Schiff and Jordan, and a few thoughts on this week

[Boosted87]

I don't think he would even have to go that far. He could just state that our foreign aid to Ukraine was dependent on knowing that the dollars were used for the intended purpose and point out that billions of dollars didn't go where they were supposed to go in the past. That would be consistent with his original platform against giving money to countries who work against us. He's not smart enough to make that case, but it would be a great defense. Point out how Obama's foreign policy was terrible and riddled with waste, show how he is willing to help an enemy of russia, and frame the whole thing around fiscal responsibility. If he could do that, the average person turns on the impeachment hearing in a way that no Democrat would vote in favor of.

You're right he's probably not slick enough to pull that off, but he couldn't anyway because the testimony already scuttled that defense. State/DOD has a process for vetting and all of that was complete. There was no administrative process left to confirm the money was being used correctly. That's been testified to by several witnesses. There was 100% support from the NSC to release the funds.

 

[Boosted87]

Biden hasn't been investigated. Clinton has not been investigated either. We need an actual investigation. But Democrats like yourself are asking for evidence prior to it.

But Hillary had so many 'conflicts-of-interest,' even the Obama administration repeatedly took issue with her, and several of those memos became public! But no investigations ... yet.

Here's something to keep in mind. One of the single biggest "corruption" dangers is political prosecutions. Whoever is in power gets to run opponents through the ringer and look for crimes. This is kind of what you've been getting at, and this is specifically why it's so important that DOJ stay as apolitical as possible. However, there's a HUGE leap when move from congressional investigations airing dirty laundry for political purposes, and actually putting people in jail for political purposes.

The House takes away no one's freedom. Impeachment sends no one to jail. The worst possible outcome for Trump is that he loses his job. This investigation is happening purely in the House - similar to Benghazi, Hillary's emails, etc. Adam Schiff is doing nothing on this case that a Republican House couldn't do on any of the topics you've raised, and other than Biden, they already have.

Of course they could have investigated Biden in real time but since firing Shokin had universally support no one would have thought twice...

 

[sk8knight]

Biden hasn't been investigated. Clinton has not been investigated either. We need an actual investigation. But Democrats like yourself are asking for evidence prior to it.

But Hillary had so many 'conflicts-of-interest,' even the Obama administration repeatedly took issue with her, and several of those memos became public! But no investigations ... yet.

Congressional hearings are not investigations. That's why I got tired of the Republicans having a 'show.' And one of the reason why Republicans had a 'show' is because by opening those 'floodgates,' they too would get reamed. But now that it's happened to Trump, we're starting to see more and more Republicans ready to 'go after' at least Biden, if not Clinton, with an 'independent counsel,' once this whole non-sense is over.

SIDE NOTE: Remember, this would not be the first time for Hillary. Or did you not read various reports during the Clinton administration? Both Starr and before Starr? E.g., you do understand things from the get-go like 'Travelgate,' correct? Hillary thought DC was Little Rock, and she could fire permanent staffers and give her friends contracts and jobs.

The DoJ gave Hillary a 'Get Out of Jail Free Card' by severely limiting the FBI's ability to seize equipment and otherwise contain the evaluate the damaged caused by her classified spillage and other disclosures. Trump and his DoJ's 'hands are tied' on that.

However ... over 30 people (up from 11 earlier this year) have now been identified for discipline and possible prosecution in their role in handling Clinton's e-mail services -- including, but not limited to -- disabling the Trend Micro Security software and proliferating malware and other, unauthorized use and access via Clinton's servers. Yes, people are being prosecuted for it now. Yes, her servers were compromised. Yes, there is public information on that. And yes, the US State Department was compromised via her servers!

They admitted that last year in Congressional hearings on the matter. Trend Micro also confirmed it independently, upon subpoena. This is what the public InfoSec community already knew, but the FBI could not investigate, per DoJ agreement with Clinton.

Again, the problem is that none of that evidence was allowed as part of the Clinton agreement with the DoJ. But it's not only public record of the US State Department now, but explains what the public InfoSec community (blackhole lists, security watchdogs of SMTP servers, etc...) already knew and disclosed, but could not be used against Clinton, per the agreement. Trend Micro's services disclosure further confirmed this.

In other words, when her mail servers were 'attacking' State servers, they were blocking her access and e-mails. She forced them to disable the entire security infrastructure, for 6 months. And that was just 1 incident. It's a total joke at this point. That's why when FireEye hired her to speak at a conference, there were mass protests among not just the public InfoSec community, but even the government IA/CyberSecurity community.

It wasn’t just security that was the problem. Security wasn’t even the biggest problem with that whole thing. The first problem was the use of that server for what she used it for in the first place. She forced all State department communications through that server to avoid federal records keeping laws. She knew that she would be able to pick what went back to State at the end of it all. Then she used the “Powell had a private server as well” argument. But Powell only used a server external to state to simplify messaging to the public, not to conduct official state business. Her server shielded her from all kinds of governmental regulations and potential FOIA disasters. This was the true intent, the security aspect was a side effect.

Then there was her actively ordering staffers to strip classification markings off of documents to send them through unclassified transmission means. She had no respect for the classification system and a reckless pattern of doing whatever she wanted regardless of laws or rules.

Then, after all of that, Comey stands up and tells everyone that she cannot be prosecuted under the statute because there was no stated intent. Except that statute doesn’t require intent for a very good reason. No one is going to say, yeah I intended to hand classified data to country X. You’d never be able to prosecute anyone for misuse of classified data.

Playing along, Clinton probably didn’t intend to hand the State Department over to foreign hackers. But her actions exhibited a wanton and reckless disregard for the laws and did open that data up to everyone. They prosecute people every year for far, far less that what Clinton ordered into place and intent never plays a factor.

Now, Petraeus was prosecuted because he knowingly gave classified data to a biographer. Clinton testified that she never knowingly sent or received data that was classified at the time. That was all it took to spring her. But that’s like saying that, if Petraeus had just left a file cabinet unlocked that was labeled interesting stuff here and left the room, he would’ve been fine? Something needs to change if that is the case with the way these laws are applied.

 

[sk8knight]

You're right he's probably not slick enough to pull that off, but he couldn't anyway because the testimony already scuttled that defense. State/DOD has a process for vetting and all of that was complete. There was no administrative process left to confirm the money was being used correctly. That's been testified to by several witnesses. There was 100% support from the NSC to release the funds.

You say the testimony scuttled that defense, but that angle is exactly what yesterday’s testimony stated. Among contradictions and a bunch of hearsay and supposition that you keep portraying as if it is all ironclad direct evidence of first person witnesses and principles involved. I fear that you are going to be disappointed by the end result of this political show.