News to a few

Almost anyone in the computer security field will have been nearly certain of foreign intelligence access since the existence of Hillary’s private email server became known. After Wikileaks started dumping Hillary’s email who could believe otherwise?

Nevertheless, this is now news on Fox:

Authorities now believe there is about a 99 percent chance that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News.

The revelation led House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul to describe Clinton’s handling of her email system during her tenure as secretary of state as “treason.”

Hillary Clinton may be guilt of treason? Who thinks this is news?

A couple days ago someone told me they were of the opinion that using the traditional punishment for treason on a fairly broad scale this time would be a deterrent for politicians in the future. This is probably true. I would like to further point out that auctioning off positions on the firing squads and selling the video rights to the executions, with the funds earmarked for future investigations, could also be a big motivator for government employees to obey the law and the constitution.


20 thoughts on “News to a few

  1. I dislike most everything Hillary stands for, and think her presidency would be ruinous to the country. However, she’s still a human, and deserves capital punishment only if convicted by a jury through impartial trial. The idea of auctioning off positions in the firing squad is fairly disgusting.

      • My comment wasn’t entirely clear; sorry. I don’t at all doubt your respect for due process, and I apologize that it sounded like I did. I meant to say that I’d be disgusted by the idea of vying for a chance to kill a particular traitor, even after the impartial trial. I do support capital punishment for certain crimes including treason, and if I were assigned by some suitable process to drop the hammer on someone, fine. But I wouldn’t relish the job, and consider it fairly murderous to wish for the chance.

        • If it puts the political class in its place, it’s a far sight better than civil war. I’d support it on that basis.

          Defending liberty is serious business, and toward that end the occasional death of a politician, or a whole swath of politicians, is an historical necessity. That is because they will always attempt to overstep their limits, and there are always a thousand excuses for doing so. Therefore it comes down to the question of when, how many and how often.

          The longer we put if off, the worse it will have to be. We cherish peace, which is a good thing, but the desire for peace above all else can and will lead to mass destruction. If we let things go, putting off the inevitable for someone else to deal with in some future time, or hoping against reason that we’ll manage to escape the storm, then we’re not for peace at all. We’re just cowards, dooming our children and grandchildren to far greater horrors than the ones we’re avoiding today.

          Blood of tyrants and patriots and all that; unfortunately it is axiomatic.

          It’s the same as dealing with the school yard bully. The more he gets his way the more emboldened he becomes. Eventually he’ll have himself a gang. The sooner you can lay him out on the ground and put him in his place, the sooner you’ll have real peace…until the next bully comes along. It’s a matter of appeasement verses doing the right thing when necessary.

          Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

          And so if a convicted tyrant must be put to death, let it be public and highly graphic. If the political class wants to avoid such unpleasantness in the future, then they can damned well behave itself. You don’t want to die horribly in front of the whole world, excellent! Then do your job of protecting liberty, and don’t try to become a king. It’s very simple.

          • Il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres.

          • One thing to keep in mind.

            Once the floodgates are opened there are quite a few politicians that should have their necks stretched (hanging is the proper method for common criminals. and these politicians do not deserve the respect that a firing squad entails). Can we put the brakes on it though?

            We might go the way of the French Revolution and take out a huge swath of Democrats and liberal traitors.

            To name a few: POTUS, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Lois Lerner, everyone involved in Fast and Furious, some in BLM, some in the EPA, John Kerry (Iran deal obscenity) and others.

      • One good argument is that it’s hypocritical to claim to favor the death penalty while at the same time being unwilling to serve on the firing squad.

  2. Guilty or not simply won’t matter. Hillary will have a presidential pardon in her vest pocket win or lose. No way Obama won’t sign one before he leaves office.

    • That assumes a conviction before he leaves office. Hard to imagine things could move that fast…..

      • Joe has it right, but I do note that pardoning Hillary as he leaves will pretty much ruin any last gasp Obama has of establishing a ‘legacy’.

        He’s been desperate to have SOME positive note in the history books, and his options are increasingly slim. Obamacare is a complete train wreck. His ‘peacemaking’ in the Middle East has been anything BUT. And as Jon Gabriel on Twitter put it, the best part of his presidency has been all the racial healing.

        Plus there’s a certain amount of friction between the Obamas and the Clintons. While crooks invariably hang together (lest they hang separately, to borrow Franklin’s quote), it’ll be interesting to see just how much Bumbles wants to keep the Haggard Queen out of a courtroom.

  3. Hillary is old, she seems very sick, and she is drunk in public enough for me to assume that she is a serious alcoholic. I suspect arrest would cause alcohol withdrawal, and she would die from delirium tremens (dt). The American public would never get a fair trial.

  4. Technically, it would not be treason. Treason has a very specific definition in the United States, per Article III Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    I do not think that having criminally negligent security on your e-mail server counts as levying War, or intentionally adhering to our Enemies. In fact, piss-poor communications security is kind of a historical tradition in the State Department. Their codes and ciphers were notoriously weak from the late 18th Century all the way up at least through WWII, and probably beyond.

    • Perhaps, but the statutes regarding the handling of classified material do NOT require criminal intent. Gross negligence is enough.

      Yes, treason’s a harsh term, and probably overdoing it; but at the very least she should have been charged under those statutes.

    • I would argue that most people in government today, including at least 99% of Congress, are clearly guilty of treason. “Levying war against the United States” — what else would you call it when every day they violate the Supreme Law?

    • Does asking for “donations” in return for special treatment by the State Department qualify?

Comments are closed.