Why would we need to pass a law? Though, and maybe I remember incorrectly, I don't recall any allegations of rape made against Bill Clinton. There were lots of lawsuits about sex but the allegations I recall were after consensual sex had occurred, just that there were other details where the person felt harassed or intimidated -- and my recollection is that they were settled.
And just for the record, I never voted for Bill Clinton, I voted for Bush the first time and Dole in '96 -- so it isn't like I have ever been any type of Clinton supporter.
How about a direct quote from
Keven McCarthy: "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today?"
Yes, and again, suits were filed and my recollection is most were settled. Those victims had their days in court and seemed happy with the verdicts. I won't argue that Bill Clinton had sex issues -- much as Donald Trump appears to have had.
Though Trump went to great pains to point out that he was never a subject of those investigations. And it is false to claim that "no evidence" was found -- there are plenty of examples in the Mueller Report, there were a number of convictions, but again, none were tied to Donald Trump because he wasn't being investigated (as the Mueller Report explains). To give a couple of examples,
Manafort passing confidential campaign polling data (confidential to the campaign, not the US) to the Russians, the
meeting with "Russians agents" at Trump Tower, etc. In fact, what makes it even more interesting is that Mueller explains that these were crimes but he chose not to prosecute -- and the reason was similar to why Hillary was not prosecuted, because he couldn't prove they knew what the did was illegal, meaning he couldn't prove motive, so declined to prosecute because of the issues he'd have getting a conviction. Funny how that works, isn't it -- people in Trump's administration getting off on the same legal technicality that kept Hillary from being prosecuted.
Nope, false. Hillary's campaign tasked a law firm, one doing work for the campaign, to investigate Trump as part of "opposition research." The law firm, rather than run the investigation themselves, hired a firm that does opposition research. That firm hired Christopher Steele -- a former British agent with connections inside Russia, to run that part of the investigation. Steele produced a report and, worried by what he had learned, gave a copy of his final report to friends of his at the FBI. Hillary, nor her campaign, had any ties to Steele, nor did they ever "hire" Steele -- he was hired as a contractor to the company contracted by the law firm.
Further, despite the fever dreams of Special Prosecutor Durham, he had zero evidence the Clinton campaign ever sent the dossier to the FBI. The closest he came, but he lost the criminal prosecution, was claiming that a lawyer that worked for the same law firm as was hired by the Clinton campaign (but apparently one not working with the Clinton campaign) talked to a FBI agent at a cocktail party about the dossier.
The Clinton campaign, not Hillary personally, was cited by the FEC because they didn't note they didn't log the payment to the law firm as going toward the opposition research paid to Fusion GPS (not to Christopher Steele, though presumably Fusion GPS did pay him something for his work).
Two major differences, the Clinton campaign was not trying to hide that they did opposition research; it is known that every campaign (at least that is done with any level of experience or professionalism) will do opposition research -- there is nothing illegal about it. Nor is it illegal even if they had turned the research over to the FBI, if they believe there was a crime committed that they believed needed to be examined. That much of it turned out to be false is not important as the Clinton campaign had no reason to believe it was false -- even the author believed the information to be valid (he was taken in by a person acting as a Russian agent). But, please, tell me what crime the Clinton campaign were trying to conceal?
Next, there is no evidence Hillary had any knowledge of how the payment was reported. There are a reasons there are thousands, including an entire team of accountants and people over them, by most Presidential campaigns. But I'd love to hear your evidence that Hillary had anything to do with how the payment was reported.
Actually, not really. It does appear the servers were in the Clinton's New York home, for a time, before being moved to a New Jersey data server. It is the New Jersey data server location that I recall them being. Though Hillary was not living in New York during that time, but in Washington. It is also worth noting that Secretaries of State typically can have classified information at their homes, I believe they typically have a room classified as a SCIF, because of their need to sometimes deal with various issues at home. Benghazi would be a good example -- it started overnight, Washington time, and the embassy would have called her about the attacks. For these types of reasons, they need to be able to have secure calls and computers in their homes to handle those types of situations. While the New York home might not typically have a second secure area; because it is protected by the Secret Service and was already largely secure, they likely added a SCIF there, as well, while Clinton was Secretary of State. So, no, there would be no violation for her having Classified information in her home.
And, as the article points out, there were 110 emails that were determined to have Classified information at the time they were received BUT the issue is that they weren't marked as having Classified information. In the Fact Check article you linked, "
Comey told Congress that three emails sent and received by Clinton had “portion markings” — a letter “C” in the body of the emails — indicating the presence of classified information." Making it even less of an issue, "
The State Department said it believes that at least two of the emails were marked in error."
And, again, we aren't talking about Classified documents, we're talking about emails that might have a sentence or two that was Classified -- and which didn't include the markings that they were Classified (except, apparently, once).
It's interesting that it brings up Colin Powell, who as Secretary of State used a personal email server and apparently was also sent Classified Information. Condelezza Rice, I believe used a private email account (but not her own server) that was also sent Classified information. So it is worth pointing out neither of them were charged, either, despite being
just as "guilty" as Sec. Clinton.
And, while we are at it, why hasn't there ever been an investigation of Ivanka and Jared, who both used Gmail accounts for government business while working at the White House -- and since there has been no investigation we don't know if they received Classified information or not (but given the President's schedule can be classified -- particularly on foreign trips which they sometimes went on -- there is a high probability there was Confidential emails sent unsecured through Google's servers.
I'll fully agree that Clinton was careless, I've never been a fan of hers. But my issue is with how the government doesn't hold high government officials to the same standards as military member or rank and file members of the CIA. If I'd done anything close to what any of these former Presidents or Cabinet Officers had done, I'd have gone to jail (likely Ft. Leavenworth). The issue is that it is laws and Classified document regulations that need to change, not prosecuting every senior official that does something wrong.
Oh, and the Blackberry thing is a red herring. From all the evidence I've seen, she would use a Blackberry until she started having problems with it and then request a new one. Once she got a new one, the information was moved over and, since the data on the Blackberry was considered sensitive (and I believe it was authorized for Confidential Information, such as what she could get through her State Department official email) the device was destroyed once the information was transferred (in accordance with Classified document regulations). It wasn't like she had eight different Blackberrys and one day, because she was afraid they might be subpoenaed, she destroyed them all.
Except she didn't take docs. Again, she was legally allowed to have the documents -- the issue is that they were put on a public email server that was run by the Secretary of State (which she shouldn't have done but neither should Colin Powell). When she left her job as Secretary of State, all the remaining emails were turned over to the State Department -- she did not retain a copy of the emails (which is why the FBI had so many issues getting them. You mention the server being removed from her "home" in New York -- from what I've read they got the servers with no hard drives, as those were either at the State department or destroyed in accordance with government regulations and laws.
That's nice. I think it is much more likely (and you should even agree) that Republicans invented the leak story to hurt Clinton in the election.
I might be forgetting one. I suppose you could claim Biden but there has been zero evidence to support any of the claims made by Republicans, which is why the House Impeachment committee has been so silent at a time when they'd typically have been trying to destroy Biden, from this summer through November. Of course, it is all moot now.
