IGs call for criminal investigation of Hillary's Emails

[planosteve]

Report: Officials seek criminal probe of Hillary Clinton e-mail account

Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled sensitive information through her private e-mail account, according to the New York Times.

The Times, citing unnamed “senior government officials,” said Thursday night that the requests had come from the inspectors general for the State Department and intelligence agencies. They concluded that Clinton’s private account contained “hundreds of potentially classified emails,” according to the Times.

The Department of Justice has made no decision on whether to comply with the requests, the paper said.

Clinton’s use of a private e-mail account was revealed in March. She set up an exclusive and private e-mail server for all of her departmental communications, but has said she did not use it for classified information.

The State Department is currently reviewing some 55,000 pages of e-mails. About 3,000 have been made public so far, with many of them including redactions that might indicate the presence of sensitive, if not classified, information.

According to the Times, “In the course of the email review, State Department officials determined that some information in the messages should be retroactively classified,” though it was not explicitly labeled classified at the time.

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign did not offer any comment Thursday night on the Times report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/24/report-officials-seek-criminal-probe-of-hillary-clinton-email-account/

[BillB]

I'd pay $1,000 to see her in an orange jump suit.
Let's hope something comes out of this.

[planosteve]

I have to wonder if Hillary flames out if the Dems would actually run Bernie. They would have to scramble to fill the hole. Probably Biden or Kerry.

[BigTex]

Hillary walks.

Because it's Hillary.

[BillB]

Hillary walks.

Because it's Hillary.

We can always hope.
Ten years hard labor would do that old hag some good.

[Sangersteve]

Don't hold your breath

On Thursday evening, the New York Times broke a bombshell story that could spell doom for Hillary Clinton’s already-faltering campaign. The headline read, “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email.”

The article began as follows: “Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.”

But suddenly, without notice to readers or attribution, the headline was changed to, “Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account.”

It’s so very, very, very good to be Democrat royalty. You never get asked tough questions about issues that make your big supporters squirm, like Planned Parenthood’s baby parts-harvesting operation. You’re completely insulated from everything other members of your Party do and say, while every Republican is instantly joined at the hip with the most controversial members of theirs. Your court media will leap into action at the snap of your fingers, suppressing or blunting stories and headlines that are incredibly damaging to your campaign.

The opening paragraph of the story was stealth-edited to an even more absurd degree, to distance Clinton herself from the story. It now reads as if she was a bystander to the potentially illegal activity: “Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.” [emphasis added]

The Times even altered the URL of the web page to cover its tracks, evidently having learned that one of the favorite tactics of media watchdogs is to check the URL – which usually defaults to the initial headline – against what the story currently says.

As of Friday morning, there was nothing in the article to indicate it had been changed, or why. This isn’t a correction or an update – it’s chicanery.

And there’s no mystery about why, as reporter Michael Schmidt explained to Politico: “It was a response to complaints we received from the Clinton camp that we thought were reasonable, and we made them.”

[BigTex]

NY Times book review listed books over Ted Cruz's book even though his book sold more copies.

[planosteve]

Hillary said none of her emails contained "classified matter". Investigators said 4 out of 40 emails from the batch of 30,00 they reviewed contained "classified information".

[millergrovesue]

Hillary said none of her emails contained "classified matter". Investigators said 4 out of 40 emails from the batch of 30,00 they reviewed contained "classified information".

How many are necessary to constitute a crime? Seems to me 1 is sufficient. But, as was mentioned earlier, it's Hillary - she'll skate.

[planosteve]

Hillary said none of her emails contained "classified matter". Investigators said 4 out of 40 emails from the batch of 30,00 they reviewed contained "classified information".

How many are necessary to constitute a crime? Seems to me 1 is sufficient. But, as was mentioned earlier, it's Hillary - she'll skate.

It seems to me like Hillary is implying that only a document that is marked classified is "classified material" and discussing the same information in an email is not. I think she's wrong. But, then Hillary usually is.