Also: “Malicious intent” is irrelevant in investigation of Hillary’s reckless e-mail scandal – gross (criminal) negligence is.
The other day, May 13, Veritaspac commented on a report about recent Senate budget activity . . . the same Senate which incidentally is led by Mitch McConnell . . . a nominal Republican.
“The U.S. Senate’s first spending bill of 2016 allocates $261 million more than President Barack Obama requested and lacks significant conservative amendments, but it still sailed to passage Thursday in the Republican-led chamber.
“An overwhelming number of senators on both sides of the aisle approved the energy and water development appropriations bill, by a vote of 90-8. Conservatives had objected to the higher spending levels and lack of policy riders in the weeks leading up to the vote.”
This revelation, which appeared in various media outlets reminded us of the calm assurance conservatives, and American voters in general, had received from one of the Wall Street Journal’s ace columnists. Our readers may recall Bret Stephens’ assertion that we could all rest easy if Hillary Clinton became our next president, something Bret is hoping for. According to Mr. Stephens, a Republican-controlled Congress (like we have now) would “keep her in check”! The theory being Trump will destroy down-ticket chances and Republicans should separate from him, essentially let Hillary win in order to save conservatism. the House and Senate . . . “losing is winning“.
But as our story suggested, Mitch and Paulie (“Crap Sandwich” Ryan) will keep Hillary “in check” as well as they have Barack Obama. Thanks Bret, that should relieve conservatives (every shred of sarcasm intended). And then we remembered a story we came across on May 11 about the latest in the Hillary e-mail “investigation”:
Clinton aide Cheryl Mills leaves FBI interview briefly after being asked about emails (excerpt)
Near the beginning of a recent interview, an FBI investigator broached a topic with longtime Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills that her lawyer and the Justice Department had agreed would be off limits, according to several people familiar with the matter.
Mills and her lawyer left the room — though both returned a short time later — and prosecutors were somewhat taken aback that their FBI colleague had ventured beyond what was anticipated, the people said.
Investigators consider Mills — who served as chief of staff while Clinton was secretary of state — to be a cooperative witness. But the episode demonstrates some of the tension surrounding the criminal probe into possible mishandling of classified information involving the leading Democratic presidential candidate. In the coming weeks, prosecutors and FBI agents hope to be able to interview Clinton herself as they work to bring the case to a close.
As we noted:
Prosecutors were “taken aback” at the temerity of the investigator to ‘broach’ a topic that the investigation is all about
What kind of “investigation is this? They must not “broach the topic of Hillary’s emails. What the heck topics are they allowed to “broach”?
BUT WE MUSTN’T WORRY ABOUT SMALL THINGS LIKE THIS. THE GOP-LED CONGRESS WILL CERTAINLY KEEP ANY DOJ/STATE DEPT/CLINTON CORRUPTION “IN CHECK”. BRET STEPHENS TOLD US SO.
How other worldly Stephens is.
Andy McCarthy has a highly enlightening column on the subject of investigative processes and immunity grants in Saturday’s National Review. We also note that McCarthy snapped as we did a couple days earlier on the relevancy of the Washington Post’s spin about “no malicious intent” in Hillary’s reckless-at-best handling of e-mail. As our instincts told us and former prosecutor McCarthy indicated:
“malicious intent” is not required to prove felonious mishandling of classified information. In fact, gross negligence would do, so if there really is even “scant” evidence of malicious intent, that suggests it would be fairly easy to prove the crime.
Read our comments here.
DLH with R Mall
