Wednesday, August 31, 2016

But, given that post-America is a banana republic, it won't happen

Hillionaire won't face criminal charges, that is.

Yesterday, I put up a cursory post about the discovery of 30-plus Benghazi emails as the story broke.

Andrew McCarthy spells out the grim significance of it:

As Ian reports, it has now come to light that Hillary Clinton attempted to destroy about 30 emails related to the 2012 Benghazi massacre. They were recovered by the FBI, notwithstanding the use by Mrs. “Like With a Cloth or Something” of an advanced software program – “BleachBit” – in a willful effort to erase the contents of her servers so thoroughly that no one would be able to recover her emails (many of which were government records, which it is a felony to hoard and destroy).
Obviously, these emails were kept from the congressional committees that investigated the Benghazi massacre. Mrs. Clinton was also clearly trying to shield them from discovery by defense lawyers in the prosecution of the lone terrorist the Obama administration has thus far charged (in connection with an attack that involved scores of jihadists whom Obama promised to “bring to justice”).

The depth of Mrs. Clinton’s misconduct regarding the unlawful e-mail system and the obstruction of investigations into a terrorist attack in which four Americans were killed is breathtaking – as is the media’s indifference to it. As I’ve repeatedly argued, Clinton ought to be impeached. How much more contempt for Congress does she need to exhibit before some dim memory of self-respect moves lawmakers to take some action? 
Nearly as reprehensible, however, is the Obama administration at large. Evidently, it has just today gotten around to telling a United States court that these 30 emails have never been disclosed, even though they have been sought for years, the Justice Department has known the FBI had them for months, and the State Department, too, has to have known they were in the possession of the administration as it litigated Freedom of Information Act claims yet said nothing.

Just as astounding: In making their grudging disclosure today, administration lawyers claimed that they needed another month (until the end of September) to review the emails so that classified information could be redacted before they are disclosed.

Mind you: Mrs. Clinton told us there were no government-business related emails on her servers and certainly no classified information. It turned out there were tens of thousands of government-related emails, with thousands containing classified information. Clinton lawlessly withheld these emails for years, and the executive branch has known about them for months. Indeed, the FBI director told Congress and the public that the FBI went through a painstaking process with intelligence agencies to determine which of the recovered emails had classified information in them. And yet, despite all that, the State Department has the audacity to tell a federal judge that it needs another 30 days to review less than three dozen emails? Seriously? 
This kind of rottenness isn't sitting well with the post-American cattle-masses:

Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity reached a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, putting her on par with Donald Trump among registered voters.
The latest findings solidify their positions as the two most unpopular presidential candidates in polling dating back more than 30 years.
Among all adults, 56 percent now view Clinton unfavorably, up 6 percentage points in three weeks, compared with 63 percent who say the same about Trump.
Among registered voters, the two candidates have nearly identical unfavorable ratings: 59 percent for Clinton versus 60 percent for Trump.

 But she is still on track to succeed the Most Equal Comrade as dictator of this dark land.




3 comments:

  1. Document destruction is as old as documents. It's elementary legal defense, been happening since papyrus replaced stone tablets

    ReplyDelete
  2. Knock it off. "Documents" is as broad a category as there is. These are not supermarket coupons or shoe store receipts we're talking about. These are emails related to a terrorist attack on US soil the circumstances of which were lied about by Clinton as well as Susan Rice. And the Congressional committees that requested them were stonewalled - and you know who made that decision.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Knock it off. "Documents" is as broad a category as there is. These are not supermarket coupons or shoe store receipts we're talking about. These are emails related to a terrorist attack on US soil the circumstances of which were lied about by Clinton as well as Susan Rice. And the Congressional committees that requested them were stonewalled - and you know who made that decision.

    ReplyDelete