Patterico's Pontifications

1/29/2016

Hillary Is Proven To Have Lied.  Again. And again. And Again. 

Filed under: General — JD @ 6:51 pm

[guest post by JD]

Given all the coverage of the vigorous Team R primary, the new releases and statements from State about Hillary’s multiple Top Secret emails contained on her hidden and secret email server haven’t got nearly the coverage they deserve. 

At every point in this process, Hillary has attempted to hide the existence of this, repeatedly lied in re FOIA requests, and even when finally turning over her server, only did so after unilaterally deleting 10’s of thousands of emails. She only turned it over under threat of a subpoena. 

Most recently, Team Felons requested to deviate from the Court ordered release of emails asking for an extension, coincidentally beyond the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, for what seems to be the worst of the worst that she didn’t already delete. 

Her lies about how it was approved, done by everyone prior to her, did not contain classified material, wasn’t marked classified when sent or received, and most recently inter-agency squaring about classification and over classification blah blah blah have proven to be outright lies and obfuscation.  

Most recently 22 Top Secret emails and at least 7 complete email chains were found, and were so sensitive that the intelligence community requested they not be released, even in their redacted form.  This prompted Clinton Spokeshole Fallon to claim that TS/SAP and HUMINT info was more overclassifcation, that there was nothing in there sensitive, and demands that they be released. I doubt he has the security clearance to make such an asinine assertion, since intelligence and congressional investigators have needed to get higher clearances to even review the emails, or he admitted to viewing materials without proper classification or need to know, and advocates releasing TS/SAP and HUMINT data publicly, an extraordinarily awful idea. 

I’m tired of the MFM focusing on Team R having a tough primary, when Hillary would be indicted by now were she anyone but Hillary, and anyone but Obama was running DOJ. Petraus’ career and many others have ended for far less. 

Nevertheless, Hillary is also an awful candidate, and is losing in Iowa to an avowed Socialist who has proposed somewhere in the neighborhood of 19 TRILLION in spending, just so far. 

If there was an honest person at the DOJ, the Dem primary would be set on its ear when Hillary gets indicted after losing Iowa and New Hampshire to an ancient Socialist. 

——JD

78 Responses to “Hillary Is Proven To Have Lied.  Again. And again. And Again. ”

  1. still looking for the pony how charming:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-escaped-whitewater-indictment-compared-to-mafia-kingpin/article/2581726

    lets line up the ion cannons on doc brown, just in case, because there party is that madhatter,

    narciso (732bc0)

  2. Team Hillary! and its sewer rat spokesweasels (sorry, rats and weasels, for associating you with vermin such as the Clintons) are still claiming Hillary! never intended to violate the law.

    Of course she intended to violate the law! That was the whole point of setting up a home brew server.

    The only question now is how many laws she violated.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  3. they will indict truthseekers, using the same tools, that avoided the prosecution of moloch’s minions, they will proscribe opposition party members, on spurious charges, they avoid charging real criminals brigands and drifters,

    narciso (732bc0)

  4. Steve57 – I refuse to use the term “home brew server”. It is such a MFM euphemism for illegal secret server intended to skirt FOIA and oversight.

    JD (b3cb62)

  5. How could anyone in their right mind cast a vote for this woman? We will never know how many people have lost their lives due to Clinton’s disregard for the law and the security of the USA. If the administration continues to pretend this is not a serious situation and the DOJ let her slide or give her a slap on the wrist, there is no justice system.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  6. Keep in mind that as recently as last week Hillary was writing this email nonsense off as little more than a Republican conspiracy designed to keep her from the White House. The question is: with this latest revelation, does she step down from the race? Or perhaps, as a caller on Rush suggested, it will go this way:…essentially what’s gonna happen is Hillary will be dragged into the White House, it’ll be Obama in there and Loretta Lynch, and she will apologize and she’ll say she’s sorry and she wasn’t aware and so forth. And they will announce that she came in and apologized, and Obama will pardon her — a presidential pardon for any and all future acts, crimes related to this. And then they will seal the record. They’ll seal the record, it never happened, and she go run for president, and that’ll be that.

    Dana (86e864)

  7. has she ever intentionally told the truth, about anything, turn occam’s razor around,

    narciso (732bc0)

  8. Col. Haiku,

    At the very least. Even the basics: how can anyone vote for someone who has repeatedly exhibited such complete and utter incompetence and lack of judgment?

    Dana (86e864)

  9. How many of you, live in the People’s Republic of California, again?

    narciso (732bc0)

  10. Nobody… NOBODY!!! should be above the law.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. she operates on a parallel plane, that doesn’t intersect,

    narciso (732bc0)

  12. So Sid Blumenthal was part of Hillary’s classfied email group, too. Shocker there.

    https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Jan29thWeb/O-2015-08640-JAN29/DOC_0C05794900/C05794900.pdf

    Dana (86e864)

  13. “The next president can honor the simple notion that nobody is above the law, but it will happen only if voters demand it.”

    Sen, Elizabeth Warren

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. The Rs need to hammer on this and Bernie Sanders’s EPIC FAILure of a life.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. I don’t care if there is collusion. One of the debates should be centered around the felonious perfidy of Hillary and the Obama DOJ

    JD (b3cb62)

  16. It’s worth bearing in mind that the Obama admin tried to stifle the Petraeus investigation and indictment. The FBI then started leaking like a sieve to the press and congress (and Petraeus was indicted). That was a far lower profile case, so the FBI has even more leverage this time. They can, and IMHO will, torpedo her campaign if she isn’t indicted. There’s also the self-interest factor; the FBI has already earned Hilary’s deep and abiding hate, so even setting aside that she’s a felon, do they really want her as their boss?

    Arizona CJ (da673d)

  17. From Andrew McCarthy. Just damning:

    It is not just that the intelligence community (IC) understandably wishes to keep top secret national-defense information under wraps. Because of how recklessly Clinton and her top aides handled classified information, the IC must operate under the assumption that there are copies of these 22 emails floating around – whether in the possession of current or former government officials but unaccounted for or, worse, in the possession of, say, foreign governments that managed to hack into Clinton’s unsecured private system. If the State Department were to release publicly even redacted copies of the emails, those who may have complete copies will be able to figure out the SAP information and use that knowledge both to compromise government sources and programs, and in analyzing other U.S. government information to which they’ve gained access.

    Dana (86e864)

  18. Someone simply has to be indicted for taking the data off the secured systems, stripping the markings, and sending it to her insecure unsecure illegal system. And that is a direct result of her illegal activities and desire to avoid oversight.

    JD (b3cb62)

  19. Someone should ask the Hillary’s spokesperson how he knows what information is on those “newly classified” emails. Did someone tell him the details of the emails? Does he have a security clearance?

    Xmas (35fdcf)

  20. Xmas – not one reporter will ever ask that question.

    JD (b3cb62)

  21. Xmas, there are three even better questions to ask:

    1. If Hillary never received a classified message on her private server, then how and where did she receive classified emails if someone needed to send her one?
    2. If Hillary’s private server never contained any classified information, then how did she send a classified email when she needed to send one?
    3. Are we supposed to believe that the Secretary of State neither sent nor received classified emails for 4 consecutive years?

    Chuck Bartowski (0a1d4f)

  22. this caper is so much simpler than we make it out to be.
    Rodham lied about using 1 ELECTRONIC device/ BLACKBERRY. It was a DODGE and a LIE.
    Rodham had a private server, with several private e-mails. Rodham had NO OFFICIAL GUBMINT E-MAIL.
    HERE’S THE MONEY SHOT that any 120 iq. or better person should GET.
    If RODHAM had no STATE/GOV e-mail or other account. HOW DID RODHAM COMMUNICATE IN or OUT vis a vis SECRET or OTHERWISE communications????? In other words, HOW DID RODHAM COMMUNICATE SECRET/CLASSIFIED/REALLY REALLY SECRET/or even TOP SECRET “chats/conversations/or other info sharing????? I MEAN, RODHAM had NO OTHER PATH to do so. The BULLSHIP/BILLY B.J. CLINTON/HILLARY RODHAM SERVER, was specifically set up, to AVOID THE LAW.
    Back to my point. If RODHAM, was not using a government e-mail nor server to communicate. WHERE WAS SHE COMMUNICATING???? Seriously. WHERE WERE HER COMMUNICATIONS going thru, and where are THE FOIA demands being MET??

    Gus (7cc192)

  23. Chuck, we are supposed to believe that Rodham NEVER got CLASSIFIED/SECRET/ NOR TOP SECRET communications to her BLACKBERRY nor PRIVATE/SECRET/CLINTON BIG MONEY GRAFT FOREIGN GOVERNMENT SHAKE DOWN SERVER.
    You understand it CHUCK. Where the FU@K did this miserable BITCH get all of the IMPORTANT SATE DEPARTMENT e-mails and cables. THIS SHIT IS A JOKE, and AMERICA is being served total crap sandwiches.

    Gus (7cc192)

  24. I would suggest that the situation the Dems are in now pretty much proves that they are no longer an American political party. They are a socialist-criminal conspiracy to rob Americans under color of law. And not just the politicians but the entire establishment support infrastructure is clearly on board with this or they’d be making loud noises to bring it to an end. They are all, in every sense, The Enemy, no different than Nazi Germany was The Enemy or Saddam was The Enemy. They wish material harm to America and Americans, because they will profit from it. No amount of blood in the streets would make me shed a single tear for these traitors.

    Mr Black (3efb66)

  25. The Clintonistas are also claiming that “that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.”

    Why? Because they copied the information without the classification status, which IN AND OF ITSELF is a serious felony, and speaks quite clearly of intent and knowledge of criminality.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  26. There’s actually a very easy way to know, for certain, that Hillary is lying: her lips are moving.

    I’m interested in seeing the Iowa Dem primary results, especially the internals of the exit polling. That should give us a real measure of how bad this is hurting her in the D side.

    And, for recreational opportunities (stock up on popcorn), remember, whatever motive the Obama admin has in sticking its neck out to quash the indictments ends if Hillary isn’t going to be the nominee. So, if she starts losing, she not only has a failed campaign (again), but gets indicted as an exit prize.

    Arizona CJ (da673d)

  27. Team r says has nothing about this, no surprise. Does traitor ryan even care? He is probably figuring out a way to blame bill’s wife troubles on conservatives. This turd of a man has zero motivation to bring down bill’s wife. And the nominees at the debate are such weak kneed pansies they can’t ruffle the courage to spend 3 hours trashing obama and bill’s wife. Team r is a coop filled with Chickenshits.

    mg (31009b)

  28. Team r has nothing to say, no surprise. Does traitor ryan even care? This empty suit of a man has no motivation to bring down bill’s wife. And the gutless debaters are so weak in the knees they have no courage to beat on obama and bill’s wife for 3 hours. Team r is a coop filled with chickens. bill’s wife should be hung, live on pay-per-view. With foreigners like Murdoch pumping millions to the clintons, it will not be easy to jail the pantsuited witch.

    mg (31009b)

  29. Once again, who is the greater threat to the Republic, Hillary, President44 and/or Mr. Trump?

    mike191 (4c004d)

  30. Obama will pardon her — a presidential pardon for any and all future acts, crimes related to this. And then they will seal the record. They’ll seal the record, it never happened, and she go run for president, and that’ll be that.

    Two problems with that. First, you can only be pardoned if you are guilty of some act, you can’t be pardoned if you are not guilty. For Hillary Clinton to accept that pardon, she would be admitting to violating national security. The pardon may save her from legal punishment, but from a political standpoint she would be the presidential candidate who admitted to violating national security. Imagine the commercials stating that over and over.

    Second, Obama would open himself up to impeachment for pardoning the presumptive candidate from his political party who violated national security. That certainly meets the definition of a High Crime or Misdemeanor.

    Eric (affab1)

  31. I agree about the political effect of a pardon. But Labamba won’t be impeached as long as he’s black.

    nk (9faaca)

  32. Barack Obama is the OJ Simpson of Democrat politics.

    ropelight (da3a94)

  33. But, does Hillary end up like Nicole?

    ropelight (da3a94)

  34. the diseased old lady is so nasty and so loathsome

    it’s easy to forget sometimes

    she doesn’t hold a candle to the loathsomeness of failmerica’s corrupt and fascist Department of Justice

    happyfeet (831175)

  35. I say Medusa has lost at the opening gate.

    DNF (755a85)

  36. you got that sense, at doc brown, after he met with zaphod,

    narciso (732bc0)

  37. Once again, who is the greater threat to the Republic, Hillary, President44 and/or Mr. Trump?

    Yes.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  38. Obama will pardon her — a presidential pardon for any and all future acts, crimes related to this.

    Also, you cannot be pardoned for future acts.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  39. First, you can only be pardoned if you are guilty of some act, you can’t be pardoned if you are not guilty

    This is patently untrue. You many not want to accept the pardon if you are not guilty (or you may if there is enough evidence that you don’t want to chance it), but you can be pardoned for anything.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  40. but you can be pardoned for anything

    unless you Mr. The Donald

    cruzpickles say he’s impardonable

    gonna vote for Mickey Mouses!

    WTF?

    happyfeet (831175)

  41. I should be more clear. One can be pardoned for any identifiable crime, such as stealing pickles. One can not be pardoned for things like stupidity or boorishness or other conditions of being.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  42. One can not be pardoned for things like stupidity or boorishness or other conditions of being.

    Actually, one can but it’s a different kind of pardon.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  43. You many not want to accept the pardon if you are not guilty (or you may if there is enough evidence that you don’t want to chance it), but you can be pardoned for anything.

    You state the above then you state “Also, you cannot be pardoned for future acts.”. If you’re “not chancing it” then it’s in the future, no? So the pardon now would cover the big IF there’s enough evidence.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  44. Hunh?

    The pardon is for a past act. The potential CONVICTION is in the future, but that is not an “act” of yours. Even if you are not guilty you may take a pardon to avoid a wrongful conviction.

    See any episode of Perry Mason.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  45. Post 17 cited the Judicial Watch.Kevin if you read the Verdict,Judicial Watch
    publication, you will find law suits based on empirical evidence Vs.Clinton and
    Obama.During the many years I have read the Verdict-Mr. Trumps’ name was absent.

    Might I also suggest that the Cardin-Corker travesty has no mention of Mr.Trump,yet
    Mr. Cruz had a part in this clear abomination to the Republic.

    Mr. Trump maybe odious but that does not equate with real harm empirically wrought by Clinton and Obama.

    mike191 (4c004d)

  46. Mr. Cruz had a part in this clear abomination to the Republic.

    i hate to admit it but you might be right about this

    happyfeet (831175)

  47. There are other things that threaten the Republic than make it into the pages of Judicial Watch. Point me to anything from Trump that suggests a willingness to uphold (or even a passing understanding of) the Constitution.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  48. Clinton must have something on Obuma

    Obuma hates the butch – so there must be something she has on him to keep from indicting

    FYI – butch is not a typo

    Clinton apologist (debac0)

  49. Careful there Clinton apologist, Hitchcock is overly sensitive about the female love that dare not speak it’s name in the comments section.

    ropelight (da3a94)

  50. it’s too homoerotic

    happyfeet (831175)

  51. 31. Two problems with that. First, you can only be pardoned if you are guilty of some act, you can’t be pardoned if you are not guilty. For Hillary Clinton to accept that pardon, she would be admitting to violating national security. The pardon may save her from legal punishment, but from a political standpoint she would be the presidential candidate who admitted to violating national security. Imagine the commercials stating that over and over.

    Second, Obama would open himself up to impeachment for pardoning the presumptive candidate from his political party who violated national security. That certainly meets the definition of a High Crime or Misdemeanor.

    Eric (affab1) — 1/30/2016 @ 6:43 am

    Steering clear of the question of whether or not Hillary! would have to actually be guilty of the crime to be pardoned, I agree the political effect would be the same as if she had admitted guilt. Good luck splitting that hair. If Hillary! even attempted to explain that she wasn’t actually guilty but just accepting the pardon to avoid wrongful prosecution she’d just solidify her reputation as a greasy liar. Especially because she’d be accepting the pardon from the guy in charge of the DoJ that would be “wrongfully” prosecuting her.

    But a very real problem from a Clinton Spy Ring/Crime Family perspective. Anyone who has been pardoned for an act which might have resulted in a prosecution loses their Fifth Amendment right to testify about that act. Because it is now impossible to incriminate yourself.

    My first choice is to see Hillary! in prison but a nice consolation prize is that Obama does pardon her because of that one consideration. It would ensure she’s not the nominee, and then the legal festivities r.e. her tenure as SecState and her corruption on behalf of the Clinton Global Initiative can kick off with a vengeance.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  52. 31.

    Two problems with that. First, you can only be pardoned if you are guilty of some act, you can’t be pardoned if you are not guilty. For Hillary Clinton to accept that pardon, she would be admitting to violating national security. The pardon may save her from legal punishment, but from a political standpoint she would be the presidential candidate who admitted to violating national security. Imagine the commercials stating that over and over.

    Second, Obama would open himself up to impeachment for pardoning the presumptive candidate from his political party who violated national security. That certainly meets the definition of a High Crime or Misdemeanor.

    Eric (affab1) — 1/30/2016 @ 6:43 am

    Biggest problem with impeaching obuma is the timing and the Senate
    First less than twelve months left in his term, probably not enough time to get it done
    Second, the senate requires 2/3’s to convict –
    Do you really believe that you can find a minimum of 13-14 democratic senators with sufficient ethics and a basic moral compass to convict

    Clinton apologist (debac0)

  53. One can only imagine the number of opportunities for blackmail.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  54. creepy article from the freedom-hating propaganda sluts at the new york times

    The Chinese food industry is regularly shaken by scandals. For example, people here often talk of restaurants using “gutter oil,” or illegally recycled oil that is dirty and can contain carcinogens.

    In 2014, the Taiwanese police raided a factory in southern Taiwan that was accused of producing hundreds of tons of oil recycled from restaurant waste and slaughterhouse byproducts. Regulators investigated whether the oil had been shipped to mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau, where it may have been used in a wide range of cooking.

    China has a long and complicated history with the opium poppy. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Qing emperors issued orders to try to ban the import of opium. Britain, the main exporter to China, fought two wars with the Qing in the 19th century to keep the trade flowing.

    i’m a leave the math to you

    happyfeet (831175)

  55. any average person, who had committed even a fraction of the number of violations of the rules/laws regarding the handling of classified material, government records, etc, would already have been charged, brought to trial, convicted and already be serving time.

    redc1c4 (c574dd)

  56. #54: the only reason anyone would want to blackmail Shrillery is that it would be cheaper than bribing her.

    redc1c4 (c574dd)

  57. Kevin Can you give me one empirical evidence of Mr. Trump in any construct of governmental policy
    that has eroded an/ or placed our Nation at risk vs. The histories of Clinton and Obama ?

    mike191 (4c004d)

  58. If there is one thing that could bring the fractured conservative coalition together, it would be a Presidential pardon for Hillary! Clinton which would allow her to remain on the ballot. Even someone like me would strongly consider casting a protest vote for Old Whazzizname rather than voting Libertarian or American Constitutional Party.

    Besides, if a pardoned Hillary! were elected President, I don’t think the pardon would necessarily prevent her from facing impeachment in the House. The pardon means she can’t be criminally prosecuted, but the House can still do whatever the House will do. And I think even squishy moderate Republicans would be so frustrated with the brazen audacity and cynicism of the Democrats that they would be willing to go through it.

    JVW (d60453)

  59. Hillary agreed to 4 more debates. Their internal polling must be awful.

    JD (fc3727)

  60. The Democrats and the Democrat operatives with bylines are more than welcome to her and that commie Bernie Sanders.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  61. and now cause of old nasty diseased hillary the corrupt military’s gonna let sleazy ho-boppin disgrace-to-the-uniform general petraeus get off without being punished

    what a sad little country

    and cowardly!

    happyfeet (831175)

  62. “Hillary Is Proven To Have Lied. Again. And again. And Again.”

    And, in related news, water has proven to be wet, and the sky has proven to be blue.

    navyvet (c33501)

  63. Sort of an aside, but on point since the topic is Hillary! having been proven to lied again and again. This particular lie really chaps my hide. That the emails contain information that’s classified now, but wasn’t then. WTFO?

    On 25 March 2003 Bush released E.O. 13292, Classified National Security Information. These are the categories that contain the types of information to be considered for classification.

    Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

    (a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

    (b) foreign government information;

    (c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

    (d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

    (e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism;

    (f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

    (g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism; or

    (h) weapons of mass destruction.

    The Bush administration added category H. A through G have been on this list since forever. If I were a sadist I’d produce more of these E.O.s including one Hillary!’s rapist husband issued in 1995 to make my point. Don’t doubt me.

    On 29 December 2009 Obama released one of his E.O.s numbered 13526, Classified National Security Information. These are the categories:

    Sec. 1.4. Classification Categories. Information shall not be considered for classification unless its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security in accordance with section 1.2 of this order, and it pertains to one or more of the following:

    (a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

    (b) foreign government information;

    (c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

    (d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

    (e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

    (f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities;

    (g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security; or

    (h) the development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction.

    AS you can see, President Professor Ditherington Stompyfoot McPromDress “improved” on the Bush E.O. by making it wordier, but it’s still the list. So when Hillary! and her sewer rat spokesweasels claim the information wasn’t classified at the time, it isn’t because Hillary! invented a new category of classified information. Hillary! is a singularly unaccomplished woman. The US would have been better off had she been placed on the no-fly list as a terrorist because all those miles she brags about accumulating in the air led to exactly nothing that benefited the US. The opposite, she either busted up the furniture and set fire to it, or if a fire was already burning she vomited gasoline on it.

    So I wasn’t kidding about the terrorist label; it’s actually pretty accurate.

    So the next question is harm; could the unauthorized exposure of the information contained in the emails cause harm to the US? If the answer is yes then the information is at least confidential. It goes up from there depending on the level of harm any unauthorized release would inflict on US national security.

    Unless somebody can voxsplain to me how in the h3ll this information that’s being redacted or entirely withheld couldn’t have caused the harm back in 2009 or 2010 that it will cause now I am sorely tempted to b***h slap the next person who mindlessly parrots the Clinton Spy Ring/Crime Family talking point.

    In most all cases it’s the exact opposite. The information was more harmful at the time it hit Hillary!’s home brew server (sorry, JD, I don’t see the term as entirely a LHMFM euphemism; it was in her home although she used it illegally, however).

    I worked in this world for 20 years and like “jobs saved or created” I’ve never heard of such bulls**t as “classified now but not at the time” until this country elected an anti-American Cook County Marxist. Twice.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  64. This is patently untrue. You many not want to accept the pardon if you are not guilty (or you may if there is enough evidence that you don’t want to chance it), but you can be pardoned for anything.
    Kevin M (25bbee) — 1/30/2016 @ 9:15 am

    Actually Kevin M, you might want to acquaint yourself with Burdick v. United States

    In summary, this case established the idea that the person being pardoned must accept the pardon and that the acceptance is an acknowledgment of the underlying crime being pardoned. If the person does not accept the pardon, then the pardon never occurs, thereby voiding the pardon.

    Eric (affab1)

  65. Drudge does the juxtaposition slam-dunk:

    REVEALED: OBAMA EMAILED HILLARY 18 TIMES!
    FLASHBACK: CLAIMED HE LEARNED FROM MEDIA

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  66. File this in the “Is the Pope Catholic?” folder when it comes to the question of just how biased is the MSM: When the Drudgereport yesterday had in a bold red headline the revelation that truly super-top-secret material had been handled ridiculously improperly by Hillary, the main-news page of the admittedly has-been, drooping, haggard AOL.com website (affiliated with leftwing huffingtonpost.com via cross-ownership) didn’t say a peep about the story and instead had a political-oriented article (not surprisingly devoid of fluff and smiles towards Republicans) about Cruz and Trump.

    By contrast, an interview of Hillary posted to that same website prior to yesterday contained absolutely not one question that could be deemed as contentious or negative towards her. It instead highlighted comments expressed by Bill’s wife (and doormat) about how concerned she was regarding the plight of the American worker.

    PFFFT.

    Mark (f713e4)

  67. The PAID FOR, Rodham strategy has been….DRIP DRIP DRIP. Lie, and nobody notices, Lie again, Lie again, Lie again. Claim the last lies are OLD NEWS, continue to lie, prevaricate, parse, LIE SOME MORE, blame REPUBLICANS, lie more, PROMISE MORE FREEBIES to goo goo eyed LIBTARD MORONS. Blame Republicans for hating wymyn, children, blacks, MOOOOOSLIMS, wymyn and blacks again. Promise free tuition and blame Republicans for hating GAIA, GAYS, WYMYN, CHILDREN and barnyard animals.
    REPEAT AS NECESSARY.
    Romney was surreptitiously recorded saying 47% of the POPULATION are already some how some where ON THE TAKE. He was more than accurate.

    Gus (7cc192)

  68. Huh, looks like the State Department is lying, too:

    The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal e-mails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency e-mail address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.

    “This was all planned in advance” to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s inspector general from 2005 to 2008.

    http://nypost.com/2016/01/31/this-was-all-planned-former-ig-says-hillary-state-dept-are-lying/

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  69. Walter, the DoS has been lying on behalf of Clinton since the start.

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/18/emails-clinton-aides-resisted-state-department-suggestion-that-clinton-use-state-gov-account/

    Career official inside the DoS were well aware of Clinton’s private server long before Stephen Mull, executive secretary for the DoS, sent this email in August 2011 suggesting Hillary! use a .gov account since her own server was so frequently down.

    They had to know from the start, as setting up new employees with email including new department secretaries is a standard check-in item. I recall seeing emails back and forth between Cinton’s inner circle and the DoS IT department as the Clintonistas rebuffed the IT personnels’ attempts to perform what is a standard procedure. It isn’t as if Clinton or her aides would have had to ask to get accounts set up. They would have had to have taken deliberate and highly unusual steps to prevent the normal course of events from taking place.

    They are still lying for Clinton at DoS:

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/he-would-prefer-not-to-2.php

    …Herridge shows how it’s done as Kirby declines to answer. I think he declines to answer on the ground that he cannot do so truthfully without consignment to outer darkness by the Obama administration. It is perfectly appropriate to draw adverse inferences from Kirby’s refusal to comment. Indeed, you’d be a fool not to.

    These people are not “upgrading” anything at the “request” of the intelligence community. They are finally after years of reckless disregard finally meeting the bare minimum standards they are legally obligated to meet and marking this information appropriately in order to protect it properly. Herridge knows this and hammers Kirby on this point; that leads to one of the questions he refuses to answer.

    The Clinton campaign is clearly writing the DoS talking points. This BS mirrors the Clinton campaign’s nonsense where they try to fool the voters into giving Hillary! credit for voluntarily turning her server over to the FBI at their request.

    Which would be like trying to get the judge to give you credit at your arraignment for voluntarily putting down the gun at the request of the police who had you surrounded.

    Steve57 (f61b03)

  70. First, you can only be pardoned if you are guilty of some act, you can’t be pardoned if you are not guilty.

    Sure you can, it just doesn’t do anything. But it’s certainly possible to pardon someone for an offense they may or may not be guilty of, just as it’s possible to forgive a debt that may or may not exist.

    For Hillary Clinton to accept that pardon, she would be admitting to violating national security.

    There’s no such thing as “accepting” a pardon. A pardon happens, whether you like it or not. Clinton could continue to maintain her innocence, while thanking the president for taking the scurrilous allegations against her off the table.

    Second, Obama would open himself up to impeachment

    He’d love to be impeached. He’d be sure of acquittal in the senate, and he’d hold that up as a vindication and a badge of honor. To impeach him would be to throw him in the briar patch.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  71. I agree about the political effect of a pardon. But Labamba won’t be impeached as long as he’s black.

    Correction: he won’t be impeached as long as there are at least 34 senators who are guaranteed to vote for acquittal no matter what he’s done. Since there are at least 45 such senators, it’s a non-starter.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  72. Actually Kevin M, you might want to acquaint yourself with Burdick v. United States

    In summary, this case established the idea that the person being pardoned must accept the pardon and that the acceptance is an acknowledgment of the underlying crime being pardoned. If the person does not accept the pardon, then the pardon never occurs, thereby voiding the pardon.

    Thank you. I didn’t know that.

    Actually Burdick didn’t establish that idea; the idea was established by United States v Wilson in 1833. Burdick relied on that precedent.

    Milhouse (87c499)

  73. There were some mutterings that Nixon had not accepted his pardon, as I remember, but even people who had conspired to drive him out said to the mutterers “Shut up, enough of this already”.

    nk (dbc370)

  74. Well, what would be the point? Even according to Wilson and Burdick there’s no deadline on acceptance. How could any prosecutor justify devoting the resources to charge, indict, and try him, knowing that he held a Get Out Of Jail Free card that he could play at any time?

    Milhouse (87c499)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3772 secs.