Hillary Clinton

To Prosecute Clinton for Espionage, Evidence of Negligence Is Enough

The failure to safeguard state secrets is an area of the law in which the federal government has been aggressive to the point of being merciless.

|

Hillary Clinton/Instagram

The federal criminal investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's failure to secure state secrets was ratcheted up earlier this week, and at the same time, the existence of a parallel criminal investigation of another aspect of her behavior was made known. This is the second publicly revealed expansion of the FBI's investigations in two months.

I have argued for two months that Clinton's legal woes are either grave or worse than grave. That argument has been based on the hard, now public evidence of her failure to safeguard national security secrets and the known manner in which the Department of Justice addresses these failures.

The failure to safeguard state secrets is an area of the law in which the federal government has been aggressive to the point of being merciless. State secrets are the product of members of the intelligence community's risking their lives to obtain information.

Before she was entrusted with any state secrets—indeed, on her first full day as secretary of state—Clinton received instruction from FBI agents on how to safeguard them; and she signed an oath swearing to comply with the laws commanding the safekeeping of these secrets. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets—known as espionage—would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.

In the cases of others, those threats have been carried out. The Obama Department of Justice prosecuted a young sailor for espionage for sending a selfie to his girlfriend, because in the background of the photo was a view of a sonar screen on a submarine. It prosecuted a heroic Marine for espionage for warning his superiors of the presence of an al-Qaida operative in police garb inside an American encampment in Afghanistan, because he used a Gmail account to send the warning.

It also prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for espionage for keeping secret and top-secret documents in an unlocked drawer in his desk inside his guarded home. It alleged that he shared those secrets with a friend who also had a security clearance, but it dropped those charges.

The obligation of those to whom state secrets have been entrusted to safeguard them is a rare area in which federal criminal prosecutions can be based on the defendant's negligence. Stated differently, to prosecute Clinton for espionage, the government need not prove that she intended to expose the secrets.

The evidence of Clinton's negligence is overwhelming. The FBI now has more than 1,300 protected emails that she received on her insecure server and sent to others—some to their insecure servers. These emails contained confidential, secret, or top-secret information, the negligent exposure of which is a criminal act.

One of the top-secret emails she received and forwarded contained a photo taken from an American satellite of the North Korean nuclear facility that detonated a device just last week. Because Clinton failed to safeguard that email, she exposed to hackers and thus to the North Koreans the time, place, and manner of American surveillance of them. This type of data is in the highest category of protected secrets.

Last weekend, the State Department released two smoking guns—each an email from Clinton to a State Department subordinate. One instructed a subordinate who was having difficulty getting a document to Clinton that she had not seen by using a secure State Department fax machine to use an insecure fax machine. The other instructed another subordinate to remove the "confidential" or "secret" designation from a document Clinton had not seen before sending it to her. These two emails show a pattern of behavior utterly heedless of the profound responsibilities of the secretary of state, repugnant to her sworn agreement to safeguard state secrets, and criminal at their essence.

Also this past weekend, my Fox News colleagues Katherine Herridge and Pamela Browne learned from government sources that the FBI is investigating whether Clinton made any decisions as secretary of state to benefit her family foundation or her husband's speaking engagements. If so, this would be profound public corruption.

This investigation was probably provoked by several teams of independent researchers—some of whom are financial experts and have published their work—who have been investigating the Clinton Foundation for a few years. They have amassed a treasure-trove of documents demonstrating fraud and irregularities in fundraising and expenditures, and they have shown a pattern of favorable State Department treatment of foreign entities coinciding with donations by those entities to the Clinton Foundation and their engaging former President Bill Clinton to give speeches.

There are now more than 100 FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton. Her denial that she is at the core of their work is political claptrap with no connection to reality. It is inconceivable that the FBI would send such vast resources in the present dangerous era on a wild-goose chase.

It is the consensus of many of us who monitor government behavior that the FBI will recommend indictment. That recommendation will go to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who, given Clinton's former status in the government and current status in the Democratic Party, will no doubt consult the White House.

If a federal grand jury were to indict Clinton for espionage or corruption, that would be fatal to her political career.

If the FBI recommends indictment and the attorney general declines to do so, expect Saturday Night Massacre-like leaks of draft indictments, whistleblower revelations, and litigation, and FBI resignations, led by the fiercely independent and intellectually honest FBI Director James Comey himself.

That would be fatal to Clinton's political career, as well.

COPYRIGHT 2016 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO | DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Jeb Bush Might Have Run the Worst Campaign in Modern History, Matt Welch Argues Tonight on Red Eye w/ Tom Shillhue

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The influence peddling is some third world banana republic bullshit. Utterly embarrassing. For the security failures anyone else would do life in prison.

    That it’s Hilary on the one side and Trump on the other is fall-of-the-Roman-empire-type shit.

    Somehow we’ve earned this.

    1. oh we totally have. politicians never actually lead, they only do things they already know have broad support. as terrible an idea i think obamacare is, that was an actually “bold” move, and its not working out great for him (seems like his main hope now is getting out of office before ALL of the shit hits the fan). personally i dont want a president who feels the need to “lead” us anywhere. i want one who just gets out of the way (unfortunately people who would are selected against by the whole process, hence the success of the Libertarian party)

      1. I want one who takes a chainsaw (and wood hipper) to vast swaths of the Federal government currently standing between the people and their liberties.

        1. Chipper not hipper

  2. From your mouth to God’s (or you know, whoever’s) ears. Clinton facing actual, unavoidable legal accountability will do wonders to restore my faith in the republic. I’m not really holding my breath though.

  3. Sorry judge, but every catholic school kid should know that the only thing fatal to Hillary Clinton is a silver bullet cast from melted sacramental candlesticks, dipped in holy water, and fired from a gun made out of church bells. You still have to cut off the head afterwards and stuff it with holy wafers and bury it in a separate location, lest a single drop of falling blood reanimate her corpse.

    As for her political ambitions, they are immortal. Even if the Hilldabeast actually goes down for one out of her staggering assortment of major crimes, the proggies will still make a martyr out of her

    1. The one true revenant.

  4. The most she will get is house arrest. That being the White House, of course.

  5. She could, in a public forum, ass-rape the baby Jesus, piss in the face of the last WWII hero, shit on an AIDS infected, autistic, blind, crippled and retarded single mother, then wipe her ass with the original Constitution, and most would applaud and call her brave.

    1. that sounds like quality performance art

      1. I think just suggesting it could earn you a 100k NEA grant.

  6. I will believe it when I see it. The liberal media has already found her innocent, based mostly on the fact that Republicans think she’s guilty. Even if he hates her guts personally, and I think he does, Obama’s not going to let any part of his administration deal such a monumental blow to the Democratic Party. Maybe the FBI isn’t under Obama’s thumb to the extent Lynch is, but I would still be shocked if Obama even lets it get to Lynch.

    1. Easy, they’ll drag it out until after the election. Then if she’s won it’s a moot point and if she’s lost there’ll be no reason to mess with her.

    2. The thing is, the government can’t really do shit without enforcers. If they piss the FBI off enough that it tells them to fuck right off, especially if the other fed LEO agencies show solidarity, then all of a sudden none of their laws is worth the paper it’s written on.

      Given that the political establishment is addicted to wielding power over others, they’ll be desperate to end it. The military already despises the political establishment even more than the LEOs, so it’s not like martial law will help them much — in fact, they’d be wise to worry that a LEO rebellion would start giving the military ideas as well.

  7. One of the top-secret emails she received and forwarded contained a photo taken from an American satellite of the North Korean nuclear facility that detonated a device just last week. Because Clinton failed to safeguard that email, she exposed to hackers and thus to the North Koreans the time, place, and manner of American surveillance of them. This type of data is in the highest category of protected secrets.

    Are the proggies still bitterly clinging to their argument that “well, the secrets weren’t marked“? Even if that’s true, Clinton surely should have known that photo was classified.

    1. Standard Form 312, which the author makes reference to
      Eh, I thought we could post links here, but says word is longer than 50 characters. Google it yourself!

      “marked or unmarked classified information…”

      It isn’t the marking that makes it classified, it’s the nature of the contents, and a person of her position is trusted to know the difference, and if in doubt, treat all as classified.

      Then with ‘the smoking gun’ of her telling the guy to ‘make it non-paper’ by stripping off the identifying labels, the defense is “but he didn’t do it.” So blanking what. She told the guy to violate the law, which proves that she knew the right way and the wrong way and was willing to do it wrong. Kudos to him for not following her instructions.

  8. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets?known as espionage . . .

    That’s . . . not what espionage. Its not even *part* of espionage.

  9. ” It is inconceivable that the FBI would send such vast resources in the present dangerous era on a wild-goose chase.”

    They’re too busy investigating Tommy Chong and Willie Nelson.

  10. State secrets are the product of members of the intelligence community’s risking their lives to obtain information.

    Kind of nit-picking here, but most members of the intelligence community don’t actually risk their lives. There’s very little “human intelligence” done by agents going into dangerous situations anymore. It’s not like a Bond flick. Mostly it’s a lot of sitting at a computer or satellite ground control station stateside and writing reports and shit.

  11. Even if no prosecution is forthcoming, it would be slightly reassuring if the FBI does in fact leak the case against her. Not because they’re supposed to do that, of course. But because it would indicate that at least one government agency hasn’t been completely corrupted by Obama. Can’t count on IRS or the DOJ or the EPA or even the freaking Secret Service, but maybe we can still count on the FBI.

    Of course, I’m sure Obama has plenty of leverage over plenty of people in the FBI, too.

  12. One of the top-secret emails she received and forwarded contained a photo taken from an American satellite of the North Korean nuclear facility…

    Holy. Fuck. I’m sure a lot of people (Shrillary apologists especially) see this and say “it’s only one picture, what’s the big deal. It’s a huge deal.

    The amount of information, and the damage that can be done to our ability to conduct effective intelligence that can be gleaned from one photograph, is enormous. For one thing, it reveals a lot about the satellite’s capabilities (resolution, what spectrum the satellite images in, what the satellite can and can’t see) that can be used to develop countermeasures against it.

    Also, by examining the time stamp of the photo and examining the angles and lengths of the shadows on the ground, one could calculate the azimuth and elevation the spacecraft was at when it took the picture, based on the known angle of the sun at the time of day and the satellite’s approximate orbit could be determined. From that, you can figure out when it will pass overhead in the future. At the very least, it should force us to change the satellite’s orbit, which is a big deal. And that’s just off the top of my head, with literally 5 seconds of thought put into it. I’m sure there’s probably a lot more.

    1. And of course, Queen Shrill will get away with all of this scott free. I have no faith in the Justice Dept. actually indicting this harpy. Even though if I’d done what she did, I’d be in prison for a very long time. But rules are for serfs, not our “betters.”

    2. You don’t need the photo info to figure out the orbit. Just look on the internet.

      Every single satellite in orbit has its orbit characteristics published in publicly accessible databases, even the super secret ones. While the government doesn’t provide the data for the secret ones, amateur observers are quick to spot new satellites, calculate the orbits, and publish them. And they can figure out what the satellite is (roughly) by knowing about recent launches.

      1. True, I forgot about the sky-watcher nerds.

        They can also figure out roughly what the satellite is for based on orbital characteristics. Sun-sychronous = imaging; usually visible spectrum, Geostationary = comm sat, etc.

  13. Meh, people at her level don’t get prosecuted. I’m not sure why anybody even makes the argument she should be, it’s a waste of energy. She could probably kill a toddler with her bare hands live during primetime.

    Call me a cynic.

  14. my neighbor’s half-sister makes $83 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her payment was $17900 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out

    +++++++++++++++++ http://www.Wage90.Com

  15. What’s the point? Obama will just pardon her if the situation gets out of hand. And the media will go on and on about how ‘brave’ she’s being…

  16. Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do,

    ——-+++++++ http://www.richi8.com

  17. my neighbor’s half-sister makes $83 every hour on the computer . She has been without a job for 9 months but last month her payment was $17900 just working on the computer for a few hours. why not try this out

    +++++++++++++++++ http://www.Wage90.Com

  18. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.buzznews99.com

  19. “This type of data is in the highest category of protected secrets”

    No, no it’s not.

    The highest category of protected secrets is evidence that could be damaging to the party.

    1. Said party being the Permanent Ruling Bipartisan Fusion Party.

      AKA the Ruling Class.

  20. I am not a fan of Hillary’s. But prosecuting her for espionage based on negligence would be a crime.

  21. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    _+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Paybucket40.com

  22. I’m now visualizing Hillary’s acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention being interrupted by the news that she’s been indicted on charges of espionage and corruption.

    Oooh, what a lovely thought!

  23. Let’s not forget what the FBI really stands for:

    Famous But Incompetent

  24. Evidence of negligence might get her convicted, but negligence of evidence gets her off the hook.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.