FBI Looking at 'Gross Negligence' Laws in Hillary Server Investigation
Between Kevin McCarthy's gaffe, the Benghazi committee staffer who complained the panel's work was focused on Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders's decision to declare he's sick of hearing about her e-mails, the former Secretary of State might feel like she's put the issue to bed. The last major obstacle? The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Thanks to Fox News' Catherine Herridge, we have our first sense of how the FBI investigation is shaping up: 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. Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." A former FBI agent, who is not involved in the case, said the inconsistent release of emails, with new documents coming to light from outside accounts, such as that of adviser Sidney Blumenthal, could constitute obstruction. In addition, Clinton's March statement that there was no classified material on her private server has proven false, after more than 400 emails containing classified information were documented. Does she skate? Ironically, Obama's words that appeared to defend Hillary may be hindering her by irritating the FBI: "I don't think it posed a national security problem," Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes." He said it was a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: "This is not a situation in which America's national security was endangered." Those statements angered FBI agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton's email setup had in fact put any of the nation's secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials. Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing. The White House quickly backed off the president's remarks and said Mr. Obama was not trying to influence the investigation. But his comments spread quickly, raising the ire of officials who saw an instance of the president trying to influence the outcome of a continuing investigation — and not for the first time. "Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.'s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president's signal and not bring a case," said Ron Hosko, a former senior F.B.I. official who retired in 2014 and is now the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, who maintains close contact with current agents. Obviously, the FBI will follow the evidence wherever it leads and offer their assessment based on the law. But isn't Obama actually making it harder for them to conclude all is well and no crimes were committed? If they concur with the president's assessment, they look like they knuckled under to political pressure. The easiest way to demonstrate that you're immune from a president's effort to steer the investigation away from Hillary is to do the opposite. Many people might conclude that there's no way that the Department of Justice would bring criminal charges against the Democratic frontrunner in an election year. But if you were the agents, wouldn't you rather the DOJ took the heat for that conclusion than you? A New Face of Big-City Government Corruption Meet the woman Rahm Emanuel chose to save his city's school system: When she took over as chief of the Chicago Public Schools three years ago, Barbara Byrd-Bennett was touted as an experienced administrator who was going to help the Emanuel administration turn around a system beset by a recent teacher's strike, huge budget deficits and pending school closings. On Tuesday, the mayor's handpicked choice to lead the nation's third-largest school system became instead the latest in a long line of Chicago public officials caught trying to line their own pockets. The 66-year-old onetime New York City elementary school teacher faces up to about 7 1/2 years in prison after pleading guilty to a single felony count of wire fraud for steering multimillion-dollar no-bid contracts to a former employer in exchange for the promise of up to $2.3 million in kickbacks. What's particularly striking is the sense of entitlement described in the indictment. Keep in mind, Chicago's chief of public schools makes $250,000. That's a nice chunk of change to most Chicagoans. But if you're a city official, apparently you feel you deserve to live the life of the city's rich and famous: According to the plea agreement, Solomon and Vranas gave Byrd-Bennett tickets to sporting events, meals and other perks in exchange for her help, but no cash actually exchanged hands. Instead, Byrd-Bennett was promised hundreds of thousands of dollars as a "signing bonus" once she left her duties at CPS and rejoined SUPES as a consultant, the plea deal said. The bonus was to be concealed in trust accounts set up in the names of two of Byrd-Bennett's young relatives -- identified by sources as her twin grandsons -- with the cash available to her once she left CPS, according to the plea. Much of the indictment centers on emails sent between Solomon and Byrd-Bennett that seemed to make no effort to conceal the alleged kickback scheme. In one message, Byrd-Bennett even implied she needed cash because she had "tuition to pay and casinos to visit," according to the charges. Earlier this year, Illinois governor Bruce Rauner said, "Chicago Public Schools has been a source of patronage, cronyism, dealings, massive bureaucracy. It hasn't really served the families and the parents of the children in a very long time." As with the recent problems in Baltimore, Chicago gives the country an example of a local political system and government that is utterly failing the people. And there are no convenient Republican scapegoats. These are one-party institutions; a serious opposition party would probably make the Democrats in power behave a little less corruptly for fear of losing elections. A former firefighter is running for mayor of Baltimore as a Republican. You Know, Superhero, I'm Starting to Think It's Okay to Kill Bad Guys A common trope of superhero stories is that the hero never, or almost never, kills his enemies. That's what separates Spider-man from the Punisher; it's the line Batman will never cross; it's what made the version of Superman in Man of Steel so controversial. The creators of these stories largely believe that it's important to demonstrate that heroism is more than just shooting people or punching them. For the most part, that's a noble goal. The problem is that the structure of superhero stories mean that the seemingly moral refusal to use deadly force against the villain usually has terrible consequences, and everyone -- all of the characters and those of us watching or reading these stories -- have to avert our eyes from those consequences. The most recent episode of the CW show Arrow illustrated this particularly vividly. Mild spoilers follow in my paraphrasing of the climactic scenes . . . Our heroes, Green Arrow and Speedy, are headed to confront a villain, "Anarky" -- yes, that's how they spell it, as opposed to "anarchy" -- who has already killed two cops, and kidnapped a mayor candidate's daughter. Green Arrow: Can you handle this? Speedy: Yes! A few moments later, Anarky hits Speedy with his electric-shock staff weapon. But she recovers, knocking him into a shelf full of bottles of alcohol and breaking them. In a life-and-death combat, Speedy grabs the weapon and uses it on the liquor-soaked Anarchy, setting him on fire. Green Arrow: NO! After Anarky flails around on fire for a few moments, Green Arrow shoots a water pipe above him, putting the fire out. Speedy looks guilty. Green Arrow: (paraphrased) Don't you understand? You could have killed him! If we kill our enemies, we're no better than they are! Please completely ignore the fact that earlier in this episode I shot arrows into the chests of two henchmen! Speedy continues to look guilty. Later, Green Arrow goes in his civilian identity to meet the chief of the city's police, who disapproves of his methods. Chief Lance to Oliver: You're lucky Anarky made it! If he had died, I would be arresting you for murder! (He gets up on a high horse and leaves, ignoring the fact that he's secretly working with a mass-murdering super-villain who last week tried to steer a runaway train into the city, ordered the murder of other city officials, and killed a bunch of cops in the process of trying to kill Lance.) Green Arrow and Lance: Well, thank goodness we only burned Anarky, and didn't kill him! Moments later, we see that Anarky, half-burned to death, somehow managed to kill two paramedics, crash the ambulance, and get away. Speedy: Say, gentlemen, I can't help but notice that if I had made the allegedly morally unacceptable decision to use deadly force against the multiple-cop-killer, those two paramedics would still be alive. ADDENDA: Psst. Heavy Lifting is down to $19.01 if you have Amazon prime, almost nine dollars off the cover price. I'm whispering because Regnery wants me to stop promoting the book until publication day October 26. For what it's worth, Amazon says they'll have the book in stock Monday. This week on the pop-culture podcast, the cultural fights over tipping reach a new level; dissecting NBC's Blacklist and the worn-out government-conspiracy trope; whether anyone still needs "awareness" about breast cancer, and haunted hotels. | 
Comments
Post a Comment