In What Bizarro Universe Should HRC Be Prosecuted For Having A Private email Server Even Though She Did't Break The Law?

In the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's Bizarro universe, apparently. And he also thinks that because Republican FBI Director James Comey decided not to prosecute HRC that "someone got to him".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that in FBI Director James Comey's Bizarro Universe, the Terms "Extremely Careless" and "Gross Negligence" Are World's Apart... Somebody got to him. And if you listen to the man's presentation, everything that he said pointed straight to a recommendation to indict (the fact that dozens of these messages were considered classified AT THE TIME, the fact that her server wasn't even as secure as Gmail, his admission that other people would have been penalized for these transgressions, etc.). And then, kaboom, nothing!!! Oh well, time to move on, I guess. (7/6/2016 AT 5:17pm).

So previously Willis indicated that he was positive that HRC would be forced to run her campaign from a prison cell, meaning she would be prosecuted and convicted before voting in November of 2016 (OST #133). Now that that has not happened (which I predicted it would not) Willis thinks "someone got to him"?!

No, the reason HRC isn't being prosecuted is because she did not break the law. As he indicated in testimony today (7/7/2016) before the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Jason Chaffetz. (Note: audio clips sourced from The Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016 and transcribed by me).

AUDIO CLIP #1 Jason Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton break the law? James Comey: In connection with her use of the email server? My judgement is that she did not. Jason Chaffetz: You're just not able to prosecute it, or did Hillary Clinton break the law? James Comey: I don't want to give an overly lawyerly answer, but the question I always look at is - is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that someone engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute. And my judgement here is that there is not. AUDIO CLIP #2 James Comey: When I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton, or those with those whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information on email, and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law. So, given that assessment of the facts [and] my understanding of the law, my conclusion was (and remains) no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the 2nd case in a hundred years focused on gross negligence. So I know that's been a source of confusion for some folks. That's just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would and nobody did. (Audio clips via the Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016, Transcribed by me).

Stephanie Miller (on the 7/6 edition of her show) informed her listeners and viewers there would be no charges because "the case lacked the aggravating factors that have lead prosecutors to press charges in the past. Comey noted those previously charged in such instances intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information, or did so in such vast quantities that they must have known what they were doing...".

In addition SM noted (quoting an AP story) that such mishandling of information was routine and "consistent with the State Department culture over the past 2 administrations".

So, the standard (regarding decisions on whether or not to bring charges) is (apparently) not "gross negligence" but whether or not the person violated the rules intentionally. Although Willis is clearly convinced that the standard is Gross Negligence alone.

But it isn't. HRC did not break the law because there was no intent. End of story.

The only reason the Hartster finds this "bizarre" is because he strongly dislikes HRC and desperately wanted to see here prosecuted. BTW, that the bush administration also mishandled sensitive information? Yeah, that happened. And the bush White House also deleted a 22 million emails ("a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act") in a successful attempt to coverup election fraud - AG Alberto Gonzales fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases (SWTD #331).

What's truly bizarre IMO is that Gonzales was pressured to step down. And then, kaboom, nothing! This when the evidence CLEARLY pointed to INTENTIONAL violations of the law (bushie attempts to manipulate the vote to get gwb re-elected).

And the main reason this HRC email server controversy went as far as it did - a fricking FBI investigation (when there was no investigation re actual bushie crimes) is because Republicans use EVERY opportunity to attack Democrats. And refuse to stop even when THEIR OWN investigations conclude that Democrats did nothing wrong.

They just "investigate" again (and again, and again)! This explains the 13 published reports on Benghazi. All of which found that there was no "stand down" order, no intelligence failure leading to the Benghazi tradegy, and no administrative wrongdoing (Benghazi By The Numbers).

Now I hear that Congressional Republicans plan to appoint a special prosecutor to further investigate HRC re her private email server. And the FACT that the purpose of this "investigation", JUST LIKE the Benghazi "investigation" was to politically harm HRC's presidential campaign (Republican Whistleblower Confirms Benghazi Investigation Is Illegally Targeting Clinton).

And yet, the outrage of Willis concerns ONLY these fake HRC scandals (he's also quite outraged re HRC/Benghazi) and not the fact that these "investigations" are purely political? And illegal, given that it's a violation of federal law (31 U.S.C. § 1301) to use official government resources for political purposes.

OST #156. See also SWTD #338.

Concerning The Willis Hart Obsession With Rightwing Spun Fiction Re Hillary Clinton "Lying To Benghazi Families"

More Rightwing stoogery from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, again in service of sliming Hillary Clinton with lies.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Mrs. Clinton Told HER Family One Thing About Benghazi (i.e., that it Was a Planned Terrorist Attack) While Telling the Families of the Four Victims a Totally Different Thing (i.e., that it Was the Result of Some Youtube Video and that the Government Was Going to Go After the Fellow Who Made it) and Has Since Implied that the Families Are ALL Lying (this Despite the Fact that the Father of Ty Woods Has an In-Time Journal Entry Which Substantiates His Version of the Story)... This woman is so venal and, while I agree with those on the left that Trump is a pecker-head, I really have to ask you here, has the man ever done anything as underhanded as this? I'm suspecting that he hasn't. (1/26/2015 AT 3:59pm).

First of all, who the f*ck does Willis think bribed (as per the definition of venal) Hillary to blame the Youtube video for Benghazi?

Secondly, Hillary DID tell her family (as well as a number of others) that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack - and later (not "while") she DID tell the families of the four victims that the attack had something to do with the Innocence of Muslims YouTube video (IOM).

But Hillary did NOT lie! In both instances she was passing along the information she thought was accurate AT THE TIME!

Although the Rightwing "news media watchdog" Accuracy in Media goes with the "lie" BS as well.

"Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group", Hillary e-mailed Chelsea at 11:12pm on September 11, 2012 – even as the incursion raged on. At 3:04pm the next day, the then-secretary of state also spoke the truth to Hisham Qandil, prime minister in Egypt's Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government. She told him by phone: "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film". It was a planned attack – not a protest. Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda". And yet, three days later, she flat-out lied to grieving American citizens about "an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with". (13 Hours Confirms Obama's and Hillary Clinton's Lies about Benghazi by Deroy Murdock. Accuracy in Media 1/25/2016).

This Hillary "lied" BS apparently tracks back to a Conway Daily Sun (a New Hampshire paper) article.

...she [Hillary Clinton] then told George Stephanopoulos that she didn't tell the families the attack was a demonstration about a film. (Clinton Talks Iraq and Benghazi With The Sun Ed Board by Daymond Steer. 12/30/2015).

But Hillary's "no" was in response to George Stephanopoulos asking her "did you tell them it was not the film?". To which Hillary answered "no". As in, NO, she didn't tell them it (the attack) was not about the film - she told them it was about the film (as the transcript confirms). And she told that that because that is what they believed at the time.

According to The Benghazi Hoax (an e-book by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt which I have read) "Reuters correspondent Hadeel al Shalchi says that she "reported what people told [her] they saw that day, all of whom she met face to face".

Hadeel al Shalchi's Reuters reporting says "there were protesters present when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked" and the assailants were described as "part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad" (Reuters' Early Report Of Protesters At Libya Attack Raises Questions by Michael Calderone. HuffPo 10/15/2012).

It is true that some in the Administration (including Hillary Clinton) originally believed that the Islamist militia group Ansar al Sharia was responsible for the attack. Because (among other reasons) Ansar al-Sharia said it was them via Facebook. But they later denied responsibility.

After which the State Department produced a report that said the attack had something to do with the IOM Youtube video. A report that was shaped by spokeswoman Victoria Nuland (a former Dick Cheney aid). Nuland insisted a reference to al-Sharia be deleted for political reasons. She says she was concerned that the inclusion of that information "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings" (Benghazi Talking Points Revisions Pushed By State Department).

So, just because we all eventually found out that there was no link between the attack and the IOM video, that does not mean Hillary Clinton "lied". There is no proof she lied. And this charge that Hillary has "since implied that the families are ALL lying" is also bullshit (as the video below proves).

As noted in the 10/24/2012 Reuters' article Clinton: Facebook Post About Benghazi Attack Not Hard Evidence, "intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate"... although, in this instance, it appears the initial reports were correct and Ansar al-Sharia was responsible. Although militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala (the Benghazi leader of Ansar al-Sharia) did also claim that the attack was in retaliation for the video. Even though "subsequent investigations determined... the attacks were premeditated" (Source)

Maybe there was not that much "fog of war" going on as there were people acting based on politics (according to David Brooks the "CIA... went into intense blame-shifting mode, trying to shift responsibility [and] out of that bureaucratic struggle, all the talking points were reduced to mush"), but there absolutely were some questions (as the Reuters reporting shows) and surely ALL possibilities (of what/who was responsible for the attack) needed to be investigated.

By the way, I should note that the "politics" involved were not the politics others (including Willis Hart) have alleged, which woulf be that the Obama Administration went with the IOM video sparking the attack because it being an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist attack conflicted with their "al Qaeda on the run" narrative (and the truth would hurt Obama's reelection chances).

A narrative they did not have, btw. As the authors of The Benghazi Hoax point out "Obama... never sought to declare an early end to America's stepped-up operations against terrorism" (see SWTD #230 for more information. This commentary, btw contains excerpted portions of that commentary).

The bottom line here is that it is NOT a "fact" that HRC "told her family one thing about Benghazi (or anyone else) WHILE telling the families of the four victims a totally different thing", despite what the Rightwing stooge Willis Hart thinks. Which he ABSOLUTELY is acting as in regards to HRC, whom he has been bashing non-stop on his blog for awhile. Along with Bernie Sanders. The Republican candidates? Not so much.

Video: George Stephanopoulos (ABC This Week 12/6/2015) asks Hillary Clinton "did you tell them it was not the film?". Hillary's answer is NO, she did tell the families that the attack and video were linked.

See also: Rep Alan Grayson On The Republican Charge That Hillary Clinton Did Something Illegal Or Dishonest Re Benghazi (1/28/2016) DSB #31.

Supporting Document
[DSD #21] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Suffers From A Bad Case Of (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he criticizes HRC, including in regards to the fake Benghazi scamdal).

OST #100

Willis Hart Cognitive Dissonance Re Fake Benghazi Scandal Manufactured By Congressional Republicans To Harm HRC Prez Campaign

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values (as per the Wikipedia page).

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart exhibits STRONG indications that he is suffering from cognitive dissonance with his latest post on the fake Benghazi "scandal" manufactured by Congressional Republicans to harm Hillary Clinton's bid for the presidency.

That the scandal is completely fake is something we know due to House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's admission to Fox Nooz's Sean Hannity.

Kevin McCarthy on Sean Hannity's Fox News program: Everybody thought that Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she is untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen. (Kevin McCarthy's radical honesty: Benghazi was about hurting Hillary by Robin Abcarian. LA Times 10/2/2015).

Despite this admission from the Bakersfield CA Representative, which has been viewed by some (rational people who recgonize the fact McCarthy accidently told the truth) "as an admission that the investigation was a partisan political undertaking rather than a substantive inquiry", Willis is STILL convinced that there is a real scandal here!

Willis Hart: 60 Minutes Report on Benghazi - IT'S NOT a "Fake Scandal" After All!!! Yeah, I strongly suspect that Ms. Logan is going to get slimed over this one (and probably has already - can you say, David Brock?). (10/30/2015 AT 5:28pm).

Willis' "proof" that Benghazi "is not a fake scandal after all" is a 15 minute Youtube video of the 60 minutes report that was uploaded to YouTube on 9/30/2014. According to the uploader, "someone at CBS News is bound to lose their job over this".

I think the uploader is implying someone will lose their job because the Obama Administration won't like the "truth" behind what "really" happened at Benghazi being revealed. Apparently the uploader is suffering from the same cognitive dissonance, as the 60 minutes story was discredited shortly after it aired.

What follows is an excerpt from the transcript of an appearance by Lara Logan on CBS This Morning (see video at the bottom of this post).

NORAH O'DONNELL: 60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts its Oct. 27 account of an ex-security officer who called himself Morgan Jones. His real name is Dylan Davies, and he recounted to Lara Logan, in great detail, what he claimed were his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. Lara joins us this morning. Lara, good morning. What can you tell us? LARA LOGAN: The most important thing to every person at 60 Minutes is the truth, and today the truth is that we made a mistake. ...how did this happen? Well, Dylan Davies worked for the State Department in Libya, was the manager of the local guard force at the Benghazi Special Mission compound. He described for us his actions the night of the attack, saying he had entered the compound and had a confrontation with one of the attackers, and that he had seen the body of Ambassador Chris Stevens in a local hospital. ...after our report aired, questions were raised about whether his account was real, after an incident report surfaced that told a different story about what he'd done that night. He denied that report and said that he told the FBI the same story he told us. But what we now know is that he told the FBI a different story from what he told us. That's when we realized that we no longer had confidence in our source, and that we were wrong to put him on air, and we apologize to our viewers. (60 Minutes apolotizes for Benghazi report. CBS News 11/8/2013).

Lara Logan's report aired on 10/27/2013, she issued an apology on 11/8/2013 (saying "we were wrong"), and the uploader placed his video on YouTube on 9/30/2014... approximately 11 months after it was discredited. Not quite as bad as Willis, however, who links to the discredited 60 Minutes Report almost 2 years after it was retracted!

In regards to this Dylan Davies fellow, he is a British military contractor who was the source upon which the entire Lara Logan report was premised. He also admits he lied. Although he says he lied to his supervisors with his incident report and that what he told Lara Logan is what REALLY happened.

On October 27, CBS' 60 Minutes featured... Dylan Davies [AKA Morgan Jones], a supposed "eyewitness" of the September 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities, who claimed that during the attack he scaled a wall of the compound, personally struck a terrorist in the face with his rifle butt, and later went to the Benghazi hospital to see Ambassador Chris Stevens' body. The story he told CBS wildly diverged from the account he gave his superiors in an incident report that was obtained by The Washington Post. According to the Post, Davies had previously filed a report with his security contractor employer saying that he "could not get anywhere near" the compound the night of the attack. According to The Daily Beast, Davies explained that he had lied to his supervisor at the security contracting company Blue Mountain Group, "because he did not want his supervisor to know he had disobeyed his orders". (CBS "Eyewitness" Admits He Lied About Benghazi Attack While Bashing Critics by Hannah Groch-Begley. Media Matters 11/3/2013).

You buy this? Media Matters doesn't, noting that when he falsified his incident report he succeeded in "undermining his credibility and calling into question his various accounts of the attack".

So, why did Davies change his story? Media Matters reveals the possible motivation.

Fox News revealed they had previously interviewed Davies as well, but ceased after he demanded money, a charge that Davies denied. Foreign Policy also reported that Davies' memoir was published by "Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, which is a part of CBS Corporation, which owns 60 Minutes - a fact not disclosed in the 60 Minutes story.

It was a cash grab, in other words. This according to Fox Nooz! Why the hell would Fox say Davies demanded money if he did not? I mean, using Benghazi to attack the administration and Hillary Clinton (in order to damage her presidential campaign) is, as we all know, a subject they are obsessed with (lying to their viewers about). (Fox's Benghazi Obsession By The Numbers... Network Aired 1,098 Evening Segments In First 20 Months After Attacks).

By the way, David Brock founded Media Matters, so Willis is correct in regards to his involvement in debunking this fake scandal... but so too was Lara Logan (with her retraction of her original reporting). Does Willis think she "slimed" herself? I doubt it, as it appears that Willis is obliviously unaware that Lara Logan's 60 Minutes story was discredited and retracted over two years ago. What a dope!

By the way, in regards to the retracted/discredited 60 Minutes report, it "led CBS News to request that Logan and her producer, Max McLellan, take a leave of absence". Also, in regards to the book (The Embassy House) that Dylan Davies wrote, it "was published two days after the 60 Minutes report, by Threshold Editions, part of the Simon and Schuster unit of CBS [but] was pulled from shelves once 60 Minutes issued its correction". (Source).

But it looks like the Hartster's cognitive dissonance prevents him from being aware of these events. LOL!

Video: Lara Logan apologizes for her Benghazi reporting. "We made a mistake", she says.

Supporting Document
[DSD #21] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Suffers From A Bad Case Of (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he criticizes HRC, including in regards to the fake Benghazi scamdal).

OST #79