The Foibles Of Hillary
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By Gary [email protected]
The horrific events in Orlando were dominating the news cycles – and rightly so.
But there were a few developments in the Hillary Clinton case that I found to be fascinating, which were kind of lost in the shuffle.
And by lost in the shuffle, I mean no mainstream news outlets were reporting on them.
First of all, there was this exclusive report from Catherine Herridge of FOX News Channel. She’s an award-winning chief intelligence correspondent. She covers the CIA, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.
Here’s the first few paragraphers of her report:
Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time.
But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” – and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.
The “C” – which means it was marked classified at the confidential level – is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.
"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."
Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department – a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations.
A U.S. government source said there are other Clinton emails with classified markings, or marked classified, beyond the April 2012 document.
Now, if this is accurate, this is big news.
Over and over Hillary has asserted that she, “never sent or received anything that was marked classified at the time it was sent or received.”
Why is that important? Why would she say that again and again?
Well, because mishandling classified material is a crime, that’s why.
But now, Herridge’s reporting seems to undermine her claims of never moving anything marked classified through her private email server – a server that was not government approved.
When asked about this development, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dodged the question: "This email was just a request for Secretary Clinton to make a phone call to express condolences over the passing of the President of Malawi. The fact that this email was classified after the fact suggests again that agencies in the government tend to err on the side of classifying even routine matters of diplomacy."
No, Brian. No.
The email had the confidential “C” marking on it when it was sent to Hillary – not after.
Another development that I found rather stunning was the fact that a judge – for the first time – linked a Clinton aide’s grant of immunity to a “criminal investigation.”
Josh Gerstein, writing for politico.com, Tuesday reported that Bryan Pagliano’s immunity was granted in connection with a criminal investigation.
Pagliano was the former information technology aide to Hillary who reportedly set up her private email server. He worked for her at the State Department but also was paid privately by Hillary.
Pagliano was granted immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Hillary’s private server.
Up until now, Gerstein reports, “there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation — which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a ‘security review’ — is actually a criminal probe.”
But in an order issued Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote says otherwise.
The order was needed because Pagliano is planning to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition in a civil lawsuit.
The suit is a Freedom of Information Act action related to Hillary’s emails filed by Judicial Watch.
The suit seeks records about the employment arrangements of Hillary’s aide Huma Abedin, focuses on whether the State Department produced all relevant records, according to Gerstein’s report.
The judge granted the request to depose Pagliano and about half a dozen other current and former Clinton aides, but declined to make Pagliano’s immunity agreement public.
In his order, he wrote, "The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential."
The government’s criminal investigation. There you have it.
To be honest, I’ve thought all along that must be the case. The FBI generally doesn’t launch investigations into things they think aren’t crimes.
But it sure flies in the face of Hillary’s characterization of the whole mess as an interdepartmental security review or inquiry. Now we know it’s not. And you can be absolutely certain that she knew that, too – the whole time.
Finally, the Wiki-Leaks guy, Julian Assange, says his whistle-blowing outfit will soon be publishing unreleased emails from Hillary.
“We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton,” Assange told the British ITV network on Sunday. “WikiLeaks has a very big year ahead.”
He also said he thinks Hillary “unfortunately” won’t be indicted.
He predicts Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the top official at the Obama Justice Department, won’t indict Clinton.
“It’s not going to happen,” he said. “But the FBI can push for concessions from a Clinton government.”
But he stressed that “there’s very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation,” that is incriminating.
Wow. Should be fun to read those emails when they come out.
Regardless of what’s she said in the past, it looks like Hillary did pass classified material through her email server and that she is the target of an FBI criminal investigation and there just might be enough material out there to get her indicted.
One would have thought that might translate into a bad week in the national news for Hillary.
Guess not.
But seriously, how sad is it that this woman is a cat’s whisker away from becoming president?[[In-content Ad]]
Latest News
E-Editions
The horrific events in Orlando were dominating the news cycles – and rightly so.
But there were a few developments in the Hillary Clinton case that I found to be fascinating, which were kind of lost in the shuffle.
And by lost in the shuffle, I mean no mainstream news outlets were reporting on them.
First of all, there was this exclusive report from Catherine Herridge of FOX News Channel. She’s an award-winning chief intelligence correspondent. She covers the CIA, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.
Here’s the first few paragraphers of her report:
Hillary Clinton, from the moment her exclusive use of personal email for government business was exposed, has claimed nothing she sent or received was marked classified at the time.
But a 2012 email released by the State Department appears to challenge that claim because it carries a classified code known as a “portion marking” – and that marking was on the email when it was sent directly to Clinton’s account.
The “C” – which means it was marked classified at the confidential level – is in the left-hand-margin and relates to an April 2012 phone call with Malawi's first female president, Joyce Banda, who took power after the death of President Mutharika in 2012.
"(C) Purpose of Call: to offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in."
Everything after that was fully redacted before it was publicly released by the State Department – a sign that the information was classified at the time and dealt with sensitive government deliberations.
A U.S. government source said there are other Clinton emails with classified markings, or marked classified, beyond the April 2012 document.
Now, if this is accurate, this is big news.
Over and over Hillary has asserted that she, “never sent or received anything that was marked classified at the time it was sent or received.”
Why is that important? Why would she say that again and again?
Well, because mishandling classified material is a crime, that’s why.
But now, Herridge’s reporting seems to undermine her claims of never moving anything marked classified through her private email server – a server that was not government approved.
When asked about this development, Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon dodged the question: "This email was just a request for Secretary Clinton to make a phone call to express condolences over the passing of the President of Malawi. The fact that this email was classified after the fact suggests again that agencies in the government tend to err on the side of classifying even routine matters of diplomacy."
No, Brian. No.
The email had the confidential “C” marking on it when it was sent to Hillary – not after.
Another development that I found rather stunning was the fact that a judge – for the first time – linked a Clinton aide’s grant of immunity to a “criminal investigation.”
Josh Gerstein, writing for politico.com, Tuesday reported that Bryan Pagliano’s immunity was granted in connection with a criminal investigation.
Pagliano was the former information technology aide to Hillary who reportedly set up her private email server. He worked for her at the State Department but also was paid privately by Hillary.
Pagliano was granted immunity in connection with statements he gave to the FBI about Hillary’s private server.
Up until now, Gerstein reports, “there had been no explicit confirmation that the investigation — which Clinton has repeatedly referred to as a ‘security review’ — is actually a criminal probe.”
But in an order issued Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote says otherwise.
The order was needed because Pagliano is planning to assert his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a deposition in a civil lawsuit.
The suit is a Freedom of Information Act action related to Hillary’s emails filed by Judicial Watch.
The suit seeks records about the employment arrangements of Hillary’s aide Huma Abedin, focuses on whether the State Department produced all relevant records, according to Gerstein’s report.
The judge granted the request to depose Pagliano and about half a dozen other current and former Clinton aides, but declined to make Pagliano’s immunity agreement public.
In his order, he wrote, "The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential."
The government’s criminal investigation. There you have it.
To be honest, I’ve thought all along that must be the case. The FBI generally doesn’t launch investigations into things they think aren’t crimes.
But it sure flies in the face of Hillary’s characterization of the whole mess as an interdepartmental security review or inquiry. Now we know it’s not. And you can be absolutely certain that she knew that, too – the whole time.
Finally, the Wiki-Leaks guy, Julian Assange, says his whistle-blowing outfit will soon be publishing unreleased emails from Hillary.
“We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton,” Assange told the British ITV network on Sunday. “WikiLeaks has a very big year ahead.”
He also said he thinks Hillary “unfortunately” won’t be indicted.
He predicts Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the top official at the Obama Justice Department, won’t indict Clinton.
“It’s not going to happen,” he said. “But the FBI can push for concessions from a Clinton government.”
But he stressed that “there’s very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation,” that is incriminating.
Wow. Should be fun to read those emails when they come out.
Regardless of what’s she said in the past, it looks like Hillary did pass classified material through her email server and that she is the target of an FBI criminal investigation and there just might be enough material out there to get her indicted.
One would have thought that might translate into a bad week in the national news for Hillary.
Guess not.
But seriously, how sad is it that this woman is a cat’s whisker away from becoming president?[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092