A shorter version of this work was published by the Georgia Political Review here.
This article needs some background before you read it.
I wrote this in March of 2016, during the Spring Break of my last semester in college. This was written during the heat of the Democratic primary and 4 months before the FBI officially announced the the findings of their year-long criminal investigation.
This post was the first political blog I’d ever written. I really thought it would a random post that a few friends would see, but it ended up becoming one of the most impactful experiences of my life.
After posting the article to Facebook, it proceeded to go viral in a way I never expected. Simply by friends sharing the article it got posted and re-posted across numerous social media platforms. Within 2 days it had been clicked on over 5000 times in over 10 countries. In all, the article has received almost half a million views across 32 countries.
Thousands of strangers reached out to me, including law professors, former government/intelligence officials and journalists, to discuss my work. A film student even asked to make a documentary based on this article.
Ultimately, the FBI decided not to pursue any charges against Hillary Clinton or her staff for the use of a private e-mail server while she was Secretary of State.
But what you will find here is a compelling legal case that they could have.
- Nina Illingworth – “Recommended Reading: Clinton Smoking Gun”
- Caucus 99 Percent
- Reddit Top Post Thread
- Lambert Strether – “Parents, Debate Is The Right Competitive Sport For your Child!”
Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is one of the most important, yet least understood issues of the 2016 election so far. Despite how long the media has been covering it, I don’t think most people really understand what’s going on. Almost everyone I know is genuinely unsure of what exactly she may have done wrong, and as a result are more willing to accept the scandal as nothing more than a partisan, or sexist, effort to bring her down (me 3 days ago).
The disinterest in the scandal seems to be cemented on the left as a result of Bernie Sanders refusing to attack her on the issue thus far in the campaign; something the eventual Republican nominee, whoever it may be, has promised to do. So why are so many Republicans convinced this is a scandal that should topple the presumptive Democratic nominee for President? Do I really need to be worried?
Yes, you need to be worried.
Despite being a mostly liberal Democrat and a Hillary admirer, I’ve come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and her aides not only violated numerous federal criminal statutes, but may have conducted a cover up to hide incriminating evidence – the likes of which forced Richard Nixon to resign as President. This article was intended to be a quick, digestable piece to help everyone get caught up on the scandal, but I really had no idea how complex this issue was.
Here is the takeaway – I believe the FBI will refer Hillary Clinton for indictment for a violation of Section 1924 and Section 793 of Title 18 US Criminal Code dealing with deletion, retention and transmission of classified documents. If prosecuted and convicted, the punishment would be some combination of a fine, a year in prison or 10 years in prison. The implications for the Presidential race will be discussed.
While you’re taking that in, you’ll be happy to know the underlying controversy surrounds an issue we couldn’t possibly be more tired of hearing about – the 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. I’ll break it to you now, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but she actually had something to hide. And there is proof.
For any casual observer, these positions today would be the statements of a conspiracy-theorist, or someone spewing right-wing propaganda. This is why I’ve painstakingly written close to 20 pages to explain (and even litigate) these positions, and address every potential question you may ask. But my main purpose isn’t to convince you of anything (despite the title), this endeavor is primarily journalistic. Here are the facts, here are the perspectives, and take from that what you will, whether she is found guilty of criminal activity or not. I have really tried my hardest to separate suspect behavior from criminal behavior (for the law sticklers out there) because all I want to do is actually find out if the person who looks to be the Democratic nominee for President, and who I may end up voting for in the general election, will be forced to resign before (or after) she assumes office. This is our generation’s Watergate scandal.
This work is deep. I am proud to call this article is the most comprehensive summary and analysis of the Hillary Clinton email scandal *available on the Internet today*. Read it all if you want. I’ve mostly written this for myself.
Before I begin, I will say it really saddens me that her handling of this issue has marred what was an overall outstanding and inspirational political career. Her decades of accomplishments, while breaking gender boundaries in Washington, have inspired millions in America and around the world. But a scandal regarding her record-keeping practices could end her legacy prematurely, perhaps as soon as May. Right before she was expected to shatter one of the biggest ceilings in American history.
Grab some coffee. Get comfortable. Here we go.
“Reality is an aspect of property. It must be seized. And investigative journalism is the noble art of seizing reality back from the powerful.” ― Julian Assange
**Section 1: What’s the Scandal and What Are Both Sides Arguing**
**Section 2: Speculative Journalism Based On Current Facts**
**Section 3: My Take On the Election After Understanding This Scandal**
1) What did Hillary Clinton actually do?
Before becoming Secretary of State in 2009, Hillary Clinton purchased a private email server to be installed in her home in New York. On this server she used the address firstname.lastname@example.org which was used for all work and personal correspondence throughout her 4-year tenure as Secretary. She did not use (or even activate) an official State Department state.gov email account throughout this time.
In the summer of 2014, the Congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attacks asked the State Department for all of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi-related emails during her time as Secretary of State (2009-2013). This is when the State Department discovered that all her communications were in fact hosted on a private personal server, not a government archive. After meeting with her, Clinton turned over 30,490 emails to the State Department from her private server in December 2014, saying those were all her work-related emails from being Secretary of State. At the same time that she turned over her emails, it was revealed that Clinton deleted the remaining contents on the server (31,830 other emails) because they were personal and not work-related. In March 2015, it was publicized for the first time that Hillary Clinton exclusively used a private server for all her email correspondence while Secretary of State. In August 2015, the FBI officially launched an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.
From this summary alone, I want to guess that a majority of you already think she might be guilty of something. And all it took was stating a factual timeline of events. But honestly, let’s hear her out.
2) Why did she have a private email server?
Here’s what she said.
CLINTON: First, when I got to work as Secretary of State, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.
Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.
Clinton’s only justification for the private server is that this system was more convenient for her. Because government issued blackberries could not control multiple email accounts at once, she argues it was simpler to carry out all her correspondence, work and personal, on one phone under one email rather than through different emails between two phones.
While that answer has generated abundant scorn and skepticism from the Republicans (and Democrats), was technological simplicity really that ridiculous of a request from a then 60-year old Hillary Clinton? Would you expect your grandma to want to use two different cell phones?
“You know, I was not thinking a lot when I got in. There was so much work to be done. We had so many problems around the world,” Clinton said. “I didn’t really stop and think what kind of email system will there be?”
If you ask the Republicans it had nothing to do with convenience. When it was revealed that she carried multiple other devices (although she argues not for correspondence) skeptics find it easy to point out that someone from her large entourage that she travels with could have easily kept a second phone. Or that she could have just sent all her personal correspondence through a state.gov email. Thus, they suggest she kept a private server with one phone and email precisely so that only she could control the flow of information if asked about anything that happened during her time as Secretary.
3) What’s the controversy? Hillary says everything she did was inside the law.
Now is a good time to remind everyone that for the last year we’ve been asking if the nation’s Secretary of State has broken multiple federal laws. Or at best done something questionably legal while in office. This is one of the most powerful people in the world, and arguably the most powerful member of a President’s cabinet – the fact that we are here is already troubling. This whole scandal operates in a grey area of the law, which is why what you believe the intent is, is so important. It’s like the New England Patriots and Spygate. If you believe the Patriots were guilty of cheating even though what they did wasn’t explicitly against the rules, then you might understand why the Republicans won’t let this go.
These are the three controversies at play.
First, was it illegal/criminal for the Secretary of State to conduct all her professional communications on a private email server and not on a government server? There are three laws involved with this question that we’ll get into – The Federal Records Act, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Regulations and The Freedom of Information Act.
Second, did she send classified information, knowingly or unknowingly, through this private email server? Once Hillary turned over the 30,490 emails to the State Department, intelligence officials realized that thousands of her emails contained classified information, even top secret information and couldn’t be released to the public. This controversy represents the bulk of the present-day coverage, which is dominated by questions of whether or not Hillary put government secrets at risk by handling classified information on a private server that was almost certainly less secure than an official government server.
Third, why did she delete over 30,000 emails from her private server? She says the emails she deleted were personal and not work related, and its up to her if she wanted to get rid of them, even if she decided to do so 2 years after leaving the State Department. Because all of her correspondence is in her control and not the government’s, we have to trust that she was forthcoming with what she considered her work-related emails and everything she deleted was truly personal.
So here’s the real question. Are the 30,490 emails Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department really every work-related email from her time as Secretary; and more importantly did they include all the emails relating to the 2012 Benghazi attacks? If those aren’t all the emails, did she cover up any incriminating emails by deleting them off her server in the Fall of 2014 before Congress asked that she turn over her email server in March 2015?
I’ll address this controversy at the very end, though it’s what needs to be talked about the most when it comes to someone we may elect as President. This eerie insinuation of a coverup conspiracy regarding information about the Benghazi attacks is precisely why people’s opinions on the scandal have come down on partisan lines, with one side dismissing it entirely. The Republicans believe she has something to hide about Benghazi, the Democrats don’t (sound familiar?). And this difference is a larger point that most who have read or heard about the email scandal do not realize – how inextricably tied it is with what you believe happened in Benghazi.
Whether there is any merit to this controversy, we have been so caught up in the first two that the third is not a line of questioning any major news outlet has discussed with seriousness during this election cycle.
4) Did she send classified information, knowingly or unknowingly, through this private email server?
I’m starting with the second controversy because this is what I think she is most likely to get indicted for. For now, let’s put aside questions of whether or not her even having a private email server was legal. Although this would not be a controversy at all if Hillary had simply used a state.gov email address.
There are several sub questions being asked under this controversy, they are in red.
So how did this issue of classified emails come up anyway? Let’s go back to Clinton’s original comments when first asked about her private email server.
QUESTION: Were you ever — were you ever specifically briefed on the security implications of using — using your own email server and using your personal address to email with the president?
CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.
Interestingly enough, the issue of whether there was specifically classified material on her private server was first brought up by Hillary herself!
After Hillary turned over her 30,000+ emails to the State Department in December 2014, she actually called on them to make her “work-related emails public for everyone to see.” In March 2015, once it was revealed to the public that she exclusively used a private email, she made the above statements regarding potentially sensitive information on her server.
In July 2015, two inspectors general who were involved in the review and release of Hillary’s emails asked the Justice Department to open an investigation into whether sensitive information was mishandled. On January 29th, 2016, three days before the Iowa Caucus, the State Department announced for the first time that highly classified information had been sent through her private email server, information that it considered the highest level of top secret classification (and even above top secret) and could not be released to the public.
Hillary immediately disagreed with that assessment from the State Department, and has demanded that they release all her emails to the public.
So what’s going on here?
Are there really dozens of highly classified government secrets on Hillary’s private email server… and why is she of all people demanding that they be released?
Hillary’s Side: No, there are not highly classified secrets on her server. America’s classification system is, in fact, broken.
While originally saying that she did not “email any classified material to anyone on my email”, after the State Department announced that her server did in fact contain what they considered classified information, she responded with this at the Iowa State Fair.
CLINTON: “The State Department has confirmed that I did not send nor receive material marked classified or send material marked classified,” she said a moment later.
“I am repeating the facts and the facts are I did not send nor did I receive material marked classified.”
Notice the change in rhetoric, it’s no longer that she didn’t send classified material, but that it was not *marked* classified when she sent or received it. In other words, the emails she sent or received from her private server she did not know or did not consider to be classified at the moment they were sent. These emails were only classified later, after she left as being Secretary of State. She is no longer disagreeing with the presence of now classified information on her private server, but questions the timeline and method by which they were determined classified now. She has repeatedly called the classification of her emails “over-classification run amok.”
So now the question is – were these emails actually classified because they contain top secret information that Clinton should have never emailed in the first place, what’s considered information “born classified”, or were the emails all pretty innocuous but got swept up in our broken system of over-classifying information?
Almost everyone in the government actually agrees that our system for classifying information is a complete mess, in large part because federal agencies retain the right to classify documents after the fact, or retroactively. It’s so agreed on that it’s one of the few things that brought Congress together to sign a bill in 2010 called The Reducing Over-Classification Act . This makes it incredibly likely that the now over 2000 emails that have been considered classified by the State Department include many documents that probably don’t need to be classified. Although the most recent revised estimate is 104 classified emails.
This is supported by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) – California, who is one of the few people alive that read what the State Department considered to be classified emails. She said, “There’s no question that they are over-classifying this stuff.”
Maybe this is why Clinton is comfortable continuing to take this stand.
CLINTON: “I took the unprecedented step of asking that the State Department make all my work-related emails public for everyone to see.”
FBI’s Side: While the system for classifying emails is undeniably broken and confusing, Clinton’s over-classification defense is a tough case to make given that the Inspector General has identified some of these emails as beyond top secret, in a category called SAP, or Special Access Program. There are at least two emails which are considered TS/SCI – Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information. Sources who are not authorized to speak on the record have said the information in these two emails surrounds the movement of North Korean missiles and a drone strike.
These are some of our nation’s most closely guarded secrets.
How can that be a case of retroactive, over-classification? The Inspector General took on this attack directly in a released memo.
“These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.”
Senator Richard Burr – (R) North Carolina, who has also read all 22 e-mails, concurred with the Inspector General. “They are definitely sensitive. Anybody in the intelligence world would know that the content was sensitive.” Was he reading different emails than Senator Feinstein?
However, Clinton has dismissed the Inspector General’s report – and has gone as far as to suggest that the Inspector General is in fact colluding with the Republicans to continue a partisan attack against her. Clinton has said she only viewed classified information in hard copy in her office. If she was traveling, she used other secure channels.
Whether or not this is true, this revelation has only been said by Clinton presidential campaign communications director Jennifer Palemieri who sent this email seeking to reassure supporters after the Inspector General’s Report:
“Hillary didn’t send any classified materials over email: Hillary only used her personal account for unclassified email,” Palemieri said in the message. “No information in her emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them. She viewed classified materials in hard copy in her office or via other secure means while traveling, not on email.”
Unfortunately, there’s no way to know for sure who is right until we see the emails.
But according to government security experts, the type of information that could receive something like an SAP or a TS/SCI designation is sensitive enough that most senior government officials would immediately recognize it as such. Did Hillary just not realize that she may have been discussing some of America’s deepest secrets?
So let’s assume for a moment that there is in fact at least one email on her private server that contains incredibly top secret information that she knows about, a very believable scenario given that she was our nation’s Secretary of State. Why does she continue to demand that the State Department release all her emails? Does she really want us to see her classified emails, and it’s the State Department that doesn’t? Or is her asking the State Department to release everything simply political posturing, because she knows they can’t?
Inversely, maybe she really doesn’t know (or think) that there is classified information on her private server. She did say her lawyers were in fact in charge of determining which of her emails were work-related and which were personal. So maybe she genuinely doesn’t know if any of her emails were specifically classified material.
But how inclined are we to really believe that? That Hillary Rodham Clinton – First lady, Senator and Secretary of State – didn’t know that she may have discussed the highest secrets of our government over email. While she was the Secretary of State.
Believe it or not, this may be the argument that acquits her of any criminal charges. We’re about to get there.
*Digression for a relevant personal anecdote*
I actually got a taste of the US government’s email system during my internship at Sandia National Laboratories in California last summer. Upon starting my internship, I was given a “sandia.gov” email, which I could only access from a computer on-site and with a randomly generated password each time. Every time before I could send an email through my sandia.gov email, a pop-up dialogue would ask me, “Is there any classified information in this message?” and if I clicked “Yes” it would take me to a range of classification options I could choose to mark the email with – sensitive, , confidential, secret, top secret etc, if I said “No” it would just send the email.
Nothing I ever sent was classified (except maybe when I emailed my boss telling him I was leaving work early because I was sick, but actually drove to Sacramento to go sky-diving). But it lends me perspective on how the FBI might be investigating this case. Was her private email server even set up to ask her that question about classification any time she sent an email? And if it wasn’t, was the recipient, someone hopefully with an official “.gov” email, marking it classified when they got it? Is that their responsibility? Questions I don’t really know the answer to, but some thoughts to keep in mind.
*It’s also possible there are two different email systems, Sandia Labs operates under the Department of Energy while she is in the Department of State, but I can’t imagine they are too different, if at all.
So let’s say we accept that there is likely at least a few emails (State Department claims there are 22) that contain highly sensitive information.
**Did she violate a federal law for retaining classified information on an unclassified, insecure private email server?**
This part is an ongoing investigation, so I’m asserting what I believe the arguments the two sides are making in their legal war rooms based on the information that’s been reported.
As a technical matter, I’m presenting the arguments as Clinton vs FBI, although it would really be Clinton vs. Department of Justice in a court. I think these are the legal simulations that the FBI will construct in creating a recommendation to the Department of Justice to pursue an indictment.
There are two laws in the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code surrounding the handling of classified information
(I’ll be underlining the laws like a piece of evidence in a policy debate round for those who don’t want to read all the way, sorry need to relive my glory days)
(1) Title 18 U.S. Code § 1924 (Misdemeanor) – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Clinton’s Side: This is from Dan Abrams, ABC News Legal Analyst and Columbia Law School graduate and who’s view is also supported by Ruth Marcus a Harvard Law graduate, Pulitzer prize winner, and a pre-eminent columnist at the Washington Post.
There are serious legal hurdles to overcome for those who would seek to file a charge under this law. First, none of the information she possessed and/or presumably “removes” had officially been declared “classified” at that time. That matters.
Sure, there is an argument that classified “documents” are not the same as classified “information” and that certain information is “classified at birth” and therefore always officially classified. And there’s no question that some of the information and/or documents were later declared classified.
But this isn’t a law school exam where we attempt to figure out how creative one can become in fitting a law into a particular fact pattern. We are talking about whether a criminal charge should be filed based on intentional conduct when even governmental agencies squabble over what is classified and what isn’t. So proving that she “knowingly” removed “classified information” “without authority” at the time seems far-fetched based on what we know today.
Abrams synopsis is exactly why lawyers often criticize journalists for conflating wrong-doing with a crime. Evidence of wrong-doing is rarely enough to put someone in handcuffs at this level.
But in order to not make that conflation, a significant part of her defense has to be that Hillary Clinton actually DIDNT KNOW the emails on her server were classified. And precisely why it matters that none of her emails on her private server were marked classified at the time – their argument being that Clinton could only know if information was classified if it was marked as such on the email.
This is our legal system.
Only if the FBI can prove that she knowingly retained, deleted or transmitted *unmarked* classified information can she be prosecuted, regardless of how probable it is that she knew.
But here is Clinton’s argument for why she actually did not know.
The classified information on her emails was sent by her aides, not by her. She is a passive, unwitting, recipient of classified information, not the initiator of disseminating it. Senator Feinstein, who came to her defense earlier saying that there was “no question” the State Department was over-classifying her emails, said that Clinton didn’t originally send any of the e-mails and that they were largely from her staff, although she did sometimes reply. Dianne Feinstein said in a statement that it made no sense to her that “Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else.”
This is how her team will distinguish her case from the prosecution of former CIA Director David Petraeus. Petraeus pled guilty in March 2015 to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified material. It was revealed that he had provided notebooks with highly classified information to his biographer and mistress (classic combo) Paula Broadwell, whose security clearances did not permit her to receive it. Clinton, on the other hand, never actually initiated the release of classified material like Petraeus. After Petraeus resigned, his access to classified information was suspended, he was fined $100,000 and sentenced to two years of probation.
Do you think it’s an accident that the first time Clinton made comments on the scandal and someone asked her if she had been “specifically briefed on the security implications of your own email server” without saying anything about classified emails – this was Clinton’s immediate response.
CLINTON: I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.
This has been a carefully laid out defense long before the story broke to the public. And kudos to her and her legal team, I’m not sure I would’ve expected anything less.
That’s why the story has shifted now as to whether one of her aides could possibly be convicted, because they knowingly altered or transmitted classified information. Her aides have pledged not to delete their emails. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a pawn to save the Queen.
FBI’s Side: We vigorously call baloney. Regardless of whether some information on her personal server is classified or not, in what world could a Secretary of State send or receive an email that contains information the Inspector General, and our nation’s intelligence experts, consider to be one of the nation’s most deeply kept secrets, and he/she wouldn’t have known it was a secret.
If Department of Justice doesn’t think they can convince a grand jury of that, then let me have a go.
If she is acquitted of violating Section 1924 under that defense then it is sanctioning political idiocy as an excuse for criminal behavior. And whether there is a Supreme Court precedent to uphold that exact idea will be discussed in the other criminal statute I think she violated.
**Here are the two pieces of evidence (maybe more, but these two for sure) that I believe the FBI will use to assert that Hillary Clinton knowingly retained and transmitted classified information**
(1) A 2011 email from Hillary Clinton to aide Jake Sullivan
In the email, Jake Sullivan is attempting to send a set of talking points “TPs” to Clinton over secure fax. When he says that “they’ve had issues sending secure fax”, Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure”
Investigators will seize upon this request from Clinton – to have what they consider recognized sensitive data be stripped of its markings and sent through a non-secure channel – as proof that she had the KNOWLEDGE that potentially sensitive information could come onto her server and the INTENT to have it be sent to her in an insecure manner. Even if the classified email originated with her aide.
The Clinton team and State Department has responded by saying there is no evidence the talking points she was requesting contained classified information, and there is no evidence that Jake Sullivan actually sent her any information via nonsecure methods. The State Department has not released the talking points and spokesman John Kirby would not say if the document was classified.
While both of those things may end up being true (that the document was not classified and was never sent) and this email can’t directly be used as evidence that she knowingly transmitted classified information – it DOES let prosecutors establish that she was generally aware of the presence of classified information in her emails, and if there is classified information on her server now, there is a history of her KNOWINGLY REQUESTING sensitive information being sent to her, not being a passive recipient .
I’m not a lawyer, just like I’m not a rapper, and I don’t know what will or won’t convince a grand jury. But I, along with former US district judge and Bush administration Attorney General Michael Mukasey, believe the FBI will use this line of argument.
(2) A 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement
This is the big one.
On January 22nd, 2009, the day after assuming the office of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton signed a “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” — or Standard Form 312. She signed and agreed to abide by these specific stipulations and punishments.
1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information. As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of information in the interest of national security; and unclassified information that meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination as provided in Sections 1.1. 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4(e) of Executive Order 12958, or under any other Executive order or statute that requires protection for such information in the interest of national security. I understand and accept that by being granted access to classified information, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United States Government.
2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and that I understand these procedures.
3. I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
4. I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, *the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.
There are three arguments I think the FBI will make from this agreement.
First, the FBI will argue that Hillary illegally transmitted highly classified information on an unauthorized private server, regardless of whether or not it was marked classified. The agreement stipulates that “classified information is marked or unmarked classified information”. This implies that the recipient should *not have to be told* that information is classified if it is in fact so (kind of a tautology). But this agreement, that Clinton signed, throws questions into what our legal definition of “knowingly” is.
There are two types of classified information. Information that is “born classified” and information that is “retroactively classified”. Information that is born classified is information that is classified from the moment of its inception, regardless of when or where it was created. The concept of “born classified” information actually originated with the advent of nuclear weapons/nuclear energy in the 1940s because the government considered any information communicated about nuclear issues to be automatically classified until it was declared otherwise.
Did Hillary Clinton “know” that information on her server should have been “automatically classified” the moment it appeared in any form ? Even if it was not *marked classified*, is it implicitly classified by the nature of the information, and she should automatically “know” that?
Seems like a tough burden to prove, and Clinton’s team will certainly fight the legal precedents of “born classified” in court. This exact issue came to the Supreme Court once in The United States vs Progressive in 1979 when a magazine wanted to reveal information about the development of the hydrogen bomb. The Court never ended up taking the case, but judicial analysts have said the Court would have rejected the ‘born secret’ clause as being an unconstitutional restraint on speech. Our current Supreme Court has had some notable decisions regarding what they have considered “free speech” (*cough* Citizens United ). If this case really gets prosecuted, how would our current 8-membered Supreme Court adjudicate this? This is why the next Supreme Court nomination has so much hanging in the balance because this issue may not go away even if the Department of Justice does not prosecute a referral for indictment
But maybe the burden is not as high as we think. The Inspector General’s report has already said her information was “born classified” – “these emails contained classified information when they were generated“. Which is likely why you have intelligence experts saying the information on her server is “beyond top secret” as Special Access Program information, or “top secret”/”special compartmented” information.“Top secret” is reserved for material whose release could cause “exceptionally grave damage to the national security.” Things that would be consistent with reports that two of the emails had intimate details of missile movements within North Korea and the specifics of a drone operation. They would argue that these emails could only be classified at that level if they were truly “born classified”, not dissimilar to the way our nation treated correspondence about nuclear weapons.
Let’s also not forget that Hillary Clinton was a central figure in the negotiation of the new START treaty with Russia in 2011 to reduce both countries nuclear stockpiles. Do we think there are e-mails on her server with Russian counterparts perhaps detailing the location, stockpile and size of particular nuclear weapons systems? Information that the United States originally created the concept of “born classified” information to regulate.
Here are two people who weighed in –
“It’s born classified,” said J. William Leonard who is one of the intelligence experts under the Inspector General that reviewed the emails. He is a former director of the U.S. government’s Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) which is part of the National Archives and Records Administration. Leonard was director of ISOO, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. He said in a telephone interview that for the State Department to say otherwise was “blowing smoke.”
And this guy who really needed to vent –
“TS/SCI is very serious and specific information that jumps out at you and screams ‘classified,’ , said retired Army Col. Larry Mrozinski, who served almost four years as a senior military adviser and security manager in the State Department under both Clinton and Condoleezza Rice and was the certified security manager for the peacekeeping, sanctions and counterterrorism office in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, where he had TS/SCI clearance.
“The sources [of the information] also drive and signal sensitivity.” “It’s hard to imagine that in her position she would fail to recognize the obvious.”
“This is a serious breach of national security,” Mrozinski said, and “a clear violation of the law.”
“You are strictly forbidden to discuss TS/SCI of any kind outside a SCIF,” he explained, and yet “she was viewing and handling it in direct violation of the law and possibly exposing it to our enemies,” such as ISIS and Beijing, which has hacked Pentagon sites.
“Anybody else would have already lost their security clearance and be subjected to an espionage investigation,” Mrozinski added. “But apparently a different standard exists for Mrs. Clinton.”
State Department officials said that there are sensitive “keywords” which distinguish a classified email from an unclassified information, even if the material didn’t bear a classified heading. They have said Clinton was trained to understand the difference when she was “read in” on procedures to ID and handle classified information by diplomatic security officials in 2009. A training process that they consider very robust.
Clinton’s only response to these allegations of knowingly discussing high government secrets has been to simply deny the claim from the Inspector General that the information on her server is really that classified (and also suggest he is colluding with Republicans, why not throw that in there for good measure).
Her entire defense for not knowing the information on the server was classified must rely on us believing, or proving, that Inspector General Charles McCullough III, the intelligence experts who reviewed the emails and Senator Richard Burr are factually incorrect in the assessment that information on her server is “beyond top secret” – as a Special Access Program or Top Secret/SCI. If this case is prosecuted and heard by a grand jury, it is likely these individuals would be subpoenaed to the court to testify for their claim that Clinton’s information would have been “born classified.”
I can’t believe I’m working this hard to prove to you that the responsibilities of a nation’s Secretary of State could have possibly involved talking about government secrets, that those secrets could have been discussed over email, and that she knew they were government secrets at the time, so many issues the public would already assume to be true (and not without good reason honestly).
And maybe some people (lawyers) would say I haven’t worked hard enough…but can we just please ask ourselves how else is she possibly doing her job if she is not discussing and corresponding about classified information?
Regardless, *all of this is irrelevant* when the FBI makes their second argument.
Second, If Hillary was uncertain about the classification status of any information, then she was supposed to “confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified”.
There is no indication that Hillary Clinton ever attempted to confirm with any other government official, let alone the proper “authorized official” that the information she was sending or receiving was potentially classified or not. This violation of the agreement makes her liable for violations of the US Criminal Code Title 18 (as is spelled out in the agreement regarding specific statutes).
When Hillary was asked about her signing of this non-disclosure agreement by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” she seemed to reject the language of the non-disclosure agreement saying that “there has to be some markings” on classified information.
That is untrue. The non-disclosure agreement establishes precisely that whether information is specifically marked classified or not, she alone accepts the responsibility of determining whether or not it should be marked classified by consulting with authorized officials on the issue. She failed to do that. That is a violation of an agreement she signed and of which the penalties for doing so (a fine or up to a year in prison) she must accept.
Clinton’s team would respond by saying that Hillary Clinton was the final arbiter of what was considered classified or not classified material given that she was the head of the agency. She would not be required to consult with other officials on whether material was classified because it’s up to her to decide what’s classified and what’s not. This is where the two sides would battle out the application of the “born classified” precedent. Did Clinton’s failure to be aware of what some consider inherently classified information warrant a consultation with others to verify the classification status?
The third argument the FBI will make is that she engaged in “negligent handling of classified information” because her private email server did not meet the security requirements to house government information.
Here is the current legal definition of the word “negligent”
n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from “intentional torts” (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving. Negligence can result in all types of accidents causing physical and/or property damage, but can also include business errors and miscalculations, such as a sloppy land survey. In making a claim for damages based on an allegation of another’s negligence, the injured party (plaintiff) must prove:
a) that the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party-specifically to the one injured or to the general public,
b) that the defendant’s action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done,
c) that the damages were caused (“proximately caused”) by the negligence.
Okay now let’s prove each one!
a) That the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party-specifically to the one injured or to the general public
This is a pretty easy one, Hillary Clinton swore an oath of office to do just that.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God
The injured party is the United States government that had its classified information regarding the defense of the nation illegally exposed.
b) That the defendant’s action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done
I will argue that Hillary Clinton was both actively negligent (defendant’s action) and passively negligent (failure to act)
(1) Actively negligent
First, Clinton tried to change the rules to allow her use her unsecured BlackBerry in a secure facility for classified information.
This is one of the newest stories of the scandal and was reported on March 16th, 2016. For some reason this is being incorrectly reported on Facebook’s trending articles and the media as “NSA denied Clinton’s request for a secure smartphone.” I have no idea how it got reported like that.
Hillary Clinton actually tried to modify existing State Department security protocols so she would be able to use her phone in what’s called a SCIF – Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. The NSA said no.
When asked about this, current and former intelligence officials said this use would defeat the purpose of the secure facility, and it is standard practice to leave all electronics outside
“When you allow devices like this into a SCIF, you can allow the bad guys to listen in,” cybersecurity Morgan Wright said.
That does not seem like what a reasonable person would do if they had sworn an oath to protect the nation from all enemies. I believe this is actively being negligent.
Second, a secure classified email was made for her by the State Department, but she chose not use it.
This could be considered an instance of passive negligence since its a negative action in NOT doing something. But the fact that she CHOSE NOT TO DO ANYTHING is the key point. Here’s a letter from Julia Frifield, who serves as State Department assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs.
“Secretary Clinton did not use a classified email account at the State Department. An account was set up on ClassNet on her calendar, but it was not used,” Frifield wrote in response to a Sept. 21, 2015 letter from the committee asking for information about Clinton’s use of an account equipped to handle classified information.
ClassNet refers to the State Department workstations that are designed to allow employees to view classified information. It doesn’t seem possible to prove right now that Hillary Clinton was aware of this secure email being set up on ClassNet for her. But it certainly seems fair to say that the State Department tried to get Clinton’s records into the system by setting up a secure account and putting it on her calendar, but it was ignored or rejected.
And what if a released email has revealed precisely that information?
Here is an e-mail from Huma Abedin, Clinton’s top aide, to State Department executive secretary Stephen Mull – rejecting his proposal for an official Blackberry with a State Department e-mail account and saying “It’s pretty silly and she knows it”. I have transcribed this email exchange below – bolding and underlining are added by myself.
From: Mull, Stephen D
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 01:39 PM
T0: Mills, Cheryl D
Cc: Abedin, Huma; Kennedy Patrick F, Hanley, Monica R
Subject: S Communications
Thanks again for alerting me to the communications issues the Secretary has been having. Here’s a status report
On the immediate problem of the Secretary’s not being able to have her calls transferred, [REDACTED]
The technicians are onsite now [REDACTED]
On the more long term issue, I’ve asked our team to develop an enhanced package of capabilities and equipment that we could propose replying with the Secretary to be as closely co-located as possible with her when she is on travel away from her usual residences. The package will include things that anticipate the normally unexpected such as hurricanes, power outages, earthquakes, locusts etc, such as generators, uninterrupted power supplies, supplementary satellite capabilities, including satellite phones for when local infrastructure fails (as it did in NY over the weekend).
Separately, we are working to provide the Secretary per her request a Department issued Blackberry to replace her personal unit which is malfunctioning (possibly because of her personal email server is down). We will prepare two versions for her to use – one with an operation State Department email account (which would mask her identity, but which would also be subject to FOIA requests), and another which would just have phone and internet capability. We’re working with Monica to hammer out the details of what will best meet the Secretary’s needs.
Please let me know if you need anything more for now, and I’ll be in touch with the above longer term options soon.
From: Abedin, Huma
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 17:17 PM
To: Mull, Stephen D, Cheryl D
Cc: Kennedy, Patrick F; Hanley, Monica R
Subject: Re: S Communications
Steve – let’s discuss the state blackberry, doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.
As for the equipment, the comm team was limited in some capacity because we did not have authorization from owners of residence to install equipment. We did it regardless. Additionally as S knows, the team didn’t have access to the property until a couple hours before S arrived. Finally, as even the white house attested, this was a pretty wide spread problem, not just affecting us. So we should bear that in mind.
From: Mull, Stephen D
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 05:18 PM
T0: Abedin, Huma
Re: S Communications
Thanks for reminding us all of this very helpful context!!! 🙂
From: Abedin, Huma
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 5:34 PM
To: Mull, Stephen D
Subject: Re: S Communications
Its pretty silly and she knows it.
Okay so let’s interpret this exchange.
Stephen Mull from the State Department is emailing Hillary Clinton’s Chief of staff Cheryl Mills regarding Hillary Clinton’s communications “Subject: S Communications”. This email exchange was likely inspired by the August 27th-28th, 2011 power outages caused by Hurricane Irene and why there are multiple references to a package of capabilities and equipment that can deal with hurricanes, power outages, earthquakes, locusts etc (glad we’re covering our Biblical bases too).
It seems that after the Hurricane Irene blackouts, Clinton may have reached out to the State Department to replace her current phone because her personal email server also went down in the outage. Let’s just ignore the visible proof now (highlighted in red in the transcript) that the State Department was actually 100% aware of Hillary’s private email server at least by August 2011 – raising questions as to whether Obama actually did not know Clinton had a private email address/private server and that maybe we should be directing our legal questions of “negligence” at different people(s)?
In an effort to help Clinton get a new phone, Mull suggests two State Department issued Blackberry’s –
One for work related issues with an official state.gov email account which would “mask her identity” but would make her “subject to FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests” *We will talk about FOIA a lot more in Controversy #1*
And a second phone “which would just have phone and internet capability”, which she is free to use for personal correspondence.
Isn’t this the perfect compromise solution?
Not to Huma Abedin – in fact this setup to her “doesn’t make a whole lot of sense”
She does not explain her line of thinking anymore in the emails. But could it be that even this compromise scenario, where Clinton could do whatever she wanted on one phone, but on the other only be subject to same Freedom of Information requests from Congress, the courts or citizen groups as every other public official, would be an unacceptable arrangement for them?
Her second paragraph talks about a “comm” team trying to install equipment (which they apparently did anyway without authorization…we’re not gonna even get into this), but that the problem they were dealing with from the blackout was pretty widespread everywhere.
Stephen Mull responds thanking her for context.
Abedin responses – “its pretty silly and she knows it”
Now we’re dealing with undefined pronouns, which may work in the FBI’s favor or against, not really sure.
What is “it”?
Is “it” the equipment packages that will help her communications survive future natural disasters? Or is “it” the State Department suggestions that they provide her with two phones.
In context, it’s likely discussing the equipment packages because in Mull’s response he does not actually respond to Huma’s assertion that this arrangement “doesn’t make a lot of sense” (probably should’ve have??) and just thanks her for the context regarding what was a widespread problem after Hurricane Irene. Thus, whatever the confusion was at the State Department regarding Clinton installing new equipment somewhere was “pretty silly and she knows it.”
But in context of Huma’s response, “it’s pretty silly” might be referencing the two phone idea from the State Department which she had just said “doesn’t make a lot of sense”. Because the only thing we know for sure is that Stephen Mull’s suggestion was never adopted. Could that have been a result of both Abedin and Clinton feeling that this idea for two different phones was “pretty silly”. Does this count as “negligence” as per our definition, that this is “not what a reasonably prudent person would have done”
At this point, these all seem like contrived legal arguments based on an insinuation of facts that we don’t know (what else is the law), and this may not actually prove intent on Clinton’s part to disregard State Department security protocols. But I thought this deconstruction would be a useful exercise regardless because if nothing else we know that Hillary Clinton’s most senior aide balked at the idea of having the State Department regulate Hillary’s communications even when both sides knew that the State Department currently could not do so now.
If the Clinton legal team is willing to exploit legal ambiguities regarding “intent”and “knowing” and “negligence”…the FBI is likely to do so as well.
Okay, so now let’s ignore everything you just read in the “actively negligent” section and pretend none of those things ever happened, and there was never any willful attempt on Clinton’s part to be “negligent”.
(2) Passively negligent
So is there anyway the FBI can prove that Hillary Clinton’s lack of action regarding securing classified information of the government has risen to a legal level of “negligent”
Well how secure was her private email server?
CLINTON: Well, the system we used was set up for President [Bill] Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.
However, those briefed on the setup of her email server say the device that was installed for Bill Clinton was determined to be too small for the addition of someone about to be Secretary of State. Instead, a server that had been purchased for use by Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign was installed at the Chappaqua home in New York.
Clinton has so far refused to answer questions on how well her system was secured, the types of safeguards on her server and whether, or how frequently, security updates were applied.
If anyone read my blurb about working at Sandia Labs this summer, we should wonder whether her private email system had a similar dialogue box that forced her to answer if any information in her email was classified every time she sent one. That seems to be one of the fundamental safeguards the government has implemented in its email systems to track the flow of sensitive information. If her email server didn’t contain that safeguard…should we be surprised that none of her emails were marked classified, because maybe it wasn’t even technologically possible for them to be marked the way her server was set up?
This is what we know for sure – Hillary Clinton did not encrypt any of her emails for the first three months as Secretary of State.
Once Hillary turned over her server to the FBI in August 2015, reports began to emerge in October that her private email server was extremely vulnerable to hacking attempts because the server permitted remote-access connections directly over the Internet.
After scanning the “clintonemail” domain, a private cybersecurity firm found that from January 2009 – March 2009 the domain had no digital certificate issued by an authority, which shows a site is secured. Without what’s called an “SSL” certificate, data flows through in the form of plain text. This means all web browser, smartphone and tablet communications would not have been “encrypted“, which allows any hacker to read those communications, or worse could “trick an unsuspecting user of the site to hand over their username and password or other sensitive information”
Marc Maiffret, who has founded two cybersecurity companies, called her set up “total amateur hour” and that “real enterprise-class security, with teams dedicated to these things, would not do this.”
“An attacker with a low skill-level would be able to exploit this vulnerability,” said the Homeland Security Department’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team in 2012
The State Department couldn’t confirm the date of the first email sent using this system, but the Clinton’s email domain wasn’t issued an SSL certificate until March 29th, 2009. During those three months, Clinton’s travel logs show that she visited China, Indonesia, Egypt, Israel, Japan and South Korea.
When asked by a reporter from the Boston Globe, “what safeguards did you put in place to make sure that you weren’t hacked?” Clinton responded – “Well, I can only tell you there is no evidence that I’m aware of that I ever was. ”
c) that the damages were caused (“proximately caused”) by the negligence.
Sure enough, there were at least two notable hacking attempts into her server.
One in 2011 from Russia and a second one in 2012 from Serbia. The Russia one is great – they sent her 5 different emails as fake parking citations which were phishing scams that would collect data off her server if she opened them (which is funny because she hasn’t driven since 1996, apparently). But if it makes Clinton feel any better, I also failed the Sandia Labs routine phishing test by opening a fake email they sent me (they got me really good). Maybe that’s why we have these safeguards to begin with.
Beyond just the two hacks, there are now reports of dozens more. Some even originating from allies like China, South Korea and Germany. There are even specific reports that Asian governments were reading Clinton’s information during the 2/3 month window when her server did not have an SSL certificate and she was traveling across the region.
While it might be easy to say that Clinton is “not the most tech savvy“, given the the history of cybercrime and hacking, it was certainly a concern that she had to be briefed on as Secretary of State.
It’s not a secret to anyone that foreign governments and groups are constantly trying to hack into US systems to find out our government secrets. Maybe that’s why its not surprising that one of the worst hacks in US history hit the State Department one year after she left as Secretary. The CIA was actually forced to pull federal agents out of China after the hack to keep agents safe.
What kind of information were the Russians, Serbians, Chinese, South Koreans, Germans and who ever else, getting access to from Hillary Clinton’s private email server? And what risk, if any, did it potentially put federal agents out in the field in during her time as Secretary of State?
How difficult will it be for the FBI to make the case that Hillary’s unsecured private server can be considered a “negligent handling of classified information”? That her handling of official communications exposed US secrets, including information about the identity of a US intelligence operative, to foreign governments and organizations that want to attack American interests.
But I haven’t even mentioned what might actually be the FBI’s strongest argument to indict her under this statute. We have completely ignored the section of 1924 which says that classified information should not be retained “at an unauthorized location“!! Clinton’s team will obviously argue to the contrary , but all of that will be covered when I address Controversy #1, as to whether the existence of the private server was illegal itself.
I don’t believe she will win on that issue either.
Wrapping up what I think is her likely indictment of Section 1924, intent of being aware of classified information is not the only legal issue at stake! And more importantly, Section 1924 is just a misdemeanor – what I think a grand jury could also find her guilty of is a felony.
(2) Title 18 U.S. Code § 793 (Felony)- Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
The FBI will argue to the DOJ that she violated two sections of this statute.
First is Section D which is part of the Espionage Act – this is what I believe she will be indicted for
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; ….. Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
FBI’s Side: They will make two points here regarding Hillary willfully communicating information to someone “not entitled to receive it”
(1) Hillary Clinton’s communications with Sidney Blumenthal
Sidney Blumenthal is arguably the most important character in the Hillary Clinton email scandal outside of Hillary herself.
After Clinton turned over all her work-related emails to the State Department and Benghazi investigation in December 2014, it was revealed that she had extensively corresponded with someone by the name Sidney Blumenthal during the attacks.
Sidney “Sid” Blumenthal was a former journalist at the New Yorker who became one of the Clinton’s closest aides and confidants in the 1990’s during Bill Clinton’s administration. At the time of the Benghazi attacks, Blumenthal was not a State Department employee, despite having tried, he worked at the Clinton’s large non-profit organization – The Clinton Foundation.
After his correspondence with Clinton came to light, Blumenthal was summoned to testify before the Congressional Benghazi committee in June 2015. In a closed door meeting with the committee members, Blumenthal turned over 60 emails that he had exchanged with Hillary Clinton. The transcript of this closed-door meeting has not been released. Once the Benghazi committee crosschecked the emails that Blumenthal turned over to them with the ones Clinton had handed over to the State Department, they found that she had not turned over nine emails and portions of six others – 15 emails in all were unaccounted for.
How are these 15 emails from Sidney Blumenthal missing from the 55,000 pages of emails Clinton turned over? The State Department has admitted to not having these emails from Blumenthal in their records after the Benghazi committee gave it to them. Did Hillary Clinton erase these Benghazi-related emails from her private server before turning everything over?
We could not know the answers to these questions until September 2015, when the State Department released a new 1,500 pages of Clinton’s emails. These emails were previously undisclosed to the Benghazi committee.
So did Hillary Clinton’s missing emails with Blumenthal contain sensitive information relating to the Benghazi attacks, or any other issue?
It seems like it.
One analysis has found that at least 23 messages between Clinton and Blumenthal contain potentially classified information. Blumenthal in fact prefaced many of his intelligence memos to Clinton by saying they came from “an extremely sensitive source” and the information “should be handled with care.” This throws into doubt Clinton’s argument that she did not know information was classified because it was not “marked classified”. Seven emails between her and Blumenthal have had select paragraphs, and even entire pages redacted. This June 2012 memo about Germany has been completely redacted, and this September 2012 memo has even the subject line hidden.
Blumenthal’s memos about Libya mostly dealt with intelligence surrounding the country’s 2011 civil war, but many reveal how he solicited Clinton’s support in pushing his business ventures. In an April 2011 memo, Blumenthal suggests that the new Libyan government hire private security firms for training, protection and medical supplies. He suggested that his own firm, Osprey Global Solutions, broker these deals. Clinton forwarded these emails to her aides and said “the idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered.” In August 2011, Osprey Global Solutions signed a contract with the new Libyan government to provide these services.
Blumenthal also suggested that America more intensively support the Libyan rebels by sending A-10 “Warthog” aircraft instead of Predator drones. The United States did in fact deploy six A-10s as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the coalition bombing to topple the Gaddafi regime.
There is no evidence from the emails provided that Blumenthal’s suggestion directly translated into State Department policy. If the FBI retrieves any emails from her “wiped” server that reveal this to be true, it is a violation of foreign lobbying laws and Clinton could be charged with public corruption. If the FBI recovers any other deleted emails which are found to contain work-related information, she could be charged with tampering of evidence and an obstruction of justice.
However, the most incriminating email from Blumenthal to Clinton is a memo where he reveals the name of a CIA intelligence operative in Libya. In a March 2011 memo, Blumenthal wrote “Tyler spoke to a colleague currently at the CIA, who told him the agency had been dependent for intelligence from [redacted due to sources and methods].” Clinton forwarded this email to one of her aides. (“Tyler” is Tyler Drumheller a former CIA operative who left and joined a private consulting firm)
This is indisputable proof that Hillary Clinton not only possessed classified information, even if it was not marked classified, but willfully transmitted it to others. This information falls under the purview of a 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement Clinton signed which stipulates that “classified information is marked or unmarked classified information” and would be considered “born classified” information. John Rizzo, a former general counsel at the CIA, said of the memo “it’s the most sensitive kind of classified information — the identity of a human source.”
“This is a serious breach of national security,”retired Army Col. Larry Mrozinski said, and “a clear violation of the law.”Anybody else would have already lost their security clearance and be subjected to an espionage investigation.”
Clinton, by law, was supposed to report this improper disclosure of classified information to Department of State Inspector General. But interestingly during her tenure, there was no Inspector General for the State Department, the longest there had been an absence in that position since 1957. Clinton is one of ten members of the US government which determines what is classified information, yet still forwarded this email to one of her aides – debunking her claim that she never sent classified information through her private server.
If the FBI concludes that the identity and location of this individual was authentic, then Sidney Blumenthal, an employee of the Clinton Foundation, was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to the Secretary of State’s private e-mail server – even though he was never given a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. Something explicitly forbidden in the 2009 Non-Disclosure agreement which says that any information sent has been “verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it”. This qualifies as a violation of Section 793 of US Title 18 for transmitting information “of the national defense” to someone “not entitled to received it.” The punishment is a fine and up to 10 years in prison.
Sidney Blumenthal is currently a narrator on CNN’s “Race to the White House” original series.
We will actually return to Blumenthal when we discuss what really happened in Benghazi. Here to skip ahead if you like.
(2) Hillary Clinton transferring her data to Platte River Networks
There is a second interesting revelation regarding communicating sensitive information to someone not entitled to receive it. Get ready for this one.
After Hillary stepped down from Secretary of State in February 2013, she chose to upgrade her private email server. In June 2013, a small IT company in Denver called Platte River Networks won a contract to provide information technology services to Bill and Hillary Clinton, which included taking possession of Hillary’s email server while she was Secretary of State. The role of Platte River Networks was to “upgrade, secure and manage the e-mail server for both the Clintons and their staff beginning June 2013.”
This was a huge contract for a company that had actually never held a federal contract before, had no prior relationship with the Clintons, and who’s most notable accomplishment at the time was winning the 2012 Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce’s Small Business of the Year award.
Jim Zimmerman, who worked as a field engineer at Platte River from 2010 to 2013, said he recalled a staff meeting where company executives announced they had won the Clinton contract. They told employees that it was a “private job” and asked that they keep word of the work quiet.
Zimmerman said the executives did not describe how their Denver company had won the work, but he noted that they seemed pleased.
“Who wouldn’t be?” he said. “We were a small company.”
In June 2013, the company took Clinton’s server from her home in New York and transferred it to a secure facility in New Jersey. It was here the data from her original server was “migrated” to a new server for the purpose of making the transition to Platte River Networks.
Unsurprisingly, Platte River Networks did not have clearance to handle classified government information. A spokeswoman for an agency within the Defense Department that vets companies for security clearances said her office had not extended one to Platte River Networks. And the company has admitted that as far as it knows their employees never held formal government-issued security clearances. And let’s also not forget, that one of the “worst hacks in US history” came after she left the State Department. Which means her email server was in their hands. The State Department informed Platte River of the attempted attacks into their server from China in February 2014, Korea in March of that year and Germany in June of that year
Given that we know (“know”) there is top secret information contained on this server, and there is an exchange which proves that she is aware that sensitive information could come to her email; is her decision to upgrade her server at the hands of a company not cleared to handle classified information, especially when that information was getting hacked into, evidence of her willfully transmitting information of the national defense “to any person not entitled to receive it”?
Seems like it to me.
We’re actually not done with Platte River Networks, they will be re-visited when we ask why Clinton deleted her emails because several Platte River employees have gone on the record saying they actually feared a cover up when the FBI became interested in their server. Suffice it to say, this arrangement with the Clinton’s has not worked out in the company’s favor. The company’s VP said since the outbreak of the scandal they have repeatedly received death threats and phone calls from screaming strangers. The company has removed from biographies of its executives on their Website as well as testimonials from some of its customers, and has hired a crisis-communications expert.
Clinton’s Side: The Clinton defense against Section 793(d) will rely primarily on a 1941 Supreme Court case which challenged whether the phrase “national defense” in the Espionage Law was too vague and over-broad.
“we find no uncertainty in this statute which deprives a person of the ability to predetermine whether a contemplated action is criminal under the provisions of this law. The obvious delimiting words in the statute are those requiring intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation. This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith.”
So unless the FBI can prove that Hillary was purposefully acting to retain, transmit or delete information that can be “used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation”, the information she handed over to Platte is okay.
I think the FBI will be able to do that.
Not only has the State Department said there are emails at the highest level of classification which I’m interpreting to be information “to the injury of the United States”; but Hillary Clinton also knowingly transmitted classified information relating to the national defense “that would be used to the advantage of any foreign nation.” A fact made clear by her correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal in revealing the name of a CIA intelligence operative. But as you will see, there is an email which contains information that implicates a US ally in being responsible for the attack that killed 4 Americans at the US consulate in Benghazi. She has either deleted that email, or has it on her original private server (and illegally migrated it to the Platte River Networks server), but it is now in the hands of the State Department who is refusing to release it to the public.
As per the other charges in Section 793(d), here is Ruth Marcus the Harvard Law graduate and Washington Post writer mentioned earlier
Another possible prosecutorial avenue involves the Espionage Act. Section 793(d) makes it a felony for a person entrusted with “information relating to the national defense” who “willfully communicates, delivers [or] transmits” it to an unauthorized person. That might be a stretch given the willfully requirement.
The Clinton team will have to argue that she did not “willfully” transmit classified information to Platte River Network. I think we are all interested to see that explanation, there could very well be a great one that I haven’t thought about. To be fair, I’m not sure Ruth Marcus made these comments having even known about the Platte River Networks contract.
Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, declined to comment on questions about Platte River Networks and its selection to take over Hillary’s email server.
But here is Clinton’s best argument in the whole case. And the revelation of which has made many believe the email scandal is overblown.
Clinton’s best argument is that previous Secretaries of State have ALSO willfully sent classified information on a private email. They were not indicted, or had any inquiry raised into their emailing practices. Raising the point that “the private-email problem is not a Hillary Clinton problem. It’s a governmentwide problem that’s existed since the advent of email itself.”
I don’t know how exactly that argument will be viewed in a court, because what if they all did something wrong! And yes, we should have an inquiry into the email practices of Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, and their actions in no way excuse Clinton’s. Three wrongs don’t make a right.
But the better answer is that none of the sensitive emails Powell or Rice sent, that have now been retroactively classified, are considered Special Access Program, Top Secret, or Special Compartment Information (or even close). Colin Powell in fact had only two of his emails be retroactively classified, while Clinton has had thousands. Only Hillary had information that the government considers its highest secrets. This is charge unique to her, and why her emails especially implicate information “of the national defense.” Let’s also put it out there that Rice and Powell had a state.gov email and a personal account, whereas Hillary put everything exclusively on her personal email. On a personal server. This is why PolitiFact has rated her claim that what she did was similar to previous Secretaries to be – mostly false.
Perhaps most damningly was when current Secretary of State John Kerry was asked by Congress a month ago if he would use or allow his staff to use a private server to send and receive classified information. This is what he said:
“In today’s world, given all that we’ve learned and what we understand about the vulnerability of our system, we don’t do that, no. ”
The last violation of Section 793 is Section F –
I don’t know how likely it is that she will be found guilty of this.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer
Clinton’s Side: Here is Dan Abrams once more
Here, if it is determined that by “gross negligence” she permitted information “relating to the national defense” (as opposed to the more formal “classified” definition) “to be removed from its proper place of custody,” then she could be facing up to 10 years behind bars.
Reading this as a layperson one might think this could be an easier crime to prove. Not so.
Could an aggressive prosecutor argue that it was grossly negligent for her to run all of her emails out of her home server and that it included “national defense” information “removed from its proper place of custody?” Sure, but that would also warp the intent and interpretation of this Espionage Law without far more evidence than what we have today.
It is incredibly difficult to prove that Clinton engaged in “gross negligence” given that is currently defined legally as
“A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence….”
It may be hard to prove that in court. But remember how insecure her private email server cybersecurity experts have deemed it to be? Remember that she tried to change State Department protocols to bring an insecure phone into a secure facility? Remember that she was discussing highly classified information from someone outside the government entirely? Remember that all the data handled by a nation’s Secretary of State was knowingly handed over to a private company with no clearance to handle potentially classified government information?
Could that be a lack of care that demonstrates “gross negligence” and “reckless disregard?”
5) You’re just some college kid with no qualifications to talk about this. Has anyone with authority in the government or media agreed with you? Who has disagreed with you?
You would be absolutely correct to ask this, and as a Microbiology and Economics major I’m probably one of the least qualified people to talk about this issue. But luckily I have been blessed with literacy and an ability to use the Internet. And a lot of free time this semester.
But yes there are people that agree and disagree with me. And that’s good. The fact that this scandal is pitting legal minds against each other should be a sign to everyone that this scandal is real.
People who support me:
Michael Muskasey – former US district court judge and Bush Administration Attorney General.
The simple proposition that everyone is equal before the law suggests that Mrs. Clinton’s state of mind—whether mere knowledge of what she was doing as to mishandling classified information; or gross negligence in the case of the mishandling of information relating to national defense; or bad intent as to actual or attempted destruction of email messages; or corrupt intent as to State Department business—justifies a criminal charge of one sort or another.
Andrew McCarthy – former assistant U.S. attorney in the southern district of New York.
“If the press reporting is to be believed, [the case] looks very strong,” McCarthy said. “I say that because the statutes involving mishandling classified information are very prosecution-friendly, and they’re obviously intended to be that way.”
Jason R. Baron – a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.
“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business.”
People who don’t support me (yet):
In addition to Dan Abrams from ABC and Columbia Law, who was cited plenty above
Andrea Mitchell – NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent
So the question is the interactions. Exactly. Let’s say they’re forwarding an AP or New York Times story about the top secret drone program in Pakistan. So that is public source, but then the question is what did she say or what did someone when they forwarded to her say. It’s those comments when they were forwarded that are the critical issue. And that’s the vulnerability. Honestly from my sources and they go pretty high up including — including some of the people who are doing the review for the — inside the intelligence community, I don’t think there is the legal culpability here. I don’t think there is going to be what has been widely reported. For a bunch of reasons. You have to prove intent, you have to prove motive
Laurie Levenson – UCLA Law, Professor of Law and Center for Legal Advocacy at Loyola Law School
Thus, in sorting out Hillary Clinton’s actions, there are at least two critical questions: First, to what extent was using a private email server an “unauthorized” handling of classified information. Second, did Clinton ever knowingly mishandle classified information or act in a grossly negligent manner that led to information being lost, destroyed or stolen?
Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after “leakers,” but not bunglers. Twenty years ago, John Deutsch found himself in hot water and the target of a DOJ investigation for transferring classified materials to his government-owned computer at home — a computer that he used to access a wide range of Internet searches. He was never charged; President Bill Clinton pardoned Deutsch on his last day as president. It remains to be seen what will happen in Hillary Clinton’s case
Ruth Marcus – Harvard Law graduate and Washington Post Columinst calling me out
Could a clever law student fit the fact pattern into a criminal violation? Sure. Would a responsible federal prosecutor pursue it? Hardly — absent new evidence, based on my conversations with experts in such prosecutions.
6) Controversy #1 – was it illegal/criminal for the Secretary of State to conduct all her professional communications on a private email server and not on a government server?
Okay now circling back around to this, which really is the most important question. Let’s see what Hillary said when asked this.
CLINTON: First, the laws and regulations in effect when I was Secretary of State allowed me to use my email for work. That is undisputed.
Secondly, under the Federal Records Act, records are defined as reported information, regardless of its form or characteristics, and in meeting the record keeping obligations, it was my practice to email government officials on their state or other .gov accounts so that the emails were immediately captured and preserved.
Okay let’s go in order.
First, is it undisputed that the laws allowed her to use a private email?
Nope. It is very disputed. The FBI argues that Hillary Clinton’s private email violated these three laws while in office: The Federal Records Act, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Regulations and The Freedom of Information Act. I’ll address them sequentially.
Hillary’s Side: The Clinton argument from the get-go has been that there is no law that prevents federal employees from having a non-government, personal email as long as relevant work-related documents are preserved. She points to several other public officials who used private emails while in office, including former Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell and that the current Secretary of State John Kerry is the first to primarily use a state.gov email account.
An important part of her defense is that she followed all the rules DURING her tenure. After she left the State Department in 2013, President Obama signed an update to the Federal Records Act in 2014 that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses, if they also copy or send the emails to their official account within 20 days of transmission. Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, “she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time”, said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.
As far as deleting or destroying relevant records, she says the emails that were destroyed on her server were personal correspondence that she has the legal right to decide what to do with.
FBI’s Side: First, anyone can use a private email for personal correspondence, and you can do whatever you want with it. But that would usually require one to go through a commercial vendor like Google or Yahoo, someone the government can go to if they want/need information. It’s true that former Secretaries of State used a private email, but Clinton went as far as to have a private server where she exclusively communicated all of her personal and professional messages; making her the sole arbiter of what the government can and cannot see. No other Secretary of State, or public official for that matter, has done that. The other differences between Clinton and the previous Secretaries of State have already been explained in the previous section. Remember, PolitiFact rated this comparison – mostly false.
The FBI will likely even reference a 2005 State Department policy on “sensitive but unclassified information” which explains that employees should conduct “normal day-to-day operations” through the State Department’s official email system to protect the security of the emails’ contents.
Second, while it may be true that she did not technically violate the Federal Records Act while in office, she certainly violated the spirit of the law by avoiding oversight from anyone in the government. John Wonderlich from The Sunlight Foundation, an American nonprofit organization that advocates for open government, sums up this point well:
“[O]ur expectations for public service are [that] public servants use their official email accounts.
The final arbiter of what’s public or what’s turned over to Congress shouldn’t be private staff working for Hillary Clinton. It should be State Department employees who are bound by duty to the public interest.”
Third, well we’ll get to the deleting emails part soon enough.
(2) National Archives and Records Administration‘s (NARA) regulations. NARA Regulations require all federal records to be maintained “by the agency” and maintain “ready retrieval of electronic records”. If any records are requested by the public or Congress, they are “readily found when needed”.
Hillary’s Side: Her team points to this 2009 National Archives regulation that recognizes the right to use a non-government email:
“[a]gencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system”
How she believes that her emails “are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system” will be explained in the second statement she made. Their main argument is that there is a colossal difference between “wrong,” and “improper” and a federal crime.
FBI’s Side: They would disagree with her defense of the 2009 National Archives Regulation because they don’t think her emails were “preserved in the appropriate agency record-keeping system” since they were on a personal server (this will be addressed more when looking at her second statement). The off-site nature of her server would also clearly make it harder for Congress to “readily” access information.
And what about the fact that thousands of her work-related emails were on a USB Flash drive with her lawyer? That doesn’t seem like the “appropriate record-keeping system.” If it’s determined that her emails were housed in what could be considered an “unauthorized” device instead of “the appropriate record-keeping system” she is in violation of Section 1924 of Title 18.
(3) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA): The FOIA has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. It is often described as the law that keeps citizens in the know about their government. Federal agencies are required to disclose any information requested under the FOIA unless it falls under one of nine exemptions which protect interests such as personal privacy, national security, and law enforcement
**Most of the information made public in Hillary’s email’s are a result of the 35 active lawsuits against the State Department under the FOIA.
Hillary’s Side: Clinton argues that all federal records are in the hands of the agency and that she “took the unprecedented step of asking that the State Department make all my work-related emails public for everyone to see.” Even though all her communications were on her personal server, the 55,000 pages of work-related emails she provided to the State Department now gives them the “ready retrieval of records” of all official communications for any Freedom of Information Act inquiry.
FBI’s Side: Yes, the State Department can respond to FOIA requests now, but they didn’t have the ability to do that until two years after she left office when Congress had to ask for them. Not surprising that the Inspector General had issued a scathing report that during her tenure the Clinton State department was abysmal at responding to FOIA requests.
Dan Metcalfe, who was the head of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy from 1981 to 2007, blasted Clinton saying that “she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it — perhaps forever.” Calling her actions “a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better.”
Second, did she meet the Federal Records Act by emailing officials on their government email (.gov) accounts, so her emails were preserved on the record?
Depends on who you ask. But many argue this question misses the boat entirely. Because it relies on a passing off of her responsibility to properly maintain records, onto every one else she could’ve possibly emailed.
Hillary’s Side: Clinton argues that because she emailed others on their official government .gov email account, almost 90-95% of her communications are logged into the federal record system before she ever turned over any emails. This would technically put her within the boundaries of the Federal Records Act since the agency could hold onto her official communications (with a 5-10% leeway I guess?).
This issue came up during her 11 hour grilling in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi last October.
Rep. Trey Gowdy : “I have not heard anyone other than you ever cite that figure. Who told you that 90 to 95 percent of your e-mails were in the State Department system? Who told you that?”
Clinton: “We learned that from the State Department and their analysis of the e-mails that were already on the system. We were trying to help them close some gaps that they had.”
Unfortunately for her, that story was not corroborated by the State Department. Let’s look at the transcript when Deputy Spokesperson for the State Department Mark Toner was asked about this the day after the testimony.
QUESTION: Can you tell us who at the State Department would have informed Clinton or her aides that 90 to 95 percent of the emails had been captured in State Department systems?
MR TONER: So, we’re aware of that exchange and appreciate the question. I’m not, frankly, in a position to do that right now. I would have to refer you, frankly, to her campaign team, which has used that figure previously, I think, and explained it in a fact sheet that they released. It was, frankly, her campaign staff that used it – the figure – so they can give you more information about the rationale or the background behind it. I’m not aware that we have given that figure, but again, I’m not in a position right now to confirm that.
The State Department now won’t talk to GOP investigators regarding the email scandal.
FBI’s Side: Okay so the State Department didn’t tell her that 90% of her emails were in the system. So is there a way to know how many were actually recorded? This is from that same 11 hour testimony.
Rep. Trey Gowdy : The Inspector General Report found that less than one percent, less than one percent of State Department emails, record emails were captured. So they give a number of less than one percent, and you give a number of 90 percent.
Clinton: Well I don’t know what you are referring to. I can only speak about my emails, my work related emails
This is the Inspector General report Rep. Trey Gowdy is referring to, which reported –
A 2009 upgrade in the Department of State’s system facilitated the preservation of emails as official records. However, Department of State employees have not received adequate training or guidance on their responsibilities for using those systems to preserve “record emails.” In 2011, employees created 61,156 record emails out of more than a billion emails sent. Employees created 41,749 record emails in 2013.
The Inspector General is saying .6% of all State Department emails are captured in the system. Something consistent with his earlier report that the State Department has been historically bad at responding to Freedom of Information requests from citizen groups and Congress.
Hillary’s only defense for why her emails could have possibly abided by the Federal Records Act not only falls flat, but *looks* like she is actively trying to mislead Congressional investigators into thinking more of her emails are logged in public records based on information that, at this point, has only been provided by her campaign.
Maybe this is why there are rumors that the FBI may also pursue a charge for giving “materially false statements” to federal agents. This would be violation of US Title 18 Section 1001 – violations of the code are punishable by up to five years in prison.
7) Controversy #3 – why did she delete over 30,000 emails from her private server?
The decision to delete the remaining contents on her server stands out as the most incriminating of all of her actions, even if it is not deemed so legally, because it sends the perception of someone with something to hide…especially when she already had a private email server to begin with.
Clinton argues that she deleted the remaining contents on her server after turning over all her work-related emails to Congress because they were personal emails that weren’t relevant to her work, like about her daughter’s wedding and yoga. Hillary is legally allowed to delete personal correspondence.
So let’s look at WHEN she deleted her emails, because that can give us some clue into the WHY.
Summer of 2014: The State Department asks Hillary Clinton to turn over all correspondence for the public record, pursuant to requests from Congress’s investigation into the Benghazi attacks.
July-December 2014: Clinton says her lawyers decided which of her emails were work related and which were personal.
December 5th, 2014: Clinton officially submitted 30,490 emails, in the form of 55,000 pages, to the State Department as all her work-related emails. Her emails deemed personal were subsequently deleted.
March 2nd, 2015: Hillary’s use of a private email server is reported to the public.
March 27th, 2015: The House Select Committee subpoenaed (strongly requested) that she give her private email server to Congress. Clinton’s lawyer responded saying that everything remaining on the server had been deleted and rejected the notion of turning over her email server to a third-party independent investigation.
“During the fall of 2014, Secretary Clinton’s legal representative reviewed her email@example.com account for the time period from Jan. 21, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013,” Kendall wrote. “After the review was completed to identify and provide to the Department of State all of the secretary’s work-related and potentially work-related emails, the secretary chose not to keep her non-record personal emails and asked that her account (which was no longer in active use) be set to retain only the most recent 60 days of email.”
“No emails from firstname.lastname@example.org for the time period Jan. 21, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013, reside on the server. Thus, there are no email@example.com e-mails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate and legally authorized.”
August 11th, 2015: Clinton turns over her private email server to the Justice Department
So when exactly did she delete her emails? Here’s what the folks at PolitiFact say
To recap, Clinton’s private server was wiped clean —technically, filtering out emails older than 60 days — sometime between Dec. 5, 2014, and March 27, 2015. No clearer timeline has been stated.
I think we can see how this timeline looks suspicious to Congressional investigators.
Republicans argue that Hillary Clinton knew that Congress would ask for her email server the moment the State Department approached her over the summer asking her to turn over her emails to them . So in the interim 3.5 months after Hillary turned over her self-determined “work-related” emails to the State Department, but before Congress asked her to turn over the entire server, she deleted the remaining emails. Emails that her team alone determined to be personal and not work-related.
The timing of her decision to delete all her personal emails two years after leaving the State Department, and just three months before being asked to turn over her server, raises significant suspicion that this wasn’t just a routine cleaning-house of old email junk, but a calculated decision to delete any emails that could incriminate her in the Benghazi investigation, or something else. Thus, she dubbed these emails as personal and got rid of them before she’d be asked to turn them over. This implicates her in an obstruction of justice, and a violation of her 2009 Non-Disclosure Agreement.
When asked if she deleted her emails when facing a subpoena (a summoning to testify/submit evidence), Clinton faced severe backlash from Republicans when she said in an interview “I’ve never been under subpoena.”
She was technically still under subpoena at the time she deleted her emails for all documents related to the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, which they argue she may have removed documents relating to. Clinton argues that the 900 pages provided to the Benghazi committee had already fulfilled that obligation.
So all of her emails are completely gone?
Not necessarily. This where computer forensic experts have launched into a debate about “deleting” information versus “wiping” information.
From Oxford graduate, and National Review writer Charles Cooke –
Unless a hard disk is deliberately and comprehensively wiped clean — “overwritten” in the correct parlance — it will retain a good amount of useful, accessible, intact information. On almost every system available, what appears to the user’s eye to have been “trashed” is in fact kept around unblemished until such time as the space it’s taking up is needed for something else. From the point of view of the person controlling the operating system, files that have been “erased” may indeed be inaccessible. For a person who knows what he is doing, however, those files can often be easily retrieved.
If she wiped her server, that means she intentionally made it so that no information could ever be recovered. If she simply hit the delete key, the FBI would likely be able to recover most of the information.
Hillary Clinton would not say whether the server had been wiped when she was asked about the issue after a town hall in North Las Vegas. A now infamous quote.
“What, like with a cloth or something? … I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”
But which server is in the hands of FBI investigators when she turned it over in August 2015? This question has been almost completely ignored in the reporting of this scandal.
To anyone not reading sequentially, this was first brought up in Controversy #2 regarding illegal transmission of classified information.
Let’s go back to our friends at Platte River Networks. Remember that there are now *two email servers* at play.
Hillary Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State in February 2013 and upgraded her server through Platte River Networks in June 2013. That summer Platte River Networks took Clinton’s email server from her home in New York, transferred it to a facility in New Jersey, and migrated the data to a new email server. The original server remained in the New Jersey facility until it was picked up by the FBI last August.
Once FBI investigators began to take an interest in the company and the server, employees at Platte River Networks began to suspect a coverup. This is from a letter submitted by Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson.
“Any chance you found an old email with their directive to cut the backup back in Oct-Feb,” one Platte River employee asked another.
“I know they had you cut it once in Oct-Nov, then again to 30day in Feb-ish.”
“Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shaddy shit”
These conversations suggest that the Clinton team was worried that all the data on the original server remained intact after the migration, and that they asked Platte to “cut the backup” to remove that information back between October and February before the FBI would come ask for it.
The “backup” likely refers to the cloud-based backup operated by tech company Datto Inc who Platte River Networks had partnered with.
Though Clinton claimed this server was blank, the FBI has reported that it was able to recover data from this original server. Whether or not it’s all of the original data, hopefully we will see what, if anything, Hillary Clinton was trying to hide.
These events are highly reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal. You have two public figures at the highest level of government, accused of engaging in illegal activity, partially release evidence and attempt to hide potentially incriminating material.
As veteran Washington DC reporter Bob Woodward has said.
It, in a way, reminds me of the Nixon tapes. Thousands of hours of secretly recorded conversations that Nixon thought were exclusively his.
The only difference is, the Supreme Court ruled that Nixon had to turn over his tapes, he didn’t destroy them. Hillary has deleted her emails. While she may still face legal consequences, we should not understate the fact that right before the start of a Congressional investigation into her record-keeping practices, she deleted half of her records. And let’s not forget, Richard Nixon resigned as President. What will Hillary Clinton do if found guilty?
We may never find out what was in those 31,000+ emails, and maybe we shouldn’t since she says they’re about her personal life, but what if in that pile of deleted emails there was something that made American’s question everything their government has told them?
8) What did Hillary Clinton have to hide about the Benghazi attacks?
This is the question we have wanted answered for so long, and that the US government has wasted millions of dollars in investigations and inquiries to find out. Here is your answer. Free of charge.
The terrorist group that attacked the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012, which resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans, was funded and armed by Saudi Arabia.
Here is an email that Hillary Clinton has either deleted from her server, or has been deemed by the State Department as one of the 22 emails that is Top Secret and too classified to be revealed to the public. Here is a portion of that hacked email that every American citizen needs to read.
*Transcribed from image link above, there is no electronic copy of this email available to the public.
Algerians are keeping information received from the French DGSE confidential. According to the source, this information concerned the funding of the MBM operation and a possible link to the Ansar al Sharia attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi Libya on September 11, 2012, during which the U.S. Ambassador was killed. This individual adds that this information provided by the French service indicates that the funding for both attacks originated with wealthy Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia. During July and August 2012 these financiers provided funds to AQIM contacts in Southern Europe, who in turn passed the money onto AQIM operatives in Mauritania. These funds were eventually provided to Ansar al Sharia and its allied militias in the Benghazi region in support of their attack on the U.S. consulate. The money was used to recruit operatives and purchase ammunitions and supplies.
This person adds that the same tradecraft was used to provide money used by MBM to organize the In Amenas attack. The request for these funds apparently originated in mid-January 2013, and the Algerians noted the speed with which the AQIM support network was able to pass them on to MBM organization leads at their camps in Mauritania. In a separate conversation, the Algerian DGSE officers note in private that Libyan intelligence officers tell them that the Benghazi attacks were funded by these financiers in Saudi Arabia. In a separate conversation, the Algerian DGSE officers note in private that Libyan intelligence officers tell them that the Benghazi attacks were funded by these financiers in Saudi Arabia.
This email is truly shocking.
But to be clear, this leaked email does not say that the Saudi Arabian government is directly responsible for funding the terrorists, it says that “Sunni Islamists” are. Saudi Arabia is almost entirely made up of Sunni Muslims – so the individuals funding these groups could be coming from any person(s) in Saudi Arabia who has the money to fund terrorism. There are a lot of wealthy people in Saudi Arabia. Just like there are a lot of wealthy people in America who also fund dangerous ideals, like denying climate change (which scientists have told us will kill more people than terrorism).
My assertion, based on no evidence at all, is that some, if not all, of these “Sunni Islamists”, likely of the Salafism/Wahhabism sect, are members or have ties to the Saudi Kingdom.
The same Saudi Kingdom that has donated millions of dollars to The Clinton Foundation. So much so that they are in fact one of the 17 entities listed on the foundation’s website who have contributed at the highest level, somewhere between $10 million and $25 million.
Is this the lie that Hillary Clinton has been forced to maintain for 4 years? Amongst several other verifiable untruths that began the moment after a terrorist attack against the US…two months before voting day for Barack Obama’s re-election.
Was her unwillingness to reveal this intelligence about the attacks in Benghazi in order to not jeopardize possible campaign donations from one of her largest donors? A donor which was donating to the Clinton Foundation before Clinton was appointed Secretary of State, did not give while she was in office, and then resumed giving once she left office.
These are precisely the types of ethical conflicts of interest that our laws were designed to prevent.
But instead we have spent the last 4 years rehashing these arcane arguments of “talking points” and “protests to a YouTube video” and other shiny objects that have been mere distractions from what seems like such a simple answer now. What was Congress even investigating this whole time?
But is potentially endangering campaign contributions the only reason Clinton hasn’t come out to the public and said that Saudi Arabia was behind the attacks?
Perhaps Hillary Clinton is simply doing her part to cover up what I consider to be America’s dirtiest, and worst kept, secret in the 21st century. That the United States is forced to ally itself with a despotic, repressive monarchy, which exports terrorism internationally, because they control the price of our oil.
If the allegations in this leaked email hack are true (and I haven’t read anything to the contrary), what other questions can we ask about Saudi Arabia in relation to the pressing issues of our time? Is it possible that the “wealthy Sunni Islamists” in Saudi Arabia who funded the terrorists that killed 4 Americans in Benghazi and who may have played a hand in helping 15 of the 19 hijackers in 9/11, could be the same ones funding the Sunni-affiliated terrorist group which killed 14 Americans in San Bernardino three months ago – the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, otherwise known as ISIL?
As Oscar Wilde once said, “True friends stab you in the front.”
9) How did you acquire this information about Benghazi?
I’m definitely not the only person that has figured this out. I’m just the first one willing to piece together all the evidence and present it in context with the email scandal.
Our dear friend Sidney Blumenthal has returned.
For those are not reading sequentially, I’ll re-summarize from Chapter 4 Part II.
In June 2015, the State Department received 15 Libya related emails that Hillary Clinton had not turned over in her 55,000 pages and had possibly deleted. These 15 emails were turned over by longtime confidant and advisor to the Clinton’s – Sidney Blumenthal.
Blumenthal was not a member of the State Department, or of the government at all, he was an employee of The Clinton Foundation. In his unofficial role, he routinely provided Clinton with intelligence memos about Libya. And with whom she encouraged to continue sending her information. After Clinton turned over all her work-related emails to the State Department in December 2014, it was revealed in May 2015 that she had extensively corresponded with him during the Benghazi attacks.
GOP investigators asserted that Clinton relied on Blumenthal for advice and sent it to others at State while ignoring requests from Ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi for added security. It didn’t help when it was revealed that Ambassador Stevens, who was killed in the attack, did not even have Clinton’s email address while Blumenthal did.
“A man who was a friend of yours, who had never been to Libya, didn’t know much about it, at least that was his testimony, didn’t know much about it, every one of those reports that he sent on to you that had to do with situations on the ground in Libya, those made it to your desk,” Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) declared. “You asked for more of them. You read them. You corresponded with him. And yet the folks that worked for you didn’t have the same courtesy.”
After his and Clinton’s communications about Libya were revealed, he was subpoenaed by the committee investigating the Benghazi attacks in May 2015. It was here that he turned over dozens of emails he had exchanged with Secretary Clinton when she was in office.
The State Department crosschecked the emails that Blumenthal turned over to Congress with the ones Clinton had handed over and found that she had not provided nine of them and portions of six others.
Though Clinton claimed the contents of these emails were not classified, this had been the smoking gun Republican investigators had been looking for.
Investigators have said that at least two emails she kept from the State Department contained information regarding the new Libyan government that had replaced the now toppled Muammar Gaddafi. And that email indicated that Libyan leaders were “well aware” of which “major oil companies and international banks” supported them during the rebellion, information they would “factor into decisions” about about who would be given access to the country’s rich oil reserves.
Another memo contains details about how new Libyan leaders were forging business relationships with private firms. Blumenthal told Clinton his sources were concerned about the focus of international interest on Libya’s oil sector, playing up the importance of other “private firms” that could provide “medical assistance.” Something he admitted to having a personal financial stake in.
Most damningly, as mentioned earlier, he revealed the name of a CIA intelligence operative in one of his memos to Clinton.
This is all we have been told about Sidney Blumenthal’s correspondence with Clinton regarding Libya.
But the damning evidence is already public.
Let’s just do this Google Search – “Sidney Blumenthal Libya emails missing”
Four of Blumenthal’s emails were leaked as a result of a 2013 hack into his AOL account by a Romanian hacker, who went by the alias “Guccifer.” He leaked these 4 emails to Russia Today back in March 2013. The hacked emails were released in Comic Sans font on a pink background with badly drawn letter “G” as a watermark, which may have been why no one took them that seriously at the time.
Three of the emails (first, second, third) from the hack were reported by Clinton to the State Department, and showed her having thought Blumenthal’s suggestions were valuable enough to have been forwarded it several of her aides.
The fourth email, which is only available in the original leak and the one describing Saudi Arabia’s hand in the attacks, was not handed over by Clinton to the State Department.
And the reason is unbelievable. The email from Blumenthal to Clinton was sent on February 16th, 2013. Hillary Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State on February 1st, 2013. It is not a part of her records from her time as Secretary of State. It is not a work-related email.
If you go back to the section where I describe the timeline of Hillary having deleted her emails – this is the quote from her lawyers when she informed Congress that all the emails on her server had been deleted.
“During the fall of 2014, Secretary Clinton’s legal representative reviewed her firstname.lastname@example.org account for the time period from Jan. 21, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013″
One would think that even if Clinton wasn’t required to turn over this email, that she would have volunteered this, especially since she was still under a 2012 subpoena for all emails specifically regarding Benghazi. Given that, her impassioned outburst during a 2013 Benghazi hearing now comes undone.
“Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans,” Clinton said. “What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”
It makes a difference. Because before we didn’t know that the guys out for a walk may have been paid by the same people who are also paying you.
So how do we know that this specific email is missing?
Not only did “Guccifer” release 4 leaked emails, but also a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL inbox (great presence of mind by him to make this available for me).
If we cross reference this screenshot with the State Departments FOIA release of Clinton’s emails, you will notice that the email titled “H: Libya security latest. Sid” – is missing
So there are two explanations for this missing email.
First, it was dubbed as a personal email and deleted with the rest of her personal emails. This qualifies as an obstruction of justice.
Second, this email is in the hands of the State Department because it has either been recovered by the original server, or it is one of the 15 emails turned over by Sidney Blumenthal and has been deemed too classified to release to the public. This would indicate that Blumenthal, a Clinton Foundation employee, was sending highly classified information from his AOL account to the Secretary of State’s private e-mail server even though he never even had a security clearance to deal with such sensitive information in the first place. A violation of US Title 18 Section 793.
During a close-door meeting with Blumenthal, of which the transcript has not been released, GOP investigators have likely referenced this email hack as original evidence that Blumenthal had corresponded with Clinton over Libya. They almost certainly asked him to verify the contents of the hack were the emails he sent to Clinton while she was Secretary of State, including the email sent on February 16th, 2013.
There are likely even more messages in either Blumenthal’s 15 turned over emails or the 22 emails classified by the State Department, which detail the level of involvement from Saudi Arabia, a US ally, in funding the assassination of 4 Americans in Benghazi.
Or God knows what else…
This site claims that WikiLeaks has accessed the remaining trove of Hillary’s emails (as of March 21, 2016) which allegedly reveal details about her role in “spreading chaos and extremism in Libya”, “oil privatization in Mexico”, “trying to overthrow Bashar al-Assad“.
10) What is the relationship between Hillary Clinton, The Clinton Foundation, and the office of the Secretary of State?
This question gets at the crux of the email scandal – that public servants, even those at the highest level, may face conflicts of interest. Let’s remember that Sidney Blumenthal was in fact a Clinton Foundation employee. And who now, for some reason, is one of the narrators on CNN’s Race to the White House original series.
The Clinton Foundation was formed in 2001 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization with the mission to “strengthen the capacity of people throughout the world to meet the challenges of global interdependence.”
The foundation’s primary efforts have been to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity and preventable diseases as well as helping communities address the effects of climate change. For its efforts, the Foundation has received praise from philanthropic experts and has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans.
In 2015, as rumors were heating up for Hillary Clinton’s announcement to run for President, it was reported that The Clinton Foundation had raised almost $2 billion in 2014. Many of these contributions came from from let’s say…well to do individuals. As a result, many questions have been raised about the foundation’s financial practices, its fundraising from foreign governments, from multi-national corporations, and about the transparency of reporting its donors (like not disclosing $20 million in donations).
The Clinton Foundation is suspected by GOP critics as a hidden slush fund of campaign contributions.
The day after Hillary announced her campaign for the Presidency, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said –
“But the difference is, all those other entities — Super PACs, parties, individual candidates — they can’t take money from kings of Saudi Arabia and Morocco and Oman and Yemen, and that’s what Hillary Clinton did. And so she’s going to have to account for this money.”
Priebus’ statement goes as far as to suggest that contributions from foreign governments, including from countries like Yemen, which is now basically the new home of Al Qaeda, to the Clinton Foundation, may have actually benefitted Clinton herself.
It is true, The Clinton Foundation has received vast sums of money from these countries and whether or not it directly went to benefit Hillary and her campaign is questionable. But are they simply paying back the favor?
It’s been reported that the same foreign governments ,who are The Clinton Foundation’s largest donors, received lucrative arms deals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis.
We know one of these deals was between the United States and Saudi Arabia for $29 billion to send them Boeing fighter jets. Here is a table of defense contractor contributions to The Clinton Foundation.
Of the 22 emails the State Department has determined to be Top Secret, it’s possible that there are emails which detail the web of relationships between the Clinton State Department, The Clinton Foundation, foreign governments, and defense contractors. And if there proves to be recorded evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement (you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours), she could be charged with public corruption and a punishment of two years in prison.
One of the other interesting revelations from Hillary’s emails was the dual-employment of her closest confidante Huma Abedin. Huma was listed as an employee both at the State Department and at a private consulting firm called Teneo. She was also designated as an “advisor” to the Clinton Foundation at this time.
Abedin was given “special government employee” classification in 2012 while she was still working at the State Department. This has raised questions of conflicts of interest when Teneo sought to place one of their clients, Judith Rodin, to the position of the President’s Global Development Council (an unpaid post). Rodin did not end up securing this appointment, and from the emails there is no evidence that Abedin interceded on behalf of Teneo to secure that appointment. But the whole arrangement seems suspect.
Senator Grassley summed this up well
“This is a troubling example of Teneo and the Clinton Foundation seeking State Department help for a Teneo client and Clinton Foundation supporter,” Grassley said in a statement. “It raises serious questions. … Was anyone vetting the potential conflicts of interest? Were there other requests like this, and if so, how were they handled? The State Department ought to release the rest of any such emails in the interest of good government and transparency.”
What can we glean from the fact that Hillary Clinton’s senior most aide, right-hand woman, and closest confidant, held three different positions, 2 at private institutions, while working for the nation’s Secretary of State?
11) Will the FBI really refer her for indictment? Will she be prosecuted?
On March 1st, 2016, FBI Director James B. Comey said
“I can assure you is that I am very close personally to that investigation to ensure that we have the resources we need, including people and technology, and that it’s done the way the FBI tries to do all of it’s work: independently, competently and promptly. That’s our goal, and I’m confident that it’s being done that way, but I can’t give you any more details beyond that.”
He was unsurprisingly opaque about the status of the investigation.
The former chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa said with the “body of evidence” against Hillary Clinton, FBI Director James Comey “really has no choice but to refer this for indictment.”
Hillary doesn’t think the FBI or Department of Justice will pull the trigger. When she was asked this in last week’s Democratic debate what she would do if were referred for indictment, she said “It’s not gonna happen“. Maybe she knows information we don’t (ha ha ha).
Here’s the most important point – The FBI can only make a recommendation to the Department of Justice to prosecute an indictment. And it’s looking increasingly likely that this recommendation will happen.
But the decision to prosecute Hillary lies with President Obama and the Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
This is Mark Jones, a political science fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute –
“If the evidence is so strong and so damaging that Loretta Lynch moves to indict, that says something,” he said. “Because the default for the Obama administration in general and Loretta Lynch in particular would be not to indict. The last thing they want to do is indict Hillary Clinton. They would only do it if there was such strong evidence that there was no gray area or wiggle room whatsoever.” (You can determine for yourself from the evidence I have presented if there is sufficient “gray area or wiggle room”, there very well may be)
The fear now is that because Hillary has virtually locked up the Democratic nomination to be President, basically as of two nights ago, the Justice department will not pursue the indictment for political reasons, even if there is a prosecutable case.
However, Joseph DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney under President Ronald Reagan, said Loretta Lynch would have “no choice” but to prosecute Clinton if the FBI recommended an indictment. While the recommendation would likely come in the form of a confidential memo, “the bureau will no doubt let it be known“ that such a memo exists in order to increase the public pressure on Lynch to proceed with the case.
There have even been suggestions that FBI Director James Comey would resign in protest if the Lynch declines to prosecute the case – something he almost did in 2004 when he felt White House politics were overruling the law. And according to the NY Post, that view is reinforced from other federal agents who have been spreading the word, largely through associates in the private sector, that their boss is getting stonewalled, despite uncovering compelling evidence that Clinton broke the law.
Still, some FBI staffers suggest the probe’s at a point where Comey might quit in protest if Justice ignores a recommendation to pursue a criminal case against Clinton.
Should we be surprised if Loretta Lynch decides the evidence is not overwhelming enough to prosecute Clinton, even though she has promised a fair, independent investigation? Especially given that before becoming attorney general, Lynch served as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York – appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1999. And she would likely retain the Attorney General position in a Clinton administration.
But the decision ultimately lies with President Barack Obama.
These are questions of accountability.
There have been multiple comparisons of Clinton’s case with David Petreaus’s indictment – a case that FBI Director James Comey had directly worked on. Comey is in fact no stranger to investigating the Clinton’s.
But most importantly, mishandling classified information is something DOZENS of lower and middle level intelligence officials have been punished for, for actions far less incriminating in scope and severity. Their punishments included stripping of security clearances, career retirement, agency blacklisting and many times imprisonment.
The available evidence suggests there is a case to be made for misdemeanor, if not felony charges, a reality that is driving the rumors that the FBI is likely to recommend an indictment.
But when would that referral for indictment come? All most all of the evidence has been presented. According to the Washington Post –
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.
So it looks like we are just waiting for these final interviews with Clinton and her aides. The announcement seems only like a question of political timing at this point. We are still in the heat of the primary elections and Clinton has a large lead over Bernie Sanders; she seems poised to claim the nomination. There are reports that a recommendation, one way or the other, would come in May. The Democratic National Convention officially chooses a nominee for President on July 25-28th, 2016. How close to the nomination will the FBI say anything? What kind of pressures are being applied to James Comey, both from within the Obama administration, and from the GOP establishment and GOP Presidential candidates?
But if the FBI recommends an indictment, especially one for felony charges as I have laid the case for, and the Department of Justice does not prosecute, what kind of political firestorm will we see both in Congress and in the media? Especially if the Director of the FBI resigns in protest?
Here is the evidence that a grand-jury has been already been convened and Hillary Clinton will be prosecuted.
1) Clinton’s IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan Pagliano, has been given immunity by a federal judge. This is one of the most recent revelations in the case and was revealed on March 2nd, 2016. A witness is usually granted immunity if he/she will be giving testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to an investigation, and implicates themselves in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading the 5th Amendment and has refused to cooperate with the investigation. Maybe because there are actually a bunch of questions surrounding Pagliano’s hiring.
Many have said a granting of immunity isn’t evidence of guilt, rather a competent lawyer who is seeking protections for their client before cooperating with an investigation. This is a sentiment shared by Barbara Van Gelder, a Washington lawyer with the firm Cozen O’Connor, who has represented numerous witnesses in high-profile congressional and Justice Department investigations. She said, “Just because someone gets immunity isn’t indicative of guilt. It’s just protection.”
Pagliano receiving immunity may ultimately be inconsequential, but one former FBI official said, “you don’t start granting people close to Clinton immunity unless you are seriously looking at charges against your target.”
2) The hacker Marcel Lazar Lehel (“Guccifer”) is being extradited to the United States from Romania. This was revealed on March 4th, 2016 after a Romanian court granted the extradition. Why would Guccifer be extradited to the United States if not to testify that the missing email from Clinton’s records is in fact the hacked email that he released in 2013? Will investigators point to the missing email pointed out in Sidney Blumenthal’s AOL inbox screenshot, and ask Guccifer to confirm the content of that email?
3) Career Justice Department attorneys have been assigned to the case. When Loretta Lynch was asked when the investigation would be wrapped up she said, “That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, as well as career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice.”
This is almost indisputable proof that FBI probe has at least progressed beyond the initial referral, why else would the Department of Justice bring in their own attorneys? It seems fair to assume that DOJ agents may now be using the U.S. government’s full investigative tool box, including subpoena power for individuals, business or phone records, as well as witnesses, to create their case against Hillary Clinton.
4) Attorney General Loretta Lynch would not answer whether or not a grand jury has been convened. I was incidentally in an Uber over spring break in DC, where a replay of her interview with Brett Baier was being broadcast. If there was no grand jury being convened, Lynch would have likely said so to quash rumors that she will be indicted. If a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.
The house of cards is crumbling.
12) What are the implications of an indictment and prosecution?
The lightest possible sentencing would be the same misdemeanor charge David Petreaus pled for mishandling classified information. This would lead to a $100,000, her losing her security clearance and a two-year probation from public service. Apparently it has already been discussed whether or not Clinton would be stripped of her security clearance to handle classified information. It will be interesting to see how she will be able to execute her duties as Commander-in-Chief if she is unable to look at, or handle classified information.
If the FBI recommends an indictment and the DOJ intends to follow through on it, she may challenge the FBI’s finding and take her case to the 8-person Supreme Court.
But the real question is, if Hillary Clinton is recommended for indictment by the FBI, even if the DOJ doesn’t prosecute, what happens in the Presidential race?
Hillary Clinton must either withdraw her name from the Democratic primary, or continue to deny wrongdoing and hope that she will still do well enough during the remaining primary states.
There has even been discussion of Obama pardoning Clinton, especially if only misdemeanor charges are brought against her. But would Hillary still be able to sustain her bid for the Presidency if she is found guilty of any crime? Even if on paper she may be absolved, that’s a damning admission that will likely haunt her in a general election. But if Obama was going to pardon her to erase this problem, he could have done so at any time.
Bernie Sanders now trails Clinton by 288 delegates and it seems like a longshot for him to secure another 988 delegates to win the nomination. However, 22 states have yet to vote and if the tide turns against Hillary Clinton, this Presidential race could be flipped upside down.
Here is Mark Jones a political science fellow at Rice University’s Baker Institute
“Clinton would most likely exit the race if indicted.” If she withdraws, then effectively she “can relieve all of her delegates from their pledge” to support her at the Democratic National Convention in July
If Clinton bows out of the race, it is most likely that Bernie Sanders becomes the Democratic Nominee.
However, Jones argues that if Clinton bows out we would see a brokered convention in July where it’s possible that someone other than Bernie Sanders would be the Democratic nominee. It could be Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Cuomo, Deval Patrick, and maybe even Joe Biden. Even if none of them participated in the last 6 months of televised debates, townhalls, or won a single primary election.
The reason Bernie Sanders chances would not automatically become the nominee in Clinton’s absence is because of the Democratic Party’s high number of superdelegates. Those are delegates not bound by the results of state primaries.
A Democratic strategist who declined to be named in order to speak candidly guessed a Clinton withdrawal would benefit Biden more than Sanders because most superdelegates would flock to the vice president, not the Vermont senator.
“The superdelegates give Biden something to play with,” the strategist explained.
Delegates at national conventions select their party’s nominee using several rounds of ballots, if needed. But more than one round is not typically required, thanks to the primary elections and caucuses that precede the conventions.
“What is interesting is that we’ve been talking quite a bit about the prospect of a Republican brokered convention,” Jones said. “But if Hillary Clinton is indicted, it’s extremely likely that someone who has not been competing at all in the primary process would be the Democratic nominee.”
**So these last two sections don’t involve much actual reporting, but my unsolicited thoughts and opinions on our government, the media and the election. We likely have some different views, but here are my thoughts, and I hope they provide a valuable, or at least interesting, perspective**
13) If Hillary is not indicted, should the email scandal still change my vote?
This is the real question, isn’t it? And depending on who you are, everything you have just read might’ve been thrown out the window the moment you saw the picture above (sorry Ted).
There is no easy answer to this question, but we must be forced to reckon with what issues are important to us, and which candidate can deliver on those issues.
The Hillary Clinton email scandal is above all a character assessment, where she has undeniably demonstrated shades of being dishonest, untrustworthy and deceitful. And that character assessment is alive and well in the polls, but not at the ballot box. As of Tuesday night, she has virtually secured the Democratic nomination for President (absent an indictment).
But the scandal is more importantly a reminder of how powerful monetary incentives can be in guiding decision-making, even when lives are at stake. Incentives so powerful that Hillary would put her career at risk to not uncover them. The Benghazi coverup could even be seen as simply another one of Hillary’s speaking fees, but this time she was paid to stay quiet.
If Bernie Sanders ultimately does not capture the Democratic nomination – this picture above is the biggest tragedy of the 2016 Presidential nomination process. And now I understand how much that handshake meant to her. Because it meant the 8 months of investigation and evidence would be thrown out the window during the Democratic primary. And that’s precisely what happened. The evidence was so damning by the end of last September and the Republicans were so convinced this would topple her that they were saying –
The only concern is whether or not this will actually cause any problems for her presidential campaign. It’s still Fall 2015 and the election isn’t for a year (that’s of course if she makes it past the Democratic primary). The only way for this to stay in the public’s eye is for the GOP to keep hammering away on this so the public doesn’t forget.
Bernie Sanders proudly declared in the first Democratic debate in October that he wouldn’t attack Hillary for the email scandal, and said what was probably in all our minds, that we were tired of hearing about it. I applauded Bernie at the time. But I realize now what a fatal mistake that was. Because it affirmed what the Democratic base wanted to believe, that she was truly innocent and this was all a partisan attack, rather than just finding out the truth. Or at least asking a couple more questions (like our dearest Lincoln Chaffee). And so we’ve gone 4.5 months with absolutely no media coverage of a scandal that could force the presumptive nominee to bow out before the Democratic National Convention. What’s happening.
But not only did Bernie forfeit a serious challenge for the Democratic nomination by failing to capitalize on Hillary’s most glaring weakness (still got my vote), he gave up the opportunity to ask the same questions I have. If he had only treated this as a serious issue, which all the intelligence at the time was telling him to do, how powerful would his main argument have been – that Hillary Clinton only represents wealthy contributors. Even when Americans have died because of them.
Perhaps most importantly, he has robbed the nation, and Hillary, of the chance to see how she would defend herself against the exact legal playbook outlined in this article. She has not had to seriously answer any questions regarding this scandal so far. And now she will likely be interrogated on TV by someone who is a self-proclaimed lawsuit enthusiast or a former solicitor general who has won 2 cases before the Supreme Court. We’ll see how she does.
Just like we’ll see how she holds up if the GOP nominee re-hashes some of the Clinton family’s even more incriminating scandals. The most high profile being the famous Whitewater scandal of the 80’s-90’s involving fraudulent bank loans in Arkansas. Hillary was not only accused of destroying evidence at the time (seems to be a pattern here), but was even involved in a suspicious death in the process (jesus christ).
But how incredible would this story be if whether or not Hillary can run for President, or be fined/imprisoned, has to be decided by our now even-numbered Supreme Court? Not the first time the Supreme Court has chosen our President (*cough* Bush v. Gore).
But let’s also please not forget that a Hillary Clinton presidency will mostly likely be up against a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and Senate. Both chambers of Congress! If you think the Republicans were obstructionist during Obama’s presidency, wait till they spend every minute trying to impeach the new President.
If our democracy truly worked and in this 2016 election we didn’t have an:
- obviously unfair Democratic primary debate schedule,
- a super-delegate system that was created at it’s inception to do exactly what it’s doing now now – to let the party select the candidate not the American people,
- an almost weekly revelation of suspected election fraud in the primary elections that have always ended up helping the same candidate,
- and most importantly, a national news media establishment that is so inextricably tied financially to this candidate that you’ve been left very in the dark about a federal criminal investigation into this candidate for the entire primary election.
If we didn’t have any of those things then I believe Bernie Sanders would have had a much better go of things with this Democratic primary.
To be fair I’m writing this in March, and Clinton just came off some big wins…it looks like she is poised to be the nominee. I don’t know how the rest of the primary will end up, but it seems like Clinton will win even though more and more are Feelin the Bern. That is absent a federal indictment. This is why this work is so important . Because in the likelihood that the FBI/DOJ let politics come before the law, the American people will not think that was so. And this is only due to a lack of information. It will only be because we have been conditioned for over a year from the news organizations that tell us what is happening in the world to believe this entire controversy is a partisan, right-wing conspiracy meant to go after Hillary Clinton.
But if, as a nation, we again accept that our justice system and national media are deeply flawed, what do we do now if the current trends hold true and we find ourselves in America’s saddest election – Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton?
You’re not telling me to vote for Donald Trump are you?
I’m not telling you to vote for anyone.
The Democratic and Republican parties have fallen neatly across social issues (gay marriage, guns, abortion, affirmative action etc) and have completely obscured to the American people how the two are largely identical when it comes to foreign policy, trade and the economy (perhaps the topic of a future article). This is something I hope the Clinton v. Trump debates will bring out.
You may ultimately feel compelled to use your vote to at least advance particular social issues, or at least not regress on them, even if the candidate you are voting for may be worse on an issue that more materially affects your life. And that’s okay.
But I urge you to not internalize the narrative of Trump as anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-women, pro-wig etc, and use it as an excuse to not ask the important questions to Hillary on the issues. Especially in lieu of this scandal.
Does Hillary’s financial connection, and protection, of Saudi Arabia (amongst other countries) disqualify her from being able to make necessary, substantive changes to our relationship with the Saudi Kingdom (much like Wall Street)? Will Donald Trump be any more effective at making these changes? To what degree does her support for Saudi Arabia undermine her claim to be a champion for women’s rights? To consistently protect and take money from a country that won’t even let women drive, amongst other ridiculous things.
But even then, how important is changing our relationship with Saudi Arabia to our overall domestic or foreign policy goals and objectives? There needs to be much more research done on this question (it almost certainly has been), I may even be changing my perspective on the Keystone XL Pipeline or fracking if the Saudi oil chain around our necks is really this strong. But if Hillary survives this scandal, she will have gone to hell and back to not let the true nature of our relationship with the Saudi’s be known. And I don’t think she would have done that without good reason.
Let’s take this one step further.
It seems fair to assume that Hillary will not be as effective a Commander-in-Chief against ISIS if she cannot, (and importantly has not), credibly take on a Saudi King that might be funding them, right? But how important is fighting ISIS relative to other foreign policy priorities? Like Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, Chinese expansion into the South China sea, the proliferation of CBRN capabilities from small state actors like North Korea, taking action on climate change – any number of issues that Hillary Clinton is unquestionably more knowledgeable about and qualified to take on.
But can we trust that she will actually do what’s in the best interest of the country on those issues? What is the best interest of the country to her? What are her motivating factors when making decisions about these issues?
And not just these issues, what are her motivating factors when it comes to some of the more important issues – job creation (Trans-Pacific Partnership), healthcare (Obamacare), Wall Street regulation (Glass-Steagall)
These are the same questions we should be asking Donald Trump.
But more importantly, what really are his motivating factors when he suggests we should temporarily ban all Muslim immigrants coming to the United States? Or when he says we need to secure our border with Mexico by building a wall?
These will probably be my most controversial statements in the article. When we go to ask these questions to Trump or his supporters, I urge everyone to really listen to the answers. Because even if they are not good, I bet they will sound much less racist and xenophobic than you think (why I fell in love with The Onion).
I’m not saying there are not strong racist and xenophobic elements to his proposals – his campaign has undeniably empowered the extreme elements of this country. But that requires you to believe that those are the only elements that have appealed to the over 18 states that have chosen Trump to be their Republican nominee. From states that have significant Hispanic populations like Nevada and Florida, and coming in second in Texas isn’t too bad. Even to much bluer states like Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. And from the 20% of his supporters who describe themselves as “liberal” or “moderate.”
It’s as though we’ve forgotten that issues like border security intersect so many economic and criminal justice issues that Americans are worried about. Just like we’ve forgotten that it was Hillary Clinton who pushed the 1999 Crime Bill which has done more to create the prison-industrial-complex that has devastated poor and minority communities more than any other policy in the last 30 years.
I was LITERALLY ON one of the piers in San Francisco last summer on July 1st, 2015 – the day that Kathryn Steinle was shot and killed on Pier 16 by an illegal immigrant, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. He had already been deported by US law enforcement five times for seven felony convictions but re-entered each time. And there is now a bill in Congress called Kate’s Law which aims to strip cities of their “sanctuary city” status so law enforcement can prosecute illegal immigrants, which Donald Trump has supported.
You don’t think I’ve thought about what if I had been on a different Pier that afternoon? Do you think its unfair for Kate’s parents to demand that their city be tougher on crime, especially from people that have been deported for felonies from the country? Would you blame them if they ended up supporting Donald Trump over Clinton if they think he will take more substantive action on this issue; and in some way it could possibly prevent someone else’s daughter from dying? A decision they would have to make knowing all the unbelievably sexist, and racist rhetoric he has engaged in. A decision that so many Americans have made over time, even though 3 of the 5 Presidents with most regretfully racist rhetoric and action in the post-slavery era were from the Democratic party.
I’m sincerely not trying to use Kate’s death to justify Donald Trump’s platform on immigration, and I have no idea how her parents will vote. My rant is really just a call to recognize that ALL OF US desperately need to see beyond our day-to-day realities and realize that many Americans have different concerns based on the things that are happening in their communities. And we need to stop relegating ALL supporters for Donald Trump as unequivocal racists, because then we can never find common ground on issues that matter to so many Americans regardless of race, gender or religion.
I’m not endorsing Donald Trump by any means. Far from it. Because I find some of his proposals to be deeply problematic even if they are possible, extreme solutions to problems that need to be solved. But given that he will almost certainly win the Republican nomination, we’re gonna have to have a longer conversation about these stands at some point. And unfortunately, good intent behind voting for a flawed candidate does not remove the fact that you would still be voting for a flawed candidate.
But what do you do when you are put in a position with two flawed candidates?
If I vote for Hillary does that mean I also believe that urban youth are “super predators“? Does that mean I also support the public service of US Senator and former KKK member Robert Byrd? Does that mean I also support all the actions of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Boeing etc?
**There is no perfect candidate, and there is no perfect policy**
When we talk about these incredibly complex issues dealing with homeland security and immigration, rarely do we really think, or have honest conversations, about the arguments the other side is making. Our pre-conceived notions of why people may support a policy or a candidate are so strong that we never care to really ask why people feel the way they do.
I sincerely believe this inability to communicate is the reason America has been more polarized than ever, and our unbelievably grid-locked Congress reflects that. When we do communicate, it’s inevitably with people who mostly share our own views. Because we can’t possibly comprehend why someone on the other side would have the views they have. (And what role has the media played in creating this environment..you know what we read, see and hear?)
In my short 22 years of living, the emotion I’ve seen lacking the most in people when discussing politics, on both sides, is empathy. We rarely understand HOW OTHER PEOPLE FEEL but we are great at understanding HOW WE FEEL. And that’s because we all experience reality differently – based on where we were born, how we were raised, who we were raised around, and the opportunities/experiences that were given to us because of that. Because of things that we may not have chosen. But now you are intelligent enough to choose what you believe. And what you think others believe.
Maybe the fact that Louis Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, supports Donald Trump (very interesting video) highlights how complicated these issues are even amongst Muslims. He obviously does not speak for all Muslims, and may not even represent most of their views – he is in fact an incredibly controversial figure. But he is an influential person with a controversial opinion, and his opinion is formed through a different interpretation of reality than our own. (And just maybe it’s the fact that we have yet to have a serious discussion in twelve GOP primary debates and nine Democratic primary debates about how any Presidential candidate is proposing a legitimate solution to properly screen and vet refugees from Syria, many of whom may be bringing fake passports and fake documentation, amongst other gaps in our vetting process, has something to do with Farrakhan’s opinion) – read this, and this to get better answers on this issue
If I have learned anything from researching the Hillary email scandal – it’s that we want to believe the narrative we are told about one side, because we don’t want to be told the way we understand reality is wrong.
Let’s ask more questions to Donald Trump, Louis Farrakhan, and others, as to why they see the world the way they do.
This brings us back to Hillary Clinton.
When we really ask Hillary about her motivating factors, we should listen earnestly because she is a complex figure who exists beyond this one-dimensional view as a Wall Street puppet. This is a genuine sentiment I’ve gotten from watching so many of the political debates and town-halls, from talking to people who remember her much more clearly in the 90’s than I do, and from just hearing what people across the spectrum have said about her intellect, work ethic and public service.
Let’s not forgot that it was Hillary Clinton who:
- As First Lady – originally took on health insurance companies to create the largest expansion for children’s health insurance
- As Senator – did more than anyone to rebuild New York after 9/11; writing and passing the most comprehensive first-responder aid, mental health support and economic recovery package as well as laying the groundwork for comprehensive immigration reform with the DREAM Act
- As Secretary of State – Created the first global sanctions regime against Iran which brought them to the negotiating table for the historic Iran deal, helped negotiate the cease-fire in Gaza, secured the ratification of the new START treaty to reduce US and Russian nuclear stockpiles, was a central figure in the finding and killing of Osama-bin-Laden etc etc etc
But this article serves as reminder for everyone to ask themselves – what were Hillary Clinton’s motivating factors when asked by Congress why 4 Americans were killed in Benghazi?
I sincerely don’t believe Hillary Clinton intentionally did anything to endanger the lives of these 4 Americans. And I don’t think there is anyone more remorseful for their deaths than her. She is a flawed person, like everyone else.
But her greatest flaw is entrenching herself in a system that rewards action (or inaction) with monetary compensation. And this is a reality that people face with their elected officials all over the world, many so much worse than the United States.
This is why the email scandal is so fascinating, because it reveals what those flaws are, and the tension between being a public servant and a private citizen. Esteemed journalist Bob Woodward said it best.
“Again, it’s the volume: 60,000 emails and Hillary Clinton has said 30,000 of them, half, were personal and they were deleted. Who decided that? What’s on those emails? I would love to have all 60,000, read them. It would be a character study about her personal life and also what she did as secretary of state. And step back for a moment. The big question about Hillary Clinton is, who is she? Is she this secretive hidden person or is she this valiant public servant? Look at those 60,000 emails and you’re going to get some answers.”
Unfortunately we are in a system where action is not possible unless there is a monetary incentive for it. Action for the sake of public service is wistful idealism, and it will take a long time for that system to get there, if ever.
But there is an argument to be made for why having the support of industry and businesses is necessary to craft good legislation, and can be used for the public good, and that Hillary’s seemingly damning ties may be just as much valuable in helping Americans as they seem detrimental.
Let’s hear that argument.
14) Concluding remarks
Click Warning: This will be unabashedly cheesy.
So everyone will likely think I’m some flavor of conspiracy theorist on every issue forever now. And my parents will use this article indefinitely to push me to go to law school or something.
This is the first time I’ve ever written anything like this, and I didn’t plan for it to be this. It really was supposed to be like a Vox style “Hillary emails, explained” article. But sometimes you go down the rabbit hole. And if you’re gonna tell a big story, tell it right.
Honestly, I don’t know what will happen to this article.
Maybe it will make it big time and you’ll see it on Fox News in a week (they’d love this shit). I’m posting it online and I am working to get it published on a more legitimate news site, but it may fall on uninterested eyes at the highest levels.
Maybe this article will become an underground Internet sensation, and the power of social media will put these words on millions of computer and phone screens and change millions of minds. But change those minds to select perhaps an even more flawed Presidential candidate.
Or maybe this article will just be read by a handful of curious minds, who at the end of the day have already learned to be suspect of why our elected government says it does the things it does.
But regardless, this is a story that needed to be told. It needed to be told sooner, but it needs to be told while the American people are still choosing who leads their new government.
I wasn’t planning on writing these remarks and they went a lot longer than I intended, but I felt the need to have them written down (for myself at least), because I actually changed as a person in the process of researching and writing about this issue. And it honestly just started by me asking myself at a Taco Bell drive-thru “do I need to be worried about Hillary’s emails?”
I had assumed that a question of this importance would have been answered for me by now…by people who have been paid precisely to answer theses types of questions. Especially in an election year. I was certainly let down. Given that the most damning piece of evidence has existed in complete public view for almost 3 years and the email scandal has been going on for almost 2 years now, how is this guy the only person who mentioned it? All you needed was someone to sit for an hour and connect the dots. Something I thought we were paying people to do. But instead, we have let our government spend $5 million to come to this conclusion and be fine with it.
A two-year investigation into the Benghazi tragedy by the Republican-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence found that the administration did not intentionally mislead the public about the details surrounding the attacks
What are we even doing?
It’s possible that I don’t understand how complex and nuanced federal investigations into terror attacks are, especially in a foreign country. But why didn’t the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? Given that they were already aware of hacked emails which show detailed discussion surrounding the players involved in the chaos around North Africa at this time. Why won’t Trey Gowdy just release the transcript from their meeting with Sidney Blumenthal which reveals this? It really does feel like a partisan attack now. That this is simply motivated by politics to damage Hillary’s image and not even uncover the truth.
That’s why the biggest tragedy in all of this may actually be that even if Hillary Clinton gets indicted by a grand jury, the Saudi Arabia email may not even be brought to light. All the public will hear is that the Republicans were right and Hillary shouldn’t have had a private server, and now she’s getting in trouble for it. Completely obscuring the fact that both Republicans and Democrats have shown a vested interest in not letting the details of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia be known.
And now to just be a full-blown conspiracy theorist – what other issues do both Republicans and Democrats have a vested interested in not letting the American public see the true nature of?
This is why our nation needs journalists. To tell truth to power where it needs to be told, regardless of political affiliation. To ask these outlandish questions and to find out the answers. To allow the most critical function of our democracy to exist – the idea that elected officials can be held accountable for their actions. This is why you should care about countries that repress journalism and free speech (including us, oh yeah).
I can’t stress this enough, I’m not even a whistleblower. I’m not providing any information that did not already exist for the public, I’m quite literally just telling you what happened. This is the power of the Internet. Which all of you have access to 24 hours, anywhere you go. Unless you have Sprint.
I think its lost on people that we’re really living in an unprecedented moment in human history. The proliferation of laptops, smartphones, WiFi etc, has for the first time let billions of people all connect to each other instantly. And more importantly, it has allowed you to answer any question you could possibly want answered at any time. Like this life-changing video I finally watched 2 months ago on how to cut an onion (amazing stuff).
We can answer any question we want, we just need to know which questions to ask.
This is why it’s truly amazing to me that the vast majority of the public still sees the Benghazi scandal as ONLY a partisan attack point, and most haven’t really formed an opinion on Clinton’s use of a private email server. That only seems possible because there’s a national news media that refuses to ask the right questions and actually dig deep into important issues.
Unless of course it’s Ebola.
Or the missing Malaysia Airlines flight…
Are we actually just “sheeple” being told what to believe when it comes to the most important issues?!?!
I don’t mean to just hate on “the mainstream media” because there are a lot of honest, hardworking people there who do their best everyday to cover the stories and issues that matter to so many people. But I can’t help but question what some of their motivating factors are, at the highest levels at least, when it comes to what stories to report on, which side of that story to tell, what people to interview, or even what primary debate questions to ask. And maybe that questioning is justified the moment we look at how many different media organizations contribute to The Clinton Foundation.
Regardless, there has been some outstanding journalism, most notably from The Washington Post, Politico, NPR, National Review, The Blaze, Daily Caller, Free Beacon, Business Insider, The Washington Examiner and PolitiFact, who not only covered but analyzed these amazingly complex issues of how we use our e-mail, how classified computer information is stored, transmitted or deleted and the laws we have created to address those issues.
But it was really staggering how much research I needed to do to fully understand what this scandal was even about.
And the biases became apparent so quickly.
On the truly incriminating lines of questioning, the ones I have laid out for her indictment, there was really only one strain of news media that ever attempted to answer those questions. And if they honestly just tried harder to stop looking and sounding like goddamn conspiracy websites, then we would come so much farther in creating a civil discourse to actually find answers to the issues that affect us and to hold elected leaders accountable for their actions.
On the opposite end, even our Hollywood filmmakers, who had access to all the same information I did, when given the opportunity to reveal the underside of the Benghazi attacks in the movie 13 Hours, chose not to do so (to be fair it was Michael Bay).
I’m publicly calling on John Oliver, of HBO’s Last Week Tonight (yeah he’ll read this I bet), to finally take on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal (I can’t believe he hasn’t already…motivating factors hmm), and bring clarity and truth to this issue like he has for so many others. And ask me if you have any questions!!
When I say I actually changed as a person from writing this, I think I mean to say that I ended up learning a lesson that had already been told to me so many times in different forms and experiences, but that I had never fully taken to heart.
Be curious. Ask questions. Think for yourself.
And most importantly, be asking yourself why you believe the things that you believe.
A special thanks to a few individuals (you know who you are) for encouraging my curiosity and for always challenging me to think in ways I had not thought before.
– Chetan Hebbale