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.

Is Willis Hart Suffering From Cognitive Problems Due To A Permanent Anoxic Brain Injury?

The following from BrainAndSpinalCord.com. Information which is pertinent to a point I'm going to make regarding the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Adequate oxygen is vital for the brain. ... When oxygen levels are significantly low for four minutes or longer, brain cells begin to die and after five minutes permanent anoxic brain injury can occur. Anoxic brain injury which is also called cerebral hypoxia or hypoxic-anoxic injury (HAI) is a serious, life-threatening injury; it can cause cognitive problems and disabilities. (Anoxic Brain Injury).

There are many reasons I suspect Willis may be suffering from cognitive problems, but I am not the only one who thinks Mr. Hart has "apparently shed his ability to reason". This observation regarding the Hartster by a former commenter on his blog, as well as a "fellow" Libertarian Rational Nation.

"Shed his ability to reason" due to damage caused by an anoxic brain injury? The following commentary by Mr. Hart COULD explain how that might have occurred.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that I'd Still Waiting for John Oliver's 22 Minute Epic Diatribe Directed at Hillary Clinton (You Know, to Balance Out the Over-the-Top One that He Bludgeoned Trump with); One of the Biggest Piece of Shit Lawyers and Politicians Since Nixon... I can only hold my breath for so long, people. (5/4/2016 AT 5:25pm).

Hillary Clinton is "one of the biggest piece of shit lawyers and politicians since Nixon", huh? And yet Willis sez that, if you held a gun to his head, he'd vote for her over Donald Trump. Even though Hillary Clinton (Willis also sez) is going to be indicted, convicted and go to prison (for "crimes" she committed re her email server) BEFORE voting in November (OST #133).

(This commentary, btw, marks the 2nd time he's referred to Hillary Clinton using the phrase "piece of shit", whereas in the past the hypocrite took GREAT offense when a Lefty blogger referred to Sarah Palin as "classless piece of excrement". See OST #119).

But it is HIGHLY unlikely that HRC is going to be indicted. Also, I'd say the probability of a conviction and locking up behind bars of Clinton has about a zero percent chance of occurring. Zero, as in none. BTW, NONE of these assertions by Willis are a joke. Unlike the John Oliver "22 minute epic diatribe directed at Hillary Clinton" that Willis is holding his breath waiting for.

At least I THINK he's joking in regards to Oliver. I'm pretty sure that he knows there will never be such an episode of "Last Week Tonight". Although if not... if he is actually holding his breath? Although not continuously, as he'd be dead if that were the case. As opposed to authoring (on the average) 3 posts daily.

If he actually is holding his breath, then that could result in an anoxic brain injury. And it absolutely could explain why he's shed his ability to reason (cognitive problems).

There has to be some explanation as to why Willis would vote for Hillary over Donald if HRC is comparable (re piece of shitness) to Nixon. With all the Trump defending (this commentary not withstanding) the Hartster does on his blog, it's pretty clear he views the Trumpster as AT LEAST marginally better.

Trump is, after all (according to WTNPH) the "only Republican candidate who's making sense on Syria", "doesn't seem hellbent on a second cold war", "had the good sense to see that Bush's Iraq War was a turkey right from the get", was disgusted by the "bum's rush" the media is guilty of (in attacking the Donald), and has thought on multiple occasions "that maybe, just maybe, he isn't that bad".

Not that bad because all his racist, bigoted and misogynistic comments (SWTD #324) are actually only (in WTNPH's opinion) "impolitic statements".

Yeah, I think the majority of the country would not describe racism, bigotry and misogyny as "impolitic". But these kind of comments would not be considered unusual coming from an socially intolerant Conservative Trump-supporting blogger. Or perhaps someone suffering from cognitive problems due to a permanent anoxic brain injury caused by holding his breath for to long.

Video: As for Trump having "the good sense to see that Bush's Iraq War was a turkey right from the get", the Donald did say "I guess" when asked (in a 2002 Howard Stern Interview) if he supported the Iraq invasion. Which was at "the get" (RIGHT when the war was beginning). But Willis is apparently unaware of what Trump actually said at the time, instead believing Trump's lies about being against the war from the beginning (there is more than one WTNPH commentary praising DJT in this regard on his blog). But, given that Willis thinks that bush LYING us into the Iraq war was just "ham-handed and ultimately tragic", it's impossible to take what he says on this topic seriously. Especially given the fact that he believes the lying Trump and downplays the lies of gwb (OST #113)(2:41).

OST #141

Willis Hart Utter Bullshit Re Hillary Clinton email Controversy Being "Devastating"

A number of recent posts from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in regards to the supposed Hillary Clinton email controversy. This focus on the hated Hillary after authoring a number on the hated "socialist" Bernie Sanders (who is actually a Democratic Socialist). Both of whom are potential candidates for the presidency in 2016... on the Democratic side.

Is it strange that there have been zero commentaries from Willis concerning Republicans running for POTUS? Or just about zero. He has attacked some of the bottom-tier candidates, such as Lindsay Graham. And I think he has attacked Donald Trump... as if such an easy target counts for diddly.

Nope, this (formerly identified) Blue Dog Democrat is mainly going after the top-tier Democratic potus hopefuls, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

Willis Hart: The Good News and Bad News for Hillary... a) The good news - the fact that she (arguably) has plausible deniability as to whether or not she knew that the emails were classified... b) The bad news - the fact that if she asserts this as a defense she looks like a total incompetent and a moron. (8/31/2015 AT 8:32pm)

This one following another in which he quotes Peter van Buren, a former United States Foreign Service employee and author.

Willis Hart: Peter Van Buren on Hillary's Claim that the Emails Weren't Marked as Classified and so She Shouldn't Be Held Accountable... "If an employee were to be handed information sourced from an NSA intercept of a foreign government leader, somehow not marked as classified, she would be expected to recognize the sensitivity of the material itself and treat it as classified. In other cases, an employee might hear something sensitive and be expected to treat the information as classified. The emphasis throughout the classification system is not on strict legalities and coded markings, but on judgment". [etc, etc]. This is devastating and if you think that Mr. Van Buren is some sort of virulent right-winger [he isn't] (8/26/2015 AT 4:13pm)

"Devastating" huh? Not according to a number of other experts.

The Associated Press reported that "Some officials said they believed the designations were a stretch — a knee-jerk move in a bureaucracy rife with over-classification". Jeffrey Toobin, in an August 2015 New Yorker article, wrote that the Clinton email affair is an illustration of overclassification, a problem written about by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his book Secrecy: The American Experience. Toobin writes that "government bureaucracies use classification rules to protect turf, to avoid embarrassment, to embarrass rivals—in short, for a variety of motives that have little to do with national security". (Wikipedia/Hillary Clinton email controversy/Journalists and experts).

So Hillary was supposed to "recognize the sensitivity" "in a bureaucracy rife with over-classification"? She was supposed to recognize when something was not marked classified but should have been due to turf protection, embarrassment avoidance, or for another reason that had little to do with national security?

Also remember that we're talking about emails they decided LATER should be classified.

"None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings..." Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III said in a letter to congressional committee leaders Thursday [7/2/2015]. (Hillary's emails touch off debate about classified documents by Josh Gerstein. 07/24/2015).

OK, so not marked classified... and also totally unreasonable to expect Hillary might be able to guess what might be categorized as classified in the future.

Other documents... show the classification issue triggered debate even within the agency. Some at State wanted to deem even more of Clinton's emails classified than the agency ultimately did... (Hillary's emails touch off debate about classified documents by Josh Gerstein. 07/24/2015).

Here we have the State department arguing about what is and what isn't classified (after the fact)... and yet Willis (and this Peter Van Buren fellow) think Hillary should have know what what might be categorized as classified in the future? Obviously the argument is ridiculous.

As for the original allegation, which is that Hillary did something wrong by using a private email and server, Willis addressed this as well.

Willis Hart: On Mrs. Clinton's Claim that Colin Powell Also Had a Private Email Server When He Was Secretary of State and So What's the Big Deal?... Utter bullshit. The fact of the matter is that NO previous Secretary of State has ever had a private email server running in their home from which they sent and received ALL of their correspondence while in office. Nada! (8/24/2015 AT 8:04pm)

Actually, "no big deal" isn't the argument. The argument is that what Hillary did was legal/allowed.

...federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after [Hillary] Clinton stepped down. (That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account Isn't as Awful as It Seems by Bob Cesca. The Daily Banter 3/3/2015).

There is nothing to this so-called scandal. Zippo. Nothing in regards to the legality of maintaining a private email and server. It was legal at the time for Hillary to do this. Also nothing to the "classified" issue, as "none of the emails reviewed had classification or dissemination markings".

The ONLY reason this is a "scandal" is because Hillary Clinton is running for president and the Republicans are desperate to find something to damage her chances. It won't work, however. There will be no "devastation" to Hillary's campaign. Which is why I declare the total moron Hartster's proclamation of "devastating" to be utter bullshit.

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, specifically in regards to the email controversy).

9/14/2015 Update/Correction: According to an 8/21/2015 Reuters article dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest. Does this mean that there is something to Willis' commentary (re what Peter Van Buren said)? Perhaps. Except for the "devastating" part. There will absolutely be no devastation to HRC's campaign.

See also: SWTD #313.

OST #71