‘No!’: Anchor Chris Wallace Fiercely Pushes Back Against Democrat’s Clinton Email Cla

Look, its obvious that Chris Wallace is a partisan hack who is not interested in giving all sides of a story. That's journalism 101; at least when I went to school it was.

 

State Department Report Justifies Indictments for Hillary Clinton.

By H. A. Goodman
27 May 16

The Democratic Primary isn’t about delegate count. The Democratic Primary is about defeating Donald Trump in 2016. Currently, Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by 10.8 points. Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump by .2 points the other day (in an average of polls), and is now only 1 point ahead according to Real Clear Politics. In addition to poll numbers, CNN disclosed the findings of a recent State Department report “slamming” Clinton’s use of a private server.

This report is highlighted in a CNN article titled State Department report slams Clinton email use:

(CNN)A State Department Inspector General report said former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to follow the rules or inform key department staff regarding her use of a private email server, according to a copy of the report obtained by CNN on Wednesday.

The report, which was provided to lawmakers, states, “At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.”
...the report notes that interviews with officials from the Under Secretary for Management and the Office of the Legal Adviser found “no knowledge of approval or review by other Department staff” of the server.​

...the report says that the Inspector General’s office “found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server.”

Thus, every legal defense of Clinton’s emails has just been shattered.

First, Clinton’s “convenience” excuse, which rests upon the notion that the State Department allowed her to use a private server, is now obsolete. As explained in the State Department report, there’s “no evidence” Clinton asked for, or received, approval for a private server.

This undermines every defense for Clinton, since the narrative must go from “convenience” and naiveté, to intentionally breaking protocol. Even before the State Department report, I stated during my recent MSNBC appearance that Clinton’s convenience narrative wasn’t enough to circumvent political repercussions.

I also had the great pleasure of appearing on Tim Black’s show, and we discussed why Clinton faces legal repercussions from this email controversy.

As stated in the report, State Department protocol and guidelines correlate to existing laws regarding record keeping and the handling of classified data. Now that Clinton can’t simply claim “convenience,” there’s the obvious intent to hide information.

Whether or not the over 30,000 emails she deleted were truly private (or about yoga) is now irrelevant; they should never have been combined with classified data, on an unguarded private server.

This isn’t Whitewater. It’s a huge story, and a controversy that will lead to the FBI recommending indictments. If you disagree, then store your Social Security number, bank account information, and address on a friend’s private server. After you’ve stored your most precious data on another person’s server, then try to sleep easy at night.

Nobody before Clinton, Republican or Democrat, has ever linked a private server to government networks used to store Top Secret intelligence.

Hillary Clinton broke State Department guidelines, which makes storing 22 Top Secret emails on the server even more egregious. As explained by CBS News in January, these files contained Special Access Program information:

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification.

...But seven email chains are being withheld in full because they contain information deemed to be “top secret.” The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs” - a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.​

It is a crime to store Top Secret intelligence anywhere other than government networks; regardless of whether or not Clinton believed her server to be more secure. Furthermore, SAP data is so secretive, the U.S. government often times denies the existence of these projects.

Now that the State Department has distanced itself from Clinton’s need for convenience, her “intent” becomes the issue that makes Bernie Sanders the clear front-runner. Delegate count won’t save Clinton when the FBI recommends indictments, and every legal defense of Clinton’s emails rested upon her convenience narrative.

The “high bar” that defenders of Hillary Clinton cite was just lowered to a level indicating she intentionally used a private server. This intent correlates to legal consequences. Intent means a deliberate act, and this deliberate act can’t be explained as “convenience.”

The Espionage Act states that whoever is “entrusted” with state secrets must ensure this data isn’t “removed from its proper place of custody” and that “gross negligence” isn’t a defense:

(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.​

Yes, Clinton’s 22 Top Secret emails were “illegally removed from its proper place.”

Also, how did Brian Pagliano transfer this intelligence from secure State Department networks, onto a
private server, without authority or documentation from State?

(excerpt)

Read more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/state-department-report-j_b_10160816.html

It appears that SMB is contradicting the Huffington Post when he claims that Hillary is innocent....

 

Again learn to read page numbers. I said pg 23 of the report. Not pg 23 of the pdf. Do you know the difference. When referencing something you reference the page numbers and paragraphs of the actual document not the SW used to read the effin document.

This is the second time you have called me dishonest and are wrong. You are making claims that do not purport to the facts. I expect two apologies now.

 

The report is a personal document file, my God did you finish school?
You are the one that made the claim Hillary's use of a private server was mitigated by the fact that she turned her emails over.
I've asked you on several occasions to post the link to validate your claim, I suggest you get busy and do just that.

 

Hillary is the story, Colin Powell is not. Colin Powell is the childish response of "He did it too!" Someone else having done something similar does not make you less guilty.

When the news does a piece on a murder they don't usually bother to cite the names of every other muder in the community in the last decade.

 

You are correct. The OIG's report does say that Clinton turning over her emails mitigated the violation of NARA regulations. I read it in the report itself on page 26...

 

But that has nothing whatever to do with the clear section f violation, her confounding personal and professional emails and the rather high handed manner in which she chose to separate them.

 

If you mean Section (f) of the Espionage Act, then there has to be intent to prosecute, and the truth is, they don't even have harm. There is no evidence, at least not yet, that anything on her server was, at the time it was received or sent, classified information, or that she intentionally sent that secret material to someone that shouldn't have had it. No one has been prosecuted for mishandling classified information, for more than 20 years, without intent. In this political climate, they aren't about to start prosecuting people for mishandling classified information without intent, and certainly they won't start with a candidate for President.

 

Not for neglect there doesn't.

 

Dude you are nothing if not tedious. I imagine what you are trying to say is that what you posted is portable document file or pdf. PDF is file format used by adobe. Adobe assigns page numbers to documents when it converts but those page numbers are NOT the document page numbers they are the PDF page numbers. Just so you are clear I have posted an image for you that highlights the document page number. Once again when you reference a document you give the document page number. Not the page numbers assigned by the SW that reads the document. Before you go casting dispersions maybe you ought to make sure what you are saying doesn't make you look foolish.

 

No the fact that it occurred across SOS administrations shows that it was a systemic issue at the State Department and not of any one Secretary of State as the IG report concludes.

 

I'm going to remind you that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State, and that office has to do with diplomacy, not defense. Section (f) refers to military secrets and national defense. If she shared military secrets or secrets having to do with national defense, she would have already been charged, because all that is required to charge on that section is that the material was sent to someone that wasn't allowed to have it. They have the emails and she hasn't been charged with that, so it is only logical to assume that nothing of national defense or military secrets was sent to anyone without proper clearance. Anything of that nature wouldn't be sent by email anyway. They also had secure cables and secure FAXs, in addition to email, with which to communicate those kinds of things. Also, if you've read anything much on this issue, the main emphasis of the investigations, so far, only have to do with mishandling documents, not espionage.

Again, every other part of the Espionage Act requires intent and no one has been prosecuted under this act for more than 20 years without proof of intent.

 

No where did the OIG report say Hillary's use of emails were mitigated because she turned them over!
You're flat out dishonest and busted!

 

Along with National Security.

It would be fun to see her Inbox

- Yoga Schedule for Friday
- Wedding/Dress shopping Sat
- ISIS Raids to be conducted Thursday
- Results of military black project results
- Coffe with Bill Sunday

 

I disagree with you. They do, if it's germane to the topic being addressed.

 

Check post #56. I quoted the report from OIG and it certainly does say that turning over the emails mitigated violation of NARA. There's a link in that post to the report so you can read it yourself. It's on page 26.

 

What Colin Powell did is irrelevant.
First and foremost Colin Powell is not running for president, Hillary is.
Second, even if Colin Powell used a personal email account, he did not have an unsecured server in his home, Hillary did.

 

The OIG stated that only the emails turned over mitigated her but they go on to say it was incomplete because of the emails not turned over, huge difference!

My contention is, SMB is dishonest and deceitful, this is proof, I see it as a Katie Couric moment.

 

There would be no need to mitigate the circumstances if she had turned over all the emails. If she had turned over all the emails, she wouldn't be in violation of NARA.

 

Your entitled to your opinion as am I. I just disagree with your viewpoint. Regardless of whether Powell is running for President or not, he did serve as Secretary of State, as Hillary Clinton did and I believe doing a comparison is fair game when reporting.

 

You must have a reading deficiency. Look on pg 23 of document. Not pg 23 of the PDF. It is clearly written there in black and white. You are lying if you say it isn't there. I am not the one being dishonest here.

 

You are wrong then. The OIG makes NO DECISION on whether or not the emails not turned over mitigate the failure to comply with the NARA regulations. What does clearly say and this post is being deceitful is that the fact that she turned over 30,000 emails DOES MITIGATE her failure to turn over all documents at separation. You have no leg to stand on. Your calling me deceitful and dishonest when it is you that is being deceitful and dishonest. The report clearly states that NARA believes the fact that Clinton turned over 30,000+ emails is a mitigating factor and the OIG clearly states they agree with that position. It is there in black and white. There is intent to deceive except on your part.

 

This is not true. The OIG clearly states that even though she turned over the emails is a mitigating factor that it would still constitute a violation of the NARA regulations. The fact that she didn't turn over all the emails is because a. she did not have emails saved from her first month in office and b. the emails were private correspondence not included in her official duties.

Again though the OIG's conclusion does throw blame at Hillary Clinton or Colin Powell or anyone in particular. It clearly states that this was systemic failure across the board over multiple administrations with the State Department and the Office Secretary of State.

 

Criminal Statutes for the Protection of Classified Information.
National defense information is protected by 18 U.S.C. § 793 et seq. The penalty for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 793 (gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information) is a fine or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. Thus, under § 793, persons convicted of gathering defense information with the intent or reason to believe the information will be used against the United States or to the benefit of a foreign nation may be fined or sentenced to no more than 10 years imprisonment.14 Persons who have access to defense information that they have reason to know could be used to harm the national security, whether the access is authorized or unauthorized, and who disclose that information to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retain the information despite an order to surrender it to an officer of the United States, are subject to the same penalty.15 Although it is not necessary that the information be classified by a government agency, the courts give deference to the executive determination of what constitutes “defense information.”16 Information that is made available by the government to the public is not covered under the prohibition, however, because public availability of such information negates the bad-faith intent requirement.17 On the other hand, classified documents remain within the ambit of the statute even if information contained therein is made public by an unauthorized leak.18 Any person who is lawfully entrusted with defense information and who permits it to be disclosed or lost, or who does not report such a loss or disclosure, is also subject to a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

 

And I'll remind you that that crap routinely runs through the Secretary of state, in fact she can't do her job without it...Suffice it to say you out of your depth here.