[Rushtalk] The USA Dilemma, Below - Dated, But FYI Anyway...as All This Still Is Pending An Outcome

Tom Matiska tom.matiska at att.net
Wed May 25 11:50:34 MDT 2016

So Hillary clinched with a 50 point victory over Sanders in SC on Tuesday????    News travels slow it seems....  Tom
T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network

Carl Spitzer <lynux at keepandbeararms.com> wrote:

>Hillary's Victories Mean Painful Legal Choices for DOJ, WH
>February 29, 2016
>Few jobs are as demanding as the U.S. attorney general's. The AG's
>popularity peaks at the swearing-in ceremony and goes downhill from
>there. It's not just the hard cases on the docket. It's that attorneys
>general have two mandates that sometimes conflict. 
>Do they follow their responsibilities as the nation's chief law
>enforcement officer, wherever those responsibilities lead? Or do they
>act as the president's top appointee in law enforcement and do his
>AGs do not keep their jobs unless they know which mandate takes
>priority. They serve at the president's pleasure.
>This bedrock choice between blind justice and political calculation is
>almost certain to confront Loretta Lynch once the FBI concludes its
>investigation into Hillary Clinton, her top aides, and the Clinton
>Her choice just got tougher now that the former secretary of state is
>sure to win the Democratic nomination. She effectively clinched that
>prize with an unheard-of 50-point victory over Bernie Sanders in
>Saturday's South Carolina primary, on the heels of a solid victory in
>Nevada last Tuesday. Clinton's victory in the Palmetto State portends
>big wins all across the South, leaving Sanders with no realistic path to
>the nomination. After months of enthusiastic "Feel the Bern" rallies,
>the Democrats are now back where they started. As one prankster, who
>managed to photo-bomb a Clinton campaign rally, put it on his tee-shirt:
>"Settle for Hillary."
>Before Democrats officially settle, though, Clinton, Lynch, and Barack
>Obama have a treacherous bridge to cross. Clinton voters are oblivious
>to the dangers. Polls show they no longer consider her "honest and
>trustworthy," but they still don't think she has committed any crimes.
>Countless Clinton supporters have told me, "These investigations won't
>find anything. The Benghazi hearings proved it. This is simply a
>partisan witch hunt."
>They are half right. The Benghazi hearings proved, once again, that
>Congress has the investigative prowess of Homer Simpson. They are right
>that Republicans hate her. Divided as the GOP is, it is united in
>thinking Bill and Hillary are corrupt, self-serving liars.But the GOP is
>not leading the criminal investigation. The FBI is. The bureau is not
>partisan, and it is not on a witch hunt. Despite the obvious risks of
>investigating the presumptive Democratic nominee during a Democratic
>administration, its agents are sorting through mountains of evidence
>pointing to serious, deliberate crimes.
>What are the key legal dangers facing Clinton and her aides? 
>Here are just a few:
>* Hillary Clinton deliberately set up a private email server for herself
>and her top State Department aides. She used it to store over 1,800
>documents now deemed classified, some highly classified. The sheer bulk
>of the security violations is extraordinary. Intelligence professionals
>agree the server was almost certainly hacked by foreign agencies—
>probably by several.
>* Secretary Clinton specifically instructed aides to send her classified
>materials on that insecure network. We know of at least one such
>instruction. We don't know how many others were redacted by the State
>* Because her server was private, the State Department's records did not
>include its contents when responding to Freedom of Information Act
>requests. The department wrongly told FOI Applicants that no such
>materials existed. Not only did the materials exist (on Clinton's
>server), senior officials knew it and allowed false denials to be made.
>* Some documents on the Clinton server contained the
>intelligence-gathering methods, the names of undercover agents, and
>real-time disclosures of top officials' movements. Aside from the
>nuclear launch codes, these are the most closely guarded secrets in the
>U.S. government. That material is "classified at birth," as Clinton,
>Mills, Abedin, and Sullivan certainly knew. To avoid any
>misunderstanding, they had all taken mandatory training in the proper
>treatment of sensitive and classified materials.
>* Some of the classified materials on Clinton's server originated in
>intelligence agencies outside the State Department and came into the
>department on a secure, classified network. They were marked as such.
>They could only be transferred to Clinton's unsecured network by hand.
>Each occurrence was a felony. Since the server has now been recovered,
>the FBI and intelligence agencies know who sent those messages and who
>received them at the State Department.
>* The Clinton Foundation and some private businesses were deeply
>involved in the State Department's business. The lines were blurred
>between Hillary Clinton's official role as secretary of state and her
>unofficial role at a major foundation, headed by her husband, that was
>showered with money from people and companies working with the State
>Department. At best, the arrangements were sleazy. At worst, they were
>criminal "pay to play."
>* Hillary's closest aide, Huma Abedin, had blurred roles, too. While
>working at State, she was also employed by a private company whose
>clients did business with her department and the government.
>One major feature of FBI investigations has been completely ignored. The
>bureau normally interviews all the key participants, and it knows the
>answers before it asks the questions. That should mean closed-door
>sessions with Abedin, Mills, Sullivan, and, ultimately, Hillary Clinton
>and perhaps Bill Clinton (if the foundation's activities are at issue).
>Failing to interview them would replicate the botched Benghazi
>investigation by Adm. Mike Mullin and Ambassador Thomas Pickering. The
>FBI won't repeat that mistake or subject itself to the withering
>These interviews are deadly serious. Former Speaker of the House Dennis
>Hastert learned that the hard way. When the FBI asked why he had
>withdrawn cash from his bank account, he lied. He was caught and, last
>October, plead guilty to a felony.
>So, will Abedin, Mills, or Sullivan answer fully and truthfully or
>invoke their Fifth Amendment rights? If they did, would it become known
>and hurt Hillary politically? If she refuses to testify herself, her
>political career is over. She won't do that unless she fears indictment
>is certain, and she would have to drop out of the presidential race
>If FBI Director Comey does recommend criminal charges, he will put DOJ
>and the White House in a very tight box.
>- First, as a seasoned prosecutor, he will present only strong, winnable
>- Second, he won't present one or two charges. He will present evidence
>of dozens and dozens of felonies. AG Lynch and her career attorneys
>won't be able to say, "On the whole, there's just not enough here to
>convict." They will have to say that over and over, on each charge.
>Indictment on even a few felonies is a torpedo beneath the waterline for
>- Third, it is clear that CIA and FBI investigators already fear an
>administration whitewash and have leaked damaging information to the
>press.If insiders think the administration is engaged in a full-fledged
>cover-up, they will resign, led by Comey. They won't go quietly. They
>will spill the beans. And two hours later, it won't smell good.
>Knowing that, Lynch and her political bosses, Barack Obama and his
>closest adviser, Valerie Jarrett, will have to decide which is worse,
>indicting their party's presumptive nominee or risking their own
>Whichever they choose, the White House will not want its fingerprints on
>the decision. They will want White House spokesman Josh Ernest to say,
>with a straight face, "This decision was made entirely by respected,
>career professionals at the Department of Justice."
>If the FBI recommends felony charges, as is likely, the DOJ's choices
>are damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't. For Loretta Lynch, it will
>make for a painful final year. For her party, the stakes are the
>presidency. For her country, they are the impartial rule of law.
>RCP contributor Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of
>Political Science and the founder and director of the Program on
>International Politicis, Economics and Security at the University of
>Rushtalk mailing list
>Rushtalk at csdco.com

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list