This page was last updated on August 27, 2016.
Note: Toward the bottom of this piece you’ll find comments covering some events after the August 7, 2016 release of this review.
In a review of E-mailgate nearly one year ago, I wrote, “the true issue is not technical. The problem is judgment.” The FBI agreed.
Depending on your news sources, you may be under the mistaken impression the FBI exonerated Mrs. Clinton (HRC). For example, The New York Times (NYT) published an article entitled “F.B.I. Director James Comey Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton on Email.” Though the title is true, it’s also incredibly and intentionally misleading. I suspect most persons who read the NYT title concluded HRC did nothing wrong and so they didn’t bother to read the article which told a very different story. Garrison Keillor turned HRC’s “extremely careless” behavior into her simply being “no whiz at email.”
As we learned from the FBI report, just about everything HRC said in public about her e-mail scandal was a lie. Here is testimony before the House Oversight Committee by FBI Director James Comey (video - Politico).
Not content with the FBI letting her off the hook, HRC continued lying on Fox News Sunday (7/31/16) by lying about the FBI’s report and Director Comey’s testimony. Here’s the relevant excerpt.
Chris Wallace: “The e-mails --”
Hillary Clinton: “Yes.”
Wallace: “I want to ask about one aspect, what you told the American people.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Clinton: “I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified materials.
“I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time.
“I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Wallace: “After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.”
Clinton: “Chris, that’s not what I heard Director Comey say, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity, in my view, clarify. Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
[RWC] Director Comey testified, “We have no basis to conclude [HRC] lied to the FBI.” HRC tried to turn that into she didn’t lie to “the American people,” which is false. At no point did Director Comey testify what HRC told “the American people” was consistent with what she told the FBI. In fact, Director Comey testified many of HRC’s public assertions were false. The Fox interview covered only two HRC assertions contradicted by Director Comey’s testimony (see below). You can find the rest of the HRC claims Director Comey contradicted in his full testimony (links above).
“I was communicating with over 300 people in my e-mailing. They certainly did not believe and had no reason to believe that what they were sending was classified.
“Now, in retrospect, different agencies come in and say, well, it should have been, but that’s not what was happening in real time.”
Wallace: “But in a congressionally [sic] hearing on July 7th, Director Comey directly contradicted what you had told the public.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman, Benghazi Committee: “Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails either sent or received. Was that true?”
James Comey, FBI Director: “That’s not true.”
Gowdy: “Secretary Clinton said, ‘I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.’ Was that true?”
Comey: “There was classified material e-mailed.”
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Wallace: “He directly contradicted --”
Clinton: “Well, I --”
Wallace: “Well, let me just say -- he not only directly contradicted what you said, he also said in that hearing that you were extremely careless and negligent.”
Clinton: “Well, Chris, I looked at the whole transcript of everything that was said, and what I believe is, number one, I made a mistake not using two different e-mail addresses. I have said that and I repeat it again today. It is certainly not anything that I ever would do again.
“I take classification seriously. I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked. And so, in retrospect, maybe some people are saying, well, among those 300 people, they made the wrong call.
“At the time, there was no reason in my view to doubt the professionalism and the determination by the people who work every single day on behalf of our country.”
The interview was stunning. When confronted with video showing she just lied about Director Comey’s testimony, HRC blamed State Department “professionals” and “the people who work every single day on behalf of our country.” As I wrote in last year’s review, “It’s difficult to believe no one - either on her staff or career State Department IT and security personnel - told Mrs. Clinton what she wanted to do was incredibly reckless. … A responsible person in Mrs. Clinton’s position would have told the State Department’s IT and security guys what she wanted to do and asked how to make it secure. The response, of course, would have been a more tactful wording of ‘are you nuts?’”
What’s even more amazing is, even after HRC was shown to be lying about Director Comey’s testimony during the FNC interview, she is telling the same lie more than a week later! In fairness, some people are coming to HRC’s defense saying at least some of the classified documents were not marked properly, meaning HRC had no way to know they were classified. For argument’s sake, let’s say that’s true. Given the level and number of people with whom HRC exchanged email, it would be a miracle if none of the 10s of thousands of emails on her server contained classified info. As I wrote last year, “First, Mrs. Clinton couldn’t control what other people sent her. Second, Mrs. Clinton would have no idea which unclassified messages she read or sent would later become classified. We also need to remember info that may not reach the ‘classified’ level can still be very valuable to our enemies. Finally, Mrs. Clinton was not the only person with an account on her server. Everything I just wrote about Mrs. Clinton sending/receiving classified e-mail also applies to all of the other users of her e-mail server.”
If we get lost arguing which documents were classified “properly” and which were not, we miss the main point, HRC’s incredibly poor judgement to operate her own email server.
Read the FBI statement (“Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System”) and you’ll find the FBI found HRC guilty of just about everything we already knew, and some things we didn’t know. The same is true for FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee hearing of July 7, 2016. Even though the FBI found “evidence that [HRC or her colleagues] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” it recommended no charges be filed because it allegedly “did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information.” There are at least two problems with this statement. First, HRC claimed she was “certainly well-aware of the classification requirements.” This means HRC knew she was breaking the law and didn’t care. This sounds like intent to me. Second, applicable law doesn’t require intent.
I don’t know about you, but “evidence that [HRC or her colleagues] were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” seems a tad more serious than Mr. Keillor’s claim HRC was simply “no whiz at email.” In contrast to Mr. Keillor’s “no whiz at email” excuse, HRC claimed she was “certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”
Here is Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): “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 — Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
You probably noticed Section 793(f) mentioned “gross negligence” (as in “extremely careless”) was one of the two ways to be guilty and neither required intent to do harm. Should a drunk driver be off the hook because she didn’t intend to crash into another car and kill the family within?
The FBI statement said, “To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.” Translation: Normally a person would receive some form of punishment for HRC-like activity, but not this time.
During the House Oversight Committee hearing, Republican reps kept asking Director Comey what would happen to an FBI employee with behavior similar to that of HRC. Though Director Comey dodged hypothetical questions specifically about HRC, his answers made it clear a person in the FBI who did what HRC did would be in trouble, as in anything from a reprimand to dismissal and prosecution.
On June 27th, Bill Clinton met privately with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in a jet on the Phoenix Sky Harbor tarmac. Both claimed they didn’t talk about the FBI’s investigation of HRC. The FBI interviewed HRC (not under oath) five days later on July 2nd. Three days later on July 5th, the FBI released its findings.
Initially, I was surprised the FBI waited until the very end to interview HRC. After a little bit of thought, however, the reason became clear. Whether or not you believe Mr. Clinton and AG Lynch about their allegedly accidental and innocent meeting on an airport tarmac, it would be naïve to believe with all of her contacts, and those of her husband, HRC didn’t know what the FBI knew so she could tip-toe through the minefield of questions. For example, while Director Comey testified, “We have no basis to conclude [HRC] lied to the FBI,” he also testified many of HRC’s public claims were false. The only way that happens is if HRC said one thing in public and something else to the FBI. Had the FBI interviewed HRC early in the investigation, she would have had no way to tailor her answers because she would not have known what the FBI would find or miss.
During questioning by Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Director Comey said, “I just want to take one of your assumptions about ‘sophistication.’ I don’t think our investigation established she was particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment.” Rep. DeSantis then asked, “Isn’t she an original classification authority though?” Director Comey replied, “Yes, sir, yes, sir.”
While Director Comey wasn’t impressed with her “sophisticat[ion] with respect to classified information,” that was not HRC’s position. According to FactCheck.org, HRC stated the following during a March 10, 2015, press conference: “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.” In my 2015 review of E-mailgate I wrote, “Even if it turned out to be true, it’s not an assertion Mrs. Clinton could honestly have made back in 2009 for at least two reasons. First, Mrs. Clinton couldn’t control what other people sent her. Second, Mrs. Clinton would have no idea which unclassified messages she read or sent would later become classified. We also need to remember info that may not reach the ‘classified’ level can still be very valuable to our enemies. Finally, Mrs. Clinton was not the only person with an account on her server.” This is why, during the following year, HRC’s statement morphed from “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email” to “I did not send or receive any emails MARKED classified at the time” (my emphasis). As per the FBI report, HRC’s revised statement was also false.
Now, let’s go back to the “intent” issue. If we accept HRC’s assertion she was “certainly well-aware of the classification requirements,” does that not mean HRC knew she was violating the law but did so anyway?
It appears Director Comey thought he had only two ways to characterize HRC’s actions. Either HRC, who claimed to be “certainly well-aware of the classification requirements,” did what she did knowing the ramifications, or “the smartest woman in the world” was stupid “with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment.” Director Comey chose the latter.
Director Comey confirmed HRC had “original classification authority” to classify information as “Top Secret.” Should someone “certainly well-aware of the classification requirements” who nevertheless ignores the law have access to classified information? No. Should someone not “particularly sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment” have access to classified information? No. Should anyone operate a homegrown email system containing classified information? No.
In last year’s review, I noted the Chief Information Officer of the Illinois Office of Health Information Technology Authority (Ivan Handler) wrote, “Carl, as you are aware, this is just another lunatic attack against Hillary by people who have no idea of what an email server is, why you might want one (I think it is so 20th century myself, but then again so is Hillary and most of the politicians running including Bernie). The facts are not important, in fact, the less you understand an issue the more outrageous the lies you can tell. That is the ‘real’ reason this issue has become important imho.” Carl Davidson (KD) replied, “You nailed it, Ivan.”
So, what was Ivan Handler’s comment about the FBI report? Mr. Handler wrote, “No surprise here, but don’t expect this to die no matter how tired you are of it.” You may wonder how Mr. Handler could write “just another lunatic attack against Hillary …” last year and “No surprise here” this year when the FBI found HRC guilty of just about everything we already knew, and some things we didn’t know. The answer is simple; Mr. Handler linked to the aforementioned New York Times article entitled “F.B.I. Director James Comey Recommends No Charges for Hillary Clinton on Email.” Mr. Handler knew his readers would see what they wanted to see in the title and not bother to read the article. It’s also possible Mr. Handler himself saw what he wanted to see in the title and blindly linked to the piece without reading it. Here’s another example; Mr. Handler linked to a New Yorker piece entitled “Congressional Republicans Vote to Abolish F.B.I.” The piece is pure satire, but it appears Mr. Handler and his readers seem to think it’s true. In fairness, a lot of lefties wanted the story to be true. When a commenter on DemocraticUnderground.com wrote, “This is satire, which becomes obvious if you read it,” another commenter replied, “How is that obvious? Trey could totally say that.” “Trey” is Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC).
As far as I can tell, KD hasn’t commented on either the FBI statement or Director Comey’s testimony.
The following covers some events after the August 7, 2016 release of this review.
If HRC’s lying about Director Comey weren’t bad enough, former-President Bill Clinton decided to join the party. Are they trying to get HRC charged? Director Comey gave HRC a “get out of jail free” card yet that’s apparently not enough for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton. If this keeps up, I would not be surprised if Director Comey gets fed up and “finds” new – and legitimate – charges for HRC. This is a good segue to the following paragraph.
HRC has maintained she turned over to the FBI all e-mail she didn’t delete. Well, shazam! According to the Chicago Tribune (8/22/16), “The State Department is now reviewing nearly 15,000 previously undisclosed emails recovered as part of the FBI investigation.”
Now we’re learning HRC told the FBI former-Sec. of State Colin Powell advised her to do what she did. In addition to a childish excuse (Think of “but Bobby jumped off the bridge.”), it appears to be another lie. According to the New York Times,
“Pressed by the F.B.I. about her email practices at the State Department, Hillary Clinton told investigators that former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had advised her to use a personal email account. … But his use of personal email and Mrs. Clinton’s are not entirely parallel. Mr. Powell did not have a server at his house or rely on outside contractors, as Mrs. Clinton did at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y.
“A State Department inspector general report released in May said that Mr. Powell and other senior officials had used personal email accounts for official business, but that by the time Mrs. Clinton took office, the rules were clear that using a private server in such a manner was neither allowed nor encouraged because of ‘significant security risks.’”
“Colin Powell is pushing back on reports suggesting that he might have given Hillary Clinton the idea to use a private email account as Secretary of State, telling media outlets that ‘her people are trying to pin it on me.’
“Powell made the comments at an event Saturday in East Hampton, New York on Saturday night, according to People magazine and the New York Post. He was responding to a New York Times report that revealed Clinton had told FBI investigators that Powell was the inspiration for her email set-up.
“The former Secretary of State under President George W. Bush suggested that Clinton was using private email long before he communicated with her about the subject.
“‘The truth is, she was using (the private email server) for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did,’ Powell said.”
Given Mr. Powell endorsed Barack Obama, and HRC’s positions are pretty much the same as BHO’s, Mr. Powell likely would endorse HRC. Further, Mr. Powell is protective of his reputation as he should be. Why would HRC choose to anger and run off a key-influencer likely on her side?
© 2004-2016 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.