The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Andrew Napolitano ArchiveBlogview
Hillary on the Ropes
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Late last week, the inspector general of the State Department completed a yearlong investigation into the use by Hillary Clinton of a private email server for all of her official government email as secretary of state. The investigation was launched when information technology officials at the State Department under Secretary of State John Kerry learned that Clinton paid an aide to migrate her public and secret State Department email streams away from their secured government venues and onto her own, non-secure server, which was stored in her home.

The migration of the secret email stream most likely constituted the crime of espionage — the failure to secure and preserve the secrecy of confidential, secret or top-secret materials.

The inspector general interviewed Clinton’s three immediate predecessors — Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — and their former aides about their email practices. He learned that none of them used emails as extensively as Clinton, none used a private server and, though Powell and Rice occasionally replied to government emails using private accounts, none used a private account when dealing with state secrets.

Clinton and her former aides declined to cooperate with the inspector general, notwithstanding her oft-stated claim that she “can’t wait” to meet with officials and clear the air about her emails.

The inspector general’s report is damning to Clinton. It refutes every defense she has offered to the allegation that she mishandled state secrets. It revealed an email that hadn’t been publicly made known showing Clinton’s state of mind. And it paints a picture of a self-isolated secretary of state stubbornly refusing to comply with federal law for venal reasons; she simply did not want to be held accountable for her official behavior.

The report rejects Clinton’s argument that her use of a private server “was allowed.” The report makes clear that it was not allowed, nor did she seek permission to use it. She did not inform the FBI, which had tutored her on the lawful handling of state secrets, and she did not inform her own State Department IT folks.

The report also makes clear that had she sought permission to use her own server as the instrument through which all of her email traffic passed, such a request would have been flatly denied.

In addition, the report rejects her argument — already debunked by the director of the FBI — that the FBI is merely conducting a security review of the State Department’s email storage and usage policies rather than a criminal investigation of her. The FBI does not conduct security reviews. The inspector general does. This report is the result of that review, and Clinton flunked it, as it reveals that she refused to comply with the same State Department storage and transparency regulations she was enforcing against others.

Here is what is new publicly: When her private server was down and her BlackBerry immobilized for days at a time, she refused to use a government-issued BlackBerry because of her fear of the Freedom of Information Act. She preferred to go dark, or back to the 19th-century technology of having documents read aloud to her.

This report continues the cascade of legal misery that has befallen her in the past eight months. The State Department she once headed has rejected all of her arguments. Two federal judges have ordered her aides to testify about a conspiracy in her office to evade federal laws. She now awaits an interrogation by impatient FBI agents, which will take place soon after the New Jersey and California primaries next week. Her legal status can only be described as grave or worse than grave.

We know that Clinton’s own camp finally recognizes just how dangerous this email controversy has become for her. Over the Memorial Day weekend, John Podesta, the chairman of Clinton’s campaign, sent an email to her most important donors. In it, he recognizes the need to arm the donors with talking points to address Clinton’s rapidly deteriorating support with Democratic primary voters.

The Podesta email suggests attempting to minimize Clinton’s use of her private server by comparing it to Powell’s occasional use of his personal email account. This is a risky and faulty comparison. None of Powell’s emails from his private account — only two or three dozen — contained matters that were confidential, secret or top-secret.

Clinton diverted all of her email traffic to her private server — some 66,000 emails, about 2,200 of which contained state secrets. Moreover, Powell never used his own server, nor is he presently seeking to become the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land.

The inspector general who wrote the report was nominated by President Barack Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2013, after Clinton left office. He did a commendable job — one so thorough and enlightening that it has highlighted the important role that inspectors general play in government today.

Today every department in the executive branch has, by law, an inspector general in place who has the authority to investigate the department — keeping officials’ feet to the fire by exposing failure to comply with federal law.

If you are curious as to why the inspector general of the State Department during Clinton’s years as secretary did not discover all of Clinton’s lawbreaking while she was doing it, the answer will alarm but probably not surprise you.

There was no inspector general at the State Department during Clinton’s tenure as secretary — a state of affairs unique in modern history; and she knew that. How much more knowledge of her manipulations will the Justice Department tolerate before enforcing the law?

Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Hillary Clinton 
12 Comments to "Hillary on the Ropes"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Sodom-on-the Potomac is now and has been for some time a lawless environment populated by knaves and traitors. There will be no Indictment

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    "Sodom-on-the Potomac is now and has been for some time a lawless environment populated by knaves and traitors. . . ."

    True enough, and that's why "change you can believe in" will come about if and when Vlad Putin puts an ICBM on Washington, District of Corruption. . . .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /anapolitano/hillary-on-the-ropes/#comment-1438538
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Banks too big to fail. People too big for jail. There always have been, are and always will be people simple above the law. And that dangerous filth running for president is one of them. The FBI will, after its due diligence, recommend indictment to the DOJ. And that is where the initiative will find a soft, warm, comfortable place to wither and die. She belongs in the Big House not the White House.

    Read More
  3. Rehmat says:

    No power can put “rope” around Hillary Clinton’s neck as long as she is backed by the powerful Jewish Lobby and American Jewish oligarchs.

    In March 2016, Hillary Clinton told the 18,000 Israel’s supporters attending the AIPAC annual convention that anyone who doesn’t support Israel blindly, has no right to be in the white House. Trump assured them that if elected he would be more pro-Israel than other candidates.

    Hillary forgot to mention the biggest gift her husband former president Bill Clinton gave Israel was to sign executive order 12947 on January 23, 1995 which gave Israel the rights to designate ‘terrorist organizations’ of its choice for Washington. The list of organizations that were designated as terrorists included Hamas and Hizbullah, the PFLP, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, and other Islamic charities that were dedicated to resistance against the Israeli occupation…..

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/25/hillary-clinton-another-great-president-for-israel/

    Read More
  4. I keep waiting for someone of Napolitano’s stature to publicly connect the dots between Hillary’s leaving state secrets in an unsecured condition and the huge sums of money donated by Russia to the Clinton Foundation.

    When is somebody with a national audience going to ask the question of whether the Secretary of State committed treason for profit — with the assistance of a former president?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    And/or make the logical connection between Hillary's email trickerations and the fact that her close personal friend and confidant,Huma Abedin, is a member of a family with long-standing ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps the personal server was intended to be a pipeline. The destruction of Libya and the growth of Isis occurred while those two BFF's were running the State Dept., and it might be wise to investigate who immediately profited from that arrangement.
  5. @The Grate Deign
    I keep waiting for someone of Napolitano's stature to publicly connect the dots between Hillary's leaving state secrets in an unsecured condition and the huge sums of money donated by Russia to the Clinton Foundation.

    When is somebody with a national audience going to ask the question of whether the Secretary of State committed treason for profit -- with the assistance of a former president?

    And/or make the logical connection between Hillary’s email trickerations and the fact that her close personal friend and confidant,Huma Abedin, is a member of a family with long-standing ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Perhaps the personal server was intended to be a pipeline. The destruction of Libya and the growth of Isis occurred while those two BFF’s were running the State Dept., and it might be wise to investigate who immediately profited from that arrangement.

    Read More
  6. @Haxo Angmark
    Sodom-on-the Potomac is now and has been for some time a lawless environment populated by knaves and traitors. There will be no Indictment

    “Sodom-on-the Potomac is now and has been for some time a lawless environment populated by knaves and traitors. . . .”

    True enough, and that’s why “change you can believe in” will come about if and when Vlad Putin puts an ICBM on Washington, District of Corruption. . . .

    Read More
  7. Anonymous says:

    How anyone in their right minds could believe in this evil murdering witch, who leaves nothing but misery, poverty, and death in her wake, is completely beyond me. The sad conclusion is, given how she polls, there are a great many of my fellow citizens who are not in their right minds.

    Read More
  8. ChrisD says:

    Is there something to be said for the amount of time the FBI is taking to make a determination about criminal prosecution? The fact that they have not summarily dismissed anything after this length of time is of concern for Hillary. What the FBI usually does historically is that they take a lengthy period of time to build the case before announcing criminal charges (as opposed to announcing criminal charges then building the case, which a lot of sloppy State departments tend to do). I think this is what the FBI is doing and by the time November comes around there will be a trial on the cards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Muse
    Keep in mind that the DOJ is usually a partner with the FBI, and can use DOJ indictments, immunity and plea bargains to flip witnesses. In this case, the DOJ is not helpful, if not hostile in the pursuit of justice.

    This is why there should have been a special prosecutor.

    The FBI is out there on their own. They have to swim upstream and get everything just right to force the indictment.

  9. I predict a full and unconditional pardon of Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama the day after election day (regardless of result) for any and all acts committed by her while Secretary of State. I also predict similar pardons the same day for all associates in any way involved in her actions. The arrogance of these people is almost beyond comprehension.

    I admit that I was surpised by the forthrightness of the IG report: that office had courage and integrity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SteveRogers42
    Pardons? We don' need no steenkin' pardons.

    "Five years statute of limitations if I win...I'm sure the Attorney General will take a good look at it."

    It ain't over 'til The Don says it's over.
  10. @Diversity Heretic
    I predict a full and unconditional pardon of Hillary Clinton by Barack Obama the day after election day (regardless of result) for any and all acts committed by her while Secretary of State. I also predict similar pardons the same day for all associates in any way involved in her actions. The arrogance of these people is almost beyond comprehension.

    I admit that I was surpised by the forthrightness of the IG report: that office had courage and integrity.

    Pardons? We don’ need no steenkin’ pardons.

    “Five years statute of limitations if I win…I’m sure the Attorney General will take a good look at it.”

    It ain’t over ’til The Don says it’s over.

    Read More
  11. Muse says:
    @ChrisD
    Is there something to be said for the amount of time the FBI is taking to make a determination about criminal prosecution? The fact that they have not summarily dismissed anything after this length of time is of concern for Hillary. What the FBI usually does historically is that they take a lengthy period of time to build the case before announcing criminal charges (as opposed to announcing criminal charges then building the case, which a lot of sloppy State departments tend to do). I think this is what the FBI is doing and by the time November comes around there will be a trial on the cards.

    Keep in mind that the DOJ is usually a partner with the FBI, and can use DOJ indictments, immunity and plea bargains to flip witnesses. In this case, the DOJ is not helpful, if not hostile in the pursuit of justice.

    This is why there should have been a special prosecutor.

    The FBI is out there on their own. They have to swim upstream and get everything just right to force the indictment.

    Read More
  12. Olorin says:

    She is absolutely power-hungry, with no pole star other than her lust for position and power.

    She has long been beyond the ability of any of our existing institutions to rein in.

    A scary, scary creature.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.