Advertisements

THERE’S ‘EMAIL RULES’? Hillary Didn’t Break ‘Email Rules’, She Broke FEDERAL LAW

 over

“You’ve heard by now, Hillary Clinton violated email rules. What? There’s email rules?”

At observer.com,  writes:PANTSUIT-REPORT

…Any foreign intelligence service worth its salt would have had no trouble accessing Ms. Clinton’s emails, particularly when they were unencrypted, as this column has explained in detail. Yet Hillary was more worried about the American public finding out about what she was up to via FOIA than what foreign spy services and hackers might see in her email.

What she was seeking to hide so ardently remains one of the big unanswered questions in EmailGate. Hints may be found in the recent announcement that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the former head of the Democratic National Committee and a longtime Clinton intimate, is under FBI investigation for financial misdeeds, 12-hillary-clinton-email.w245.h368specifically dirty money coming from China. In fact, Mr. McAulliffe invited one of his Beijing benefactors over to Ms. Clinton’s house in 2013. Not long after, Chinese investors donated $2 million to the Clinton Foundation.

That an illegal pay-for-play-scheme, with donations to the Clinton Foundation being rewarded by political favors from Hillary Clinton—who when she was secretary of state had an enormous ability to grant favors to foreign bidders—existed at the heart of EmailGate has been widely suspected, and we know the FBI is investigating this case as political corruption, not just for mishandling of classified information….

…Even The Washington Post, hardly a member of the VRWC, has conceded that EmailGate is a certifiably big deal, and “badly complicates Clinton’s past explanations about the server.” Its editors went further, issuing a blistering statement castigating Ms. Clinton’s “inexcusable, willful disregard of the rules.” They minced no words: “Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official government communications methods, so as to make sure that her records were properly preserved and to minimize cybersecurity risks. She ignored them.”

Although Post editors were at pains to state that Ms. Clinton had not broken any laws with her gross negligence at Foggy Bottom, the issue remains open.

Not broken any laws? Really?

At Hot Air, Larry O’Connor writes:

Mark Levin blew apart the media narrative that Hillary Clinton “broke email rules” at the State Department.

Wednesday’s release of the State Department’s Inspector General emphasized Clinton’s violation of internal email policies, but Levin went right to the core of the matter explaining that these “policies” are in place because of federal law:

“You’ve heard by now, Hillary Clinton violated email rules. What? There’s email rules? Thats how Politico headlined their breaking story. ‘State Dept watchdog: Clinton violated email rules.’ No. She didn’t violate email rules, she violated federal law. ‘The State Department Inspector General concluded that hc didn’t comply with the agency’s policy on records.’ Guilty. GUILTY!  She’s guilty of violating a federal law. It’s not just the State Department that comes up with these policies. These policies are put in plac to undergird the federal records act.”

(read more)

Source: Hot Air

Advertisements

Noonan: How the Clintons Get Away With It

Kozlowski-wsj-clintons

The Clintons are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption

Peggy Noonan writes: I have read the Peter Schweizer book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and hillary-tall-angryHillary Rich”. It is something. Because it is heavily researched and reported and soberly analyzed, it is a highly effective takedown. Because its tone is modest—Mr. Schweitzer doesn’t pretend to more than he has, or take wild interpretive leaps—it is believable.

 “No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office.”

By the end I was certain of two things. A formal investigation, from Congress or the Justice Department, is needed to determine if Hillary Clinton’s State Department functioned, at least to some degree and in some cases, as pay-for-play operation and whether the Clinton Foundation has functioned, at least in part, as a kind of high-class philanthropic slush fund.

[Read the full text here, at WSJ]

I wonder if any aspirant for the presidency except Hillary Clinton could survive such a book. I suspect she can because the Clintons are unique in the annals of American PANTSUIT-REPORTpolitics: They are protected from charges of corruption by their reputation for corruption. It’s not news anymore.

“Mr. Schweizer tells a story with national-security implications.”

They’re like . . . Bonnie and Clyde go on a spree, hold up a bunch of banks, it causes a sensation, there’s a trial, and they’re acquitted. They walk out of the courthouse, get in a car, rob a bank, get hauled in, complain they’re being picked on—“Why are you always following us?”—and again, not guilty. They rob the next bank and no one cares. “That’s just Bonnie and Clyde doing what Bonnie and Clyde do. No one else cares, why should I?”

 [Order Peter Schweizer’s book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” from Amazon.com]

Mr. Schweizer announces upfront that he cannot prove wrongdoing, only patterns of behavior. There is no memo that says, “To all staff: If we deal this week with any issues regarding Country A, I want you to know country A just gave my husband $750,000 for a speech, so give them what they want.” Even if Mrs. Clinton hadn’t destroyed her emails, no such memo would be found. (Though patterns, dates and dynamics might be discerned.)

“President Obama pressed for a memorandum of understanding in which the Clintons would agree to submit speeches to State’s ethics office, disclose the names of major donors to the foundation, and seek administration approval before accepting direct contributions to the foundation from foreign governments. The Clintons accepted the agreement and violated it ‘almost immediately.'”

Mr. Schweizer writes of “the flow of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation . . . from foreign governments, corporations, and financiers.” It is illegal for foreign nationals to give to U.S. political campaigns, but foreign money, given as donations to the Clinton Foundation or speaking fees, comes in huge amounts: “No one has even come close in recent years to enriching themselves on the scale of the Clintons while they or a spouse continued to serve in public office.” Read the rest of this entry »


BREAKING: Virginia Governor ‘Ferarri Bob’ McDonnell Guilty of Corruption, Jury Finds

ferarri-rolex-gov-wife

A Richmond jury today convicted former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell on 11 of 14 corruption counts. His co-defendant wife Maureen McDonnell was found guilty on eight corruption counts and obstruction of justice.

bob_maureen_mcdonnell

The charges stemmed from exchanging favors with a wealthy Virginia businessman in exchange for more than $177,000 worth of lavish gifts, vacations, and loans. The pair was not convicted on bank fraud charges.

Reporters in the courtroom described the McDonnell family as sobbing and hysterical as the guilty charges were read. This was the third day of deliberations for the jury after a five-week trial. Read the rest of this entry »


Cuccinelli’s Collapse: Why Republicans are losing the Virginia governor’s race

8566356816_aec9825db9_z

W. James Antle III writes:  Next week Virginians will head to the polls to elect a new governor. It is a race that, on paper, Republicans should win. But the paper the polls are printed on says otherwise.

The GOP standard-bearer is Ken Cuccinelli, a prominent conservative who hails from the critical Northern Virginia suburbs—he lives in Prince William County and was elected to the state legislature from Fairfax County—and won the attorney general’s race with 58 percent of the vote just four years ago. His constitutional challenge to Obamacare did not prevail at the Supreme Court, but it would seem at least somewhat vindicated by the law’s metastasizing implementation problems. Read the rest of this entry »