Columinist H.A. Goodman says Clinton Indictment is Coming

[Duckfan]

I hope this is not a re-post.

Ran across this over at JPR (glad to be there) and wanted to share it. Goodman says that the FBI will recommend indictment based on precedent. He says the FBI does not want another president (Chump?) making claim (of keeping private server), well she did it? Why can't I?" An important point I didn't think of.

What does Goodman recommend that democrats do at this point in time?

Get behind Bernie Sanders.

&nohtml5=False

[revbones]

1. If so, the question really is when.

How far along in the process does she get beforehand? If it's in the general, it'll be disastrous. If it's before the convention, there's a chance it could avoid damaging the party.

[fighting-irish]

2. Hate to say it, but when is Goodman ever right?

I love his writing, but can't really take him seriously.

[artislife]

4. The fact that you have only been saying anything on this site for less than a week

causes me more of a shrug of the shoulders than Goodman.

[LiberalElite]

11. I suggest

you look at the table in his journal about who's a "real progressive" and the comments thereto.

[highprincipleswork]

5. Hate to say it, but doesn't it sound right? Shouldn't it be right, if we have real security? Can't

really believe how blase people are about this, just because there have been so many scandals before. First of all, don't we all have friends who are always coming under the same misfortune, over and over again? Be honest, don't you usually find there is a reason to the recurring scenario in the end?

[revbones]

6. He makes some very good points. And yes, there is usually a reason. nt

[LiberalElite]

10. That's a real "interesting" table in your Journal, fighting-irish

Are you SURE you want to be in the Sanders group?

[BillZBubb]

3. Goodman knows as much about this as the rest of us: NOTHING AT ALL.

There appear to be grounds for an indictment, but that is all. Whether the FBI finds that the evidence is sufficient for an indictment or not is anyone's guess.

My guess is they won't ask for an indictment unless something very serious is involved. And we've not seen anything in public that reaches that threshold.

[CoffeeCat]

7. If this thread is any indication of how informed people are on Hillary's email investigation

Last edited Wed Apr 13, 2016, 12:38 AM - Edit history (2)

then there would possibly be some very shocked people--if she is indicted.

A couple of months ago, I decided to do some due diligence. This investigation began last summer. I dismissed the "email scandal" as another Benghazi. I never paid attention to Benghazi. I thought the email situation was another ridiculous Republican hit job. Until I started reading a couple of months ago.

I'm telling you. Hillary using a private server and the subsequent issues surrounding the server--are absolutely serious. What she has done is unprecedented. No high-level government official has EVER built a homebrew private email server that was unsecure. Hillary routed all of her official State correspondence through this unsecure server. President Obama didn't even know about it. She kept this server running for two years after she stepped down as SOS.

Don't let anyone tell you that Condi or Colin Powell did this. They absolutely did not. They sent emails, a few times, using a personal email account. And if people don't understand the difference between using a Yahoo email account a few times--and using a private unsecure server for all of your correspondence while you were Secretary of State, then step off. Because you don't know the first thing about what has happened.

Do I know what's going to happen? Of course not. I've read a great deal about this. I've looked up the laws. The information is out there.

I urge people to do your own due diligence. What Hillary Clinton did was illegal. Absolutely no doubt about that.

I am beyond accepting that what she did was illegal and that the FBI have an electronic trail of everything she did. The only question that remains is...is the FBI going to announce that they have found criminal conduct and recommend indictment? Maybe she gets away with it. Maybe she doesn't. From what people say about Comey, and his personal management of this investigation--all signs point to the fact that he is a consummate professional.

Again, I'm beyond wondering if what she did was ok. After reading about the laws and about what exactly she did--I am more focused on what in the hell this means for our party, this election and for our country. I will be upset if the FBI formally announces that their investigation has determined criminality. However, I won't be half as upset as many, who think that what she did was the same as Condi--and that there's really nothing there. That is NOT the case. This is an incredibly serious situation.

Regardless of who you support, I urge you to read up.

[Left Brain]

9. Brilliant, Coffee Cat

Bravo! 👏🏽

[HereSince1628]

12. I doubt the FBI would -ever- make a recommendation of indictment of HRC public.

Last edited Wed Apr 13, 2016, 09:00 AM - Edit history (1)

And I think the Obama administration would NEVER allow DOJ pursue such a thing.

My reason goes like this... Obama is likely ensnared in her email.

IF EVERY EMAIL sent by HRC during her time as SOS went through her private system, some of those emails would surely have gone to the president's office/ He or someone very very high in his staff woulda, coulda, shoulda noticed her email address -never- was a government account.

[CoffeeCat]

14. There are so many unknowns

Who knows what the FBI would do, if they did recommend indictment and the DOJ failed to indict. Would the FBI let it go? That's possible.

Regarding Obama--That is a whole other subject in itself that poses many other questions. He says that he didn't know about her private server. I don't know if that is true. There have been thousands of emails released. Have you noticed how many are from Obama? I have not spent a great deal of time on this, but if you search for "Obama" using the WikiLeaks engine that allows you to search through Clinton's emails...there is scant evidence of H/O communicating via email. There are thousands from Blumenthal, Mills, Abedin, etc. Possibly, those emails were not released?

I find it odd that she communicated with Blumenthal, almost on a daily basis about policy, strategy, communications. He was sending her articles, monitoring media, sending analysis and intel many foreign-policy topics. There was an ongoing, back-forth dialog. Obama had nixed the idea of bringing Sid on as one of her advisers. In the end, it seems the he was one of her advisers.

And it was all being conducted on a private server.

[HereSince1628]

18. There are indeed emails held back by the WH, it's a relatively small number

They aren't held back under an argument of state secrets, but rather presidential privilege to have confidential communications.
I'd not be surprised if they link back through Clintons rogue system, indeed, I expect that is just what happened. Now actually holding Clinton responsible for her arrogance raised to criminality is compromised.

Yes, Obama didn't want Blumenthal employed in his administration. The reliance of HRC on Blumenthal is another example of how she doesn't let anyone else's rules get in her way. I'm not sure how a president would deny contact between an employee and a friend...outside of business hours and not on a communications system used to handle state secrets. As it turned out it was indeed publication of Blumenthals emails hacked by "Gucifer" that revealed the private communications system.

[magical thyme]

13. here is the law in question.

An argument can easily be made for "gross negligence." But an argument can also be made for "willful." Note also that all references are to "information relating to national defense," nothing requires "classified" or "marked classified."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

1. Clinton's server was managed by a firm that lacked proper security clearance. Therefore *every* piece of information in there related to national defense was held and transmitted illegally.

2. Clinton received Top Secret information from Blumenthal. She *knew* he had information that had been removed illegally -- his possession of it was illegal. And she failed to report it.

3. Note that the initial paragraphs a, b, and c refer to intent to do harm. Paragraphs d and e include "willfully." Paragraph f is the only one that leaves out any reference to intent.

Given that Clinton was initially refused a secure blackberry, one could say she "willfully" transmitted information related to national defense without appropriate security. Given that she was advised to *not* use the blackberry in China, Vietnam, and other countries at particular risk, and she acknowledged in writing that she understood the directive, and proceeded to use the unsecure blackberry while traveling in those countries, one could say she "willfully" transmitted information related to national defense.

4. paragraph "g" is about anybody who conspired to violate the above laws. Huma, Mills, Pagliano...we're looking at you.

[Bob41213]

16. I think there is a slam dunk in there

I posted it on my jury killed post that the Sid emails were obviously classified to anyone and she didn't report them.

Here's the relevant section with my own bolding pertaining to Sid Blumenthal's emails:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer

Is there any doubt that she didn't violate that section? I don't think there is. She had knowledge that someone without clearance (Sid Blumenthal) possessed classified documents and emailed them to her, and she failed to report it.

[magical thyme]

17. exactly what I was referring to in point #2 in the bottom itals.

I had boldface it elsewhere...forgot to when I copied & pasted it here

[Duckfan]

8. Two things that strike me as revelant:

First, the possibility that a foreign country may have hacked into her server and got sensitive information is first concern.

Second, as he states clearly, the FBI does not want to give someone else an excuse that "well she did it". The FBI knows what is at stake here.

[Kip Humphrey]

19. Tim Black's video referenced by H.A. Goodman