election debates
Political News — Current Debates — Political Commentary — Election Politics —
election debates
Political News — Current Debates — Political Commentary — Election Politics —
debate-political debate political debate

Devastating New Report
on Hillary Email Scandal

The 83-page State Department inspector general’s report on Hillary Clinton’s private email server exposes her claims of innocence for the falsehoods that they are. Her activities were not permitted, and she never asked anyone for permission. And if she had asked, she would have been told No. Even supporters like the Washington Post editorial board are appalled and disgusted.

The “rules” she ignored were there to implement federal law and the Federal Records Act. In essence she broke the law, even though the IG’s report purposely avoids saying so. Hillary’s claims that her use of the private email system was allowed are bald-faced lies.

As is her claim that she's been cooperative with investigators. The truth of the matter is that she and her aides stonewalled I.G. investigators.

Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant U.S. attorney says this is basically identical to taking the Fifth:

When a government official or former government official refuses to answer questions in a formal government investigation into potential wrongdoing, this in effect is the assertion of a legal privilege not to speak — otherwise, there is no valid reason not to cooperate. So what conceivable legal privilege do Clinton, Mills, Sullivan, and Abedin have that would allow them to refuse to answer investigators’ questions? Only one: the Fifth Amendment privilege — i.e., the refusal to answer on the grounds that truthful responses might be incriminating.

Hillary has claimed no hacking took place, but that is also false. Steven Dinan of the Washington Times:

…the inspector general concluded in a report sent to Congress... that says she failed to report hacking attempts and waved off warnings that she should switch to a more official email account...

In one instance in 2011, Mrs. Clinton’s tech guru thought the server was being hacked and shut it down for a few minutes. Months later, Mrs. Clinton feared yet another hack attack was underway — yet never reported the incident to the department, in another breach of department rules.

“Notification is required when a user suspects compromise of, among other things, a personally owned device containing personally identifiable information,” the investigators wrote. “However, OIG found no evidence that the Secretary or her staff reported these incidents to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department.”

There are two highly provocative — i.e. practically smoking gun — nuggets in the report, that address Hillary’s likely motives and preoccupations. When Huma Abedin was worried that her boss's emails were being directed to spam filters because they were not from an official account, she advised her to:

… release her secret address to the department so she could be designated as a verified account, keeping her messages out of spam folders.

Mrs. Clinton refused, saying she didn’t “want any risk of the personal being accessible.” The inspector general at that point in the report notes that Mrs. Clinton refused to cooperate, and Ms. Abedin did not respond to a request to be interviewed.

This makes clear that Hillary set up her private email system to enable herself to hide her correspondence from the public. Convenience had nothing to do with it. Chelsea’s wedding plans? Yoga routines? Who does she think she's kidding?

The other highly telling incident in the report? This:

... when lower-level staffers pressed the issue (of her private email server), saying she was skirting open-records laws, they were ordered “never to speak of the secretary’s personal email system again.”

Who said this? We don't know. But the FBI probably does.

The Hillary campaign is reacting in the usual way — by dissembling:

The inspector general documents just how consistent her email practices were with those of other secretaries and senior officials at the State Department who also used personal email.

The campaign is counting on the complexity of the details to hide the gravity of the matter with half-truths and evasions. Spokesholes sent to the cable news shows are already suggesting that the IG (appointed by President Obama) had partisan motives. But at this stage of the scandal is there anyone out there who would believe this? One person who could actually push this issue to the forefront is Bernie Sanders, who's on record as being "sick and tired of the damn emails.”

Does he move now before that crucial California primary or wait for the FBI? A candidate who really wants the nomination would do the former. As the old saw goes, he who hesitates is lost. In this case, that loss could come in a number of forms -- the nomination of Joe Biden or John Kerry, a Hillary indictment that arrives after the Democratic convention (too late for Sanders), a recommended Hillary indictment that is deferred by the attorney general until after the convention (again too late for Sanders) and on and on.

It's up to Bernie.

For the time being, yes. But we're sure James Comey and Loretta Lynch will have their say too.