More Hillary E-Mails are released and more violations of law are discovered. The FBI is building a case for indictment of Hillary Clinton. If they hand over that case to the DOJ and recommend prosecution, even if Obama decides not to prosecute Hillary is done. She started her political career in helping prosecute Nixon, even if she did get thrown out for…you guessed it, lying. She is going to end her political career repeating the same mistakes that Nixon made. History does repeat itself and some people never learn.
That Nixon slayer, exposer of Watergate Bob Woodward says:
written by John Fund
Hillary Clinton’s e-mail scandal has been a difficult one for the public to understand and for journalists to explain. But Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter who helped uncover Watergate 40 years ago, clarified things a lot on Fox News Sunday today when he said that an e-mail in the most recently released batch shows Hillary trying to “subvert the rules” that she expected others to follow.
A few days earlier, Joe DiGenova, a well-respected former district attorney for the District of Columbia, told The Laura Ingraham Show that “there is vitriol of an intense amount developing” in the intelligence community and that FBI agents “are already in the process of gearing themselves to basically revolt if [the Justice Department] refuses to bring charges” against either Hillary Clinton or her former State Department staffers.
It was the State Department’s data dump in the wee hours of January 1 that revealed a particularly eyebrow-raising e-mail from Hillary Clinton: In one note in February 2011, she expressed surprise that a State Department employee was using a private e-mail to conduct State business. She wrote this e-mail, seeming to express dissatisfaction at the employee’s use of private e-mail, on her own private e-mail server — through which she sent all her e-mails while secretary of state.
Four months later, she wrote another e-mail, also released last week, that is now the subject of some controversy. In this note, she expressed impatience that a set of talking points being sent to her was delayed due to trouble with a secure fax. She ordered staffer Jake Sullivan to circumvent the rules: “Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” The subject of the talking points has been redacted from the e-mail, almost certainly because it involved classified or confidential material.
The State Department has weakly responded that it has no knowledge “at this time” that the talking points were in the end sent to her. On Face the Nation today, Clinton insisted she never received them and that “there’s no there there.”
Not only is that implausible, but a report from the State Department’s inspector general released Thursday rebuked State for repeatedly providing inadequate and inaccurate responses to Freedom of Information Act requests about Clinton’s e-mails. That gives us little reason to believe that State’s response to the current controversy includes all the facts.
In fact, State’s record on transparency is so bad that a federal judge had to order officials there to collect Clinton’s e-mails, vet them for classified material, and release them on a monthly basis. The latest batch contains 66 additional examples of classified material that ended up on Hillary’s server, bringing the total to more than 1,200. This demolishes Hillary’s claim that she didn’t send or receive classified material on her personal account. Among the security breaches: Clinton forwarded the name of a confidential CIA source to staff at State through her insecure server. Michael Isikoff, a noted investigative reporter, told MSNBC’s Morning Joe last August that the naming of a CIA source was “evidence of a crime by somebody”
Bob Woodward said the latest revelation about Hillary’s e-mails reminded him of Watergate. He recalled that Hillary served on the staff of the House impeachment committee investigating President Nixon. “And what was the lesson, one of the lessons from that?” he asked. “Never write anything down. . . . Here, many years later, she’s saying, ‘Oh, let’s subvert the rules,’ and writing it out herself?” He concluded:
“It shows that she kind of feels immune, that she lives in a bubble and no one’s ever going to find this out. Well, now we have.”
A former top Justice Department official told me that he has no doubt that the FBI report will eventually leak, especially if the DOJ ignores its recommendations. Many old hands remember the intelligence problems the Bill Clinton administration caused when it misplaced the nuclear-launch codes, and also when Clinton conducted blackmail-bait, phone-sex conversations with Monica Lewinsky over secured phone lines that Russia and the Israelis were in fact monitoring. “There are a lot of serious people inside the government who think both Clintons have a pattern of being sloppy with national security, and there has to be some accountability,” DiGenova told me.
Hillary Clinton’s latest e-mail imbroglio didn’t catch a lot of attention in mainstream media outlets. But it’s safe to expect, at a minimum, further embarrassing revelations. And if the FBI report is sharply critical of her actions, it could upend the conventional wisdom about the race for the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders is either just behind or just ahead of Hillary in the latest polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he could capitalize on any further damage to Hillary’s credibility. Hillary already has a big problem with credibility: Only 23 percent of independents view her as “honest and trustworthy” in the latest Quinnipiac poll. Other Democrats, including Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, would be remiss if they weren’t preparing a Plan B in case this number dips even lower, making her a more vulnerable general-election candidate.
Hillary’s Rebuttal To Email ‘Smoking Gun’ Doesn’t Wash
By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on TheHillaryDaily.com on January 10, 2016
Appearing on “Face the Nation” Sunday morning, Hillary Clinton tried to rebut the charge that she instructed an aide to violate the rules for handling classified information by taking a secure fax message and “turning [a memo] into nonpaper w[ith] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”
An email to Jake Sullivan gave him that instruction, obviously meaning that he should remove the classified identification on the top of the page and send it as a regular email, a practice that would violate federal law. A document identified as classified cannot technically be sent on State Department email.
Mrs. Clinton defended her action by insisting that the material was never actually sent in the fashion she recommended. She also claimed that she needed information and “was waiting for a secure fax that could give me the whole picture.” But, she adds “often times there’s a lot of information that isn’t at all classified so whatever information can be appropriately transmitted unclassified often was…”
But her email does not suggest anything at all about sending only a nonclassified part of the fax. And the text of the email, as well as the subject line,were redacted, so it was likely discussing classified material. And if it wasn’t classified, it would not have to be sent as a secure fax. Sullivan could have just sent it as an email and there would be no issue about any heading.
Whether it was actually sent or not is not an issue. What is an issue is her apparent familiarity with a procedure to circumvent the security system in place to protect classified information. She responded right away when she was told there would be a delay in sending a secure fax. This from a woman whose emails show she doesn’t know how to operate a fax, an iPad, email, or a TV. She can’t even type and doesn’t keep a computer in her office because she doesn’t know how to use one.
But she sure knew how to get around the rules on transmitting classified material.
Her defense is just one more Hillary Clinton lie.
The FBI is also investigating Hillary for improprieties and favoritism with the Clinton Foundation and foreign contributors. But that’s another article to follow as more facts come out.