The State Department (as in, the TRUMP State Department) is in the process of conducting an internal review of security protocols that were violated in the handling of Hillary Clinton’s emails. The review isn’t yet complete, but they’ve just released a progress report that shows quite a number of security violations.
So far, they’ve written up 15 people for breaking the rules. We don’t know who they are, because the Department itself would be breaking a rule by publicly naming them. I can think of several off the top of my head who are almost certainly included, but a number as high as 15 means there are more people involved than we knew about. Some of them –- I’m assuming the ones who are still working there; that’s an unknown number –- got write-ups placed in their security files, and it was reported that this could affect their ability to get security clearances in the future. Goodness, one would hope so.
(My thought is, what in blazes does it take to get one’s security clearance REVOKED? We’ve seen some pretty egregious behavior from former officials that, as far as I know, still hasn’t resulted in this.)
So far, the State Department has found 23 violations and 7 infractions of security protocols related to Hillary’s emails. In a letter to Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs, Mary Elizabeth Taylor, said, “The department considers any violation of security policies to be a serious matter.” Well, maybe it does NOW. I’m not sure it did while Hillary was Secretary of State.
Clinton herself, by doing State Department business with a personal account tied to a server she kept at her Chappaqua, New York, home, “broke government rules and risked national security, according to multiple investigations,” as reported Tuesday by the Washington Times. No kidding. On the other hand, I’m not so sure I agree with the Times’ assessment that James Comey concluded in 2016 that “Mrs. Clinton was too ignorant of the risks to be able to be charged.” If memory serves, Comey talked about intent –- though intent had nothing to do with whether or not she broke the law –- but not specifically about ignorance on her part. Even if, hypothetically, prosecutors did have to show intent (again, they don’t), it seems self-evident that Hillary was quite deliberate in her choice to skirt the law. Plenty of reasonable prosecutors would have taken that case.
And the idea that Hillary, an attorney herself, was ignorant of what she was doing is laughable; it’s simply that she thinks the rules were made for us lesser mortals to follow and don’t apply to her. Plus, these weren’t simply rules (as in, internal guidelines and policies). She clearly broke LAWS, such as the Espionage Act, to name one.
In 2016, it was found that over 2,000 of Hillary’s emails contained classified information, when it was her responsibility to recognize by the nature of the material that it was classified. There were even emails designated TOP SECRET: nearly two dozen that she sent and/or received over her nonsecure server. I would add that there may have been many more, as over 30,000 of Hillary’s emails were deleted with BleachBit and communications devices were physically destroyed.
I personally like President Trump’s write-up better., for the entertainment value. He tweeted: “Wow! The State Department said it has identified 30 Security Incidents involving current or former employees and their handing of Crooked Hillary Clinton’s emails. This is really big. Never admitted before. Highly Classified Material. Will the Dems investigate this?”
Dems investigate TIHS? Is he kidding? Well, yes, he is.
Sen. Grassley tweeted: “I’ve been doing oversight of Clinton email server + mishandling of classified info since 2015. State Department response to my inquiries proves safeguards for national secrets ignored by 15 ppl Violators shld b held accountable.”
That is for sure. We’ll see what happens when the review is complete.
The State Department review is supposed to wrap up in early September. In her letter to Sen. Grassley, Ms. Taylor acknowledged that “the Department’s process has been necessarily more complicated and complex, requiring a significant dedication of time and resources.” Thanks, Hillary, for wasting so much of our government's time and resources. There are plenty of other things they could be dedicating their time and resources to, but it's all having to be spent on YOU.
Taylor also said that disciplinary actions are pending. I’m hoping that means prosecution for any laws that are alleged to have been broken. This deserves harder punishment than double-secret probation.
What about Clinton herself? She’s long-gone from the State Department; in fact, she even asked to have her security clearance suspended. Recall that former FBI general counsel James Baker said he was convinced that Hillary and her team should have been prosecuted; Comey & friends pressured him to change his mind, and he finally went along with them.
Well, Hillary and her team may be getting a bad review from the State Department, but a Broadway play called HILLARY AND CLINTON got good reviews (naturally) from the New York theater crowd. Even so, it’s closing a month early due to low ticket sales, and investors apparently lost money on the $4.2 million production. Gosh, it’s sad when investors lose money, except when it’s on something like this. Did they not realize most people want to forget the Clintons?
The show had some star power: John Lithgow played Bill, and Laurie Metcalf (who got a Tony nomination for her role) played Hillary. No attempt was made by the actors to look like the real-life Bill and Hillary or impersonate them. In fact, the Hollywood Reporter explained that “HILLARY AND CLINTON is not based on the real Clintons, but instead characters with the same name in an alternate universe.” It seems to me that anyone who thought this concept would be successful is living in an alternate universe.
The play is a discussion between the two characters, whoever they are, concerning her 2008 campaign. I would imagine any actual discussion of Hillary’s 2008 campaign involved a lot of screaming and flying ashtrays and wine glasses, with Secret Service agents ducking for cover. No doubt the true story would have been a lot more entertaining than this 90-minute play.
There’s also an actor who plays some version of Barack Obama, or I guess I should say someone in an alternate universe who happens to have the name “Barack Obama.”
In case you’re sad right now that you didn’t get tickets to this while you could (me, neither), this will fix you up: A NYT review said that the play was “asking us to see the world through the eyes of a woman who ostensibly has the right stuff to be President and yet is never allowed to win.”
Still want to see it? Personally, I’d prefer to see a show about a woman whose “wrong stuff” –- dishonesty, secrecy, greed, condescension –- kept her from being President. That would star the real Bill and Hillary, and it would be a documentary.