Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, July 7, 2016

One More Time


Before leaving the topic of yesterday's blog post "Extremely Careless" Hillary Clinton, please read How the FBI director systematically dismantled Hillary Clinton’s email defense (Washington Post, July 5, 2016), reproduced in its entirety below the fold and worth your time if you give one whit about the truth:
FBI Director James B. Comey’s remarks Tuesday about Hillary Clinton’s email use while she was secretary of state directly contradicted much of what Clinton had said publicly about the issue.

Here’s how Comey’s statements stack up against Clinton’s explanations.

Did Clinton send or receive classified material using her private setup?

What Clinton said:

March 10, 2015: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.”

July 2, 2016: “Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now. I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.”

What Comey said:

“These [classified] chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

“None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government — or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Were the emails classified at the time they were sent, or were they deemed classified only later by government bureaucrats?

What Clinton said:

March 9, 2016: “What you are talking about is retroactive classification. And the reason that happens is when somebody asks or when you are asked to make information public, I asked all my emails to be made public. Then all the rest of the government gets to weigh in.”

What Comey said:

“From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were up-classified to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.”

Did the emails contain markings demonstrating that they contained classified material?


What Clinton said:

From Clinton campaign’s “facts about Hillary Clinton’s emails” website: “No information in Clinton’s emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.”

What Comey said:

“Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Was the server ever hacked or otherwise subject to foreign intrusion?

What Clinton said:

March 10, 2015: “There were no security breaches.”

Campaign fact sheet: “There is no evidence there was ever a breach.”

What Comey said:

“We did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

Did Clinton turn over all of her work-related correspondence?

What Clinton said:

August 8, 2015, court filing: “I, Hillary Rodham Clinton, declare under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct . . . I have directed all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State and on information and belief, this has been done.”

What Comey said:

“The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. . . . I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”

How thoroughly was Clinton’s correspondence reviewed to determine which emails were work-related and which were purely personal and could be deleted?

What Clinton said:

Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill to Time Magazine, March 14, 2015: “Every one of the more than 60,000 emails were read. Period.”

What Comey said:

“The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014.”

Was the FBI conducting a criminal investigation?

What Clinton said:

Feb. 4, 2016: “This is a security review that was requested. It is being carried out. It will be resolved.”

Clinton campaign fact sheet: “As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.”

What Comey said:

“The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

“Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.”

What conclusion should be drawn about the decision to use a private server?


What Clinton said:

March 9, 2016: “It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed. And as I have said and as now has come out, my predecessors did the same thing and many other people in the government.”

What Comey said:

“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”
Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit to hold any political office which requires security clearance.

Meanwhile, seven months have passed since Hillary Rodham Clinton has deigned to give a press conference.

35 comments:

  1. If I commit spillage by having or sending one TS e-mail, much less eight, on an UNCLASSIFIED system.....I would fully expect to lose my clearance, and thus my career.

    But I can't count myself among the political elite, so I'm actually held accountable for my actions.

    - CI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CI,
      From 1996-1997, I worked for a private school which made good use of computers for record keeping and correspondence with parents. We were told flat out, "Copy the administration on everything!" And if we didn't do that? We would be fired on the spot!

      And that job wasn't one requiring security clearance, with national and international security at stake.

      I can't count myself among the political elite, so I'm actually held accountable for my actions.

      Orwell: "Some animals are more equal than others."

      Delete
  2. I look forward to the latest polls that include this time period of Comey's remarks. I think that will tell us a whole lot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. She committed perjury multiple times during her Benghazi Panel 12-hour tour de force, but if JustUs doesn't prosecute gross mishandling of top secret information anymore, I doubt they'll bother with such trifles as perjury.

    ReplyDelete
  4. NOTICE:

    Comments are temporarily and intermittently on moderation for a while because we have out-of-town company, whom we haven't seen in over six years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WAIT A MINUTE THERE, AOW...who's more important, out of town company you haven't seen in six years OR US? (Smile)
      Hope you're REALLY enjoying the company AND I hope you're getting some rest and feeling less discomfort? xxx

      Delete
    2. Z,
      I will be quite miserable as long as this ureteral stent is in place. About two more weeks to go. **sigh**

      But Mr. AOW and I really enjoyed the two days' of visiting with our elderly family members (ages 87 and 94). We should all be as lively and mentally sharp as those two folks!

      Delete
  5. In the real world when somebody is extremely careless in their work they are quickly terminated. They DON'T run for the Presidency. Of course the fix is in and has been in. In the court of public opinion she is guilty. Hillary could be an axe murderer and it would not matter to the media or the democrat machine.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hellary is a Bald-Faced Liar. But we knew that already.

    The game is rigged, we are a corrupt nation no better than a banana republic or South Crapistan.

    I recommend my fellow Right Blogistanis study up on how people survive and even thrive in corrupt nations such as Italy and Mexico. Registering as a Democrat may be some good cammo that comes in handy in the not-so-distant future...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You gotta go deep for them, and I hesitate to get too specific on the innerwebz. Of course, I would never suggest anything illegal--unlike Hillary Clinton, we proles are subject to extreme prosecution.

      Much of survival and prospering in a corrupt environment involves simply going along to get along, keeping your mouth shut, etc...

      Delete
  7. After seeing some news coverage of Comey's apparent remarks to a sub-committee [sound was muted], at least I now have a defense ready if I commit spillage.

    And I quote:

    "there was only a small amount of classified information on my unclassified server"

    I probably wouldn't be able to recognize the classification markings if I saw them"

    Therefore, I shouldn't be in fear of losing my security clearance or my job...right?

    Then again, invoking the Joe Biden advice of shooting a shotgun through a front door, or up in the air.....didn't work out so well for those who tried it.

    Sucks to be a serf.

    - CI

    ReplyDelete
  8. Just ask yourself, what if a Republican tea party patriot did this? Scooter Libby, call your office!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The more interesting event is Britain taking advantage of "all eyes on Hillary" to do a news dump of the Chilicot report.

      Too bad nobody paid much attention. Of course Hillary was an enabler of the Iraq fiasco but certainly not a primary player.
      When elected she should keep the whole mess going to feed the appetite of all you war dogs.

      Delete
  9. Baysider, if ANY REPUBLICAN candidate did this they'd be DONE.
    As it is the leftwingers on the panel VERy inappropriately called him names and tried to make all Republicans feel guilty for even having Trump as a candidate (as if they need more to feel that way?)

    Trump has NOW responded to the NY Times with "If I win, then I'll let you know if I serve".
    Ya, he's on a REAL crusade to show 'How NOT to get elected'...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheer up Z.

      His VP choice is fast becoming Ted Nugent or David Duke.

      Delete
    2. ... Or the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man...


      Giant Meteor 2016

      Delete
    3. Ducky, of course they aren't...actually, I think, except for that mafia dope Christie, his list is pretty honorable. I'm just sad Joni Ernst said 'no' apparently. I hate Trump, Ducky, so I hate to disappoint you but nothing you can say about him will upset me except "what he says and how he says it represents Republicans". THAT would bug me BIG TIME.

      Delete
    4. I turned in my GOP credentials in 2012 (iirc, my letter stated "please find my membership card, cut into pieces conveniently sized to shove up your ass...") so saying Trump represents Republicans doesn't bother me. Not my monkeys or my circus.

      Delete
    5. It bothers me because Republicans and Conservatives are all lumped together in the minds of most voters.

      Delete
  10. Just because she's a Liar, and a Crook, doesn't mean she isn't incompetent and stupid as well

    ReplyDelete
  11. The left will spin this all by telling the brainless masses that Hillary has been cleared of any wrongdoing. Obviously that's not the case, but that never made a hill of beans difference to maintaining progressive dogmas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The spin has already started and will be ongoing of the foreseeable future.

      Delete
  12. Let's celebrate the diversity of electing our first accountability-challenged President.

    Hillary "Extremely Careless" Clinton. At this point, what difference does it make?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Comey's playing an interesting game.
    Maybe he knew that a recommendation would go unheeded by Lynch.
    His testimony before Congress might be his revenge.
    More damning evidence against Hillary may be coming out this way than the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed,
      I heard excerpts, but was unable to tune in so as to watch the entire hearing.

      Delete
    2. The real meat will come when it's addressed that Hillary Clinton used a private server to circumvent Freedom of Information Act requests, likely to conceal sweetheart deals with foreign governments financing the Clinton Foundation for favors and access at the State Department. A mega sized coffee klatch.

      Interestingly enough, the hardcore left is all over this angle while the right wing is dry humping Donald Trump's Twittery feed.

      Delete
    3. I agree...I'm covering the new hearings starting soon tomorrow, if I remember correctly my post order....Hillary's aids this time....
      I'm thinking Comey is smarter than you all think.

      Delete
    4. or should I say CUNNING? WE all know he's smart.

      Delete
    5. or should I say CUNNING? WE all know he's smart.

      Delete
  14. Of the 30,000 emails she "turned over", they were paper copies, stripped of all meta data, possibly altered, not easily searched or cross referenced, not to mention the "thousands" of work related emails that were not turned over in any way shape or form.

    Hillary for prison.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The trouble is that we have been told that Mr. Comey is and always has been a trusted, , absolutely straight, by-the-book, fair-minded person and will always bend over backwards to give his opponent every possible benefit of the doubt, and to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid even the appearance of corruption at all costs, while a DEMOCRAT in his position passing judgment on a REPUBLICAN opponent would in all likelihood be completely partisan, and relish taking full advantage of the opportunity to destroy his political enemy, because the leftist ALWAYS believes his opinion is right and should, therefore, be given the full of force of law without his bothering to implement it through the legislative process.

    Because of that, it's virtually impossible for a principled person to deal effectively with leftists whose only known "principle" is to WIN at ALL COSTS. Nothing else matters to the Left, but VICTORY in gaining as much political power as they can.
    As we all know, or should know, integrity is important to the person who holds the highest office in the land.

    And I agree, I think "integrity" and "competency" are the foundation of a good president.
    With that said, I also think that it is has been proven that Hillary Clinton fails in both respects.
    We know that's true, because we see it every day. President Obama with his damnable phone and pen is a prime case in point.

    Leftists ALWAYS operate on the fervent belief that since THEY are MORALLY SUPERIOR and everyone who opposes them is morally unfit THEIR ends justify whatever means THEY choose to employ to get THEIR way.

    I doubt if a person of Mr. Comey's superior quality can even begin to comprehend people who operate without adherence to Principle.

    However, Mr. Comey, who appears to be an inveterate "square" and more than a bit naive, may rely a bit TOO MUCH on his understanding of PRINCIPLE to be effective in combating nefarious forces. He freely admitted –– under oath and with with a discernible aura of pride – that he believes the strictest possible adherence to the LETTER of the LAW is far more important than taking into consideration any "Social or Political Consequences" that might result from such an approach to doing. the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Amazing how this story got pushed off the front page by the Dallas cop massacre. Hillary couldn't have done a better job of avoiding media accountability than if she had pulled the trigger in Dallas herself!

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective