sooner or later the FBI is going to find out who. It will be interesting to see how loyal the Hillary gang is when faced with the prospect of huge legal fees and felony jail time.

    • Another perfect study in press bias.

      Nixon was impeached for getting caught covering up a two-bit misdemeanor break-in looking for political advantage. The Washington Post doggedly pursued the story revealing the pettiness and insecurity of the CinC. Feloniously expose Top Secret information by actively transferring it from its secure source to her (cloth wiped) readily accessible server, compromise national security and probably costing valuable intelligence assets their lives? The press has been – until recently – more concerned with telling us how well she is handling the accusations than the compromised methods and dead bodies that are likely to result.

      By all accounts Comey is an upstanding law enforcement officer who won’t be bullied. Who indeed will be this episode’s Deep Throat? Agreed timactual – too many people know the facts and are averse to jail time. Suspect some of those 150 FBI agents already have sources on the inside and are cutting deals. Rats, sinking ship, etc.

    • I’ve got 10 bucks that says the FBI already knows and is leaning on them hard… They have her original server and probably pulled stuff off there, and all the SIPRnet access is apparently logged and I’m sure they’ve figured out at least a few of the source materials – so it couldn’t take that long to figure out who did it.

      It would sure be nice if this were the final nail in her coffin (metaphorically), as she will have essentially taken herself out. Although she sure deserved it for trying to blame Benghazi on a video…

      • If they are pulling stuff off her server it is another example of the incompetence and negligence of her gang. Any competent or even computer literate person would have physically destroyed the hard drive. Instead, her choice of computer “experts” preserved and even backed up her hard drive.

  • Wasn’t Valerie Plame murdered on the way from her vanity fair photo shoot because Bush made her identity public.

  • To paraphrase that old adage about paranoia, just because someone (VRWC) is trying to smear you, doesn’t mean you didn’t to what they allege.

  • Hilly couldn’t extort money to the Clinton Foundation from the government servers… I’m glad you brought up the Valerie Plame thing. Dems went crazy with that. “Chaney should be in jail!” “The Bush administration deliberately outed an undercover spy! They should all be impeached!” Never mind that she was about as under cover as I am. Married to an ex-ambassador and driving to CIA headquarters to work… Clever cover. Anyway, I wonder what these same Democrats are going to say about Hilly? Surely, given their integrity and the absolute principled stand behind their objections in the Plame case, they will be asking for Hillary’s head on a pike. (snort)

  • To be sure, based on what we know today, there has been no crime committed: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499 There have been so many “scandals” proclaimed by the right that turn out to be more noise than substance in the past years, I remain skeptical that this one will get serious or sink Hillary. Time will tell.

    • The very fact that classified emails existed on her unsecure server is a crime, Erb. An ordinary person could go to jail for a long, long time for such an offense. If you’d ever worked in a classified environment, you’d know just how awful this is.

      Here’s what should be asked of Hillary (but isn’t being asked):

      1. While you were Secretary of State, if someone needed to send you a classified email, where was it sent?
      2. While you were Secretary of State, if you needed to send a classified email, how did you do it?
      3. Is the American public supposed to believe that the Secretary of State neither sent nor received classified emails for four consecutive years?

      • The analysis provided in the link goes into considerable detail, and reaches the conclusion that based on what we know today there is no crime. It lists the laws. I find that analysis more powerful than your unsubstantiated assertion. I believe Hillary has been asked those questions and many others. We’ll see where this goes, but at this point I’m skeptical of your claim.

        • The fact that you don’t believe me completely validates me, Erb. Thank you!

        • ” I believe Hillary has been asked those questions and many others.”

          – how long did it take before you realized there was no Santa Claus?

        • Scott, please explain how the classified information made the jump from the classified terminals to the unclassified PC belonging to Hillary.

        • I guess that classified information got from the classified network(s) to her unclassified network by an act of God.

          • You two – those are hard questions to ask a woman who’s so smart that by her own testimony she thought she was being accused of wiping her server with a cloth to remove data.

      • To be sure – it shows you don’t have even the very very very faintest clue about security clearances.

        Those who know of you are at this point, completely and thoroughly not surprised.

        • Again, I posted a link to a careful analysis of the relevant laws. You guys are just saying “believe me” and “if you knew about security clearances you’d know.” That’s a weak, unsupported argument. It certainly doesn’t counter the analysis ABC News put forth. That doesn’t mean you’re wrong, only that you haven’t given me a reason to accept your view accept that you say so. Without support and substantiation I can’t take your word on faith here.

          • And we can come up with any number of links showing why she violated those laws – Any links a thinking person would understand apply.

            For starters – do you understand there are secure networks the government uses for classified information that are NOT connected to the ‘internet’?

            Here – that’s all I’m going to bother with.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency#NSANet
            You can drive around with other links from there and look up SIPRNet – which is secure, but less secure than NSANet.

            Now ‘expert I have a link!’ Man – after maybe reading about NSANet, or SPIRNet explain how you get classified documents OFF NSANET or SIPRNet, onto a private homebrew unsecured net without screwing with the documents.
            You can’t, because it’s a violation of the law.
            Do you understand it’s a violation of the law to bring any kind of recording or data capture device anywhere NEAR one of the devices attached to NSANET (like, try, into the same building….)
            It’s a violation of the law to have any data FROM those networks ON your private network,
            a violation to let anyone who doesn’t have a clearance on those networks onto a network (which is a violation) that contains any documents from those networks…
            and on, and on….and on.
            But you’re an expert because you done read a piece from ABC that says it’s all good.
            Your article fails to mention or take account of the fact that she’s got violation stacked on violation stacked on violation

            They’re not going to find just ONE violation, they’re going to find multiple instances of repeated violations.
            – which indicates premeditation and intent, not a simple careless mistake.

            Let the hand waving commence.

          • You’re taking the word of ABC News? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          • Ever think of reading those laws yourself and doing your own analysis? Probably not. It ain’t rocket science, in spite of what you and the ABA may think.

            The analysis of one lawyer, even if he works for ABC, is not as authoritative as you seem to think. I daresay there exists at least one other lawyer who disagrees.

          • In addition, you keep saying that “There has been no crime committed.”. Very cute, but that is not what the article claims. You forgot to finish the sentence with “…by Hillary Clinton”. There is prima facie evidence that crimes (plural) were committed.

    • Is that the same “ABC News” that employs George Stephanopoulis, former WH communications director during the Clinton administration, the guy who failed to disclose that he is a donor to the Clinton Foundation when reporting on same? The unofficial mouthpiece of the DNC? You mean that ABC News?

      She acknowledges never using the State Department’s secure server during her tenure as Secretary of State. So you believe in all her years in her position there, she never had to handle classified information? The State Department says some of the emails were so sensitive they can never be made public. Are they part of her imaginary Vast Right Wing Conspiracy?

  • Hillary’s staff, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, for starters is how the classified info made the jump. They will go down along with her……unless they make a deal first.

    • Don’t forget Jake Sullivan. All three have been told to prepare for testimony, and all three have lawyered-up.

  • Until somebody gives me something that specifically contradicts the report I posted, there is no reason for me to believe the assertions that Hillary broke the law. I see a lot of very forceful assertions mixed with ridicule, but nothing else. That piece cites the law, as well as the legal hurdles on proving someone committed a crime (including whether the information was classified at the time, etc.) It is a well researched, documented and thorough piece, not partisan. So unless someone has an equally non-partisan thorough analysis that addresses those issues, I maintain my skepticism.

    • The hand wave.
      I’m shocked, shocked I say.

      Your piece barely touches the surface of the scope of the document dump.
      but…
      You did note the jail terms, even for a minor screw up, right? up to 1 year – for EACH incident – right?
      That’s in YOUR article – or did you skip that part?
      It was revealed last week 22 mails are so secret we can’t even know in redacted form what they talk about – they’re being completely withheld
      Up to 1 year for minimum violations.
      Do the math.

      Now if you want to say she won’t do any jail time because she’s the next probable Democratic Presidential Candidate for the United Banana Republic, and that Loretta Lunchbox won’t indict her because of orders from the White House, fine, we all get THAT part –
      They’ve already signaled the fix is in, the investigation isn’t complete, but there won’t be indictments or trials, they said so last week.
      We understand laws are not for the likes of Hillary Clinton or the current administration.

      And you’re completely okay with that – we all get THAT part too.

      • Again, you are not countering the analysis I linked with any specific information that would show it to be wrong. It also explains why just because the e-mails are secret now doesn’t mean they were classified at the time, it’s hard to prosecute according to that law. Also, there have been so many “scandals” that the right has put forth, all of which fizzled, that I have a well deserved skepticism of the effort to push forth such theories when it’s based on suggestion and assertion, rather than strong legal analysis. You have no real evidence that laws have been broken. Maybe some will come out, and if it does I completely support the law being enforced. At this time, there is more innuendo and supposition than fact. I’ll keep an open mind, but I’ll only go where real evidence and information lead.

        • The right.
          Yes, the Obama FBI is a the right wing of the vast right wing conspiracy.
          Admit it you phony, any link we brought you would be partisan.
          You’re as bad as Clinton using a demand to release secret documents to prove they’re not secret.
          Why not just say you won’t address our arguments until we can prove we’ve stopped abusing our spouses, dogs, and cats.

          You’ve read one article, from today no less, and are now an expert on secret clearances and what are considered violations of the laws.
          Find someone who has held a clearance and get them to explain it to you.
          Or is this another of your SJW situations where you think we’re discussing double secret probation?

          • I searched for the most non-partisan and complete analysis I could find because I hear opposite claims from the two partisan camps, and I genuinely want to know what is correct. That’s not the only article I wrote, I tried to find one that really looked at the legal claims without a lot of partisan bravado on either side. And if you make an argument that deals with those legal issues, I’ll certainly consider it. So far there’s been only assertions. I do not think anyone who “held clearance” has the legal knowledge to know how the law would work in this particular case. If she did break the law, she deserves to be punished. I don’t think the FBI is under the control of some ‘protect Hillary’ cult, so I’ll trust them to investigate and if they claim she broke the law, I certainly will not support Hillary for President (not that I am at this point anyway). But looking over this thread, I don’t see the legal points in the article addressed.

          • Oops, typo. That’s not the only article I read – I spent awhile really searching for something that seemed focused on the legal issues and not taking a partisan side.

          • That’s like saying if you’re not a mechanic you don’t understand how cars work. People who have clearances know exactly how to avoid breaking the law and rules to stay inside the requirements for keeping them.

            And they know how you lose them, and how you end up getting prosecuted if you break certain rules.
            Grow up, what percentage of people holding clearances are lawyers.
            Knowing the law doesn’t require that you practice law.

            If she walks it will only demonstrate the point that has been made again and again in respect to Bill and Hillary Clinton.
            That they are above the law.

          • Oh, and you’re completely okay with two sets of rules, which is one reason you get zero respect here.

          • Here’s what I see – lots of people on the right insisting its a clear crime. Hillary supporters insisting it is not a crime at all, and that the right is full of hot air. When I look to legal analysis, it appears there is no evidence of crime – yet. I will go where the facts lead. Even your posts are more assumption/accusation than actual legal argument. I do not believe you are an expert on this, I suspect you are led by bias, just as the Hillary supporters are led by bias. I want to avoid that. So again – for all your protests and name calling, I’m simply asserting skepticism that this was criminal. I’m not saying you’re wrong or ridiculing your position – too many self-proclaimed experts do that sort of thing. Rather, looking at the data as best I can, I’m keeping an open mind and am skeptical of BOTH those who say it’s a sure crime and those who say it’s nothing. That’s where the unbiased real world analysis leads.

          • “I searched for the most non-partisan and complete analysis I could find ”

            Not that I believe you, given your track record, but what did all the other ones say? Was there a consensus? What is the second place analysis? Did ANY of them come to the conclusion that Hillary committed a crime? If so, why was it unacceptable?

          • Timactual, in the non-partisan analyses I found almost universal agreement that the evidence is still unclear – but that there could still be legal problems for Clinton. I choose to post this one because it listed the laws, had numerous links, and analyzed step by step the claims made concluding that based on what we know now there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. It did not try to claim that this is a right wing attempt to make something out of nothing (like many leftist cites), it was the most thorough of the objective articles. It’s really hard to separate ones’ partisan thoughts from a case like this, but I think it’s necessary.

      • I think it is called “The willing suspension of disbelief”, although in his case it would be the enthusiastic and habitual suspension of reality and logic.

    • ” It is a well researched, documented and thorough piece,…”

      And you know this because of what? Your expertise in that particular field of law, government regulations and procedures, and security?

      • He’s not a lawyer, but he knows law stuff when he reads it, and he can understand it.

        On the other hand people who hold or have held clearances (and disagree) don’t understand this stuff despite briefings and explanations and reminders and instructions they receive in reference to it.

        Rather, it requires a lawyerish document like the one he thinks ABC News produced, which people who have or have held clearances wouldn’t really understand anyway, because they’re not lawyers.

        But Scott does understand it,
        and based on that one interpretation of the situation (which conveniently omits some facts ) on a subject he has no experience with,
        he can see no laws or even rules, have been broken by Hillary.

        • Your error here is argument from authority (the fallacy). Just because somebody “had clearances” doesn’t mean they know how to judge the legal issues. And whether or not someone had clearances is irrelevant to whether the argument. Rather the argument stands or falls on its merit. You would correctly fiercely oppose an attempt by me to say my opinion on international relations is superior because I have a Ph.D. That means nothing – either my argument or evidence is better or not. You have not made an argument that counters the evidence out there. “Having clearance” is meaningless in assessing your argument. Again, that’s a logical fallacy. I haven’t said anything on rules, just laws. I also never said Hillary broke no laws, only that the evidence is still uncertain, and I’m skeptical of each side trying to claim certainty with weak arguments.

          • And your authority, ABC news, has it covered.
            We get it Skippy.

          • Perhaps you have forgotten but in our system of justice laymen will sooner or later judge the legal issues . It’s called a jury, and law degrees are unnecessary.

        • You’re evading the actual evidence and argument. You are not countering what is out there, you are simply asserting you’re right. I get it. You read particular media that is full of opinion pieces that scream Hillary is a crook. You’re sure they are right. You dismiss out of hand with very weak claims (“anyone with clearance would know” – no, that isn’t enough to be an expert on the legal issues). Even this source, well argued and cited, you dismiss as “ABC News” (which to be sure has a pretty good reputation). The source isn’t the issue, the arguments and evidence are. Until you give a cogent argument on why that source is wrong, there is no reason for me to believe you. You have the burden of proof. I am not saying Hillary did or did not commit a crime. I’m only saying I’m skeptical of the partisans who are certain either way – I don’t see evidence to merit that level of certainty at this point. I just re-read the comments here, and you have provided nothing substantive that even addresses the legal issues. So maybe you’re right, maybe Hillary is guilty. Maybe not. I’m keeping an open mind.

          • Right – your authority knows more than my authority,
            than our authorities,
            than the authorities of everyone who’s held, or holds, a clearance and has indicated they think she violated the rules and laws associated with handling classified materials.

            Why don’t you just say that instead of all this dancing around about how you’re open minded and the burden of proof is on everyone else.
            Your dad can beat up our dads, because you have an open mind and you’re being open minded and you’re skeptical and no one has argued anything to your satisfaction or proved that your sources for opinion on the topic are wrong. We get it.

            The jaded amongst us do not expect Hillary will spend time in the slammer, or pay any fines over this.
            That’s the point, we know the laws are unlikely to be enforced because HILLARY.

            THAT it will be purely partisan.

          • ” You read particular media that is full of opinion pieces that scream Hillary is a crook. You’re sure they are right”

            Of course. We right-wing bigoted illiterate scum cannot possibly evaluate evidence and interpret laws by ourselves.

          • No, I don’t leave it in the hands of “authorities.” I look at their arguments, compare them, and nothing I’ve seen makes a convincing case that she’s guilty. There are reasons to think she could be guilty of something, but we’d need more information. I do not rely on authorities, I compare arguments/analyses and then critically assess them, trying to avoid any temptation to let bias shape my belief. That’s impossible to do completely, since everyone has bias, but if one tries to take it into account and compensate, it’s possible to be more objective than otherwise. You seem upset that I just don’t accept your belief – but that’s OK. We’re not totalitarians here who demand everyone think the same. I learn by considering your views, even if in the end I don’t share them. That’s OK – in a democracy, disagreement is good!

          • I’m arguing with you because I love seeing the inane dances you do.
            The justifications are hilarious and the insistence that you’re being open minded is too funny for words.

            And you’re even trotting out your stock phrases that signal the show is nearly over:
            “You seem upset”
            “That’s OK – in a democracy, disagreement is good!”

          • You seem to think it is self-evident that your position is right, and thus any refusal to simply accept your word for it constitute “inane dances.” I’m been pretty consistent, and I’ve supported my position: based on what we know now, Hillary Clinton has not committed a crime. You have posted a lot of assertions, but nothing that counters that point – and I have read your links. I know you believe Hillary committed a crime – but do you think that based on the public evidence out now, that you can make that claim with certainty? Or is it your dislike of Hillary and belief she is dishonest that leads you to conclude that even without proof, the preponderance of evidence convince you she did commit a crime? If it’s the latter, then I think we’re set – I’m skeptical and awaiting more evidence, you’ve decided based on your estimate of her character and past, even if the proof is not yet clear.

  • Scott:
    18 U.S. Code 793.
    Thank you Bill Whittle

    • Again, after searching and finding a solid analysis (linked above), it explains how there so far is no proof that a crime is committed. That post goes through the law and discusses the difficulties in prosecuting it. I read on pro-Hillary websites just as sincere a belief that this is all hot air dreamed up by the right, as there is a sincere belief on the right that this is a sure crime. I’m skeptical of both, I think a lot of people believe what fits their political hopes. That’s why I prefer the non-partisan analysis, and wait to see what happens.

      • It defies logic that she can have a private server for her State department emails, and yet never sent or received any ‘secret’ (confidential, secret) mail in her 4 year tenure at the State Department.

        It pretty much comes down to that.

        It defies logic that secret materials jumped the wire boundary of the secret network and landed by magic on her email server.

        She read them, or what was the point of her having an email server – when she read them, if they were outside the secret network, she violated the rules/laws.

        The government will, even now, revoke your clearance if you have one and you go read the wikileaks of all the secrets that are ‘in the public domain’
        https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111019/18030016422/state-department-pulls-top-secret-security-clearance-diplomat-who-linked-to-publicly-available-info.shtml
        Note the date – A state department employee, DURING CLINTON’S TENURE, had his clearance suspended for linking to information that you or I can freely read…

        If at any time she in any way knew people were manually bridging secret documents between NSANET and her server, she committed a crime under 18 U.S. Code 793. Read the freaking thing.

        “(f) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) <strong>through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

        Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

        It’s on HER server (through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from it’s proper place of custody) , it’s secret, she knows it’s secret, there’s at least one documented mail from her telling a subordinate to remove the secret markings of a document – she knew secret documents were not allowed on her machine, she knew they had been removed from SIPRNet or NSANet in order to get TO her machine (having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody). Even if we pretend she was merely negligent, she’s still guilty.

        All that remains to be seen is if the law applies to her like it did to Bradley Manning and David Patraeus.

        We don’t have enough breeze here today, thank God I know we can count on you to continue waving your hands.

      • Wow. Just trolling along now, are we? Sheryl Attkisson has a timeline of her changing stories as each crop of emails provides more evidence of felonious behavior. The only real question is whether Hillary will be treated as any of us out here in flyover country would should we behave similarly. One suspects the answer is known: See Lois Lerner/IRS targeting scandal for starters.

        Some are just incapable of (or unwilling to) engage in the logical processing of factual evidence – including ABC News.

      • Here ya go sparky – another 7 ‘secret or higher’ emails found.

        http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/7-more-clinton-emails-to-be-top-secret/article/2582306
        “Stewart said the State Department has classified seven additional emails as “top secret.” The agency will now withhold 29 emails from the public due to their sensitive content.”

        Damn that right wing State Department! Working with those partisan Republicans to harm poor poor Hillary!
        There ought to be a law to protect her!

        • To be sure, that’s the “Washington Examiner” and it’s reporting on claims not yet verified. But it doesn’t change the legal arguments; at this point there still isn’t enough evidence to prove a crime has been committed. Unless you produce something that counters the analysis I posted from a non-partisan source, I remain skeptical. I’m skeptical of Clinton too – I’m just not ready to jump on any partisan claims of a sure thing.

          • and recognizing crimes have been committed doesn’t have anything to do with being partisan.

            Only in your world, and Hillary Clinton’s world, is that a necessary conclusion stemming from someone accusing her of possible wrong doing.

          • A few other sources also. They all quote Rep. Chris Stewart, but then he is a Republican and therefore no doubt telling partisan lies. As opposed to Dem.s like Clinton(s) et al., who are always reliable non-partisan sources.

            http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268095-more-clinton-emails-to-be-labeled-top-secret-lawmaker-says

          • And of course a history of shady dealings, not to mention downright dishonesty, going back several decades is irrelevant.

          • Recognizing that there is still uncertainty about whether or not a crime has been committed, and that this is a legal rather than political issue is not partisan. The article you link Alan (which I have already read) makes suggestions, but has no proof of a crime. That’s why this is still an investigation. Many of you are dismissing “left wing partisans” as being mindless and dishonest, asserting only your side is trustworthy. I personally know conservatives and liberals who are equally honest, intelligent and trustworthy, and have different views on issues like this. Politics should not be jihad or “our side good, their side evil.” It’s about comparing perspectives with listening as important as holding forth.

  • Let’s boil the comments down to their essence:

    Erb, who knows nothing about classified information or security clearances, has read an article that reaches a conclusion he agrees with. He doesn’t know anything about the law, but he knows deep in his bones that this article has cited all the relevant statutes. It never occurs to him that there might be other relevant laws, and he hasn’t bothered to look for them, because the one article he read reaches a conclusion he agrees with.

    And he wonders why no one ever takes him seriously.

    • It helps to understand where the disconnect is.

      Scottie, even though he lacks the self-awareness and cognitive capability to know it, subscribes to postmodern leftism. As such, for him the definition of what’s right for a leftist isn’t what’s moral, or ethical, or even legal. It’s what a leftist can get away with.

      However, for his political enemies, he will hang them as unethical for fictional kitchen redecorations (as he did when some left-wing site made up crap about Sarah Palin), with zero evidence.

      So four dead people in Benghazi means nothing to him, as long as his preferred narrative prevails. IRS targeting political enemies means nothing to him as long as they use their side’s political assets to avoid prosecution or firing.

      And Hillary committing clear crimes means nothing to him as long as she manipulates the process so she doesn’t get charged with anything. He’s completely uninterested in whether she actually did anything wrong, just as his forebears didn’t care whether her husband lied to a grand jury (a pretty serious crime, which he admitted to and lost his law license as for punishment). He’s just cheering for Hillary to get away with it because she’s on his political side, and he doesn’t want anyone not on his side to be elected, plus he doesn’t want people like us to get the satisfaction of being right all along.

      Don’t forget, this is a guy who has such a convenient memory that he can’t even remember his own transgressions. I went through one of those episodes last week:


      Scott Erb, October 1, 2009:

      They are vastly overestimating the efficacy of such slash and burn tactics. Obama simply has to patiently ride this out, get things passed, and watch the Republican “rage” fizzle out. It’s not broad, and it’s really not deep. Get past the teabagger/political junkie crowd, and most people really would prefer the various sides work together, put ideology aside, and do some pragmatic problem solving. [Emphasis mine]

      Scott Erb, January 28, 2016:

      I am pretty sure I avoided the phrase “teabagger” from the start.

      This one was easy to document, but he does that kind of memory rearrangement all the time – and doesn’t even realize he’s doing it. He’s so immersed in postmodern leftism that he has to believe whatever is good for the left is true and good, and so he discards any evidence in contradiction to that and selectively seeks evidence, no matter how flimsy, in support of it. Then he calls that flimsy evidence “non-partisan” and expects everyone else to consider it definitive.

      Then he brings in his magical handwave to dismiss any contrary evidence, and walks away smugly talking to himself about he won the argument yet again, and we sterile, inbred people on the right were brought down a notch. It’s an obvious psychological crutch to support his narcissism, and when you’re as stupid as Scott, you need every crutch you can get.

      • I wrongly used “teabagger” back in 2009, and now in 2016 didn’t remember that post. I shouldn’t have used it, I apologize. However, when asked to place myself, I consider my closest political allies the Christian Democrats of Germany – that’s their conservative party. Hardly far left.

        I read pro-Hillary blogs that are just as certain they are right, just as condescending of opposing views, with arguments that are as strong as those here. So I’m trying to figure out who has the stronger case. I post a link to a good legal analysis I found after some searching, and so far no one has countered the legal arguments in that link. Instead I’m ridiculed, people tell me “anyone who has clearance knows…,” etc. No real argument. Yet I have to agree that there is prima facia evidence that a crime may have been committed – that’s why I keep an open mind and am skeptical of both sets of partisans. And I guess both sets of partisans will not be happy with that view.

        • “I read pro-Hillary blogs that are just as certain they are right, just as condescending of opposing views, with arguments that are as strong as those here. ”

          What arguments that are strong –
          That the data was (ALL!!!!) classified AFTERWARDS and wasn’t secret or confidential when it was placed on her server?
          That’s it’s an inter agency argument about classified data?
          That it was ridiculous to classify data (x) in the first place and so it was okay to ignore the classification because Hillary’s guys disagreed with it?

          They’re all laughable on their face and demonstrate a complete failure to understand how classified materials are created, handled, and if ever, declassified.
          That’s why we’re telling you ANY of us who tried to offer those excuses in defense would ALREADY be sitting in a cell either awaiting trial or having been tried and found guilty, or at the very least, sadly short of cash from the fines.

          Not a single one of those passes the smell test –
          Afterwards? ALL the messages that are now classified were classified AFTERWARDS over 4 years? ( Like winning a coin-toss 6 straight or parlaying a $1000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 payout after 10 months?) She never had ANY data that was classified until some bastards came along and classified it after the fact? For 4 years as the Secretary of State?

          The agency that classifies data controls it, so there’s no ‘argument’ about it and no arbitration that decides another agency can remove the classification.
          If SIGINT says it is classified, it’s classified, and remains so until they say otherwise, end of story.

          Agencies don’t get to judge, and ignore, if data should have been classified after some other agency who provided it says it IS.

          Those aren’t my ‘partisan’ opinions, those are the facts.

          • *shrug* They say similar things about you. Yet as I look, there is no clear cut case one way or another. I believe that you sincerely think you are right and it’s obvious. I’m absolutely convinced they sincerely believe they are right, and it’s obvious. When you are so convinced and have a partisan perspective, it’s easy to think that those who don’t see it the way you do are either dumb or have bad motives. However, NOTHING you said shows a flaw in the logic of the ABC News analysis I posted, and ignores the issues it raises. You assert things here, but it’s unsupported. I also suggest you look more closely at the coin toss story, http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

            I think you need to seriously consider positions other than your own – read different perspectives.

          • Coin tosses happened. No one said Bernie didn’t win any.

            And despite the lengths npr went to to explain it all away it still amounts to six coin tosses.

          • Do you honestly think she has the power to rig the coin tosses? Where people are present, observing? I know a lot of Sanders people are pissed about that too, and I’ve heard conspiracy theories from them. Hillary’s strategy now is to wrap herself in the President since he remains immensely popular among Democrats. I don’t know if it will be enough. Whether or not she committed a crime, all this hurts her credibility and reputation, and she may not recover. Perhaps at this point we can at least agree on that?

          • From the article:

            “There are serious legal hurdles to overcome for those who would seek to file a charge under this law. First, none of the information she possessed and/or presumably “removes” had officially been declared “classified” at that time. That matters. Sure, there is an argument that classified “documents” are not the same as classified “information” and that certain information is classified at birth” and therefore always officially classified. And there’s no question that some of the information and/or documents were later declared classified.

            But this isn’t a law school exam where we attempt to figure out how creative one can become in fitting a law into a particular fact pattern. We are talking about whether a criminal charge should be filed based on intentional conduct when even governmental agencies squabble over what is classified and what isn’t. So proving that she “knowingly” removed “classified information” “without authority” at the time seems far-fetched based on what we know today.”

          • By the I strongly recommend you read that article, it is full of analysis, with links to various sources, and from what I could find the most complete attempt to assess what we know of the e-mail scandal’s legal standing. If you have evidence that disagrees with this, I’ll certainly consider it. I know very well there is a chance she did something criminal, I’m honestly trying to understand the legal naunces of this, not the partisan spin.

          • The not yet classified arguments are all from camp Clinton.

            You run with that.

          • There needs to be evidence. In any criminal case, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Unless there is real evidence that proves otherwise, I’m keeping an open mind. I see people left and right who simply believe what their “team” believes – bad things about the other side, good things about their own. That even happens within camps. The Sanders people believe bad things about Clinton. The Cruz people think bad things about the “establishment.” So much bias based on what one wants to believe. I don’t want to go that route. In fact, I work hard to prevent it, which is why I’m willing to read and comment on blogs with different perspectives than my own, figuring the name calling and attacks from some (you’ve been reasonable, which I appreciate) are a small price to pay (internet insults are pretty impotent) for the fact I learn to look at things from a different perspective. I get how you’re looking at Hillary. I’m taking it seriously. I’m still skeptical, but I’m not blowing your view off or saying it’s illegitimate. I take you seriously, you just haven’t convinced me.

          • Yeah, yeah, open mind, no evidence, blah blah, you’re a saint.

            Except for the people who have done less with secret level material or gear, in some cases by genuine accident, carelessness, or sheer stupidity (like selfies with classified equipment in the background), and have already suffered for it.

            But you wouldn’t know that because your ‘authorities’ don’t tell you about it, and your class of American thinks the security thing is all action movie fantasy & paranoia.

          • And no one cares if you want to pretend you’re just being thoughtful and open minded.

          • Alan, please stop feeding the troll.

          • I know, I was there.

            It’s like a…train wreck….I just can’t look away.

          • I take very seriously the arguments that accuse Hillary of probably committing a crime. I would not be responding to you or reading your links if I didn’t want to explore that. But I have not seen a strong legal argument yet that convinces me there is any certainty. I have seen enough to remain skeptical of her position. You seem to suggest that the only legitimate position is to agree with you. I think wisdom in matters like this is to remember none of us are perfect and there is a chance you are wrong. My statement remains that I am skeptical. But will keep investigating. And to the “a reader” who seems emotionally upset that I even post – mellow out. Ignore me if you don’t like what I right. But I guarantee you – I’ll be honest, respectful, and I’ll listen. If you can’t stand opinions different than yours, just don’t read what I post. If you’re one of the owners of this blog, you could choose to ban me. I could respect that since it’s your blog, but it would be disappointed because I am really focused on remaining respectful, listening and avoiding falling into silly arguments like those of the past. Still, its up to you.

        • “No real argument.”

          More BS.

          “Yet I have to agree that there is prima facia evidence that a crime may have been committed –”

          But not, of course, by Hillary’s gang. Probably that VRWC again. Or gremlins.

          • Someone fed the Chappaqua mogwai after midnight!!!!!?????

            Khannnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!

      • Scott Erb on October 1, 2009 at 17:31
        Oops, just googled teabagger. OK, I won’t use that one again!

        Note that this was after months of everyone and his dog pointing out the actual meaning of the term, so the only people still using it were A) those who intended to be insulting, and B) clueless bubble lefties.

        • Yep. So he was corrected, found out we were right, and then conveniently forgot that he ever used the term.

          That convenient memory is a hallmark of narcissists, who are able to rearrange the memories in their heads at will to edit out anything that makes them look bad. Most people do this to some extent, but usually not on something that was documented and public.

          Also note that he tossed off the “pretty sure” remark without ever checking, and it was trivial to check. He imposes responsibility on others to check the record rather than himself. Again, this is standard narcissistic behavior. His time is too valuable, and his mind doesn’t even want to entertain the possibility that we might be right and he might be wrong about such a thing.

          Now, his comeback is that it’s just a failure of memory. He always has an excuse (narcissism again), and every incident is independent and not part of any pattern. It’s necessary to have such an attitude to dispose of the inevitable challenges to his narcissism.

          All in all, he’s a fascinating psychological study. The whole “I’m so smart and able to lecture you rubes on just about anything, yet I have no professional accomplishments and I teach at a nowhere college in the woods” contradiction is one of the more interesting defense mechanisms. And the way he uses his PhD as a crutch to prove to himself that he’s not stupid is part of it too. My wife used to edit PhD dissertations, and I’ve read some of them, so I know just how useless a PhD is at assessing someone’s capabilities or native intelligence. In the social sciences, it’s possible to get a dissertation through a committee through sheer persistence – I’ve seen them award a degree basically to get rid of the candidate so they don’t have to put up with them anymore.

          I have a suspicion that this week’s behavior might be for a reason. It’s possible that he has trotted out “nice Scottie” for a while so he can refer someone (students? colleagues?) to these threads and say “Look how these people treat me even though I’m so nice and respectful. See how nasty people on the right are?” Someone set up that way would not see the ten year history of condescension, cheap shots, dishonesty, thread subversion, insulting, and general idiocy, so they might be taken in by such a ploy. Or maybe he’s just trying to convince himself because his defenses are wearing a bit thin.

  • The Lefty-Proggs are really just “The Borg” under a different name.

    If you’re assimilated and “of the Body”, you can say anything or do anything because it’s UNDERSTOOD that you are working FOR THE INTERESTS OF THE BORG.
    {{cf: “The Narrative”}} {{also cf: Islam}}

    If you are NOT assimilated, thus NOT “of the Body”, EVERYTHING YOU DO is wrong and suspect and evil because “You’re not one of Us; we can’t trust anything about you … First Principle: you are OPPOSED to being subsumed into our Us-ness.”
    {{cf: Islam, convert or die}}

    You’ll note that theirs is a digital, on/off, yes/no view of the world. They have no room for analog; there’s no “almost-there”, or “shades-of-gray”, or “you’ve-got-it-half-right” perspective on others’ beliefs. And STILL the True Believers will stand right in front of us, look us straight in the eye, and call us “judgmental” or “doctrinaire” or “inflexible”. They self-righteously accuse us of a “conspiracy” against them and their Special Brand of Wonderful.
    (I know, I know: it’s projection. The old saw IS true: “You want to know what the Left is up to? Just listen to what they accuse YOU of doing.” But, still… Sooo annoying.)

    • That’s a very convenient belief if you want to dismiss ideas and evidence from the other side as out of hand from the start, and thus avoid the hard work of actually making an argument to support or prove your position. It’s much easier to just dismiss the other side with lots of accusations. It isn’t rational, but it’s easier.

      • You know, some of us have been thinking and reading about these things for a long time. We have examined evidence, listened to arguments, and sometimes actually done research. Believe it or not, some of us even have some expertise in what we talk about. Certainly more than you have. And yet you expect us to reinvent the wheel by regurgitating years of effort to satisfy your demands of ironclad proof. And, of course, you do not even meet your own standards.

        I understand, of course, that you judge us by assuming we all act as you do, but we are not as lazy, incurious, biased, dishonest, or incapable of self-awareness as you.

        • Forgive me if I don’t accept your claim to expertise any more than you’ll accept mine. Show, don’t tell. If you want to convince someone, give the argument and evidence. That’s why I posted a link to the article the best explained why I remain skeptical. That’s why I’ve read the links posted in response. If there is a compelling reason for me to change my mind, give it to me – don’t just say “we know more than you so we’re right.” Perhaps, but at this point I don’t find that convincing.

          • “Show, don’t tell.”

            LOL. Definitely not self-aware yet. The program needs a little tweaking.

  • Erp’s linked article is a hack job. For example, the claim that it wasn’t classified “at the time” simply repeats Hillary’s claim. Other agencies despute that. It is highly unlikely the info oh human intelligence originated with State. It originated elsewhere and was put on the private server without its classification markings. The email was discovered and classified later, but the info was classified before it reached State.

    • Too bad you have no evidence of wrong-doing. 😛

      • State says the 22 top secret emails they just found the info was classified when they were sent. Hillary claims none were marked. The implication is that someone took classified info from marked documents and put it in her email.

        • Doesn’t she just wish “I didn’t know” was actually a working defense for someone with a sky high clearance.

          But it’s her server and her failure to know that there was classified data on it qualifies as at least negligence.

          • I can agree there – she exercised bad judgment, even negligence, and voters have legitimate reason to consider that a reason to question whether or not she would be a good choice for President.

          • A finding of “Negligence” with material is punishable by fine and/or imprisonment.

            “(f) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

            Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

            Proper place of custody for secure material is not on her homegrown bathroom (yes, it was in old bathroom closet) server run by Platte River Networks.

          • The colloquial meaning of negligence and the legal definition of “gross negligence” in this act leave a lot of room for uncertainty. Also, it’s not clear the latter part of that act happened at all. So I don’t think there is anywhere close to evidence that she violated that law.

        • Politfact takes that on.

          It’s a good analysis, and takes on precisely the claim that you make. I’ll cut and paste their conclusion because it is exactly the same as mine
          “We’ve noticed several Republican candidates claiming that Clinton negligently handled classified information. But they’re jumping the gun. There isn’t enough evidence to prove that. Some evidence suggests Clinton and her team went to some trouble to keep classified information out the email system.

          This is not to say Clinton’s email setup was allowed or appropriate — for example, it skirted open records laws and presents challenges to archivists. And subsequent investigations may yield surprises or other unexpected evidence. But because of the way classification works and because of the incomplete record of her emails, we continue to reserve judgment.”

          • This isn’t a ‘candidates’ issue – this is not a campaign issue, it’s a possible criminal issue that happens to be related to a candidate.

            No one here cares what Ted Cruz, or Donald Trump, or any of the Republican field think of it.
            No one here cares what Bernie Sanders thinks of it.
            Taking the classification markings OFF of classified documents does not constitute ‘went to some trouble to keep classified information out of the email system”.

            If the FBI/Justice Department took action for criminal wrong doing against her it wouldn’t be an issue a campaign addressed because she would no longer HAVE a campaign.

          • .” Some evidence suggests Clinton and her team went to some trouble to keep classified information out the email system”

            “Show, don’t tell.”

          • ” and because of the incomplete record of her emails”

            LOL. It only takes one.

    • ‘discovered’ like it was buried there by Dread Email-Pirate Captain Roberts, scourge of the 7 Servers, who stole it off NSANet and never came back to retrieve it because he was caught and sunk by Admiral McAfee’s fleet.

      The whole ‘oh, we realized THAT was NOW classified’ – heh – how did that come about?

      Word searches for words that were now classified that weren’t classified before?
      Hire a crew of Eyes Only cleared ‘Rain Men’ with idetic memory to read over all the documents on the server?

      And we’re supposed to believe the ONLY classified data was ALL classified AFTER the fact? 4 years – and every time classified data ended up there it was BEFORE it was classified.
      All of it? How very convenient!
      How very suspicious is more like it.
      And how very Clintonian.

      • It’s the standard lie. The meaning of “is”. The emails may have only recently been formally classified. The content and originating documents were classified all along.

        • A legal question requires more than suspicion. You have a realistic speculation, but at this point it’s just that – speculation on what happened. You can’t charge people with crimes based on what you think likely happened. There has to be evidence. Let’s hope that the investigation sheds light on exactly what happened.

          • Actually, as a rule posters here don’t get to charge anybody with anything, so I’m not sure who ‘You can’t charge people’ is directed at.

            And I’m pretty sure the readership understands the whole evidence thing, in pretty much the way many understand the classified information thing and the whole violation of the security protocols thing.

            Crimes WERE committed –
            The first question is whether or not they’ll find Hillary’s pudgy fingerprints on anything directly.
            The second question is whether or not they’d tell us if they did.
            The third question is whether or not the Justice Department would actually DO anything about it if she is implicated.
            The final question is is anyone going to take the fall for this.

            But golly gee willikers you’re such a nice man to come and tell us how our legal system works and all.

          • Alan, all I said was that I’m skeptical. I said from the start I wasn’t defending Hillary. Were crimes committed? I’m skeptical on that too. I’m more confident in our justice system than you are, I don’t think the FBI or Justice Department will cover for Clinton. I also don’t believe she’s as bad as the right make her out to be – they’ve constructed a kind of evil genius manipulator caricature of her. And it’s worked, her reputation has been hurt. In a Machiavellian sense, I guess it was smart politics.

          • Yes, crimes were committed – mishandling classified information is a crime whether you do it by accident or on purpose, because people who have those authorizations are not allowed to “make mistakes” because it has to be deadly serious since it can have deadly consequences for US citizens and even the entire nation.
            This isn’t an academic exercise, but you don’t really understand that, you think it’s just some data that “got loose” and some people might have found out some things that might be important.

            Whether or not it will be TREATED as a crime is the question.

          • That is your interpretation. I respect that. Many legal experts interpret this differently – and there is no reason to simply accept your interpretation over theirs (and it looks like Colin Powell had similar issues). I think it’s legitimate to ask if Clinton (and maybe even Powell) were too quick to use technology in a particular way without considering all facets of what it might mean. Whether or not that’s a crime – that is not clear at all.

          • Because you don’t have a clue about clearances, Clarence.

            Like I said, you think it’s all a big joke with do overs and “oops my bads”, where “oh, I’m sorry” covers any mistakes and it’s not serious.
            You think that she should just be able to say “oh my, I had no idea, i regret doing that, it caused so much confusion!”, but see – she did know, because they’d have briefed her when she took the job.

            It’s serious, like a thermite grenade is serious.

            here, handout on Clearances Security Clearances

          • I think when you deal with top level officials like the Secretary of State, basic information on security clearances isn’t near enough to work through the legal issues. In any event, a general description of security clearances hardly counters the legal arguments.

    • That’s possible. Hopefully an investigation will discover if that’s what happened. If so, then that would deal with one big area of uncertainty. Hopefully we’ll find out if it’s true or not.

      • We already know that the info in at least some of the emails was classified when they were sent. The article you linked took Hillary’s claim otherwise as fact.

        • Please give me a source that confirms that, and I’ll take it very seriously! Also, the probe is expanding – Colin Powell is also being investigated: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/fbi-colin-powell-email-probe-218748

          • Here –
            http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-criminal-charges-email/2016/01/15/id/709584/

            I know, I know – partisan – Reagan/Bush judges! Those partisans, they’re everywhere – anyone who suggests there might have been criminal activity is a obviously a partisan and doesn’t understand the law or anything about secret stuff.
            that includes that rat bastard Republican Bernie Sanders with his sexist attacks on Hillary!

            VRWC. Hillary haters will say and do anything, anything!
            The poor woman, she tries so hard, and these bastards keep attacking her, and all other women too, because a vote for Hillary is a vote for women, and mom, and apple pie and Hillary truly represents all that is good and decent and nurturing and kind and Abuela like, about America.

          • Newsmax? Look, I know a lot of people interpret this as a crime – opinion pieces on the right make that claim, and it’s certainly fine that you agree. And I could point to partisan opinion pieces on the Hillary’s side that poo-poo that talk completely. Trying to be as objective as possible, I agree with Politfact that we just don’t have enough information, and thus I’ll withhold judgment until the FBI and Justice do their investigations, which I trust will be done completely. If they do find evidence of a crime, they should at on that. But you have to admit, the right has constructed lots of “scandals” that turn out to be duds, even when investigated thoroughly (e.g., Benghazi). So I have a natural inclination to be skeptical of scandal talk from the right at this point. But I do listen – part of being an educator is to recognize the importance of understanding and representing a variety of perspectives. One who teaches only ones’ own perspective is engaged in a kind of malpractice.

          • Put it this way Alan – maybe we can agree to disagree. I am not saying your position and opinion is illegitimate. I am not saying you should have the same skepticism of the claim that I do. I am not saying you are wrong, I’m respecting your position. I’m only saying that there are alot of other opinions out there, and different ways this is interpreted. My read, which I defend, is that we don’t have enough information to say for sure Hillary committed a crime. I am not at all saying you should adopt that view, I’m comfortable with you having your opinion (and I know Hillary supporters who would harangue me about how this is all bogus – I would not share their perspective either). Unless you are saying that it’s open and shut, obvious, and only your perspective is legit, then I think we simply have an honest difference of perspective here. And again, I promise to be open to evidence that supports yours – I think we all want the truth to prevail.

          • Ah yes, the non-partisan partisan hand wave.
            But we weren’t allowed that for ABC news because YOU consider that a respected organization with a byline and everything!

            Two former judges – who cares what the source is as long as the judges really exist, and they really said it.

            Mr. Open mind and looks at all the facts.

          • The Powell investigation looks like a distraction. Hillary should have been indicted already.

          • Alan, it’s not a hand wave. Can’t you at least recognize that your perspective – and those judges you cite (and there are legal experts with different views) are just giving their opinions. And opinions vary. Do you really think only your view is legitimate and anyone (like me, Politfact, and others) who are still withholding judgment due to lack of information is necessarily wrong? If so, well, so be it. The reason I cite the ABC story is not because I believe ABC an authority, but I’ve examined the content of the story and its supporting links, and found it well supported and well reasoned. I certain read the legal opinions on the right too, I just don’t find them convincing at this point. I also am not convinced by Hillary’s legal arguments that there is no problem. Can you not accept that I want to be as objective as possible and wait for more information?

          • Lol – but nothing ABC gave you was their opinion – it was all fact.

            You’re a real character.

          • Did you even bother to read your own source?

            “The emails, Cummings said, appear to have no classification markings, and it is still unclear if the content of the emails was or should have been considered classified when the emails were originally written and sent.”

            That’s Elijah Cummings, Dem. from MD., who has been a partisan supporter of Hillary since the start of these investigation(s). Is the definition of “unclear” unclear?

  • I’m not going to continue this thread Alan, so you can have the last word. I posted only to say I’m skeptical, and gave reasons why. I recognize the reasons for your opinion, but nothing you posted-addressed why I’m skeptical. But I’ll keep looking for evidence that there is, indeed a crime. I have no love for Hillary, after all. But think of this – many on the right were just as certain about Benghazi, citing military experts. Yet after multiple inquiries it was shown there was no wrong doing. That’s happened with past alleged scandals too – IRS, etc. Please at least consider the possibility that pundits on the right are too quick to inject some wishful thinking into their analyses. Keep your mind open to evidence and different opinions too. All that said, I fully respect your views here and you indeed may be proven right. I don’t think there is anything more to say on my end, I will let you have the last word and will only reply if you ask that I do, or ask me a specific question. Cheers!

    • Nah, what’s shown in no wrong doing anyone in government cares to share with the peons – screws up the chi of the artiso ruling party.

    • No wrongdoing? Is that why Learner pleaded the fifth and destroyed her hard drive?