Hillary Clinton

Can Anyone Doubt That Hillary Clinton Failed to Safeguard State Secrets?

It seems that every week, more information comes to light about Clinton's grave legal woes.

|

Jeepers Media/Flickr

Hillary Clinton's nightmare is not the sudden resurgence of Bernie Sanders. It is the fidelity to the rule of law of the FBI.

The recent revelations of the receipt by Clinton of a Special Access Program email, as well as cut and pasted summaries of state secrets on her server and on her BlackBerry, nearly guarantee that the FBI will recommend that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury and seek her indictment for espionage. Here is the backstory.

It seems that every week, more information comes to light about Clinton's grave legal woes. Her worries are in two broad categories: One is her well-documented failure to safeguard state secrets and the other is her probable use of her position as secretary of state to advance financially her husband's charitable foundation. The FBI is currently and aggressively investigating both. What I will describe below is in the state secrets category. It is apparently not new to the FBI, but it is new to the public.

Among the data that the FBI either found on the Clinton server or acquired from the State Department via its responses to Freedom of Information Act requests is a top-secret email that has been denominated Special Access Program (SAP). Top secret is the highest category of state secrets (the other categories are confidential and secret), and of the sub-parts of top secret, SAP is the most sensitive.

SAP is clothed in such secrecy that it cannot be received or opened accidentally. Clinton—who ensured all of her governmental emails came to her through her husband's server, a nonsecure nongovernmental venue—could only have received or viewed it from that server after inputting certain codes. Those codes change at unscheduled times, such that she would need to inquire of them before inputting them.

The presence of the SAP-denominated email on her husband's server, whether opened or not, shows a criminal indifference to her lawful obligation to maintain safely all state secrets entrusted to her care. Yet, Clinton has suggested that she is hopelessly digitally inept and may not have known what she was doing. This constitutes an attempted plausible deniability to the charge of failing to safeguard state secrets.

But in this sensitive area of the law, plausible deniability is not an available defense; no judge would permit the assertion of it in legal filings or in a courtroom, and no lawyer would permit a client to make the assertion. This is so for two reasons. First, failure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government need not prove intent. The failure can be done negligently. Thus, plausible deniability is actually an admission of negligence and, hence in this case, an admission of guilt, not a denial.

Second, Clinton signed an oath under penalty of perjury on Jan. 22, 2009, her first full day as secretary of state. In that oath, she acknowledged that she had received a full FBI briefing on the lawfully required care and keeping of state secrets. Her briefing and her oath specified that the obligation to safeguard state secrets is absolute—it cannot be avoided or evaded by forgetfulness or any other form of negligence, and that negligence can bring prosecution.

What type of data is typically protected by the SAP denomination? The most sensitive under the sun—such as the names of moles (spies working for more than one government) and their American handlers, the existence of black ops (illegal programs that the U.S. government carries out, of which it will deny knowledge if exposed), codes needed to access state secrets, and ongoing intelligence gathering projects.

The crime here occurs when SAPs are exposed by residing in a nonsecure venue; it does not matter for prosecution purposes whether they fell into the wrong hands.

Clinton's persistent mocking of the seriousness of all this is the moral equivalent of taunting alligators before crossing a stream. SAPs are so sensitive that most of the FBI agents who are investigating Clinton lack the security clearances needed to view the SAP found among her emails. Most FBI agents have never seen a SAP.

Shortly after the presence of the SAP-denominated email was made known, the State Department released another email Clinton failed to erase wherein she instructed her subordinates to take state secrets from a secure venue, to cut and paste and summarize them, and send them to her on her nonsecure venue. Such an endeavor, if carried out, is a felony—masking and then not safeguarding state secrets. Such a command to subordinates can only come from a criminal mind.

Equally as telling is a little-known 2013 speech that recently surfaced given by one of Clinton's former subordinates. The aide revealed that Clinton and her staff regularly engaged in digital conversations about state secrets on their BlackBerries. This is not criminal if the BlackBerries were government-issued and secured. Clinton's was neither. It was purchased at her instructions off the shelf by one of her staff.

Can anyone doubt that Clinton has failed to safeguard state secrets? If her name were Hillary Rodham instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, she'd have been indicted months ago.

What remains of the rule of law in America? The FBI will soon tell us.

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Where Puerto Rico Went Wrong

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. Pardon me?

    1. I see what you did there.

    2. The status quo trumps parties.

  2. If her name were Hillary Rodham instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, she’d have been indicted months ago.

    This sort of kind of contradicts the assertion in the second sentence of this article. Unless the current administration thinks that Sanders is a viable candidate, Hillary will remain untouched (for the next year or so, at least).

    1. Fundamental transformation of America … into a banana republic. Rule of man, soon to be rule of woman over the peasants.

      1. let them eat cake = what the heck does it matter now.

        1. hey, I like cake!!!

          1. You wouldn’t much care for the type of cake that was being referred to

    2. At least the FBI should act independently and recommend charges, even if the Attorney General doesn’t follow through on them. I think enough people would wake up if that happened.

    3. Yes. What ever happened to Chelsea Manning? Edward Snowden? Baby Jane?

    4. Interesting that Sanders and Obama, just met, just when we’re finding out about the SAP. Coincidence?

    5. But we also know that the current administration has no love for the Clintons. Might Obama sink his party’s chances in this election just to spite his political rivals? He doesn’t seem to have much interest in building his own influence within the party, but he might enjoy ruining their influence.

      1. I think that Obama would be more than happy for Hillary to fall. She’s not exactly the continuation of his policies that he wants. With her out of the way, Biden would ride in on a white horse with all of Obama’s blessings.

  3. Can Anyone Doubt That Hillary Clinton Failed to Safeguard State Secrets?

    Sure…Tony, American Socialist, etc. are probably quite sure that Queen Hillary can do no wrong.

    1. trump could shoot a person and his fans would be okay Hillarity could shoot a man and not go to jail

  4. in this sensitive area of the law, plausible deniability is not an available defense; no judge would permit the assertion of it in legal filings or in a courtroom, and no lawyer would permit a client to make the assertion.

    …unless the defendant is a member of the anointed ruling class. Then it’ll never even make it in front of a judge. Laws are for us peasants, not our “betters.”

    If her name were Hillary Rodham instead of Hillary Rodham Clinton, she’d have been indicted months ago.

    If her name were Hillary Rodham, she would have never been First Lady, our a Senator from NY, or a presidential candidate, or Secretary of State. She’d be a run of the mill corrupt lawyer with delusions of grandeur.

    What remains of the rule of law in America?

    Nothing.

  5. “nearly guarantee that the FBI will recommend that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury and seek her indictment for espionage.”

    What’s that phrase? Oh, yeah: ‘Seeing is believing’.

    1. Too big to jail.

    2. Depends on how far down the ladder the recommendations come from. The TOP MEN of the FBI are certainly political creatures, but the agents actually doing the work are probably apolitical, or at least have a wide variety of politics. All of them are going to be strongly pro law enforcement and are going to hate having their target laugh off accusation after accusation. I think the recommendation is very likely. The real question is what Ms. Lynch does with it.

  6. The real question is whether the American public cares enough to do their own research.

  7. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

    1. a great new Citro?n 2CV

      BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!11!!1!!11!!!!!!!

      Also, someone needs to improve the spambots English language sub-routine.

      1. I ragged on that particular spambot yesterday.

        In fairness, I always liked that cheap little car. But the fact it ceased production 26 years ago didn’t help spambot’s case at all.

  8. This article is a pile of steaming shit. There is no way she could have viewed these emails “after inputting certain codes”. That would require that she had the decryption software on her server. Seriously? You are hyperventilating. I will trust my country’s leaders to handle state secrets responsibly or we don’t have a country. Do we have a country or not? And then you’ll probably defend Snowden who really is a traitor. Such hypocrisy or ignorance or mental retardation.

    1. “I will trust my country’s leaders”
      That’s your first mistake.

      If I took you seriously as a person who actually believes Clinton did no wrong, I would ask a serious of questions. Something on the order of “Did HRC used a non-official server for her emails? Yes or No?”.

      At the end, if you answered all questions honestly based on published facts, you would agree that HRC did, in fact, break the law, as the Judge says.

      But I’m sure you just forgot to put the /sarc /derp /prog after you post.

      Have a great day, you jokester, you.

    2. “I will trust my country’s leaders…”

      Geez, how old are you? I know even toddlers are computer savvy these days, but isn’t it nap time at your day care?

    3. AddictionMyth|1.28.16 @ 10:24AM|#
      “…And then you’ll probably defend Snowden who really is a traitor….”

      Hey! Who left the Cretin door open? One of them found its way in!
      Oh, and fuck off, slaver.

    4. Read the article more carefully. The point is that the codes are necessary to view the data in its proper environment. There is no way for the SAP data that has been found on her server to get there accidentally. She would have had to purposefully have circumvented the protection, e.g. by having data copied from the secure system to hers in some illegal fashion.

      1. ^This.

        One undoubtedly has to do authentication rain-dances for the proprietary terminals. Interesting question is if Shrillary’s hapless minions were authorized on said proprietary terminals for their copy/paste/transcript servitude.

        Was Hillary just kicking Huma her state terminal credentials for more ‘convenience?’ By, say, standard of tolerance exhibited for much milder transgressions in the state’s Petraeus schlonging, I think Huma’s gonna have to take one for the team here pretty soon.

        1. I think Huma’s gonna have to take one for the team here pretty soon

          This is probably Hillary’s only way out. Throw someone else under the bus, promising a pardon in ~5 years.

        2. I doubt that’s going to happen. Huma has the goods on Hillary. I have no doubt the HRC has been snacking on Carlos Danger’s left-over roast beef sandwich, and Huma has a better chance of having an accident than ending up in prison.

      2. Doesn’t even need to be purposefully. Intent or marking have no part. She has violated 18 USC 793 (f) as classified data was found on the server which she caused to be set up. Note the penalties. May not be the only law she has broken, but this one is pretty clear.

        (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?

        Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

    5. However, Huma, being the clever lass and loyal servant, logged into the the .gov server using the correct codes, copied and pasted them as a .txt to HRC on her server.

      Got it now?

  9. Not that I think it will make much difference as to public opinion or whether she’ll be indicted, but I am very eager to learn what is in the final batch of Hillary emails that State claims they can’t release until well after the Iowa caucuses and N.H. primary, despite the court-imposed deadline. There must be some real whoppers in there.

    1. Hillarity probably has Obumbles by the balls both figuratively and literaly

      1. eewwhhh

      2. Wrong. It’s the other way around.

        Step 1 – Let the investigation continue until Iowa/NH/SC wrap up, sinking the SS Sanders.
        Step 2 – Have justice make the indictment.
        Step 3 – Play kingmaker at the now-brokered DNC convention.

        1. Step 3 – Play kingmaker at the now-brokered DNC convention.

          So far Obama hasn’t shown much interest in being a major influence within the party. Has he been slow-playing this all along?

          Also, do we really believe any of these people are competent enough to think this far ahead?

        2. “Step 1 –
          Step 2 –
          Step 3 – ”

          Sorry, the man is not capable of 3-D chess; he’s lucky to tie his shoelaces.

  10. Regardless of the legal definitions being thrown around, in practical use, doesn’t having a server built for your home go beyond “criminal negligence”? Is it being asserted that she forgot NOT to build an email server to store state secrets in her home? Is it being asserted she “forgot” that the email server is the place the emails reside? The very idea she could do so unaware she was breaking the rules is nonsensical. Unless, of course, she is mentally incompetent to hold a clearance of any kind, much less the level of access enjoyed by a Secretary or President.

    Much more telling, I think, will be the info that comes out on the charity. I’ve been waiting for this since the story about the server broke. I would not be at all surprised to find clear and damning information on specific deals she made in the energy sector, etc.

    If Hillary’s published record doesn’t clue you in on the fact she’s a power broker willing to sell the country out for personal gain (or, in the case of the server, ‘convenience’), then imho you’re either completely clueless or (more likely) willfully ignorant.

  11. Can you imagine what kind of incriminating emails were in the “personal” batch that she deleted?

    1. You mean the yoga schedules and wedding planning emails? That’s the hardest part of her story to accept. There is no way she does yoga.

      1. LOL. Really. “Hardest part of her story to accept … that she does yoga” made me spit up my oatmeal. Thx.

  12. I think what will happen is that FBI Director Comey will recommend indictment. Loretta Lynch won’t indict and Comey will have a very high profile public resignation and go on the talk show and blast the Administration. The Liberal Media (I repeat myself) will defend the Administration and blame the whole mess on Bush, Cruz, Trump and/or Rush Limbaugh, and the whole thing will be a tempest in a teapot for the average Democrat voter. Nothing will change and Hills will be elected Criminal-in-Chief.

    1. I suspect your correct.

    2. Everything except Trump is commander in chief. I hate Trump but Clinton is 10 zillion times worse

  13. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do,

    ——————— http://www.richi8.com

  14. year. In this year till now I have earned 66k dollars with my pc, despite the fact that I am a college student. Even

    newbies can make 39 an hour easily and the average goes up with time. Why not try this.

    Clik This Link inYour Browser…….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.workpost30.com

  15. so this is all just media fodder to hide the real hijacking of democracy through campaign finance and corporate tax evasion…PERIOD

    1. BWAHAHA!

  16. just before I saw the receipt that said $7527 , I accept that my mom in-law woz like actualey making money in there spare time from there pretty old laptop. . there aunt had bean doing this for less than twentey months and at present cleared the depts on there appartment and bourt a great new Citro?n 2CV . look here…….
    Clik This Link inYour Browser.
    ???????? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  17. Back in the early 1990s I was at MIT on a project to install an intelligent email system at the Executive Office of the President (whitehouse.gov). The article is inaccurate in almost everything it says.

    First the classification levels, Top Secret is not the highest level. It is effectively the lowest. Anyone with a Top Secret clearance can read any Top Secret material, thats over a million people. You have to have Top Secret to get clearance for compartmentalized intel. which is what everything of consequence is governed by.

    Apart from nuclear secrets and the identity of CIA employees, almost no government data is classified by statue. Everything else is classified as a result of executive action. Every department set policy for what is classified. The ultimate authority being the secretary of state. It is arguably impossible for a secretary of state to break the law by disclosing information for the same reason the President is immune – they are deemed to have authorized their own actions.

    As far as the location of the mail server is concerned, it is irrelevant. The US government has three separate IP networks, NIPRNET, SIPRNET and the Internet. SIPRNET is an IP network that is rated to handle SECRET material. Essentially just a VPN. NIPRNET is not classified at all. To carry any TOP SECRET material, encryption is required. For State Dept this means using S/MIME with Suite B. If S/MIME encryption is used, the network is immaterial.

    1. Your post is inaccurate in every way possible. As a matter of fact, it’s complete bullshit. To begin, “Confidential” is “effectively” the lowest classification level. NOBODY can read ANY classified document unless they have a “need to know”, regardless of their clearance level.

      The Secretary of State is an “Original Classification Authority”. While she can decide to a point what is and is not classified for the DOS, she has absolutely no authority to declassify material from any other department. While she can chose NOT to classify certain material, she STILL has to follow the law when handling material that is already deemed classified, and she CANNOT arbitrarily declassify anything without that material undergoing a classification review.

      As far as your knowledge of what classified networks exist and how they are encrypted, you’re absolutely fucking clueless. ALL classified data must pass through and NSA approved “TYPE 1” encryption device to leave a physically secure network.

      ALL classified information must be stored I. A GSM approved security container, OR be in a certified facility. ALL SCI/SAP must be stored in an approved and secured SCIF. In other words, you’re full of shit.

      1. Zombie is right. Mr. Phillip 404 is wrong. There is a proper procedure for classifying or declassifying anything and photocopy/scanning something from JWICS to NIPRNet is not the proper way to declassify something. Having a flunky transcribe it by hand is also not proper. Finally, if these documents are “owned” by anyone outside the department of state then the secretary of state has no authority over it. The CIA, for example, doesn’t care one whit whether Hillary Clinton thinks something should be classified or not.

        I’ll just add that technically Unclassified is the lowest classification level and Mr. Phillip forgot about JWICS. Maybe it didn’t exist “back in the ’90’s”, which seems to be where his information is coming from.

    2. Confidential is the lowest security clearance. I worked for a DoD contractor.

      Top Secret cannot be viewed by everyone with a top secret clearance. Guess again, buddy.

  18. This isn’t a new issue. The reason for the change in policy after Clinton left is that during the Bush administration, the majority of Whitehouse staff were using a site gwb43.com for their official mail. And part of the reason for that was legal advice that any use of the government email system for partisan purposes would be criminal under the Hatch act.

    Compartmentalized intelligence could not have been sent over NIPRNET or the Internet no matter what the encryption system. That is dealt with using a completely different approach to commercial cryptography (see Suite A). Nobody has shown the slightest evidence of compartmentalized intel being exchanged that way.

    The only reason this came up was to try to hide the fact that the Benghazi hearing has found nothing of consequence and the original reason for claiming that there was a Benghazi scandal was to muddy the waters after Mitt Romney decided to hold a press conference and attack the President’s handling of the situation while the fight was taking place.

    So no, there are plenty of reasons to expect that there won’t be any action taken because at this point there isn’t any credible non-partisan source that is actually saying there is a problem.

    1. Compartmentalized intelligence could not have been sent over NIPRNET or the Internet no matter what the encryption system

      False. How the fuck do you think classified information was found on her server in the first place? The material was copied from classified sources and sent to her non-secure internet server. There’s no other way it could have jumped the air gap.

      The only reason this came up was to try to hide the fact that the Benghazi hearing has found nothing of consequence

      No, the only reason it came up was because Hillary was stonewalling FOIA requests. At that point, it came out that she had her own server. Then, she lied not only about why she had a private server, she lied that there was no classified information on the server.

    2. It is arguably impossible for a secretary of state to break the law by disclosing information for the same reason the President is immune – they are deemed to have authorized their own actions.
      So no, there are plenty of reasons to expect that there won’t be any action taken because at this point there isn’t any credible non-partisan source that is actually saying there is a problem.

      Nice hedge there.

      Telling aides to remove classified markings from a document to send it over niprnet, if you’re not the originating classified authority, is a crime (there’s already an email of one of her aides telling her that he can’t send out an email because of this even though she ordered him to do so anyway, so no, Hillary is not immune from these rules). Furthermore, classified information consists of marked and unmarked information, as well as oral communications. So Hillary’s excuse that “nothing was marked classified at the time” doesn’t legally wash here, either.

      If you’re going to act like a Hillary shill and obfuscate information security laws, try doing it with people who don’t understand how those rules and training actually work.

    3. FAKE SKANDALZ….typical of a true believer, not being able to recognize a mendacious, thieving harradan when it’s right in front of their face. You are gonna feel the Bern, chumly and it’s going to be hilarious.

    4. Just ignore the fact that there are approximately 200 FBI agents working. Criminal case against your Queen.

      1. Yeah, but all those career FBI agents are obviously GOP attack dogs.

        1. Obviously. That’s the only possible explanation to a Hillary sycophant. Never mind the fact that the only person with the sack to assign 200 agents to a case is the Director himself, and he’s a Dali Bama appointee.

        2. Yeah, they need to get back to chasing Bill’s mistresses like proper Democrat attack dogs.

    5. What a novel argument. For O’s first 4 years, every problem was “Bush’s fault”. So I guess the 2nd 4 years of the administration were Romney’s fault. You should work for the New York Times.

    6. Other than the 200 FBI agents.

  19. No no one doubts that. That’s not the point. The point is does breaking the law still even matter? It may not. All law is political and only exists to the extent it can be used as a weapon to punish one’s enemies, or, barring that, pure theater for the cheap seats. It may not even matter if she’s on trial during the election. It may not matter if she’s convicted before or after the election or after her inauguration. We don’t live in a civic society any more.

  20. Every day as I tune into the MSM nightly news, the silence is deafening about Hillarys’ woes. Report no evil, see no evil. Astonishingly simple how they apply that!

  21. Arrest the dumb bitch, already! sheesh!

  22. Regardless of whether or not she’s indicted or convicted, she’s certainly ineligible for a security clearance. I’m just wondering what kind of new legal hoops will be created to get around that problem.

    1. Before any charges are allowed to come out, Obama will pardon her as his last act as President. Don’t need any new hoops. The old ones from 1974 still work wonders. Marc Richard anyone?

      1. Marc Rich. Spellcheck strokes afain.

      2. Pardoning her won’t unviolate National Security, and with that under her belt, she’s not eligible for a security clearance. How’s that going to work in the off chance that she’s elected?

  23. Oh, come on, they weren’t secret “secrets”. Hillary can femsplain that to you.

  24. “Can Anyone Doubt That Hillary Clinton Failed to Safeguard State Secrets?”

    There was no doubt from *day one*.

    Once we knew that Her Queeniness ran her State Dept. email through a private server, it was a moral certainty that there was a ton of classified information on there, and that any country with a professional intelligence had it all.

    Between handing all the OPM data and the Department of State’s emails to our enemies, if Obama had been the Manchurian Candidate, what worse could he have done?

  25. To the guy saying Hillary can classify and declassify as she wants … Didn’t help Patreus. He didn’t really revive a just punishment, but he did have his day in court.

  26. The Honorable former Judge Naplolitano now works as a judicial analyst at the esteemed Fox News Channel, renown for its integrity and accuracy. Therefore, we should regard his analysis of this ‘Clinton email situation’ as a matter of great consequence. Except for –

    http://www.thenewcivilrightsmo…..th_clinton

    1. If this article had been written by Randy Barnett, would you still poo-poo it?

  27. “It has never made sense to me that Secretary Clinton can be held responsible for email exchanges that originated with someone else,” Feinstein, who has endorsed Clinton, added.

    Clinton can be held responsible because she chose to have those E-mail messages delivered to her own server. That is precisely why setting up her E-mail server was so irresponsible: even if she didn’t send any top secret E-mails, other people would be sending her such messages, and this confirms it.

    The fact that it “doesn’t make sense to” Feinstein isn’t surprising: she has been getting increasingly getting senile and incoherent, and she didn’t start out the brightest bulb to begin with. Nor is it surprising that the increasingly bigoted and ignorant Democratic base actually believes such lame excuses.

  28. When I was in the Marines, back in the days before email, here is how this would have gone down. If I copied a Top Secret document and then mailed it to another person (even a person with the clearance to receive it), I would have violated the Secrets Act twice. First by making the copy, and second by transmitting it in an unsecured manner. The person receiving the document would have committed at minimum one other felony if they did not reveal the receipt of the illegal letter as a security breach.
    If this came to light, I would have gone straight to a General Court-Martial, ended up with a Dishonorable Discharge and trip to Leavenworth.
    These days Clinton gets to ignore the Secrets Act, ignore the laws pertaining to record keeping (destroying the server/emails), ignore a judicial order to release the remaining emails, and then taunts the public with “But I’m Special” as her excuse. So far the DOJ is letting her get away with it.
    I guess the reason is “But at this point what difference does it make”

  29. Not sure what the prevailing theory is for just why she would do this but my half baked theory is that the unsecured server was used as a dead-drop for state secrets. Money is paid to Bill’s foundation for “speaking engagements” and in return, top-secret information is made available via the home brew server which is comically easy to hack.

    1. My theory is that she had a lot she didn’t want to make public as a general rule…you know, regular emails and communications from associates and contacts in industry, cronyism…and someone sold her on the feasibility and security of re-locating the server to her direct control. It really didn’t work out the way she envisioned, but witness the instant document-shredding endeavor that took place once the court order came out: The “oh crap we gotta filter this response” machine was pretty well-oiled. It struck me as the work of a group that had a clear mission, had been to this juncture before, just had never gained the expertise necessary to really cover the tracks.

      What does it take to get people to see the obvious? She stonewalls a bunch of FOIA requests, then when she’s called on it, she stonewalls production of the emails until it’s revealed she has them all on a homebrew server scheme she “doesn’t know anything about”, then she stonewalls a court order to produce the emails while actively destroying evidence, then, after all that, we start seeing that there was highly classified information in the items she denied existed, there were emails and conversations that she denied in the FOIA requests, surrounding testimony she had given at hearings, and on and on…

      1. The most hilarious bit: The part where she says, “this had never been done before!” while beaming proudly into the cameras. Yes, Hillary, no one at your level of government has ever responded to a court order to produce thousands of emails with paper copies of a curated selection of them. This, from the first lady whose husband signed the Electronic Signatures Act. Paper copies. After she edited them. Paper copies.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.