Did Hillary Commit a Felony?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Shannen Coffin’s excellent column today points out that Mrs. Clinton’s Clintonesque shenanigans not only appear to be a clear violation of the Federal Records Act; she may also have violated a federal penal statute that makes it a felony for the custodian of government records to conceal or otherwise tamper with them.

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/03/05/did-hillary-commit-felony

If charged, will she go to trial? If convicted, will Obama pardon her?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Prosecuted or not, convicted or not, this, in my opinion, should take Hillary out of the 2016 field. This is a big deal.

[lostinblue 1,989]

3:30 why would I use e-mails

[khwaidee1 196]

I can already hear her now, "What difference at this point does it make?", it worked for 4 dead Americans so should be no problem for secret e-mails and a breach of protocol and Federal law.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Oh Lord, not the Benghazi nonsense again. How many times does that false right wing nut job narrative have to be debunked for even the last stupid fool on the far right edge to get it? smh

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-03/hdr22clintonemailcom-how-romanian-hacker-exposed-hillary-clintons-secret-email-life

The answer, shockingly, comes courtesy of a Romanian hacker who was known by the handle "Guccifer", and who is currently serving time in a Bucharest prison for his online attacks against countless public figures including the infamous leaks of George W. Bush personal paintings.

How is it possible that a Romanian convict may have helped accelerate the downfall of Warren Buffett's presidential hopeful? According to the Smoking Gun, which first reported on this topic back in March 2013, “Guccifer” illegally accessed the AOL e-mail account of Sidney Blumenthal, who then worked as a senior White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, and later became a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

When “Guccifer” (who was later identified as Marcel Lazar Lehel) breached Blumenthal’s account, he discovered an assortment of correspondence sent to Hillary Clinton at the e-mail address

hdr22@clintonemail.com

. The “clintonemail.com” domain was registered in 2009, shortly after her nomination to become Secretary of State.

While Blumenthal, a longtime Hillary Clinton confidant, used her private e-mail to send personal messages (like a get well note after she fell at home and suffered a concussion in December 2012), he also forwarded the Cabinet member a series of “Confidential” memos about foreign policy matters.

A snapshot of one leaked email between Blumenthal and Clinton can be seen below:

[JohnR! 5,495]

These are the same people who believe W was responsible for 9/11... Are you surprised?

Oh Lord, not the Benghazi nonsense again. How many times does that false right wing nut job narrative have to be debunked for even the last stupid fool on the far right edge to get it? smh

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Elijah Cummings Upset Over Subpoena Of Hillary Clinton’s Secret Emails – If She Weren’t White, It Would Be Racist

If there was no there, there. why is this guy getting so upset?

[khwaidee1 196]

She actually said that and I was being facetious or trying a shot at sarcasm, but it does seem to fit if she really was doing some funny business with her e-mails that she knew she shouldn't. But the response could fitting as timing is everything.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/03/hillary-clintons-private-email-address-at-state-reinforces-everything-people-dont-like-about-her/

And it's good to know she got Marie Harf on the job for State, that should straighten things right out.

Edited March 5, 2015 by khwaidee1

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Obama counsel not aware of Clinton's email practice

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House counsel's office was not aware at the time Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state that she relied solely on personal email and only found out as part of the congressional investigation into the Benghazi attack, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The person said Clinton's exclusive reliance on personal email as the nation's top diplomat was inconsistent with the guidance given to agencies that official business should be conducted on official email accounts. Once the State Department turned over some of her messages in connection with the Benghazi investigation after she left office, making it apparent she had not followed the guidance, the White House counsel's office asked the department to ensure that her email records were properly archived, according to the person who spoke on a condition of anonymity without authorization to speak on the record.

Clinton announced in a late-night tweet Wednesday that she wants her emails released. She asked the State Department to vet the 55,000-plus pages she handed over, leaving the diplomatic agency with the intensely politicized task of determining which can be made public.

Clinton's successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, told reporters Thursday during a trip to Saudi Arabia the State Department will move immediately to review the emails but cautioned it will take time. "We will undertake this task as rapidly as possible in order to make sure that we are dealing with the sheer volume in a responsible way," Kerry said.

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-emails-inject-obamas-administration-2016-fray-081233081--election.html

More than inconsistent - it is a violation of federal law - embezzlement.

[rlogan 2,036]

I'd be amazed if she was charged with anything because of the thorough corruption in our government. The most highly illegal things we can see she was involved in constituted direct support for terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, and Benghazi was an example of that where arms were being funneled to Syrian jihadis. It has been widely published with pieces by Seymour Hersh for example, but since McCain and others were also busy making sure ISIS had enough Toyotas and machine guns to run wild in the middle east, they can only complain about embassy security instead of what they were DOING through the embassy.

We live in a "They did it too" political world now. Since everyone is a criminal, nobody can be picked out for being one.

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

More than inconsistent - it is a violation of federal law - embezzlement.

This is a bit of a stretch. The two alternate prongs of the statute are:

embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of

or

receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted

The latter of these two prongs is almost certainly inapplicable -- if we argue that Hillary has received/concealed/retained the emails, how can one establish she had the mens rea to convert it to her "use or gain" -- and what would be the "use or gain"? Of more interest is the former of these, and we can pretty much throw out embezzling or knowing conversion of the emails. So we get down to stealing or purloining (which are essentially the same thing -- I think the statute is just being cute). I think a case could be made for larceny, but again there's a mens rea issue. Since larceny requires the intent to steal or permanently deprive or defraud (the adverb modifies both verbs), can it be proven that Hillary had the requisite intent?

Then again, I'm a Dummocrat, so you know I'm at least a little Team Killary.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This is a bit of a stretch. The two alternate prongs of the statute are:

or

The latter of these two prongs is almost certainly inapplicable -- if we argue that Hillary has received/concealed/retained the emails, how can one establish she had the mens rea to convert it to her "use or gain" -- and what would be the "use or gain"? Of more interest is the former of these, and we can pretty much throw out embezzling or knowing conversion of the emails. So we get down to stealing or purloining (which are essentially the same thing -- I think the statute is just being cute). I think a case could be made for larceny, but again there's a mens rea issue. Since larceny requires the intent to steal or permanently deprive or defraud (the adverb modifies both verbs), can it be proven that Hillary had the requisite intent?

Then again, I'm a Dummocrat, so you know I'm at least a little Team Killary.

The full phrase in part one is

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof;

And for whatever reason, the charge is embezzlement, as least at it was described by Judge Napolitano.

[lostinblue 1,989]

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Embezzlement is a kind of property theft. It occurs when a defendant, who was entrusted to manage or monitor someone else’s money or property, steals all or part of that money or property for the defendant’s personal gain. The key is that the defendant had legal access to another’s money or property, but not legal ownership of it. Taking the money or property for the defendant’s own gain is stealing; when combined with the fact that this stealing was also a violation of a special position of trust, you have the unique crime of embezzlement.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-offense/federal-embezzlement-laws.htm

That kinda fits better than larceny or theft.