The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
Hillary Lies Again
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In a column I wrote in early July, based on research by my colleagues and my own analysis of government documents and eyewitness statements, I argued that in 2011 and 2012 then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton waged a secret war on the governments of Libya and Syria, with the approval of President Obama and the consent of congressional leadership from both parties and in both houses of Congress.

I did err in that column with respect to an arms dealer named Marc Turi. I regret the error and apologize for it. I wrote that Turi sold arms to Qatar as part of Clinton’s scheme to get them into the hands of rebels. A further review of the documents makes it clear that he applied to do so but was denied permission, and so he did not sell arms to Qatar. Other arms dealers did.

I also erred when referring to Qatar as beholden to Washington. In fact, Qatar is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood and is one of the biggest supporters of global jihad in the world — and Clinton, who approved the sales of arms to Qatar expecting them to make their way to Syrian and Libyan rebels, as they did, knew that. She and her State Department caused American arms to come into the possession of known al-Qaida operatives, a few of whom assassinated U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens.

When Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., asked Clinton in January 2013 at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing whether she knew of any weapons coming from the U.S. and going to rebels in the Middle East, she denied such knowledge. She either has a memory so faulty that she should not be entrusted with any governmental powers, or she knowingly lied.

It gets worse.

It now appears that Clinton was managing her war using emails that she diverted through a computer server owned by her husband’s charitable foundation, even though some of her emails contained sensitive and classified materials. This was in direct violation of federal law, which requires all in government who possess classified or sensitive materials to secure them in a government-approved venue.

The inspector general of the intelligence community and the inspector general of the State Department each have reviewed a limited sampling of her emails that were sent or received via the Clinton Foundation server, and both have concluded that materials contained in some of them were of such gravity that they were obliged under federal law to refer their findings to the FBI for further investigation.


The FBI does not investigate for civil wrongdoing or ethical lapses. It investigates behavior that may be criminal or that may expose the nation’s security to jeopardy. It then recommends either that indictments be sought or the matter be addressed through non-prosecutorial means. Given Clinton’s unique present position — as the president’s first secretary of state and one who seeks to succeed him, as well as being the wife of one of his predecessors — it is inconceivable that she could be prosecuted as Gen. David Petraeus was (for the crime of failing to secure classified materials) without the personal approval of the president himself.

Let’s be realistic and blunt: If the president wants Clinton prosecuted for failing to secure classified materials, then she will be, no matter the exculpatory evidence or any political fallout. If he does not want her prosecuted, then she won’t be, no matter what the FBI finds or any political fallout.

I have not seen the emails the inspectors general sent to the FBI, but I have seen the Clinton emails, which are now in the public domain. They show Clinton sending or receiving emails to and from her confidante Sid Blumenthal and one of her State Department colleagues using her husband’s foundation’s server, and not a secure government server. These emails address the location of French jets approaching Libya, the location of no-fly zones over Libya and the location of Stevens in Libya. It is inconceivable that an American secretary of state failed to protect and secure this information.

But it is not inconceivable that she would lie about it.

Federal statutes provide for three categories of classified information. “Top secret” is data that, if revealed, could likely cause grave damage to national security. “Secret” is data that, if revealed, could likely cause serious damage to national security. “Confidential” is data that, if revealed, could likely cause some damage to national security. Her own daily calendars, which she regularly emailed about, are considered confidential.

Clinton has repeatedly denied ever sending or receiving data in any of these categories. She probably will argue that an email that fails to use the terminology of the statute cannot be deemed classified. Here the inspectors general have corrected her. It is the essence of the data in an email — its potential for harm if revealed — that makes its contents classified and the failure to protect it a crime — not the use of a magic word or phrase in the subject line.

She is no doubt lying again, just as she did to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Yet the question remains: Why did she use her husband’s foundation’s computer server instead of a government server, as the law requires? She did that so she could obscure what the server recorded and thus be made to appear different according to history from how she was in reality. Why did she lie about all this? Because she thinks she can get away with it.

Will American voters let her?

Copyright 2015 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by

• Category: Foreign Policy, Ideology • Tags: Hillary Clinton, Libya, Terrorism 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Hbm says:

    I’ve always wondered how much Obama knew. Was her State Department just doing what she wanted? Did Obama tell her that if she did it, she was on her own if it went sideways? Is that why Stevens got no rescue?

    Despite the endless refrain of “Benghazi!” surely it’s possible that the Republicans (not just Rand Paul) know and have always known what actually happened. The Republicans crying now would have absolutely been in favor of Hillary’s gunrunning and coups she orchestrated in North Africa for Israel’s benefit.

    The hypocrisy and treachery is nauseating and endless.

  2. KA says:

    Please mention that your writings appear on when you sit on Fox studio and counsel or debate some insufferable neocon or liberal interventionist.
    Audience very soon learn how they ate being duped and ave been all along by FOX and other outlet.
    May be America could turn out to have the capacity to turn around,mend,learn,and then throw the dangerous liars out of the media and the media -run politics .

  3. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the great article, Sir. You have made a convincing case that Hillary is a criminal. But it runs in the family. Billary is a criminal too—his opponents were found dead mysteriously. The criminal case against him was proven in a book by the famous conservative female.

    The problem is that our legal system (“justice system”, sic) is corrupt. The Democrat own and operate our legal system and the prosecutors do not prosecute Democrats and allow them to engage in a crime spree–with impunity.

    But not only they go after Republicans for the smallest reason (see how they went after D’Souza, who is now being sent for “counseling” in a Kafkaesque show of lunacy by a Democratic Judge), they even frame them.

    Tom Delay: Framed, for winning elections. Unable to beat him at the polls, the Demograts framed him.
    Senator Ted Stevens: Framed by Demograts, for winning elections again and again.
    Republican Governor of Kentucky framed. How dare a Republican win in our Kentucky the Democratic backwater? So the Demogratss framed him.
    Conservative talk show host, framed for speaking his mind.
    Meacham–framed by Demograts for refusing to give Martin Luther King holiday.
    Sheriff Joe, framed for enforcing the law.

    But the Demograts Run Free, above the law:

    Rangel, tax cheat, still free.
    Harry Reid, the election thief, still free.

    It is a serious problem when prosecutors refuse to prosecute real criminals, despite clear proof of crime, out of personal or party reasons.

    That is why we must vote for Trump. Hopefully he will appoint a special prosecutor. The Republicans must set up a group to look into this very carefully and try to come up with solutions to this most serious problem. For example, they can set up a special court run by Republicans that will criminally prosecute Democratic Judges and Prosecutors, disbar them, fine them, remove them from office for life and even imprison them if it appears they showed ANY sign of corruption and partisanship.

  4. Will American voters let her?

    Camille Paglia. Interviewed by David Daley of Salon.

    Hillary has accomplished nothing substantial in her life. She’s been pushed along, coasting on her husband’s coattails, and every job she’s been given fizzled out into time-serving or overt disaster. Hillary constantly strikes attitudes and claims she’s “passionate” about this or that, but there’s never any sustained follow-through. She’s just a classic, corporate exec or bureaucrat type who would prefer to be at her desk behind closed doors, imposing her power schemes on the proletariat. She has no discernible political skills of any kind, which is why she needs a big, shifting army of consultants, advisors, and toadies to whisper in her ear and write her policy statements. There’s this ridiculous new theme in the media about people needing to learn who the “real” Hillary Clinton is. What? Everything they’re saying about what a wonderful person Hillary is in private tells us that she’s not competent or credible as a public figure! A politician, particularly a president, must have a distinct skill or expertise in communicating with the masses. It’s the absolutely basic requirement for any career in politics.

    If you don’t have an effective public persona, if you’re not a good speaker, if you don’t like to press the flesh, if you’re not nimble enough to deal with anything that comes along, then you are not a natural politician! And you sure aren’t going to learn it in your late 60s! Get off the stage, and let someone else truly electable on! All this silly talk about how wonderful Hillary is in private. Oh, sure, she’s nice to the important people and the people she wants or needs something from! Then she’s Pollyanna herself! There are just too many reports stretching all the way back to Arkansas about Hillary’s nasty outbursts toward underlings when things aren’t going well. The main point is that the ability to communicate with millions of people is a special talent, and Hillary pretty obviously lacks it.

    I don’t see Hillary getting to debates!
    Let’s hope Camille is right.

  5. So, Judge, why are you letting Hillary’s criminal accomplices off the hook? When Hillary initiated the policy that armed al Qaida in Syria, resulting in the rise of Islamic State, it was then CIA director David Petraeus initiated that policy together with Bandar Sultan of Saudi Arabia. And our generals at the Pentagon knew this was going on and sat on their hands and said & did nothing to put a stop to it:


  6. If these folks get a pass, and they do, then so should Snowden, who wasn’t trying to conceal wrongdoing, but to let we the people know how we are being deceived.

  7. WGG [AKA "World\'s Greatest Grandson"] says:

    This evidence would be better appreciated by the masses if a clear motive could be shown. Has it been? How does the donor class benefit? I can’t help but notice that the now unstable governments of Egypt, Libya and Syria are all on the Mediterranean. These are now countries sending giant rafts of invaders to Europe. Is it connected? Who benefitted from arming ISIS?

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to 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
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.