FBI Looking At Whether Hillary Violated Section 793 of the
Espionage Act
by Charles C. W. Cooke
August 28, 2015 6:11 PM
@charlescwcooke
A couple of weeks ago, I suggested that by hosting a server in her home — and then by handing it over to a third-party that had no right to it — Hillary may have violated USC 18 793. My arguments can be found here and here and here. I attempted to make them on Bill Maher’s show last week, too, but was received with studied indifference. Today, Fox News suggests that this is exactly what the FBI is investigating: An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,” an intelligence source told Fox News. The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793. Not a good look for a presidential candidate. View Comments [Look] Cadillac: Engineered For the Track Sponsored Content by Cadillac August 24, 2015 8:27 PM Lap the notion of what makes a high-performance sedan when you experience the new 2016 Cadillac CTS-V. National Review Wine Club Special Offer: Get 4 Exceptional Wines for Just $30 Plus 1¢ Shipping – Save $93! fullscreen Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Plus one article on Google Plus +1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by NR Staff August 29, 2015 4:00 AM Get 4 exceptional, hand-picked wines for just $30 -- delivered right to your doorstep for only 1¢ shipping -- with this special offer from the National Review Wine Club! For more information, click here. View Comments What, Me Worry about Donald Trump? Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Plus one article on Google Plus +1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Ramesh Ponnuru August 28, 2015 4:43 PM @rameshponnuru I wrote about everybody’s favorite topic of conversation today: [E]ven after weeks and weeks of what has become the Summer of Trump, I can’t get worked up about him. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Trump is “a cancer on conservatism” that has to be excised. Washington Post columnists George Will and Michael Gerson, among others, seem to agree. . . . I just can’t take Trump that seriously. He is not going to be president. He’s not going to be the Republican nominee. He’s probably not going to hurt the eventual nominee’s chances of winning. Trump is an existential threat to the weakest primary candidates – but not to anybody else. View Comments More Fun with Demographics Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Plus one article on Google Plus +1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Ramesh Ponnuru August 28, 2015 4:18 PM @rameshponnuru Fred Barnes writes: Another question: Do Republicans need at least 40 percent of the growing Hispanic vote to win the presidency next year? I think the answer is yes, as a study by Latino Decisions, a Hispanic polling group, found. That’s also the view of pollster Whit Ayres, author of 2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America. It’s “new” because non-whites make up a bigger share of the electorate than ever. Ayres has also said that Republicans need to get around 30 percent of the total nonwhite vote. I agree with Barnes, Ayres, et al that Republicans should strive to get more nonwhite votes (as I said here yesterday). Naturally, on being reminded of this 40 percent target, I immediately went to the Trende/Byler demographic model for the 2016 election and started applying my history-major math. It looks to me like getting 30 percent of the nonwhite vote would require more than just increasing Republicans’ share of the Hispanic vote to 40 or even 43 percent. They’d also have to roughly double their share of the black vote and increase their share of the Asian/other vote roughly as much as they did their share of the Hispanic vote–and they’d still need black turnout to fall a bit from 2012. Under those circumstances, though, it’s true that Republicans would win the Electoral College. But it does not seem at all likely that Republicans will do that much better among all minorities while not doing any better among whites. (If they do better among whites, obviously, they can afford to do worse among nonwhites.) And if you’re a Republican who thinks the party has maxed out among whites and still wants to win, you should be talking about blacks and Asians at least as much as Hispanics. View Comments ‘Like Many from the Left’s Dark Corners’ Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Plus one article on Google Plus +1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Andrew Stuttaford August 28, 2015 2:16 PM Nick Cohen may be a man of the left, but he does not subscribe to the old notion that there should be “no enemies to the left”. Writing in the latest Standpoint, he takes aim at the principled/authentic/sincere (choose sycophantic adjective of choice) Jeremy Corbyn, the Chavez wannabe who may shortly become Labour’s new leader. I don’t agree with everything Cohen has to say (about UKIP for example; as I said he is a man of the left), but this article is powerful stuff, and worth reading in full. Here’s an extract: Jeremy Corbyn encapsulated everything that was deceitful about his campaign to be leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition when he claimed he wanted to prioritise “the needs of the poor and the human rights of us all”. From the point of view of the poor and the oppressed, his words were a grim joke. Like many from the Left’s dark corners, Corbyn does not believe in the human rights of “us all”. He is concerned only with the rights of those whose oppression is politically useful. If the oppressed’s suffering can be blamed on the West, he will defend them. If not, he is on their enemies’ side. A short and far from comprehensive tour of the regimes Corbyn has supported includes the geriatric Cuban dictatorship, the corrupt and extraordinarily incompetent Chavistas who have come close to bankrupting oil-rich Venezuela, and Russian imperialists who have used force to redraw Europe’s boundaries. … Not just Corbyn and his supporters but much of the liberal Left announce their political correctness and seize on the smallest sexist or racist “gaffe” of their opponents. Without pausing for breath, they move on to defend radical Islamist movements which believe in the subjugation of women and the murder of homosexuals. They will denounce the anti-Semitism of white neo-Nazis, but justify Islamist anti-Semites who actually murder Jews in Copenhagen and Paris. In a telling vignette, Corbyn himself defended a vicar from the supposedly liberal and tolerant Church of England who had promoted the conspiracy theory that Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Opponents who called for the church authorities to discipline him were not anti-racists fighting an ideology that had led to the murder of millions. On the contrary, said Corbyn, the vicar was the victim, “under attack” because he had “dared to speak out against Zionism”. Now read this, and reflect on the leftism of so much of US media or, for that matter, the crackdown on free expression defacing American universities (my emphasis added): Friends and comrades have ignored those of us who warned for years about the ugly turn much of left-wing thought has taken. Why, they ask, should we waste our political energies on minor Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs who pander to anti-Semitism or writers who cheer on Islamists while hounding Muslim liberals? Real power, the power that mattered and needed opposing, lay elsewhere.They did not understand that cultural power will eventually become political power, if no one takes the time to challenge it. Also The rise of Corbyn represents the…failure of a generation of moderate centre-left politicians and activists to recognise that ideology matters, and that if you do not take on your opponents’ ideas today, your opponents will take you over tomorrow. Cohen goes on to lambast Tony Blair and other ‘New Labour’ luminaries for the lucrative post-political careers they have made for themselves in sometimes unsavory company, but adds this: Jeremy Corbyn has never pocketed thirty pieces of silver. He says what he says because he means it, not because he has been paid to say it. This does not make him morally superior in my eyes. I distrust a convinced fanatic far more than I distrust an averagely compromised man. This cannot be said enough. When it comes to politicians, give me the cynic over the true believer just about every time.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423258/undefined
by Charles C. W. Cooke
August 28, 2015 6:11 PM
@charlescwcooke
A couple of weeks ago, I suggested that by hosting a server in her home — and then by handing it over to a third-party that had no right to it — Hillary may have violated USC 18 793. My arguments can be found here and here and here. I attempted to make them on Bill Maher’s show last week, too, but was received with studied indifference. Today, Fox News suggests that this is exactly what the FBI is investigating: An FBI “A-team” is leading the “extremely serious” investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server and the focus includes a provision of the law pertaining to “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information,” an intelligence source told Fox News. The section of the Espionage Act is known as 18 US Code 793. Not a good look for a presidential candidate. View Comments [Look] Cadillac: Engineered For the Track Sponsored Content by Cadillac August 24, 2015 8:27 PM Lap the notion of what makes a high-performance sedan when you experience the new 2016 Cadillac CTS-V. National Review Wine Club Special Offer: Get 4 Exceptional Wines for Just $30 Plus 1¢ Shipping – Save $93! fullscreen Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Plus one article on Google Plus +1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by NR Staff August 29, 2015 4:00 AM Get 4 exceptional, hand-picked wines for just $30 -- delivered right to your doorstep for only 1¢ shipping -- with this special offer from the National Review Wine Club! For more information, click here. View Comments What, Me Worry about Donald Trump? Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Plus one article on Google Plus +1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Ramesh Ponnuru August 28, 2015 4:43 PM @rameshponnuru I wrote about everybody’s favorite topic of conversation today: [E]ven after weeks and weeks of what has become the Summer of Trump, I can’t get worked up about him. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry said that Trump is “a cancer on conservatism” that has to be excised. Washington Post columnists George Will and Michael Gerson, among others, seem to agree. . . . I just can’t take Trump that seriously. He is not going to be president. He’s not going to be the Republican nominee. He’s probably not going to hurt the eventual nominee’s chances of winning. Trump is an existential threat to the weakest primary candidates – but not to anybody else. View Comments More Fun with Demographics Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Plus one article on Google Plus +1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Ramesh Ponnuru August 28, 2015 4:18 PM @rameshponnuru Fred Barnes writes: Another question: Do Republicans need at least 40 percent of the growing Hispanic vote to win the presidency next year? I think the answer is yes, as a study by Latino Decisions, a Hispanic polling group, found. That’s also the view of pollster Whit Ayres, author of 2016 and Beyond: How Republicans Can Elect a President in the New America. It’s “new” because non-whites make up a bigger share of the electorate than ever. Ayres has also said that Republicans need to get around 30 percent of the total nonwhite vote. I agree with Barnes, Ayres, et al that Republicans should strive to get more nonwhite votes (as I said here yesterday). Naturally, on being reminded of this 40 percent target, I immediately went to the Trende/Byler demographic model for the 2016 election and started applying my history-major math. It looks to me like getting 30 percent of the nonwhite vote would require more than just increasing Republicans’ share of the Hispanic vote to 40 or even 43 percent. They’d also have to roughly double their share of the black vote and increase their share of the Asian/other vote roughly as much as they did their share of the Hispanic vote–and they’d still need black turnout to fall a bit from 2012. Under those circumstances, though, it’s true that Republicans would win the Electoral College. But it does not seem at all likely that Republicans will do that much better among all minorities while not doing any better among whites. (If they do better among whites, obviously, they can afford to do worse among nonwhites.) And if you’re a Republican who thinks the party has maxed out among whites and still wants to win, you should be talking about blacks and Asians at least as much as Hispanics. View Comments ‘Like Many from the Left’s Dark Corners’ Share article on Facebook share Tweet article tweet Plus one article on Google Plus +1 Print Article Email article Adjust font size AA by Andrew Stuttaford August 28, 2015 2:16 PM Nick Cohen may be a man of the left, but he does not subscribe to the old notion that there should be “no enemies to the left”. Writing in the latest Standpoint, he takes aim at the principled/authentic/sincere (choose sycophantic adjective of choice) Jeremy Corbyn, the Chavez wannabe who may shortly become Labour’s new leader. I don’t agree with everything Cohen has to say (about UKIP for example; as I said he is a man of the left), but this article is powerful stuff, and worth reading in full. Here’s an extract: Jeremy Corbyn encapsulated everything that was deceitful about his campaign to be leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition when he claimed he wanted to prioritise “the needs of the poor and the human rights of us all”. From the point of view of the poor and the oppressed, his words were a grim joke. Like many from the Left’s dark corners, Corbyn does not believe in the human rights of “us all”. He is concerned only with the rights of those whose oppression is politically useful. If the oppressed’s suffering can be blamed on the West, he will defend them. If not, he is on their enemies’ side. A short and far from comprehensive tour of the regimes Corbyn has supported includes the geriatric Cuban dictatorship, the corrupt and extraordinarily incompetent Chavistas who have come close to bankrupting oil-rich Venezuela, and Russian imperialists who have used force to redraw Europe’s boundaries. … Not just Corbyn and his supporters but much of the liberal Left announce their political correctness and seize on the smallest sexist or racist “gaffe” of their opponents. Without pausing for breath, they move on to defend radical Islamist movements which believe in the subjugation of women and the murder of homosexuals. They will denounce the anti-Semitism of white neo-Nazis, but justify Islamist anti-Semites who actually murder Jews in Copenhagen and Paris. In a telling vignette, Corbyn himself defended a vicar from the supposedly liberal and tolerant Church of England who had promoted the conspiracy theory that Jews were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Opponents who called for the church authorities to discipline him were not anti-racists fighting an ideology that had led to the murder of millions. On the contrary, said Corbyn, the vicar was the victim, “under attack” because he had “dared to speak out against Zionism”. Now read this, and reflect on the leftism of so much of US media or, for that matter, the crackdown on free expression defacing American universities (my emphasis added): Friends and comrades have ignored those of us who warned for years about the ugly turn much of left-wing thought has taken. Why, they ask, should we waste our political energies on minor Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs who pander to anti-Semitism or writers who cheer on Islamists while hounding Muslim liberals? Real power, the power that mattered and needed opposing, lay elsewhere.They did not understand that cultural power will eventually become political power, if no one takes the time to challenge it. Also The rise of Corbyn represents the…failure of a generation of moderate centre-left politicians and activists to recognise that ideology matters, and that if you do not take on your opponents’ ideas today, your opponents will take you over tomorrow. Cohen goes on to lambast Tony Blair and other ‘New Labour’ luminaries for the lucrative post-political careers they have made for themselves in sometimes unsavory company, but adds this: Jeremy Corbyn has never pocketed thirty pieces of silver. He says what he says because he means it, not because he has been paid to say it. This does not make him morally superior in my eyes. I distrust a convinced fanatic far more than I distrust an averagely compromised man. This cannot be said enough. When it comes to politicians, give me the cynic over the true believer just about every time.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/423258/undefined
No comments:
Post a Comment