The People VS. Evita, Criminal Case File


Recommended Posts

If possible, only actual evidence from a clear source:

The documents, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, are part of a batch of secret emails held on the private server of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton which U.S. courts have forced her to reveal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277402/Smoking-gun-emails-reveal-Blair-s-deal-blood-George-Bush-Iraq-war-forged-YEAR-invasion-started.html

The Facts of the case: Documents Released Today Via Email From Private Server...

2D82FB0C00000578-3277402-image-m-52_1445

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A classification issue about "Top Secret Designation" appears to have been finalized and it does not bode well for Evita.

However, this is not from a named revealed source:

Earlier this month, Politico reported that the intelligence community was retreating from the “top secret” classification, a development that could have helped Clinton’s presidential campaign deflect allegations about mishandling classified material. Fox News can confirm it is true the handling of one email has changed since it was drafted and sent, but this change has no bearing on the “top secret” nature of the emails when first received on Clinton’s server. And this is what matters to the FBI probe.

While the classification finding is important, the central issue is whether the FBI investigation concludes there was or was not a criminal violation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/15/sources-review-affirms-clinton-server-emails-were-top-secret-despite-department-challenge.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent...

Another first:

First Woman President to be elected.

First Woman President to be arrested during her inaugural parade.

And...

First Woman President to give her inaugural address from...

372_3bb93083-30ad-4964-a3e7-193d4a55960b

A...

Keeping hope alive...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Soon...

As one former senior Justice Department official noted, there are many options for the government to take apart from either nothing or an indictment against Clinton.

“It could play out with people agreeing to plead to … a misdemeanor charge, people agreeing to leave office or withdraw in return for a pardon,” the former official said.

“I think ultimately, one of those events is going to happen,” the former official added.

“It’s not going to be forgotten about.”

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/268456-pressure-on-lynch-to-step-aside-in-clinton-email-probe

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's out of the shadows now...

FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server
02/08/16 05:30 PM—Updated 02/08/16 05:46 PM

By Pete Williams

In a letter disclosed Monday in a federal court filing, the FBI confirms one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: It is looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.

Why say this at all, since it was widely known to be true? Because in August in response to a judge’s direction, the State Department asked the FBI for information about what it was up to. Sorry, the FBI said at the time, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation.

Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Baker says the FBI has not, however, “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.”

He ends the one-paragraph letter by saying that the FBI cannot say more “without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts.”

The letter was filed in one of the Freedom of Information Act cases brought against the State Department over access to documents from Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state. This one was filed by Judicial Watch.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

 

Then reporters James V. Grimaldi and Rebecca Ballhaus lay out how UBS helped the Clintons. “Total donations by UBS to the Clinton Foundation grew from less than $60,000 through 2008 to a cumulative total of about $600,000 by the end of 2014, according to the foundation and the bank,” they report. “The bank also joined the Clinton Foundation to launch entrepreneurship and inner-city loan programs, through which it lent $32 million. And it paid former president Bill Clinton $1.5 million to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann, making UBS his biggest single corporate source of speech income disclosed since he left the White House.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/25/former-ag-mukasey-if-obama-blocks-a-hillary-indictment-expect-resignations-the-same-level-as-watergate/
Former AG Mukasey said, “The fact is that the president can direct the attorney general not to bring charges. The attorney general works for the president and the president can order that …

Although I can’t believe that you wouldn’t get people resigning in the wake of something like that, the same way that we did at the time of Watergate.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/18/ronald-kessler-obama-pardons-hillary-clinton-for-n/

"And in contrast to how uptight she has appeared to be in the recent past, if you noticed how relaxed Hillary seemed to be during the first debate among Democrats vying for the presidency, she knew exactly what the president had done: Mr. Obama guaranteed that the Democratic front-runner will not have to worry about doing time." 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turkeyfoot said:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/25/former-ag-mukasey-if-obama-blocks-a-hillary-indictment-expect-resignations-the-same-level-as-watergate/
Former AG Mukasey said, “The fact is that the president can direct the attorney general not to bring charges. The attorney general works for the president and the president can order that …

Although I can’t believe that you wouldn’t get people resigning in the wake of something like that, the same way that we did at the time of Watergate.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/18/ronald-kessler-obama-pardons-hillary-clinton-for-n/

"And in contrast to how uptight she has appeared to be in the recent past, if you noticed how relaxed Hillary seemed to be during the first debate among Democrats vying for the presidency, she knew exactly what the president had done: Mr. Obama guaranteed that the Democratic front-runner will not have to worry about doing time." 

 

Valerie Jarret will make the call on indicting Evita.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another large shoe just dropped by a Federal Judge who:

Quote

...warned Tuesday that he may have to subpoena former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s entire secret email account, saying he has real questions about whether the Obama administration gave her special treatment.

In the interim, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said he was granting discovery to Judicial Watch, a public interest law firm who’s sued to get a look at the emails, meaning the group will be able to demand the State Department explain who approved Mrs. Clinton’s server, how many officials knew about it, and what accommodations they made to her after her emails become a public issue.

Going one step further, because he knows this reeks of a crime with intention, he explained that:

Quote

...he is 'inclined' to issue a subpoena eventually, forcing the department to go back to Mrs. Clinton and demand she turn over the entire clintonemail.com system she and top aide Huma Abedin used during their time in the department. He withheld that order for now, saying he will wait to see what discovery produces, but said he’s concerned with the chain of events that led to the emails being shrouded in secrecy for so many years.

“How on earth can the court conclude there is not at minimum a reasonable suspicion of bad faith,” Judge Sullivan said.

How indeed...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/23/judge-threatens-subpoena-against-clinton-emails/

A...

Post Script:

Interesting man...appointed by that "racist" old white man Ronald Reagan.

Quote

Sullivan presided over a number of habeas corpus petitions submitted on behalf of Guantanamo captives.[2]

Sullivan presided over Senator Ted Stevens' trial where his indictment was dismissed when a Justice Department probe found evidence of gross prosecutorial misconduct.[3][4][5]

Sullivan is presiding over a case, Judicial Watch v. IRS,[6] where there is an ongoing investigation into the 2013 IRS controversy, specifically attempting to determine where the "lost" emails of former IRS employee Lois Lerner went, and what damage to her computer hard drive occurred, and what steps have been taken to recover the information contained in the emails and on the hard drive.[7][8]

Sullivan is also presiding over the case involving the matter of Hillary Clinton's private email use while Secretary of State.[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmet_G._Sullivan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, thanks for the well written updates on the movement of the slow finely grinding millstones of justice... even though I believe Obama will give one last "f**k y'all" by issuing a pardon just before he leaves office.

 

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole email scandal pisses my off to no end.  The stupidity (willful?) of the lame stream media and even non-fans over at Fox News is astounding.

Here's my thoughts as one who handled classified materials when I was in the Army. For those vets, for a time I worked as my battalion's S2 (intelligence dept) NCO and was required to have a top secret security clearance for that position.

Evita (I like that name) claims that none of the emails were classified and there shouldn't be any problem with them being on her personal email server.  She's a pathological liar and disingenuous to the core.   So, let's assume they weren't "officially classified" when she received and forwarded them or whatever she did with those emails.  Any person with a 3 digit IQ would recognize sensitive information that should be classifieds and take steps to insure their privacy and protection.  An example: Say you get a bunch of emails about a guy named Joe Smith. One email notes what he had for dinner last night. Another, where he gets his hair cut. Another one comes in with Joe's social security number and last 5 years' tax returns.  A reasonable person would think, "this latest email is sensitive stuff and shouldn't be sent this way".  Why hasn't this scenario been posed by the media?   Evita lies like a dog, but surely has the intelligence to realize what type of information requires classification and should have taken the steps to protect it.  

Sorry for the rant.

And Moralist is probably right about the pardon. But I think someone has to be convicted or at least indicted before pardon can be issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike82ARP said:

This whole email scandal pisses my off to no end.  The stupidity (willful?) of the lame stream media and even non-fans over at Fox News is astounding.

Here's my thoughts as one who handled classified materials when I was in the Army. For those vets, for a time I worked as my battalion's S2 (intelligence dept) NCO and was required to have a top secret security clearance for that position.

Evita (I like that name) claims that none of the emails were classified and there shouldn't be any problem with them being on her personal email server.  She's a pathological liar and disingenuous to the core.   So, let's assume they weren't "officially classified" when she received and forwarded them or whatever she did with those emails.  Any person with a 3 digit IQ would recognize sensitive information that should be classifieds and take steps to insure their privacy and protection.  An example: Say you get a bunch of emails about a guy named Joe Smith. One email notes what he had for dinner last night. Another, where he gets his hair cut. Another one comes in with Joe's social security number and last 5 years' tax returns.  A reasonable person would think, "this latest email is sensitive stuff and shouldn't be sent this way".  Why hasn't this scenario been posed by the media?   Evita lies like a dog, but surely has the intelligence to realize what type of information requires classification and should have taken the steps to protect it.  

Sorry for the rant.

And Moralist is probably right about the pardon. But I think someone has to be convicted or at least indicted before pardon can be issued.

Glad to have you back, you consistently frame good questions.

I was not sure about the pardon question.  I do remember being in white hot anger with Ford for pardoning Nixon who I supported. 

And to punish him, I childishly voted for Carter[outsider, military service, submarine/engineer and business owner].  Never made that mistake again.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27551198?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

He used Article II Section 2, he is the only entity Constitutionally that can give this full and complete relief between specific dates.  So, Nixon had not been convicted of any crime as yet.

Page 121 of President Ford's Pardon of Richard M. Nixon: Constitutional and Political Considerations

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that info.  If Evita doesn't win, I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama giving her the ultimate f-u a d leave her to whoever the next AG will be.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go boys and girls, up...the person who set up Evita's illegal system, Brian Pagliano, has been granted immunity by the Justice Department.

Quote

The Justice Department has granted immunity to the former State Department staffer who worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private email server as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents will likely want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

The inquiry comes against a sensitive political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

So far, there is no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury in the email investigation to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney’s office.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-clinton-email-investigation-justice-department-grants-immunity-to-former-state-department-staffer/2016/03/02/e421e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html

Price of corn has gone up, as said in the Magnificent Seven...

Quote

WASHINGTON — As Hillary Clinton moves toward the Democratic presidential nomination, she faces legal hurdles from her use of a private computer server as secretary of state that could jar her campaign’s momentum in the months ahead.

Foremost among a half-dozen inquiries and legal proceedings into whether classified information was sent through Mrs. Clinton’s server is an investigation by the F.B.I., whose agents, according to one law enforcement official, could seek to question Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides and possibly the candidate herself within weeks.

It is commonplace for the F.B.I. to try to interview key figures before closing an investigation, and doing so is not an indication the bureau thinks a person broke the law. Although defense lawyers often discourage their clients from giving such interviews, Democrats fear the refusal of Mrs. Clinton or her top aides to cooperate would be ready ammunition for Donald J. Trump, the Republican front-runner.

A federal law enforcement official said that barring any unforeseen changes, the F.B.I. investigation could conclude by early May. Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges and, if so, against whom.

“As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Justice Department’s security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed,” said Brian Fallon, a campaign spokesman.

Federal law makes it a crime to mishandle classified information outside secure government channels when someone does so “knowingly” or — more seriously — permits it through “gross negligence.” Mrs. Clinton has correctly pointed out that none of the emails on her server were marked as classified at the time.

The bureau’s investigators have already interviewed Bryan Pagliano, a former aide who installed the server Mrs. Clinton had in her home in New York and used exclusively for her private and official email while secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Video in this link...

Quote

 

 

"There are a couple of them. There’s one that says you can't put classified information in an unclassified setting. That's the one that General Petraeus was convicted of on his own plea. There's one that says that you can't expose national secrets through gross negligence. Then there's one that says you can't destroy government information. And then there's one that says you can't obstruct justice. So there's four of them," Mukasey told MSNBC's Morning Joe.

On the Clinton aide getting immunity, Mukasey said, "Given what else There is, not likely… Understand, There 16, 17, 1800 classified e-mails on a non-classified server. Somebody put them on there. And they didn't all start out that way. The notion that somehow they weren't marked when they were put on the server is a half-truth and one that's peculiarly designed to irritate anybody who knows the other half."

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001378

Link to post
Share on other sites

January 20th, 2017...

Clinton-Inaug-600-LI

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Selene said:

January 20th, 2017...

Clinton-Inaug-600-LI

I don't think Cankles will be sleeping too well.  Pagliano had a reason for initially taking the 5th despite what her spin doctors claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mike82ARP said:

I don't think Cankles will be sleeping too well.  Pagliano had a reason for initially taking the 5th despite what her spin doctors claim.

Yes indeed.

Welcome to OL.

Thanks for your service.

Hell of a resume you have.

How did you get interested in Ayn?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Through the years, I saw Rand's books in bookstores, but was never introduced to her until the first Atlas Shrugged film came out and the subsequent interest in her works vis a vis Obama's willful destruction of the economy.  I read AS as well as The Virtue of Selfishness, Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, The New Intellectual, etc. I found Rand's writing reflected much of my worldview with the exception of her atheism. I also found her critique of Christianity and altruism to contain straw man arguments and some of her metaphysics being a bit shallow. I read stuff from Peikoff and Kelley and watched numerous YT videos from ARI and TAS.  I like Kelley and his open objectivism view.  I think Peikoff is a douche bag. I enjoy Yaron Brooks talks on economic issues. 

At the time I found Rand's stuff, I was teaching biology and chemistry in a Christian high school and found that the students lacked an ability to think critically.  I went to the principal and proposed a new class for the religion requirement. She approved. it. The class covered critical thinking, logic and some basic philosophical concepts and characters.  The class was very popular. I had more students enrolled for that class than the other two classes that were offered and to this date still hear from students, now in college, that the stuff they learned was helpful in their classes.  

The first day of class, we would read and discuss Rand's speech at West Point, Philosophy: Who Needs It?.  The remainder of the year we covered other topics.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike:

Very interesting about your approach to teaching which was the same as mine.

I tossed the departmental syllabus into the round file and used Aristotle's Rhetoric as my base book with freshman Speech students. 

I also was always carrying a Rand book and her ideas got discussed a lot.

I also had over enrollments once the "word" got out and maintained contact as my students entered the work part of their lives.

This was at a very left wing college in NYC in the mid-sixties.

Needless to say, the "brass" in the Department were not happy!

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The subtitle of this WSJ article says, "Bryan Pagliano set up the server in the New York home of the then-secretary of state". If the server was set up while Hillary "Bobblehead" Clinton was Secretary of State, and she planned to use it for State Department communications, then she should have foreseen -- even if she didn't -- the significant risk of it containing classified information. When was she aware of the risk? Even if her awareness of such risk came later, what did she do or fail to do when she became aware? It reminds me of Watergate. What did Nixon Bobblehead know and when did he she know it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, merjet said:

The subtitle of this WSJ article says, "Bryan Pagliano set up the server in the New York home of the then-secretary of state". If the server was set up while Hillary "Bobblehead" Clinton was Secretary of State, and she planned to use it for State Department communications, then she should have foreseen -- even if she didn't -- the significant risk of it containing classified information. When was she aware of the risk? Even if her awareness of such risk came later, what did she do or fail to do when she became aware? It reminds me of Watergate. What did Nixon Bobblehead know and when did he she know it?

Agreed. Her excuse of "none of the emails were classified is lame.  Anyone with a 3 digit IQ would realize information that was of a sensitive nature and act accordingly.  Her dismissive case might work with her followers who we know aren't all that bright, but won't fly with the rest of us.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

More sloppy reporting. The first sentence says, "documents sent through personal email addresses belonging to former Secretary of State Colin Powell and the immediate staff of former Secretary Condoleezza Rice."  What does "sent through" mean? 

A few paragraphs later:

“Two of these documents were emails sent to Secretary Powell’s personal email account,” the report continued. “The remaining were documents transmitted to personal or unclassified accounts belonging to a member of Secretary Rice’s immediate staff and another senior department official.”

In my opinion "sent to" and "sent by" is a crucial difference. If Powell or Rice received an e-mail with classified content, why fault Powell or Rice? If either sent an e-mail with classified content, then he/she is at fault.

How many e-mails did Evita or her staff send using Evita's server with classified content is what I would like to know.

By the way, I have noticed how Evita apologists have tried to equate the Powell and Rice info. Really? 12 versus 2,115. Did Powell or Rice set up a server in his/her own residence? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now