Here are some basic defense talking points on the growing Hillary server scandal — herein and in other places referred to as servergate.
FACT: None Of The Emails Sent To Clinton Were Labeled As “Classified” Or “Top Secret”
FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton’s Server Use
FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton’s Email Use And David Petraeus’ Crimes
FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn’t Targeting Clinton Herself
“Media are exploiting news that two emails Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state may be retroactively classified as “top secret” to push myths about Clinton’s handling of government information and scandalize her email use. Here are the facts.” — Media Matters.
The retroactively thing does not work. The emails from the intelligence agencies would be generated with that stamp or classification. If it was not on the documents on her server, then it had to be removed. That is just a fact. Our agencies do not willy nilly go out and put info out to be classified by others — retroactively. Sort of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it?
“FACT: Emails Originated In State Dept. System, And Questions About Retroactive Classification Would Have Occurred Regardless Of Clinton’s Server Use. “
They were not originated in State Department but in the various intelligence agencies that created them. Questions would have occurred regardless of Clinton’s server use? If State controlled that info how they should, there would not be a problem with it. It was her server, and information on it, being out of their loop that causes the risk and scrutiny. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
FACT: Experts Have Debunked Any Comparison Between Clinton’s Email Use And David Petraeus’ Crimes”
Regardless, the similariies involve classified information. Was her server company, vendor, cleared for such info? Did they have or create backups for it? That is why they investigated the Denver based company. So where the comparison does not work is that this was worse.
She stored them on a device, not approved, which could be compromised– or even lost. Petraeus didn’t destroy said information. (who can validate the destruction of it?) Indeed, she made copies of said information, apparently without the classification on it, electronically to another device and gave it to her lawyer. Additionally, we don’t know if she made other copies or distributed it to anyone else. Plus the emails she tried to keep from everyone.
Comparisons that might fit to any degree of similarity:
- General Petraeus — giving notebooks to mistress with classified info in them (probation 100,000 fine)
- Snowden — took classified documents and dispersed them to others.(currently on the lam – many calling it treason)
- Sandy Berger with national archives — removed documents and destroyed documents. (50,000 fine, loss of security clearance, forfeited law license, probation)
Now, it seems unlikely if not impossible that the information of classified nature could have come directly from the intelligence agencies. They would not have stripped the labeling off. And IF, big IF it arrived unmarked on her server, then someone, somewhere would have to remove it.(since it was generated with that labeling) So it would have to go through someone’s hand to remove it. The likely place being within the State Department itself. (especially as she is lecturing others not to use their private email accounts.) So if within State, someone had to remove the labeling prior to sending it to another system, unsecured out of the government loop and control. (two actions to consider) And was it the same person? Was it routinely done? That would make any others comparisons look pale. Now long this information was there and who all saw it or had access to it from there, makes her server use highly questionable.(and illegal)
“FACT: IG Referral To Justice Department Was Not Criminal, And FBI Isn’t Targeting Clinton Herself.” — Really?
Right, it’s the server they are investigating. Those darned rogue things, since Clinton discovered their self-awareness and intelligence. (surely sent chills into the tech sector) A secondary issue/problem is her specious explanation of a server. If all info was being copied back to State, then why did she need the server? It would only create a redundancy and extra unnecessary hassle. We know why, she wanted to circumvent State Dep, and government(not comply with), or the very department she was the head of.
Since the subject is exploitation, what seems to be happening is a shifting of the goal post. It’s a little shrude, but then what isn’t when dealing with Clintons? Here the emphasis is all going on classified information. If, a big if, they can clear that hurdle then she can claim the investigation cleared her. But the whole issue of the server and her keeping information from the government FOIA system is very much an issue, along with the missing and hiding of emails from Benghazi.
So when they zero in focus on that legal problem of classified information it becomes a diversion on the greater server, email, information issue. As reports indicate, many sources have adopted Hillary’s meme that it is not her being investigated but her server. Who’s server was it? Even some reports have joked about the independence of her server. They willingly or not detach her, and her wrongdoing, from the server itself.
This is the opening Hillary is looking for to avoid personal responsibility or accountability. She’s already denied the classification of top secret information on it, creating a loophole to presumably dodge the entire bullet. I hope the smoke of the classified information does not distort the whole issue. It seems the only concern the Feds have and are looking at is the classified one. She must not be allowed to walk away after dumbing down the investigation the same way she did on the initial Benghazi investigation, which didn’t even question her and still made its declaration.
RightRing | Bullright