Whether or not we should begin to allow despair to gain hold or that we should curb our cynicism and root for the blindfolded Lady Justice, her scale and two-edged sword we need to consider certain facts and acknowledge that more 'subterranean' than HRC server is the means by which the FBI has been investigating this case and Department of Justice which will be ultimately making judgement on Mrs. Clinton's impropriety.
As I have mentioned from the get go knowing the target/scope of the FBI investigation were pivotal in understanding the possible outcome of this case.
While the FBI did never publicly acknowledge the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any of their investigation into Clinton's use of a private server, the commander in chief and once Mrs. Clinton's boss, President Obama gave us an inkling during one of his interviews a month or so ago in which he iterated that 'intent' seem to have been the primary target of the FBI investigation.
The idea that scope of this over a year long Tax payer funded investigation were whether Mrs. Clinton 'Knowingly & Intently' set to jeopardize US National Security is testament to the absurdity, folly and irrationality of the United State Justice System.
Have we had less of an adulterated and feigned Democracy, have we had less of a politically marred, tainted, spurious and contaminated Department of Justice, the aim of this investigation ought to have been: Whether the US Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton or her aides gross negligence in using private server which did fall outside the department's secure classified system could have jeopardize the US National Security (her 'intent' notwithstanding)?
Its the intent to set up a private unsecured server in the first place that is germane, setting up the server was a 'intent' act and a gross negligence. The 'gross negligence' IS the issue, not the 'intent.'
Alas in this nation we have different benchmark by which our justice system operates.
While in the 'Civil Law', laws which often apply to commoners, the ignorance of the law can never be used as an excuse/justification in breaking the law, and one's 'intent' is neither here or there; ie try to see how fast you land in jail by saying; "I never intended to fail to disclose income to the IRS," wink emoticon the Federal Law, applied to an elite group in this case, makes it a crime ONLY IF someone 'knowingly or willfully' retains classified information, handles it in a grossly negligent manner or passes it along to someone not entitled to see it.
Needless to say proving 'INTENT' if not IMPROBABLE, it is very hard undertaking and if you are a 'Clinton', proving that she 'intently/knowingly' jeopardized national security is down right IMPOSSIBLE.
Thus the 'Clintonite defense machinery' are somewhat assured of the wiggle room afforded to them, as long as they can claim that certain materials were not classified at the time, or that Secretary Clinton did not know what was classified and what wasn't, or that she did not knowingly and/or intently mishandled any classified materials with a bad purpose in mind.
To that effect we have been hearing potpourri of 'statements from Mrs. Clinton's people such as;
1. Nothing was marked 'classified' at the time.
2. or claiming that having private emails is not unprecedented and that many before Mrs. Clinton have had private emails and cleverly NOT ENCLOSING AT ALL the difference between having 'private server/private IP address' and a 'private email' and obfuscating the fact that NO ONE in position of the Secretary of State HAD EVER BEFORE USED A PRIVATE UNSECURED SERVER to conduct his/her duties in capacity of Secretary of State. .
However there are still many reasons which would make a 'not guilty' verdict very plausible;
a) the fact that there were indeed communications which were redacted from what was released to the public, redacted exactly because of its highly 'classified' nature. As long as government feels certain files must remain 'classified' then Mrs. Clinton claim that there were no 'classified' information has no merit whatsoever.
b) CIA determines the classification of information hence Clinton statement that you could get the same Intel from the news, therefor it is not considered classified is preposterous. The fact is that the CIA determined that certain Intel was classified and if the original email that the Clinton minions clipped the Intel from and send to her unsecured server was marked 'classified' then she's guilty. Now do that for the 2000 emails and suppose 10% fall in to that category. That's 200 counts. No accident. Gross negligence at a minimum.
c) That the use of 'private unsecured server' by Secretary of State is indeed UNPRECEDENTED, as limitations of permissible conducts are the first thing briefed to any Secretary of State before he/she is to assume his/her position and Secretary Clinton was no exception. Therefor even if the argument is that there were NO INTENT on Mrs. Clinton's part in mishandling of classified material, her GROSS NEGLIGENCE WERE INDEED INTENTIONAL.
d) One of the Clinton's aide Bryan Pagliano, who had set up her email server in New York in 2009, was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in exchange for cooperation with FBI and another aide Huma Abedin were interviewed by the FBI just last month.
Why would the DOJ grant immunity to aides involved if what they have to say is insignificant. If the aides refused to cooperate with FBI, they would be charged with obstruction of justice, so giving immunity was not an incentive for their cooperation but perhaps was an incentive for possible lighter impending charges.
As the saying goes there is no smoke without fire.
The FBI investigation has been going on for over a year and at the end of the day FBI will pass on its finding to the much politicized Department of Justice which rather than honoring its long history of bipartisan fidelity to the law, it has become an unapologetic partisan institution that aides and abets the current administration's lawlessness, thus once the charges are turned over to the Justice Department they will become irrelevant.
There are many reasons why it is unlikely that the current Department of Justice will prosecute Hillary Clinton for blatant violations of rules governing the handling of classified material.
For one, the head of the Department of Justice, the US Attorney General, is appointed by President Obama, another words the Attorney General Loretta Lynch who will determine the final verdict is influenced by her boss's expectations of her.
Fantastically enough Mrs. Lynch's boss, President Barack Obama, seem to have n an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Obama seemed to have prejudge the outcome of the ongoing inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s email scandal, on April 10, 2016 during an interview in which not only he disputed the notion that any of the emails contained classified information of true importance but also stated that Hillary Clinton “would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy", an statement that if has not already influenced the direction of an ongoing FBI investigation by perhaps suggesting that focus ought to be on 'INTENT", would surely influence his Attorney General's decision.
Oh..... the Irony of Democracy tongue emoticon and let us end by a quote from Hillary Clinton;
"Rules are made for little people!"
No comments:
Post a Comment