Benghazibabeatclintonemaildotcom
By Clarice Feldman in American Thinker
You can say this about the Clintons;
they fill our desire for drama in the annual breaks between episodes of TV
serials. “Downton Abbey” ends for the season and Clinton Follies is on tap
again as the New York Times reports as old news, something known for at least
two years: Hillary never used the Department of State’s official email
account
If you’ve been busy leading a full
and rich life and missed this week’s excitement here it is in a nutshell: on
the day of her confirmation hearing for the position of secretary of state,
Hillary Clinton set up an internet server in her home (purchased
under an apparent pseudonym “Eric Hoteham”). Perhaps the domain was even
run out of two commercial web hosting firms, instead of the home server:
For her entire term at the
department she exclusively used this unprotected email server, utilizing
at last count about 9 different email addresses for all her Internet
communications. These entire addresses end in clintonemail@com, which
signaled to anyone reading the message that this was not, sent on a government
server.
This tactic allowed her to avoid
disclosure of her correspondence to Freedom of Information Act and other
document production requests, including Congressional inquiries.
Can she claim she didn’t know this
violated Federal laws and regulations requiring this correspondence be kept
where it can be archived and, if required, disclosed? Hardly. All officials are
routinely warned about such things. In fact, she ordered our ambassador to
Kenya fired for failing to use a government server for his communications.
In connection with Congressional
hearings the department was asked to provide her email correspondence and, so
the story goes, they had none, so Hillary had her staff go through her records and late
last year provided 50,000 emails, and claimed others might be found in the recipients’ files.
There is also little doubt, given
this functional definition, that e-mail has been covered by the Federal Records
Act since its adoption by the federal government during the Clinton
administration. As Ian Tuttle correctly notes, the State Department’s own
manual has plainly provided, since 1995, that e-mail records must be preserved
under the Federal Records Act.
[snip]
Best practices have always been that
an employee using a private account for government business has to either print
the e-mail (which rarely happens) or copy or forward the e-mail to the
employee’s official government e-mail account for preservation. Those
practices, which reflected the law as it existed before Mrs. Clinton was
secretary of state, were codified by National Archives Regulations in 2009,
which required that any records created on private e-mail accounts must be
saved to the federal-records system. And Congress confirmed that in 2013, by
adopting a prohibition on the use of private e-mail, unless the employee
forwards to or copies an official e-mail account within 60 days of the record’s
creation. But Mrs. Clinton did something here that went well beyond occasional
or incidental use of private e-mail accounts. She eschewed the use of an
official account entirely, and deliberately established a private e-mail account,
apparently maintained on a server in the Clintons’ New York home. As a result,
her e-mails were at no time during her tenure in office subject to the Federal
Records Act. (She provided some of the e-mails only after she left office, and
only when the Department of State asked for them back.) As our friends at
Judicial Watch will no doubt remind everyone, there were plenty of Freedom of
Information Act requests that would have implicated her e-mails. But they were
never searched, even though a reasonable search of all responsive federal
records must be made in response to FOIA requests. And the records would have
been relevant to congressional inquiries as well, including continuing
investigations of the Benghazi attacks. Why does that matter? Well, a federal
criminal law makes it a felony when any custodian of official government
records “willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates,
falsifies, or destroys the same.” The crime is punishable by up to three years
in prison. And interestingly, Congress felt strongly enough about the crime
that it included the unusual provision that the perpetrator shall “forfeit his
office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.”
(See also)
This was not merely a failure to
follow the rules. It created serious national security issues, devastatingly I
should think for a candidate who seems to be planning a campaign around two
themes:
(1)
I am a grandmother/woman and
(2)
I am knowledgeable on foreign affairs and tough on defense .
Not only was this insecure form of
communication hackable, but it was in fact hacked by “Guccifer”, a Romanian who
widely distributed what he found two years ago:
Armed with confidential memos to
Hillary Clinton that were stolen from the e-mail account of a former White
House aide, a hacker has distributed some of the documents to a wide array of
congressional aides, political figures, and journalists worldwide.
In a series of weekend e-mail
blasts, the hacker known as “Guccifer” disseminated four recent memos to
Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of the former Secretary of
State.
The 64-year-old Blumenthal, who
worked as a senior White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, had his AOL
e-mail account hacked last week by “Guccifer,”
[snip]
The hacker’s e-mails went to
hundreds of recipients, though the distribution lists were dotted with
addresses for aides to Senate and House members who are no longer in office.
But many of the addresses to which the Blumenthal memos were sent are good
[snip]
Most of the e-mail recipients were
sent four separate memos that were e-mailed to Clinton by Blumenthal during the
past five months. Each memo dealt with assorted developments in Libya,
including the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. One
memo marked “Confidential” was sent to Clinton on September 12.
Blumenthal’s memos and e-mails to
Clinton were sent to her at a non-governmental e-mail address through the web
domain "clintonemail.com."
As TSG reported last week, after
Blumenthal’s e-mail account was compromised, the hacker searched it for e-mails
sent to Clinton, and further sorted the mail to segregate any attachment --
like Word files -- that were included in Blumenthal’s correspondence to
Clinton. Many of these pilfered documents were memos to Clinton on foreign
policy and intelligence matters.[/quote]
It’s unclear what other emails are in
Guccifer’s hands and when and whether he will release them. Nor is it clear
that Guccifer is the only person who hacked the email accounts or that their
intentions are at all benign.
Whatever her motivations for such a
blatant disregard for the law -- and I think it’s a combination of her need to
control and her belief she is above the law -- she seems to have seriously
compromised our security.
Already there are signs that this is
hurting her public image:
Will she face criminal charges?
Unlikely. With the current attorney general an Obama
appointee it is beyond imagining that this administration would prosecute
her, the wife of such a popular ex-president. Though her staffers who knew and
set up and used this account may be vulnerable and I advise them to find
counsel pronto. Congressman Trey Gowdy has already subpoenaed the records of
Hillary and her longtime close aide Huma Abedin who also had an account at this
domain. And certainly both women should be concerned that he has in his
possession emails of which they are unaware against which to test the
thoroughness of their submissions.
Still Andrew McCarthy raises some interesting questions about Gowdy’s
role in this:
Gowdy let something else slip while
unburdening himself to Politico: he and his committee have known since last
summer that Mrs. Clinton conducted business by private e-mail. So what you’re
just finding out now, Gowdy has known for at least six months. So what did he
do about it? According to Politico, “He said the committee has worked with
Clinton advisers and the department to gain access to documents relating to the
Benghazi attacks.” Fabulous! Gowdy just got finished railing about how Clinton
used private e-mail precisely to avoid the government-mandated paper trail. So
what’s he been doing about it for six months? Discussing the matter with
Clinton’s loyal staffers -- i.e., people who helped her carry out the scheme --
and with the State Department -- i.e., the people he just got done telling you
have neither the relevant e-mails nor access to them. That’s it: no subpoenas,
no hearings, no nothing. Just as Mrs. Clinton did not turn over any of her
private e-mails until the State Department finally asked for them, Gowdy, by
his own account, did not issue a subpoena to address a scandal he has long
known about until the scandal became public. That in itself is a scandal.
This inaction only fuels suspicions
that the Republicans soft-pedal the Benghazi scandal because they were fully
aware of what Hillary was engaged in with Ambassador Stevens in Libya and want
to avoid disclosure of that.
Some have gone so far as to suggest
that the administration is attacking Clinton by leaking this information now,
right after it leaked that an indictment for corruption against Congressman
Robert Menendez is forthcoming just days after he publicly criticized the
administration’s Iran policy, because they fear she will distance herself from
Obama’s policies in her campaign. I find this far-fetched, although
Valerie Jarrett and others seem to be hanging Hillary out to dry on this one.
Perhaps with this hanging over her
head, Clinton had it leaked to the New York Times so she could -- she
thought -- timely spin it out of consideration of low information and
short-memory voters. The Clinton tactic of delaying coming clean for ages and
then when the bombs burst, brushing the scandal aside as “old news” is well
known. There certainly was evidence of some coordination between her and the Times.
Having elevated old news this week, days later that paper reported she’d
tweeted she was going to release all her emails before she actually did
tweet that.
Maybe they hacked into her email
accounts, too.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/benghazibabeatclintonemaildotcom.html#ixzz3Tmo9Na11
No comments:
Post a Comment