Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Should Stop Playing Dumb

The secretary of state turned 2016 presidential candidate is smart, shrewd, and experienced enough to recognize a state secret when she sees one.

|

Hillary Clinton/Flickr

What if Hillary Clinton is in legal hot water and she knows it but won't admit it? What if she has decided to go on the offensive and make her case that she did nothing unlawful with her emails that contained state secrets?

What if the essence of her defense is that other secretaries of state used non-secure email devices and thus it was lawful for her to do so, as well as the point that none of her emails was "marked classified" at the time she sent or received them? What if these defenses do not hold up to even cursory examination?

What if the other secretaries of state to whom she refers are Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice? What if neither of them diverted all of their emails to a private server? What if neither of them sent or received state secrets—secrets that under the law of the land are marked "confidential," "secret" or "top secret," not "classified"—using a non-secure email account?

What if neither of them hired an information technology expert and paid him to divert both a standard State Department email stream and a secret State Department email stream to a private server in one of their homes?

What if neither Powell nor Rice is currently running for president? What if neither Powell nor Rice has had his or her behavior as secretary of state referred to the FBI for a criminal investigation by the inspector general of the State Department?

What if the law of the land is that a document or email contains state secrets by virtue of the information or data in the document or email and not by virtue of any warning label? What if the legal definition of a "state secret" in the U.S. is "information the revelation of which could cause harm to the security of the United States"?

What if it is the law of the land that people in the government to whom state secrets are entrusted are required to recognize the secrets when they see them and protect them from intentional or inadvertent revelation?

What if it is the law of the land that everyone in the government to whom state secrets are entrusted receives a multi-hour tutorial from the FBI on how to protect state secrets? What if the successful completion of that tutorial is a legal prerequisite to the receipt of a national security clearance and thus the receipt of state secrets?

What if that tutorial reminds the people to whom secrets are being reposed that it is their legal obligation to recognize and accept and understand the law before they can receive any state secrets? What if, in order to confirm that understanding, all people who receive the tutorial are required to sign an oath at the end of the tutorial recognizing, accepting and understanding the law and agreeing to be bound by it? What if Clinton signed just such an oath?

What if Clinton had no intention of complying with the oath she signed at the time she signed it? What if we know that because we know she hired the information technologist to divert her emails the same week she received the FBI tutorial? What if she never told the FBI that she planned to divert all her emails—including those that would contain state secrets—to a private non-secure email server in her home?

What if it is the law of the land that the failure to secure state secrets is a felony, known as espionage? What if it is the law of the land that espionage can be committed by a person who intends to expose state secrets or by a person who doesn't care if she exposes state secrets? What if the FBI explained to Clinton in her first day as secretary of state that the grossly negligent exposure of state secrets constitutes espionage?

What if before Clinton was secretary of state, she was a U.S. senator from New York for eight years? What if during that time, she was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee? What if during her time in the Senate, she was exposed to hundreds of military-related state secrets?

What if Clinton is smart enough and shrewd enough and experienced enough to recognize a state secret when she sees one?

What if the FBI has seen emails in which Clinton ordered subordinates deliberately to avoid State Department secure channels of communications and to send state secrets to her through channels she knew were not secure? What if Clinton passed on state secrets to others who had no security clearances? What if she did so knowing she was sending state secrets from her non-secure server to other non-secure servers?

What if Clinton sent or received more than 2,000 emails that contained state secrets? What if she authored more than 100 of them herself? What if some of the 2,000 emails were so secret that the FBI agents investigating her lack the security clearances to view those emails?

What if Clinton did all this so that she could keep her behavior as secretary of state secret and away from all officials in the State Department outside her inner circle, away from the president, and away from the American people? What if she orchestrated and carried out a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act?

What if the FBI is onto her? What if the Democrats are not?

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

Advertisement

NEXT: Rand Paul Mocks Hillary Clinton For Spending $90,000 on a Campaign Playlist, Offers His Own List For Her

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. good…GOOD!…let the questions flow through you!!

    1. This format does get a little tired.

      1. What are trying to say? Do you not like the Judge’s style?

        1. What if the Judge changed his style?

          1. What if the Judge is in training for Jeopardy?

            1. What if the Judge has a heretofore unexplored mental dysfunction that compels him to express himself in questions?

      2. Agreed. Enough with the faux rhetorical questions. Maybe one or two for effect, but not a whole article.

  2. There is a wooded glade.
    In this glade a tree has fallen.
    There was no one to hear it.
    There’s a question in there someplace, yet one might wonder what questions there are left to ask.

    1. Worst. Haiku. Ever.

    2. if someone does not know a secret is a secret is it still a secret?

  3. Meh, I’d give it a 7/10 at best. Sure, starting every single sentence with “What if…?” is a nice parody but it’s pretty easy to tell this is FoE sending out a troll post and not really Napolitano. Should have saved it for April first.

  4. If you can play dumb or admit that you and your circle at the highest levels of government have committed multiple felonies, you’re probably going to go with the dumb option.

  5. What if the government actually treated lawbreakers equally regardless of their position and power? Who actually ordered the troops to stand down at Benghazi? Why is gender a social construct but not race? Whatever happened to all the fun in the world? Why are social justice warriors being funded by the NSF to stick their probosces into everything from physics to glaciology? How the fuck is Donald Trump on the verge of securing the Republican nomination for President? Where can I buy one of his steaks?

    1. Answer to the last question – nowhere, he doesn’t actually sell steaks, they were bought from an actual establishment and rebranded.

      1. Since Hilary is still leading the Dems, I am thinking we need to find out where to buy ‘stakes’, rather than ‘steaks’.

        Fucking vampire menace.

        1. Yes. Both she and Pelosi should be tracked to their coffins shortly before dawn. There they should be dragged from their coffins after the sun has risen. Then impaled on wooden stakes, and the heads separated from the bodies. Once that is done, the heads and bodies should be burned in separate fires. The ashes then scattered in different directions. Also, as a precaution, place crucifixes within each of their coffins.

        2. Do woodchippers work on vampires?

          I guess you’d have to make special wooden tines for it.

      2. Only because “Trump Steaks” was another failed business effort, like “Trump Wine”, and “Trump Express”.

    2. What if Hillary ordered the troops to stand down at Benghazi to prevent discovery of the identity of the attackers because it would lead to the discovery that they obtained their intelligence about her illegal gun running operation from her illegal, insecure server? What if that intelligence was stolen by the Russians and relayed to pro-Assad forces for the express purpose of shutting down her gun running operation to anti-Assad forces? What if Amb Steven’s and the others murders were the direct result of her using an insecure server to receive and relay classified information?

      The Democratic candidates in this race are so abjectly evil it is unconscionable that they are in the race. Hillary should be in Leavenworth for life and Bernie should be shunned and homeless, mumbling to himself in a cardboard box in a back alley while stray dogs steal the pizza crusts he rummaged from the dumpster. This is why I find all of the pantshitting about Trump hollow.

      1. Not to raise the tired “double standard” meme again, but if this had been Condi Rice diverting emails, the chain of causation you are suggesting would be cited as established fact in N.Y. Times op-Ed pieces, college classrooms, and the floor of Congress by folks like Harry Reid.

        1. I am guessing that the only way she stays out of prison is either by winning the office or receiving a pardon. When the details eventually come out no amount of press covering her ass will matter.

          1. When the details eventually come out

            How? From Pagliano?

      2. Bernie should be shunned and homeless, mumbling to himself in a cardboard box in a back alley…

        Right next to penniless and bankrupt Donald Trump’s cardboard box…

        1. Donald Trump actually has business skills, knowledge, and experience. Bernie feeds off public money like an infant greedily sucking on a tit.

    3. Race is totally a social construct.

      1. It’s not like there are genetic components to sex, gender and race, even if you separate the first two from each other. nosiree.

        1. *Throws a bottle of piss at UCS*

          1. In high school, used to save up urine, and store it in a sealed container in an extra fridge. When I had enough, I would fill balloons with them. Then I would go to the home of someone I hated, and fling multitudes of these piss balloons at them.

            Those were good times.

            1. What a coincidence. I just pissed my pants laughing after “Those were good times.”

      2. Nope, a black couple will not randomly have an asian or white baby.

        1. In all seriousness, what about mixes? Virtually every African American is at least partly white from generations back, and different races continue to mix voluntarily. They will need DNA tests to determine who qualifies for this bounty, perhaps with a sliding scale based on purity.

    4. Why are social justice warriors being funded by the NSF to stick their probosces into everything from physics to glaciology? How the fuck is Donald Trump on the verge of securing the Republican nomination for President?

      I think the first question might have a little bit to do with the second.

  6. I love the Judge, but FFS the endless rhetorical question gag is getting old.

    1. Not as old as Clinton’s “not marked classified” bullshit.

    2. It was old the very first time. Now it’s entirely unreadable. Each time he does it, i skip the article and go straight to comments to bitch about the style.

  7. “If you can’t tell what is or should be classified – do you understand anything you read as Secretary of Frequent Flier Miles?”

    1. Well, her staff referenced her as being “easily confused” in their interdepartmental correspondence. Something that should probably be used in campaign ads against her.

  8. I think this will get real interesting. The FBI Director seems like a very deliberate guy who does not much care about what his bosses think. I think he recommends charges against Clinton, lays out a devastating case against her, and resigns very publicly if Justice overrules him.

    http://thehill.com/policy/cybe…..akes-waves

    1. So, a win-win for us. I like it.

    2. And when, pray tell, do you see this happening?

      1. I don’t know – I assume right now they are talking to her server guy who took a deal last week.

        1. And they just got the original hacker of Clinton’s email extradited from Europe.

          That is a step in this case that hasn’t made much news but seems significant.

          1. And every time they release more Clinton emails, we find more unsecured messages with details of Stevens’ trip to Benghazi…

      2. I’ve been hearing that they are now also in the process of looking onto the pay for play angle with the Clinton Foundation and an indictment recommendation could come down as soon as this month.

  9. The steroids she is taking to keep the hack and cough down seem to have embiggened her a bit…. OK, a lot. She is going to need a mu mu soon.

    1. embiggened

      A perfectly cromulent adjective.

      1. A Clintonian adjective actually

    2. If she gets the Dem nomination, the general is gonna be tons of fun for her supporters.

    3. “Cankles must feed!!!!!!!!!”

  10. What is Hillary is not “playing” dumb?

    1. Actually, I’ve heard from a Dem source (a former boss of mine (and Dem politician)) that the biggest political lie of the last generation is the idea that Hillary Clinton is smart. Apparently she’s of average intelligence (at best).

      1. Flunked the DC Bar exam.

        I think it surprises because her greed and dishonesty are towering, sublime, world-class. It just doesn’t jibe with the utterly pedestrian quality of her mistakes — preparing for the previous war, not learning from the mistakes of others, leaving behind an orgy of evidence, etc. How could someone so exceptional in her immorality be so ordinary in her pursuit of it?

  11. It boggles the mind. She’s the ducking secretary of state. Everything she emails should be presumed classified by default. Gaaaaah.

    1. Fucking

      1. No, you got it right the first time.

        1. Yeah, that’s a Johnism.

      2. when and where, sailor man?

      3. if it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, you can call it a President all you want, but it still quacks

        1. Like Donald!

    2. She said she didn’t knowingly send or receive any classified emails. That itself is perjury right there. There is no way you can convince me that someone serving as SOC for 4 years did not send or receive a single classified email. Not a single one, even while Putin attacked Ukraine, the US attacked Libya, Egypt had a coup, ISIS appeared in Syria, China and NK periodically caused trouble in the Far East. Not a single classified email received or sent.

      1. ^ THIS x a googolplex

      2. Yeah, if she didn’t send or receive any classified email, she wasn’t doing her job.

      3. Hillary spoke the truth that masks a deception, “I did not send or receive any emails marked classified at the time.”.

        Turn your Clinton speech decoder device on maximum decipher. Classified material is not marked with the word, “classified”, classified material is marked with a classification: Secret, Top Secret, etc. Nobody sends or recieves material ‘marked’ classified.

      4. She’s given an answer for that one, too.

        (Head tilted back, eyes on the verge of rolling, encroaching sneer): You know, I DO have the phone numbers of other foreign ministers and heads of state. I WAS the, shall I remind you, Secretary of State of the United States. I flew a million miles, speaking personally to luminaries that you can only imagine. (Did you know that Vladimir Putin wears Paco Rabanne? I do.) And if I have a need to speak to the Very High Exalted Most Important and Powerful Person in the World, U.S. President Barack Obama — or The President as I call him on formal occasions — or Barack as I call him when we’re speaking casually — I can just pick up the phone or stroll over to my former residence, the White House.

        Unlike you, I don’t need (skoff) email to do these things.

  12. You know who else was a crony corporatist…

    1. Every politician?

    2. Christopher Columbus?

  13. The “we’re not criminals, just idiots” defense is one that has been working for the Clintons for as long as I can remember. I’ve never understood why. Why is it acceptable to have an idiot as President?

    If I went into job interviews with that line I would never get hired, and my job is hardly comparable to the presidency.

    1. my job is hardly comparable to the presidency.
      ————————

      You mean you have to get results and satisfy your employers all while behaving in an ethical and law-abiding manner?

  14. What if the Democrats are not?

    What if the Democrats simply don’t give a shit?

    1. They don’t. Progressives have no real sense of right or wrong. Just their progressive religious dogma. Nothing else matters to them.

  15. What if judge Napolitano stopped annoying his readers with meaningless rhetorical questions and got to the point?

  16. the reason she no longer comments about the subject when asked by reporters is probably because her lawyer told her to not say anything more about it to prevent further self incrimination. Of course she cant say it that way so she scoffs and laughs off any questions about it.

  17. There are only four periods in this entire article. All four appear as punctuation in two instances “U.S.” abbreviation.

    There’s literally not a single sentence in this entire piece apart from questions.

    Wait, no, what if I’m commenting wrong??

    What if there are only four periods in this entire article?? What if all four of those periods appear as punctuation in two instances of “U.S.” abbreviation??

    What if there’s literally not a single sentence in this entire piece apart from questions??

    There, that’s better. Wait, I mean, what if that’s better?? Um??

    1. To put it another way, there are no declarative statements in the article, only interrogative statements.

  18. What if the Judge weren’t so obsessed with Hillary?

    1. I’m obsessed with Hillary, I’ve gotta admit. I want to see her brought down like Jiang Qing. I will experience intense joy at seeing her deprived of the presidency.

      1. You’d rather have TRUMP? I’d rather have a lying uberhawk than a lying quasi-fascist.

  19. The Judge is clearly of the opinion that HRC broke the law and should be indicted. From all that I’ve read, I can’t disagree with him. What will be interesting in the next few weeks or months is whether or not FBI Director Comey will be cowed by the powers that be and give Hillary a pass. This election will be determined largely by whether or not Comey has the integrity and even the guts to stand up and say Hillary is a crook. He will be presented with all kinds of incentives to let her off as well as some pretty unpleasant outcomes if he doesn’t. It will be a tough decision. Let’s hope he does the right thing.

  20. She’s not Playing!

  21. RE: Hillary Clinton Should Stop Playing Dumb

    What makes you think she’s playing?

  22. Emails, emails, emails, and on and on. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, and on and on. Whitewater, Whitewater, Whitewater, and on and on. Vince Foster, Vince Foster, Vince Foster, and on and on. Why don’t you jerks, and that includes you, Judge Napolitano, do something constructive with your time besides rallying for investigations, investigations, investigations, and on and on. It just rips you jerks to no end that you can’t pin some awful evil upon Democrats. It’s you who are responsible, partly, for the hatred and obstructionism which we find in the political arena today. You are the real threat which America faces. Get out of the negative mode and go do something productive!

  23. the “what if” style is getting old… especially when the question is something that states an established fact: “What if the sky is blue? What if there is air?”

  24. the “what if” style is getting old… especially when the question is something that states an established fact: “What if the sky is blue? What if there is air?”

  25. So well said…er ‘questioned’….love it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.