“I think you are literally for the first time trying to avoid a true narrative here,” Mika Brzezinski tells Howard Dean at the end of an unbelievably disingenuous attempt by the former DNC chair to spin yesterday’s news as a boon for Hillary Clinton. Dean pronounced himself delighted by the FBI’s seizure of the e-mail server and thumb drives yesterday, thanking God that Trey Gowdy didn’t get them. A reminder from Nicolle Wallace that Gowdy didn’t want them — he wanted them to go to a third party all along — does nothing to harsh Dean’s mellow (via Free Beacon):
Yeeeeargh! Mika offered this final rebuke at the end:
“Your partisan whatever is oozing, it’s right there,” Brzezinski said. “It’s just very awkward on the set.”
To call it unconvincing would be charitable. It would take even more charity to credit Dean’s defense of Hillary Clinton with any hint of intellectual honesty. Dean argues that Hillary didn’t know that the server had classified material on it, and therefore she would have broken no laws. That’s actually not true, for a number of reasons, even if one accepts “I am not a crook!” as the bar to clear for the presidency. (Will the ghost of Richard Nixon please pick up the white courtesy phone in the Limbo Lounge?)
First, all of those communications belonged to the State Department and the National Archives from the moment Hillary took office, regardless of classification level, under the Federal Records Act. She did not disclose the existence of this server and its exclusive role in her electronic communications until well after she left office, and allowed the State Department to misrepresent the record in several FOIA cases until Gowdy’s Select Committee on Benghazi exposed the set-up. Contra Dean, the FRA doesn’t apply to the office of Vermont governor and his business was unlikely to include classified nat-sec material, so a defense based on Dean’s practices from the 1990s are a non-sequitur on several levels.
Put simply, there is no benign reason for Hillary to bypass secured channels by using her own e-mail server located in an unsecured and unapproved facility — her home. That in itself violates more than one regulation on handling even sensitive materials, and is best described as willful disregard of them. Once classified material was found in these e-mails, that opens up a number of legal problems for Hillary, especially in 18 US Code 793 and 18 US Code 1924, both of which carry prison terms for violations.
Let’s start with 1924, emphases mine:
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
That could apply to both the entire e-mail server, and to the thumb drives given to the attorneys. Hillary intended to retain all of this information for her own use, even if that use was simply to keep Congress from exercising its legitimate oversight of her office, and even if that meant destroying rather than returning the e-mails to the National Archives. The act of using the Clintonemail server was her deliberate choice, and in that sense it makes no difference whether the e-mail accounts that had the classified material were hers or those of her aides. She retained that material at her own residence, an unsecured and unauthorized location for that material. That is itself a huge violation of regulations on handling Top Secret and compartmented data, on top of which she had physical possession of classified material to which she no longer had authorized access on the “need to know” basis. She made that deliberate choice knowing full well it not only violated the law, but also the EO issued by Obama that largely barred the use of private e-mail accounts for public business.
Let’s take a look now at 793 (d), (e), and especially (f), again emphases mine:
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or
(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.
Note that this is 10 years per count, and also note that 793 does not restrict this to classified material, either. The classification level simply makes it easier for prosecutors to establish that the possessor would know that the material could do damage to the US if it got into the wrong hands. The language in 793 (f)(1) also makes clear that a lack of intent isn’t a defense against criminality. It only takes “gross negligence,” a standard that likely falls below “willful disregard,” which is what Hillary had when she opted to use a private, unsecured e-mail system for communications that any reasonable person would expect to include some classified material. The State Department has its own intelligence group that produces classified data specifically for the Secretary of State, after all, and the position deals with intelligence from across the spectrum of US agencies.
Now, all of this is predicated on the willingness of a prosecutor to actually pursue charges. The FBI and the DoJ are investigating this, which is what Gowdy wanted them to do in the first place. If they never bring charges, then this is mostly academic, but a failure to charge Hillary Clinton for this would open up a huge can of worms the next time the government wants to pursue a leak case, especially in regard to 1924. Needless to say, any other American who did all this whose name didn’t rhyme with Millary Minton would need a very good lawyer, and a plan for post-prison rehabilitation.
Politically, also contra Dean, the FBI’s seizure of the server after Hillary’s public refusal to surrender it voluntarily in March is a disaster of the first order. Chris Cillizza isn’t fooled:
Where does the story go from here? Clinton hopes nowhere. But, keep an eye on the following:
1. Does the State Department turn over more of the 30,000 Clinton work-related e-mails to the intelligence community’s inspector general? So far, he has reviewed just 40 of Clinton’s e-mails and found that four contained classified information. That’s 10 percent.
2. How many more — if any — e-mails show that Clinton was sending or receiving classified information via her e-mail server? And, was any of that information classified at the time she received or sent it? Did she know? If not, why not?
Where do I start? How about with the Clinton campaign’s ridiculous suggestion that coughing up the server and email were voluntary acts. We know that’s bunk—because Clinton herself said she wouldn’t surrender the people’s records without a fight.
“The server will remain private,” she said in March. Her attorney told Congress at the time that there was “no basis” to support a third-party examination of the server. Besides, he said, the server had been scrubbed. “There are no ... emails from Secretary of State Clinton’s tenure on the server for any review, even if such a review were appropriate or legally authorized,” attorney David Kendall wrote Congress.
It’s safe to assume two things changed Clinton’s mind: political and legal pressure. First, the public’s trust and approval of the Democratic front-runner has plummeted amid revelations that she established an email system that violated federal policy, thwarted congressional oversight, and skirted the Freedom of Information Act. …
Know this: Government officials have been convicted of mishandling unmarked classified material. And this: The fact is, any chain of events or excuses that led to the disclosure of these documents begins with Clinton’s decision to go rogue with government email.
As noted above.
Poster Comment:
Morissey excels at these research pieces generally.
Obama now has Hillary's...ovaries...in his hands. He can have the Feds proceed with a harsh, frequently-leaked investigation that destroys her and paves the way for somebody of his chosing (Biden). Or he can have the Feds pronounce her "All Clear".
One way, Obama retains the power even after the election. The other way, he loses it.
But then again, perhaps if he exonerates Hillary and paves her way forward, she does the same for his time in office.
It depends on whether Obama believes that Biden can win.
Anyway, along with that AoS material we had yesterday, this pretty much paints a picture of the legal hazards for Team Hillary!.
Jarrett and the other WH operatives might be able to get Obama to betray the Hildebeeste and renege on his pledge to help elect her. She is doing badly, mostly because the voters are being reminded of why they never liked her or trusted her to start with. And she is personally abrasive, even in small doses.
Your mention of a WH cabal to get rid of Hitlery because of the anti-Xlinton animus and also a desire to hold onto their own political power as administration officials/operatives or even lobbyists aspirations may hold some water.
If Biden were the nominee, the WH crew may be thinking they have a better chance for further high-level service in the administration or to make their lobbying careers more lucrative.
Obama may be influenced by his staff. And Jarrett is close to both Obamas.
It just makes sense. The inner circle at every White House have held a lot of power, and they're all corrupt, they've all abused it, they've all "got the dirt", and use it to massage their administration's and their own way forward.
Team Clinton and Team Obama did not like each other. Team Clinton looked down upon Obama, and everybody was afraid of them. But there's some other power behind Obama - and I don't mean supernatural. I think probably Saudi.
Now that Team Obama has had 7 years to accumulate the sort of dirt, and exercise the sort of power Team Clinton had - but without nearly as much scrutiny because their party controlled Congress most of that time, and also because their boss is a more self-disciplined character than Clinton was, so he doesn't generate scandals and the oversight interventions that flow from them - they have as much dirt on people as the Clintons ever did.
And they still don't like Team Clinton. The President's crew right now control the Democrat Party, with Team Clinton out of power now for 15 years. Those records the Clinton's took are stale. The statute of limitations has run on a lot of it, and it's a cinch that Team Obama has not been refilling the Clinton information machine.
With this investigation, and the FBI maneuver, Obama now has Hillary Clinton in his hands in a way he never did before. He can destroy her. All he has to do is have the Attorney General start pressing the investigation, and "unknown sources" start leaking. This has already started to happen, to ratchet up the pressure.
The question is: can Hillary Clinton really offer Obama anything that he wants that he can't take for himself, and can he trust her to actually carry it out once she has the power.
Team Obama sees her collapsing in the polls. They would have been supportive of a surging Hillary, but they're looking at a sow's ear that may lose the election.
Team Obama wants another Democrat regime, both for ideological reasons and to cover their own tracks. Hillary looks very weak. A full on investigation with unofficial leaks will finish her. But finishing her would not be good if there were no other alternative.
Obama has not endorsed Hillary. He has watched. He has sized up Biden, and polls show that more Democrat voters approve of Biden as President than Hillary.
So Obama is looking at the situation and assessing. Biden is old, after all. He's 72.
Waiting now, while Hillary implodes, to see if she implodes WITHOUT leaks - that's what he's doing. If he moves now, he will rankle the true blue Clinton supporters. But if it becomes clear that she cannot win, and clearer and clearer, the Democrats will start to get restless. The investigation allows him the power to nudge Hillary out (with the promise of a pardon) once things really have degraded.
And then Biden will come in as a relief. "Ok, NOW we've got somebody!" The party will quickly rally around him and he'll surge.
I expect it to be Biden, and for a united Democrat party to be with him. Sanders' support will dry up, and Team Clinton will be released by Hillary and Bill to support Biden because Hillary will be promised a pardon if she plays nice.
Biden, with a united party and demographic winds behind him, will be a formidable opponent. He will choose somebody young, and perhaps female, as his running mate.
If she would do it, a brilliant running mate for him would be the most powerful young Democratic woman in America. She would be a brilliant pick because she would break the mold in fascinating ways. A known quantity, and quite respected. If I were Biden, I would pick her, and if I were her, I would take the role with the full understanding that Biden was preparing her to take the job when he was finished, either through finishing out his final term or perhaps by retiring during his second term.
She would be the strongest female candidate in history, and people COULD envision, and accept, her in the role of President.
It would show strategic brilliance to do it, and Obama could certainly lend a hand in getting it done.
Obama would be a very powerful former President to have on your roster, and if he picked BOTH the next President AND Vice President - and enabled it to happen - and got the Clinton faction's peace through pardons - that power bloc would dominate the show for 16 more years.
Obama is going to look, and think, and let events develop.
In the end, I expect that all of the pieces will fall into play just like this, and maybe even the Veep piece will too.
If this all happens, Biden will win, and win big.
Trump is the only one who could stop him. But the Republicans are not going to let Trump be their nominee. Which may mean, if he runs third party, that it will be even easier to press forward with Biden.
Anyway, that's what's going to happen. Now we watch it play out.
A Latina woman with a record as a hardworking judge.
Liberal on social issues, but with an extensive track record of limiting executive power and striking back executive overreach by both Republican and Democratic officials.
Obviously I am not a fan of her pro-choice views and won't be voting for her.
But, if she joined the ticket it would be very powerful.
It would be an Obama coronation: two high officials, both chosen by Obama, succeeding him.
She's judicious: she will not say stupid things that will damage Biden.
She will neutralize the Rubio factor.
She'll give women the "woman on the ticket" factor.
She's one of the two most powerful Democrat women in America (the other one being Ruth Bader Ginsburg).
She does not have executive experience, but she would not NEED it as Veep. And she brings gravitas and experience. She would, in fact, be the most powerful person on the ticket, one of "The Nine" (the Supreme Court Nazgul).
Her track record is well known, and it has already been vetted. The liberals will like her. The moderates will not reject her.
