No longer useful, no longer needed, no longer wanted. Sorry, HILLARY!™, but it would seem you’re past your sell-by date.
The U.S. State Department announced Monday that it found 23 “violations” and seven “infractions” in its review of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official business. The department also found several individuals culpable in “multiple security incidents,” associated with the scandal.
The department’s findings came in an official letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa), who is in charge of congressional oversight in the department’s security review regarding the mishandling of classified information related to Clinton’s emails.
The revelations from the State Department follow a January inquiry from Grassley who sought information related to the security incidents and officials involved with Clinton’s private email server during her time as secretary of state.
That would be Her Herness’s wide-open, halfassed, and completely illegal private server.
The Federal Records Act requires that all communication in certain branches of government be recorded on government servers, and it forbids the use of a personal email account for government business, unless those emails are then copied and archived. However, there are a lot of technicalities involved, and there is evidence that other government officials had violated the act. As Alex Howard wrote for the Sunlight Foundation, there is also evidence that Clinton tried to control the discoverability of the emails under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which could set a precedent for limiting public access to government records. It is also believed that Clinton deleted 31,000 emails deemed personal in nature before turning the emails over to the State Department.
Y’know: the wide-open, halfassed, and completely illegal server Slimey Jim Comey conveniently gave her a pass on, using the unprecedented, made-up, and patently absurd “no intent” dodge.
Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require….The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
But there’s another problem. Comey says that Hillary did not evidence “intentional and willful mishandling of classified information” or “vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct” or “efforts to obstruct justice.”
All three were present here.
Y’know: the wide-open, halfassed, and completely illegal server Obama sent and received emails to and from using a fake name, only to deny all knowledge of its existence later.
As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.
To be sure, he did so on a smaller scale. Clinton’s recklessness was systematic: She intentionally set up a non-secure, non-government communications framework, making it inevitable that classified information would be mishandled, and that federal record-keeping laws would be flouted. Obama’s recklessness, at least as far as we know, was confined to communications with Clinton — although the revelation that the man presiding over the “most transparent administration in history” set up a pseudonym to conceal his communications obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.
Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.
YOU know, that server. “Not one single hint of scandal or a lie“? Riiiiight. Pull the other one, Gropey Joe. It has a bell on it.
No, HILLARY!™ still won’t be going to prison. Neither will Obama. But truth will out nonetheless; the walls are closing in on them, even if the satisfaction of seeing real justice done will be denied us. History will regard these bumbling, shambolic scoundrels unkindly at best: as the wholly corrupt, dishonest, incompetent hacks they are. Regrettably, that’s gonna have to be enough.
Well, that, and things like this:
Bottoms up, Hils. You’ll NEVER be president.
Update! WHO’S guilty of obstruction of justice again, now?
The subject again was raised during last week’s interview between the president and ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos. “She deleted 33,000 emails from—sent by the United States Congress,” Trump reminded the former Clinton confidante in the Oval Office. “They gave a subpoena to Hillary Clinton for 33,000 emails. After the subpoena was gotten, she deleted them. That’s called obstruction.” Stephanopoulos attempted to brush off the accusations against the wife of his one-time boss by insisting the matter already had “been investigated.”
Trump, however, is correct; Clinton’s missing emails were evidence at the time in both a congressional investigation into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack and several Freedom of Information Act lawsuits. Her family’s nonprofit, the Clinton Foundation, was under increasing scrutiny from both the FBI and Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group. The State Department’s inspector general in 2014 asked four previous secretaries of state—including Clinton—for any emails sent from a private account during their tenure in order to comply with the Federal Records Act.
But Clinton, claiming the emails were of a personal nature, including dish about yoga classes and her daughter’s wedding, authorized the permanent removal of tens of thousands of pages of potential evidence and federal records. To make sure that “even God can’t read them,” as former Representative Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) mocked in August 2016, Clinton’s aides installed a special software program that blocked the retrieval of the documents. FBI investigators failed to locate Clinton’s 13 mobile devices and two iPads that might have contained the missing correspondence; her aides admitted to “breaking [her old BlackBerries] in half or hitting them with a hammer.”
While her mishandling of classified information remains the biggest injustice of the Clinton email scandal, the willful destruction of more than half of the 60,000 emails archived on her private, illicit server also remains an overlooked crime for which no one has been held accountable.
Anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation,” is guilty of obstruction of justice, an offense punishable by up to 20 years in prison.
Ain’t gonna happen, more’s the pity. But I’d settle for watching her sweat the possibility as she testifies before Congress, Barr, a jury, or all of the above.
To date, according to Judicial Watch—the only entity still interested in pursuing the deleted files—the FBI only has recovered about 5,000 of the 33,000 emails that Team Clinton obliterated from cyberspace.
And although Judicial Watch is scoring wins in court to slowly expose the corruption and, yes, obstruction of justice related to Clinton’s email server, news organizations continue to ignore the subject for the same reasons the media continue to ignore or, worse, justify FISA-gate: Both scandals ultimately lead to Barack Obama.
While Democrats and their accomplices in the media daily shriek that Trump is upending democratic norms and the rule of law, each day offers a new reminder of how the previous administration trashed every legal, political and administrative boundary that once guided fair play. Trump should keep raising this galling contradiction—and force his eventual Democratic presidential opponent to answer for it.
Say, Hils, maybe you should ask Obama if he’d like a tug off your bottle of Old Popskull. He could probably use a stiff belt right about now himself.