Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Obama improperly leaps to Hillary’s email defense again

Obama improperly leaps to Hillary’s email defense again

Public statement in itself is interference in FBI investigation

President Obama has a history of publicly defending Hillary Clinton on her email scandal, and he did it again today on Fox News Sunday.

Such public statements in and of themselves are improper political interference in agencies that report to the President.

In a 60 Minutes interview in October 2015, Obama pretty much signaled Justice to lay off Hillary (emphasis added):

Steve Kroft: Did you know about Hillary Clinton’s use of private email server–

President Barack Obama: No.

Steve Kroft: –while she was Secretary of State?

President Barack Obama: No.

Steve Kroft: Do you think it posed a national security problem?

President Barack Obama: I don’t think it posed a national security problem. I think that it was a mistake that she has acknowledged and– you know, as a general proposition, when we’re in these offices, we have to be more sensitive and stay as far away from the line as possible when it comes to how we handle information, how we handle our own personal data. And, you know, she made a mistake. She has acknowledged it. I do think that the way it’s been ginned-up is in part because of– in part– because of politics. And I think she’d be the first to acknowledge that maybe she could have handled the original decision better and the disclosures more quickly. But–

* * *

Steve Kroft: This administration has prosecuted people for having classified material on their private computers.

President Barack Obama: Well, I– there’s no doubt that there had been breaches, and these are all a matter of degree. We don’t get an impression that here there was purposely efforts– on– in– to hide something or to squirrel away information. But again, I’m gonna leave it to–

Steve Kroft: If she had come to you.

President Barack Obama: I’m going to leave it to Hillary when she has an interview with you to address all these questions.

It happened again in January 2016, with the press secretary predicting no indictment, White House puts thumb on scales of Justice: Hillary “doesn’t seem to be headed” to indictment, as reported by The Washington Examiner:

The president’s top spokesman said he sees no reason for Democrats to find an alternative presidential candidate in case Hillary Clinton is indicted over her mishandling of classified material on her private email server.

“That’s not something I’m worried about,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Friday.

Earnest also tried to counter a steady stream of largely GOP predictions that Hillary Clinton will face a Justice Department indictment for the email scandal.

“That will be a decision that will be made by the Department of Justice,” he said. “Some officials have said she is not the target of the investigation and it does not seem to be the direction in which it is trending.”

Pressed again on whether he believed Clinton could get indicted, Earnest said firmly: “It doesn’t seem to be headed in that direction.”

Now Obama has done it again this morning on Fox News Sunday, asserting that he’s confident Hillary never did anything intentional to jeopardize national security, and dismissing the “classified” issue as overblown:

President Obama in an interview broadcast early Sunday said he had to be “careful” in answering a question about whether Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton jeopardized national security by using an private email server while secretary of State.

“I’ve got to be careful,” Obama told “Fox News Sunday” in an interview taped last week.

Obama said Clinton has acknowledged a “carelessness” in managing emails, but maintains that she didn’t jeopardize national security.

“I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized national security,” Obama said.

“There’s a carelessness in terms of managing emails that she has owned and she has recognized, but I also think it’s important to keep this in perspective. This is somebody that has served her country for four years as secretary of State and done an outstanding job.”

He also said Clinton would receive a fair investigation not tainted by politics.

“Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department,” Obama said. “Nobody is above the law.”

Perhaps now we know why Hillary is so confident nothing will happen to her.

On Face the Nation on March 7, 2016, Hillary rejected the suggestion that she might be indicted:

John Dickerson, host of CBS’s “Face the Nation,” told Clinton he has “talked to Democrats and they worry that somebody is going to get indicted.”

“Well, there is no basis for that,” Clinton responded.

Worse still, Clinton blamed the State Department for the classification problem, making light of the situation.

At the March 9, 2016, Democratic Debate, Hillary scoffed at the idea that she would be indicted:

Hillary reiterated the lack of concern on Meet the Press today, saying she’s “not at all worried about it”:

The FBI has not reached out to Hillary Clinton to schedule an interview over her private email server, the Democratic front-runner said in an interview Sunday.

“No. No, they haven’t,” Clinton told NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” when asked whether federal investigators had been in contact with her. “But you know, back in August, we made clear that I’m happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. And I stand by that.”

Pressed on whether the FBI probe could interfere with her path to the nomination, Clinton said she was not “concerned” about it.

“I don’t think anything inappropriate was done,” she said. “And so I have to let them decide how to resolve their security inquiry. But I’m not at all worried about it.”

Is the fix in?

Maybe not technically, but Obama is doing everything he can to send signals to the FBI and his Attorney General.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

What a POS, turning this country into a banana republic.

I hope one day they finally end up having to answer for all the damage they’re doing.

DDsModernLife | April 10, 2016 at 10:08 am

“Perhaps now we know why Hillary is so confident nothing will happen to her.”

Personally, I think it’s because Hillary’s bathroom server had at least one email with the heading:

FROM: 0bama at whitehouse.gov
TO: Hillary at obviously_unsecure_bathroomserver.com
STATUS: Classified

That’s her “Get-Out-of-Jail-Free” card.

I have lived through many Presidents in my life. Obama is by far the most corrupt. None of the others are even a close second place. However, as Obama knocked off Carter the the worst President ever, perhaps Hillary could knock off Obama as the most corrupt President ever. I do not want two records set in a row.

    MattMusson in reply to TX-rifraph. | April 10, 2016 at 11:15 am

    Obama makes Nixon seem honest, Carter appear competent and LBJ look like a military genius.

    Truly, just assume whatever he is saying is the opposite of the truth. If he is confident Hillary is innocent she is guilty as sin. He said last week the USA is poised for economic growth. That means the Economy is about to TANK!

If Obama wants to “send a signal” he can just call Lynch into his office and tell her what he wants. She works for him, after all. It’s not like there’s some firewall between them that makes it hard for direct communication to take place.

It seems more likely that he is just trying to weasel out of the questions about Hillary’s email without having to engage. He has a long history of just not wanting to be bothered with things that other people might see as very important (see: Benghazi). So it’s quite possible that his whole attitude here is driven by the belief that this email thing is Hillary’s problem and he shouldn’t have to even discuss it.

Henry Hawkins | April 10, 2016 at 10:18 am

Well, again, what else can she say?

It may well be that she knows she will be indicted, and this mocking of the possibility is the beginning of her plan to paint the indictment as politically driven, followed by word soup as to how exactly an Obama appointed AG could be part of any anti-Clinton partisan political attack. The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is deviously widespread, you see.

Unfortunately for Clinton, not getting indicted will be almost as bad for her politically, raising the spectre of elitism, furthering the record of Clinton criminal escape artistry, and underscoring the Orwellian sense already afoot that, while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others.

Perhaps the DoJ will take the middle ground and indict her, but on some ridiculously minor charge like, I dunno, digital littering.

Oh, please…since when did Obama give a damn about the law?

DINORightMarie | April 10, 2016 at 10:19 am

Well, first – yes, the “fix” is in. Obama being so matter of fact shows it. Will he change his mind and pull the trigger at some point…..who knows? The mind of a tyrannical narcissist is impossible to guage.

Now, as to this non-statement statement from Teh Won:

“I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized national security….”

Obama can “BELIEVE” anything he wants. It is what he KNOWS is true, yet will not divulge or reveal (and will continue to obstruct as long and hard as possible – see: FOIA requests still outstanding) – THAT is what matters.

Delusional people can “believe” ANYTHING – and do! – even in the face, in when smashed-nose-deep, in-your-face, irrefutable FACTS prove that “belief” is wrong, irrational, or worse.

This disgrace of a POTUS speaks with a forked-tongue. Intentionally. Without conscience. Without hesitation. With impugnity. The dead-journ0listers-walking MSM have seen to that, since Obama came on the national stage.

Some are more equal than others. Including: Hillary. Slick Willy. Obama.

    DINORightMarie in reply to DINORightMarie. | April 10, 2016 at 10:25 am

    “…even in the face, in when smashed-nose-deep, in-your-face, irrefutable FACTS prove that “belief” is wrong, irrational, or worse….”

    Correction: …even when the smashed-nose-deep, in-your-face, irrefutable FACTS prove that “belief” is wrong, irrational, or worse….

    Wow. 🙁 Sorry for the mangled sentence. Edit button MUCH needed! 🙂

“I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized national security,” Obama said.

And that’s a very cute argument. Unfortunately for Ol’ Walleyes, the laws she’s broken don’t require any particular effect.

They were broken whether or not there was any jeopardizing of national security. The jeopardy is implicit in the violation of the law.

No criminal intent ???? The act of setting up a private server IS INTENTIONAL !
The intent was to avoid all required record keeping, as REQUIRED BY LAW !!!

    DaveGinOly in reply to Lewfarge. | April 10, 2016 at 1:46 pm

    You’re quite right. Did Obama just throw a red herring? By steering the conversation towards the national security aspect of the situation, he avoided going into the question of Hil’s intentional avoidance of public records and FOIA laws, and avoided going into the subject of her possible abuse of the office of SoS for her own and the Clinton Foundation’s aggrandizement. She may indeed skate on the “national security” aspect of her problem, but these latter two issues may yet bring her down. Obama hates Hillary, he may be setting her up for a fall while making her think she’s in the clear. He is the consummate political magician, using misdirection to fool his one-person audience.

    Hillary was made SoS on the principle that one keeps one’s enemies close. And, as I’ve speculated before, Obama may have given Hil the post knowing that it was rope by which she would hang herself. Knocking off Hillary also positions Obama to be the party’s savior in a brokered convention intent on keeping the nomination from Sanders. It’s a win-win for Obama – he’s seen by the public as a fair administrator of the law and he gets to be the party’s hero at the convention (once more putting himself center-stage).

A fair investigation? LOL.

Has it even occurred to Obama that all of the highest-ranking people who are investigating and/or will potentially charge Hillary Clinton hold their jobs at his pleasure? And since Obama has already repeatedly, and publicly, stated his opinion that Hillary Clinton did not compromise national security, what are the odds that those subordinates of his will be willing to publicly contradict the legal opinion of Obama, their boss, a self-anointed legal “expert” who is well known to be thin-skinned and supremely convinced of his own intellectual superiority in all things?

    Arminius in reply to Observer. | April 10, 2016 at 3:48 pm

    Actually, they don’t all serve at the pleasure of the President. FBI directors are untouchable; they are confirmed by the Senate and serve fixed 10 year terms. Comey was confirmed in 2013 and will serve, if he wishes, until 2023.

    Obama can’t force him out, demand his resignation, retire him, nothing. Comey can resign in protest, but if he doesn’t he’s the FBI director long after Obama is gone.

    Obama can’t play dirty Chicago political tricks on Comey, unless Obama wants to hear the thin ice he just walked out on starting to crack.

Didn’t we just hear that the person who hacked into Hillarys server is being brought here to the US as part of the investigation. Imagine if some hacker could easily hack Hillarys server, how easy it must have been for our enemies like Iran and Russia to gain access to those top secret emails that even we are not allowed to see due to the security risk to this country. Obama pulled this same shit over the IRS investigation. Not a smidgeon of evidence that any laws were broken. Just a few boneheads in Cinncinatti acting on their own. And don’t forget this is coming from a pathological liar. How many times did Obama lie about Obamacare? He lies about Fast and Furious, lied about the IRS, lies about the economy. Most jobs being created today are part time. Obama wants to flood this country with Muslims who don’t assimilate into any culture they enter. Its the destruction of a once great country that Obama is working to achieve.

    I’m sorry, did’t he actually hack into Sidney “Sid Vicious” Blumenthal’s emails? It’s never been publicly confirmed he, or anyone, hacked into Hillary’s server.

    The guy’s lawyer claims that he simply guessed passwords from carefully reading the biographies of high officials and therefore it shouldn’t be thought of as proper hacking. (While cute, such an argument has no legal weight so far as I am aware.)

      DaveGinOly in reply to JBourque. | April 10, 2016 at 1:53 pm

      It may be true that Guccifer hacked Sid’s (not Hil’s) server. But if the email threads he acquired were discussing classified information, that’s still a violation of national security laws. If the information wasn’t marked as classified, Sid could (possibly honestly) claim he didn’t realize the nature of the data. Hillary, however, because she was acting in her official capacity, at worst knew that data was classified, and at best would have to admit her incompetence as SoS for her failure to recognize classified information. The law could tread lightly on Sid, or not at all, and still be fully enforced against Hillary due to the expectations imposed upon her (and accepted by taking the job) as SoS.

        Of course it heavily matters if Hillary sent classified info back to Sid because Sid’s email did get hacked. The rest is, unfortunately, all speculation.

Imagine the outcry if the executives and board of a major corporation had set up a homebrew email server so that they could discuss privately their merger and acquisition strategy or how their company might respond to, say, climate change, since the Left now wants to go all RICO on certain companies. The DOJ and the SEC would be in that company’s business in a heartbeat. Yet here we are, over a year from when this scandal broke, and years from when the crimes (and they are crimes) occurred, and…. crickets.

When has Hillary owned this mistake? I seem to remember a long trail of denials before the truth came out.

Now that we’re back to a legitimate legal question, let me ask a specific legal question: does Obama’s statement in and of itself constitute a legal defense for Hillary? Can Hillary claim that the President himself has rejected that what was covered by her emails was classified, therefore for legal purposes it wasn’t, even if the President has not made a formal declaration to that effect?

If Hillary was serving in the military, this statement alone would likely constitute grounds for dismissal/ acquittal, but she’s not, so the President is acting like none of this has anything to do with him… freeing him to play law commentator on TV.

When Guccifer was interviewed in prison , he said he would read Hillary’s emails for 6 or 7 hours , then went to work in his garden.Unless that was a misprint that implies it was more than one day and suggests that he was not merely reading Hillary’s and Sid’ s emails to each other.He stated he read Hillary’s emails.

How in the name of the “Wide World of Sports” are we to accept anything al-Chicagi says? This is the man who just gave the Bomb to the Mad Mullahs, refused to cross his heart when the Anthem was playing but did so when in Koouba.

If al-Chicagi is giving her cover, it is a good sign she is more corrupt than we think.

You bet, in a commercial setting, none of this behavior would be tolerated. To go behind your boss’s back and set up a complete email system – “Did you know about the server?” “No” -the only question is how fast is that employee out the door. Of course, the President has to say “believes” because the FBI cannot share any information with him – he would have to find out from Ms Lynch “after hours”. While he’s at it, he could also ask his employee why she hired someone who he expressly told her not to hire, that’s Sid Blumenthal, and just exactly how Sid came into possession of NSA intelligence which he then forwarded to her without marking it “classified” or “not that top secret”.

buckeyeminuteman | April 11, 2016 at 1:23 pm

There was a time when the President’s desk in the Oval Office had a sign that read “The Buck Stops Here”. With this one, he ought to have those three little monkeys with their hands over their eyes, ears, or mouth.

Did Obama commit obstruction of justice on Fox News Sunday: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3419583/posts

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend