Clinton’s Conspiracy of Secrecy Worthy of Criminal Probe

Maybe the dog ate her email.

Hillary speaks at her first official campaign rally.
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
July 24, 2015, 3:38 a.m.

Who will Hil­lary Clin­ton blame now?

That was my first re­ac­tion to this New York Times story:

Two in­spect­ors gen­er­al have asked the Justice De­part­ment to open a crim­in­al in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to wheth­er sens­it­ive gov­ern­ment in­form­a­tion was mis­handled in con­nec­tion with the per­son­al email ac­count Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton used as sec­ret­ary of state, seni­or gov­ern­ment of­fi­cials said Thursday.

The an­swer came quickly (that’s why they call it “rap­id re­sponse”) from cam­paign spokes­man Nick Mer­rill.

“Con­trary to the ini­tial story, which has already been sig­ni­fic­antly re­vised, she fol­lowed ap­pro­pri­ate prac­tices in deal­ing with clas­si­fied ma­ter­i­als. As has been re­por­ted on mul­tiple oc­ca­sions, any re­leased emails deemed clas­si­fied by the ad­min­is­tra­tion have been done so after the fact, and not at the time they were trans­mit­ted.”

(RE­LATED: The Rise of Hil­lary Clin­ton)

She’s blam­ing The New York Times, which is as pathet­ic as it is laugh­able. Post-pro­duc­tion re­vi­sions of on­line and wire-ser­vice stor­ies are stand­ard prac­tice after the parties in­volve re­spond. Ap­pear­ing on MS­N­BC’s Morn­ing JoeTimes re­port­er Mi­chael Schmidt called the re­vi­sion minor without de­tail­ing it. Politico‘s Dylan By­ers de­scribed the “small but sig­ni­fic­ant changes.” Here’s all you need to know: The Clin­ton cam­paign doesn’t — and can’t — deny the nut of this story. Two Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion in­spect­ors gen­er­al want an in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to wheth­er her per­son­al email sys­tem con­trib­uted to the re­lease of clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion.

A rogue email sys­tem that:

— vi­ol­ated clear White House policy.

— shiel­ded her work from con­gres­sion­al over­sight, me­dia in­quir­ies, or any ac­count­ab­il­ity.

— con­trib­uted to a con­spir­acy of secrecy worthy of crim­in­al in­quiry. This from the Times:

On Monday, a fed­er­al judge sharply ques­tioned State De­part­ment law­yers at a hear­ing in Wash­ing­ton about why they had not re­spon­ded to Free­dom of In­form­a­tion Act re­quests from The As­so­ci­ated Press, some of which were four years old.

“I want to find out what’s been go­ing on over there — I should say, what’s not been go­ing on over there,” said Judge Richard J. Le­on of United States Dis­trict Court, ac­cord­ing to a tran­script ob­tained by Politico. The judge said that “for reas­ons known only to it­self,” the State De­part­ment “has been, to say the least, re­cal­cit­rant in re­spond­ing.”

(RE­LATED: How Green Is Hil­lary Clin­ton?)

When she’s not blam­ing the me­dia, Re­pub­lic­ans, bur­eau­crats, and tech­no­logy — everything and any­thing, ex­cept the dog who ate her email — Clin­ton is des­troy­ing her cred­ib­il­ity.

“There is no clas­si­fied ma­ter­i­al,” she said. Wrong.

“Everything I did was per­mit­ted,” she said. Wrong.

“People should and do trust me,” she said. Wrong and wrong. A ma­jor­ity of people don’t trust Clin­ton, be­cause a ma­jor­ity of people aren’t blindly loy­al to her or on her payroll.

Most people can sift through the spin, the lies, and the pars­ing to see the bot­tom line: She secreted and de­leted her email for reas­ons we may nev­er know. And she’s blam­ing every­body but the only per­son re­spons­ible for this mess, the only per­son who can clean it up: Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton.

NOTE: Ini­tial story re­ferred to DOJ guid­ance on a “crim­in­al refer­al.” DOJ later said it’s not a crim­in­al refer­al. Bot­tom line is that it would take a DOJ in­vest­ig­a­tion to who com­prom­ised clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion and wheth­er a crime was com­mit­ted.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.