Attorneys Intend to Ask for 'the Clinton Deal'

Will other careless security-clearance holders get a pass? Time will tell.


“We absolutely got on the phone to the prosecutor and said, ‘We want the Petraeus sentence. We want the commensurate, parallel sentence.’ And we got it!” he says, winning a $5,000 fine and a short probation term instead of possible prison for a now-retired intelligence agency employee.

Zaid says if that case still were still pending, he probably could have gotten the client, who he refused to name and asked not be identified, the same deal as Clinton, as their “carelessness,” a term used by Comey to describe Clinton’s email practices, was similar.

“In some ways, [the Clinton and Petraeus cases] now create a glass ceiling and a glass floor,” Zaid says. “By Comey’s wording [about Clinton], now we have a floor as to what constitutes intent that deserves prosecution.”

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-06/attorneys-intend-to-ask-for-the-clinton-deal

Once again a Clinton sets a dangerous precedent for American security!

It’s not just Hillary Clinton. Members of Congress are careless with classified material too.

Over the past year, Hillary Clinton’s use of her own email server while secretary of state has been tremendously controversial and has sparked FBI, congressional and journalistic investigation. Some of the attention has been on whether an unsecured server was used to exchange classified information. Meanwhile, if you recall, observers were originally outraged about the private server because, some claimed, Clinton had used a private server to avoid records requests for her emails.

But members of Congress could be investigating themselves for all the same reasons. As a body, Congress has exempted its office files from public records requests — and in fact, almost no regulations govern their record-keeping.

Members of Congress need never open their files for examination — and if they do, the amount of material they make available, and the timing of when they do it, is entirely up to them. What’s more, when they do make their files available, classified material regularly turns up in it. Most congressional collections are boxes of paper, but as current members retire, more and more will be “born digital” and can include emails sent to and from a congressional office.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/07/21/its-not-just-hillary-clinton-members-of-congress-are-careless-with-classified-material-and-their-own-records/

Guess we know now why "the Clinton Deal" stunk so badly! The "fix" was definitely in!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/20/fbi-exoneration-of-hillary-clinton-raises-disturbi/

FBI exoneration of Hillary raises a disturbing question: What if the fix was in?

The FBI exoneration of Hillary raises disturbing questions

By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, July 20, 2016

ANALYSIS/OPINION

What if the folks who run the Department of Political Justice recently were told that the republic would suffer if Hillary Clinton were indicted for espionage because Donald Trump might succeed Barack Obama in the presidency? What if espionage is the failure to safeguard state secrets and the evidence that Mrs. Clinton failed to safeguard them is unambiguous and overwhelming?

What if President Obama never really liked his former rival whom he appointed as his secretary of state? What if he had no real interest in seeing her succeed him because he and his wife simply could never trust her?

What if, when Mrs. Clinton suggested to the president that the United States wage a secret, undeclared war against Libya, the president went along with it as a no-lose proposition? What if he assumed that if her secret war succeeded he’d get the credit, and if her secret war failed she would get the blame?

What if the means of fighting the secret war consisted of employing intelligence assets rather than the U.S. military? What if Mrs. Clinton concocted that idea because the use of the military requires a public reporting to the entire Congress but the use of intelligence assets requires only a secret reporting to a dozen members of Congress?

What if Mrs. Clinton expanded her war by permitting American and foreign arms dealers to bypass the NATO arms embargo on Libya by selling heavy-duty, military-grade arms directly to militias in Libya? What if this was Mrs. Clinton’s dream scenario — an apparent civil war in Libya in which the victorious side was secretly armed by the United States, with democracy brought to the country and Mrs. Clinton the architect of it all?

What if the CIA warned Mrs. Clinton that this would backfire? What if the CIA told her that she was arming not pro-Western militias but anti-American terrorist groups? What if she rejected all that advice? What if providing material assistance to terrorist groups is a felony? What if the Department of Political Justice actually obtained an indictment of an American arms dealer for going along with Mrs. Clinton’s schemes?

What if Mrs. Clinton’s secret war in Libya was a disaster? What if she succeeded in toppling the Libyan leader, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, only to have him replaced by feuding warlords who control anti-Western terrorist groups that not only failed to produce democracy but instead produced destruction, chaos, terror, torture and death?

What if Mrs. Clinton managed her Libyan disaster using a non-secure email system even though she regularly sent and received state secrets? What if she sent many emails containing state secrets about her Libyan war to her friend Sid Blumenthal? What if Mr. Blumenthal had been turned down for a State Department job by the president himself?

What if Mr. Blumenthal did not have a government security clearance to receive lawfully any state secrets? What if Mrs. Clinton knew that? What if the FBI found that Mr. Blumenthal’s emails had been hacked by intelligence services of foreign governments that are hostile to America?

What if there were terrible secrets that Mrs. Clinton wanted to keep from the public and for that reason she used private servers and nongovernment-issued mobile devices? What if those terrible secrets involved her enabling the unlawful behavior of her husband and his shoddy, unlawful foundation? What if Mrs. Clinton made decisions as secretary of state that were intended to enrich her husband and herself, and she needed to keep emails about those decisions away from the public?

What if the president recognized all this and authorized the FBI to conduct criminal investigations of Mrs. Clinton?

What if, after the ascendancy of Donald Trump in the Republican presidential primaries, the president warmed up to his former rival? What if Mr. Trump so got under the president’s skin that it drove him to embrace Mrs. Clinton as his chosen successor and as the one Democrat who could prevent a Trump presidency?

What if the president sent word to the Department of Political Justice to exonerate Mrs. Clinton no matter what evidence was found against her? What if, in response to that political interference, the FBI investigation of her failure to safeguard state secrets and her corruption took irregular turns?

What if FBI management began to intimidate FBI agents who had the goods on her? What if FBI management forced agents to sign highly irregular agreements governing what the agents can tell anyone when it comes to what they learned about Mrs. Clinton?

What if the Department of Political Justice never subpoenaed anything from Mrs. Clinton? What if it never convened a grand jury to seek and hear evidence against her? What if the FBI requires a grand jury to subpoena documents and tangible things? What if it is highly irregular for a major FBI criminal investigation to be undertaken without a grand jury?

What if the attorney general was involved in a publicity stunt with Mrs. Clinton’s husband and then used that stunt as an excuse to remove herself and her top aides from making decisions in the case? What if this was a sham, done so as to make it appear that FBI professionals — rather than someone politically motivated, such as the president or the attorney general — were calling the shots in the case?

What if Hillary Clinton has engaged in espionage and public corruption and FBI agents know that she has? What if they have evidence to prove it but they could not present anything to a grand jury because President Obama wants Mrs. Clinton, and not Donald Trump, to succeed him in office? What if this blatant political interference with a criminal investigation is itself a crime? What if, midstream in this criminal investigation, the fix was put in?

What do we do about it?

• Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is a contributor to The Washington Times. He is the author of seven books on the U.S. Constitution.

which is more of an indictment of the legal system than anything else.
Almost every criminal case ends in a plea deal.

Of course they do. Constantly. Every single day.
This is like saying "will other careless drivers get a pass?"
You see people turn without a signal? Not use a turn signal in a parking lot? Stop past the crosswalk? Even when there are plenty of surveillance cameras?
Those careless drivers get a pass!


The law does that constantly. "x,y,z, constitutes criminal intent, a,b,c, does not."
Why do you think they are so specific in their terminology use.


Which is more of an indication that the law in place was too vague and a crappy law.


Once again, Clinton, like millions of other people, get off because of crap laws passed, crap laws that offer loopholes to be exploited.

Research tax loopholes.
Jesus.
Talk about arbitrary application of the law.
2 people could make the same argument regarding interpretation of tax law to 2 judges and come to 2 different conclusions each quarter about what it means.

18 U.S.C. 793(f), which states:

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 . . . Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Bill Clinton: "That all depends what the definition of the word "is" is."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

But Judge,I didn't really intend for all that Classified Information to go astray!
OK,Defendant,CASE DISMISSED!

we got a phone call from Officer Obie. He said, "Kid, we found your name on an envelope at the bottom of a half a ton of garbage, and just wanted to know if you had any information about it." And I said, "Yes, sir, Officer Obie, I cannot tell a lie, I put that envelope under that garbage."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m57gzA2JCcM

Actually, the legal response to Clinton was based on how others with similar transgressions and errors have been treated before.

Therefore pretending that Clinton's outcome in any way alters the legal landscape, is absurd.

Are there third rate lawyers out there who will try to use purely political manipulation to get a decision in their favor? Duh. That sure isn't anything new either.