Sid Vicious Blumenthal's Emails Destroy Every. Single. One. Of @HillaryClinton's Server Explanations & Excuses

Chairwoman Mau-Mau

Now, watch her closely...

OMFG! THAT face!

Priceless. 

OK, time to get serious. So, Her Imperial Royal Thighness, Hillary Rodham Clinton (HIRT-HRC, Democrat/'Progressive') said this:

'Well, nothing i sent or received was marked classified at the time. That is an absolute fact. It’s been verified over and over and over again. So i think that we’ll have a chance to explain what that means, if people don’t understand it.'

We know for a FACT that she sent and received ‘born classified’ information over her unauthorised and unsecured email server. 

Just one example: 

A former CIA official, illegally, disclosed the real identity of one of our main operatives in Libya to Sidney Blumenthal. Immediately, upon receipt, Blumenthal was REQUIRED by 18 U.S. Code § 793 to alert the Federal government that he had received highly classified information that had clearly been disclosed illegally.  For the record, the actual names of our intelligence assets overseas are known to only a handful of high-ranking, select people in the government.  Obama doesn’t even know these names unless he, specifically, asks for them.  Everyone else that is cleared to view the information - an infinitesimally small number of individuals - who have the highest clearances, and are on a need-to-know list for that specific identity, can see it.  BUT, even then, they must present the relevant credentials at a specified SCIF reading room and only after that will the information be delivered to the secure room and made available for that person’s eyes only. S/he cannot write anything down or reproduce anything in the room in any way - such is a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 793. 

This is not voluntary.  It is required by the Federal Espionage Act of 1917.

But, Sid Vicious decided to break Federal law. 

First, he illegally gathered illegally-obtained, compartmentalised classified information of the highest sort. Then, he continued to be in possession of said information. Finally, again illegally, he forwarded said information to Hillary Clinton. All in violation of the law. 

At this point, Hillary Clinton was REQUIRED by 18 U.S. Code § 793 to immediately advise the CIA, other intelligence agencies, and the administration that one of our most important operatives had been compromised by an illegal disclosure either made by someone currently with the CIA or the former official. She chose to similarly break Federal law: 

1) By not immediately informing the government that an asset had been compromised; and, 

2) By not immediately informing the President or the intelligence agency that someone either currently in the government or who had previously worked for the government was disclosing classified material of the highest priority; and, 

3) By deciding to possess highly classified materials that had been obtained illegally; and, 

4) By forwarding the name of one of our chief intelligence assets in Libya to one of her underlings at State over an unsecured server. 

All FOUR of the above violate 18 U.S. Code § 793.

Documents or other materials containing the name of an asset doesn’t have to be marked ‘Top Secret’. 

IT IS BORN THAT WAY.

Hillary either knew this and chose to break the law or was so incompetent and negligent that she should never have been given such clearance. Neither portends well for this country under a Presidency of a Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Under 18 U.S. Code § 793, the illegal receipt of classified information is a violation of Federal law. 

Under 18 U.S. Code § 793, the failure to notify one's immediate supervisor, President Obama, or the CIA of the illegal receipt of classified information is a violation of Federal law. 

Under 18 U.S. Code § 793, the willful possession and/or retention of classified information is a violation of Federal law. 

Under 18 U.S. Code § 793, the forwarding of classified information is a violation of Federal law.

'An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.’

Lastly, some Federal statutes concerning this area do not require specific intent. Only a demonstration of gross negligence is needed to secure a conviction.  Apparently, the FBI is looking at the gross negligence provisions of 18 U.S. Code § 793, which is a much easier case for the government.  It doesn't have to prove intent to secure a felony conviction.  (Check out the penalties prescribed under the Act.  Whoa, baby!)

Three months after Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address and server while secretary of state was referred to the FBI, an intelligence source familiar with the investigation tells Fox News that the team is now focused on whether there were violations of an Espionage Act subsection pertaining to "gross negligence" in the safekeeping of national defense information. 

Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper, secure location.

Do you know how she is always going on and on and on about how she ‘voluntarily’ turned over all of her ‘work-related’ emails? You know, those 55,000 pages of emails? And, do you remember how she claimed that those she deleted were personal and only concerned things like yoga, Chelsea’s wedding, her mum’s funeral and little notes to her husband, who has only sent one email in his life? 

According to HIRT-HRC, she turned over EVERYTHING 'work-related' and EVERYTHING else was personal. 

Au contraire! 

How do we know that is a flat-out lie?  

Simple. She did NOT turn over the Blumenthal emails. 

The Blumenthal emails were obtained via the hacktivist, Guccifer. 

Dunno ’bout you, but I would think that the true identity of one of our most important assets would fall in the ‘work-related’ category and not that concerning downward-facing dog. 

Now, Clinton drones are trying to waive this all away and continue to claim that what she did was 1) much ado about nothing; 2) perfectly legal; 3) within the policies and guidelines of the Federal government, including those of her very own department and the same ones that she used to discipline her underlings; 4) just a little mistake; 5) nothing she did ever jeopardised our national security, the sources and methods of governmental agencies, and/or all of the former relative to one of our allies; 6) it's just another 'manufactured scandal' concocting by the vast right-wing conspiracy; and, 7) HIRT-HRC is being treated no differently than you or I would be.

Just stop.

PLEASE.

You guys are making fools of yourself.

Let's ask these guys what it is like not to be Her Imperial Royal Thighness...

On Thursday, a group of national security whistleblowers held a news conference in Washington at the National Press Club to highlight what they characterized as a double standard in these types of cases. NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake was indicted in 2010 under the Espionage Act for sharing unclassified material with a Baltimore Sun reporter. 

Drake, who also went to Congress with his concerns about the NSA, said his goal was to expose government misconduct. 

"This is the secretary of state, one of the most targeted individuals by other intelligence entities and agencies in the world using a private server to traffic highly sensitive information and no doubt including classified information and no doubt including info about sources and methods," Drake said at Thursday’s event. 

He added the whistleblowers’ treatment shows there is a law for the average citizen, and apparently a different set of rules for the powerful. 

"But hey, I'm secretary of state,” Drake said in a sarcastic tone. ”Even Obama gave her cover."

The charges against Drake were eventually dropped. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor, but in the process lost his ability to work in national security and depleted his life savings to mount a defense.

Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling also went to Congress with his complaints, but was sentenced in May to three-and-a-half years in prison for violating the Espionage Act by giving classified information to a New York Times reporter.

Sterling, who is appealing the case, was also convicted on obstruction of justice charges because a single email was missing from his account, even though the government could not show he was responsible for that. 

Clinton has acknowledged deleting some 30,000 emails she considered personal.

In 2015, former CIA Director General David Petraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor admitting he mishandled classified materials by sharing notebooks with his former mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell. He also was ordered to pay a $100,000 fine.

Sterling’s supporters said he shared far less classified information with the New York Times.

'Powerful and politically connected individuals accused of the same and much worse conduct receive, at most, a slap on the wrist. Like General David Petraeus who gave away more secret information, classified at a much higher level, to his mistress and received a sweetheart plea deal for a minor misdemeanor,' Jesselyn Radack, a whistleblower and former ethics adviser to the Department of Justice, said Thursday.

'Or Hillary Clinton - she got a primetime TV apologist political spin interview from President Obama himself,' Radack added.

Exactly! We are supposed to be equal under the law with Lady Justice dispensing justice in a fair and legal manner. There shouldn't be two classes of the criminal justice system. One being members of the Ruling Party and the other being you and me. 

Remember when the Left was OUTRAGED over the 'Affluenza case'? 

Recall how they are always screaming about the way the system is rigged and the poor, the minority, and The Other go to prison and the evil rich go to St Bart's? 

Ever notice how much they stomp their feetsies over Obama releasing felons, who are illegal immigrants, that go on to commit serious crimes like murder and rape while sending black men to prison? 

Oh, wait. Forget that last one.

'She is the primary figure and prime suspect in it so why not go after her following her persistent lying about it.' 

- HAGGS99 on October 16, 2015 at 10:03 AM

Her apologists are still under the delusion that she isn't being investigated...her SERVER is! 

Right-O!  'Cuz, like...

The FBI only investigates the gun, not the individual suspected of using it to commit murder. 

The FBI only investigates the drugs, not the individual or group trafficking them.

The FBI only investigates the USD, not the individuals exchanging it in a bribery case. 

It's so easy to be a drone. 

Look, Mum! No hands, no brains!

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!


UPDATE #1:


FBI: Investigation into Hillary’s email server focuses on Espionage Act and could get her 10 YEARS in jail…SHE COULD BE PROSECUTED JUST FOR FAILING TO TELL OBAMA.

Bingo!

18 U.S. Code § 793


UPDATE #2:


So, PROGS… 

What do you think should happen? 

In the Plame affair, Scooter Libby was sentenced to 30 months and served less than that because Bush granted him clemency. He was NOT pardoned. His conviction still stands. All of this even though 1) it was Colin Powell’s underling, Richard Armitage, who disclosed Plame’s name to Robert Novak; and, 2) FITZGERALD KNEW THIS BEFORE HE DECIDED TO BRING LIBBY BEFORE THE GRAND JURY. 

We KNOW that Hillary received the true identity of one of our top assets in the Middle East and, while in possession of this illegally-dsclosed, compartmentlised, TOP SECRET, classified information:

1. A current or former CIA agent of high rank sent the name to former CIA agent, Tyler Drumheller…a FELONY and VIOLATION of the Espionage Act of 1917…FOR BOTH.

2. Drumheller disclosed the name to Sidney Blumenthal…a FELONY and VIOLATION of the Espionage Act of 1917…FOR BOTH.

3. On 18 March 2011, Sidney Blumenthal forwarded this information to Hillary via her unsecured, unauthorised server…a FELONY and VIOLATION of the Espionage Act of 1917…FOR BOTH.  

[Instead of informing either Obama or the CIA immediately, Hillary chose to retain the information on her server (a felony and violation of the Espionage Act of 1917).] 

4. Additionally, Hillary hit the ‘forward’ button and sent this highest of the high compartmentalised, Top Secret classified information to, at minimum, one of her underlings at State, who lacked the requisite clearance…a FELONY and VIOLATION of the Espionage Act of 1917…FOR BOTH. 

This is just one email. 

If, as it appears because the FBI wouldn’t have made such a stink, the FBI is leaning toward making a referral, shouldn’t the DOJ AT THE VERY, VERY, VERY MINIMUM present the case to a Grand Jury? 

If not, why not? 

You must realise that, should the FBI refer for prosecution the case to DOJ and Lynch refuses to proceed, THAT. FACT. WILL. BE. LEAKED. BY. THE. FBI. EVERYWHERE. 

Not only will Hillary Clinton take a huge hit, but the Democratic Party and President Obama will be in a shitstorm the likes of which they have never seen. 

You can’t talk about fairness and equality when you sentence young, black men to prison and give an extremely wealthy and powerful old, white woman a pass. 

The Democratic Party's cred-card will be maxed out for a very long time.

Put Down The Pitchforks! Stop The Witch Hunt: When The Mad Get Madder

MP Tom Watson publicly (and falsely) accused Lord Brittan of being a rapist and ‘as close to evil as any human being could get’.

In our desire to right the historic wrongs of child abuse we are contaminating the present. Labour's deputy leader is not to blame (but he bears a good portion of it - SoRo)...We have been living through a period of national psychosis.

By Dan Hodges

Tom Watson should apologise to the family of the late Leon Brittan. They may accept the apology, they may reject the apology. But that’s a matter for them, not Tom Watson. He publicly accused Leon Brittan of being a rapist. And Leon Brittan was not a rapist. The accusation may have been made in good faith, but it was an erroneous accusation, concerning a terrible crime. These are the things honourable men apologise for. And I believe Tom Watson is an honourable men. There is still time for him to do the decent thing, and he should do the decent thing. 

I’ve been writing consistently about what I have described as a “witch-hunt” over so called “establishment paedophiles”. I have also been critical of those who have helped to keep this grotesque circus performing. But we are now in danger of moving from a paedophile witch-hunt to a Tom Watson witch-hunt. And this issue is too important for that. 

We have been living through a period of national psychosis Yes, Tom Watson has made allegations about a Westminster child-sex abuse. So have a series of other MPs, across all parties. The initial allegations were made by the Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens. The Home Secretary Theresa May has talked of recent convictions and allegations being the “tip of the iceberg” in relation to abuse by figures in public life. The Prime Minister has authorised an inquiry into historic sex abuse that will span schools, hospitals, the judiciary, the police service, national government and local government. The inquiry could, we have been told, last until 2020. If its virtually open-ended remit and recent experience are anything to go by we can expect it to last for several years longer than that. 

This madness is not the responsibility of one man. We have been living through a period of national psychosis. An almost textbook case study of moral panic. And if we are to snap out of it, running around screaming “it’s all Tom Watson’s fault” will not suffice. 

There are a number of reasons why we have reached this point. The point where some of our nation’s most dedicated public servants – from former prime ministers down – have had their reputations ripped to shreds with the most vile and incredible accusations. 

One is our self-destructive obsession with tearing down anyone and anything that is deemed to be part of “the establishment”. No accusation, no allegation, no matter how patently ludicrous or outlandish can now be justified so long as the target is the malign and shadowy “establishment”. A former Prime Minister abused children, murdered them, then threw them off his yacht, in full view of half a dozen crew members? OK, may sound a little far-fetched. But he was a senior member of “the establishment” wasn’t he? Must be right, then. Police helped cover up the activities of a murderous child torture gang that rampaged sadistically across Westminster throughout the Seventies and Eighties? Seems a bit implausible. But the police are part of “the establishment” too, aren’t they? 

Another is our continued obsession with fame and celebrity. All we have heard over the past few years is the pious mantra “this is about the victims”. It’s not about the victims at all. It’s about the perpetrators. And the fact the perpetrators are famous. When was the last time the police marched the media down to the house of a deceased paedophile plumber to hold a press conference? Who was the last MP who rose in the House of Commons to condemn the failure to prosecute a paedophile electrician? When did we last awake to banner national headlines of “former milkman faces historic child abuse allegations”. Jimmy Savile’s fame masked his guilt. And now the fame of the those wrongly accused of historic sex crimes is masking their innocence.

There is a third factor. The modern phenomenon of the “political crime”. Rape is most obvious. As is any crime with a perceived racial motivation. And now child abuse, when perpetrated by a high-profile public figure. 

Once we assessed innocence or guilt relatively dispassionately. Now we adopt stances – and increasingly find ourselves forced to adopt stances – based solely on the nature of the offence, rather than the facts of the case. I’m as guilty of this as anyone. If I see someone accused of a crime which has a racial component I immediately assume guilt. I have nothing to base that on but my own personal prejudice towards prejudice. My default stance – based primarily on my political world view – is that the accused is almost certainly guilty. 

And this in turn has created the most dangerous component of this modern “historic child abuse” terror. We have now reached the point where there are crimes for which there is no defence. To attempt to refute an accusation against oneself – or to try do to do so on behalf of some one else – is to invite condemnation, or accusations that you yourself are complicit in the crime. 

We have a name for it. We call it “victim blaming”. To even dare to suggest that someone is innocent is to engage in “victim blaming”. To claim that an accuser may be wrong, or mistaken, or themselves motivated by malign intent is to engage in “victim blaming”. To say “I don’t believe the accuser, I believe the accused” is to engage in “victim blaming”. 

We have replaced the judicial process with trial by social media We have now got ourselves into a place where the fundamental principle underpinning our system of justice – the presumption of innocence until proof of guilt – has been turned on its head. With certain “political crimes” there is now a presumption of guilt until innocence can be proven. In fact, we’ve gone beyond that. This “victim blaming” culture is now reaching such a toxic critical mass that even to try to mount a defence against accusations of the vilest crime is of itself to bring accusations of committing a vile crime. “Don’t you understand? When you challenge the account of a 'survivor' you make it harder for other survivors to come forward. And that means you’re effectively letting the abusers go free. Which makes you almost as bad as the abusers yourself." 

This is insanity. Almost literally. 

In our desire to right historic wrongs we are contaminating the present. We have replaced the judicial process with trial by social media. We are tearing up basic principles that have underpinned our legal system for centuries, such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a defence. We have politicians acting like prosecutors, journalists acting like judges, prosecutors acting like policemen, and policemen acting like politicians. 

This whole malevolent carnival is not the product of one man. Every single one of us has, in some part, participated in it. We are all complicit. 

So yes, Tom Watson should apologise. But in truth, so should we all.