The State Department Inspector General released a new report detailing how former Secretary Hillary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act by deleting thousands of emails, stored on her private server, that she deemed personal before turning remaining emails over to the Department for review and preservation. Not mentioned was any violation of the old Espionage Act of 1917, now Title 18, Chapter 37 (Espionage and Censorship), for her “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information.” No one wants to admit that she gathered the most sensitive of classified information, transmitted it to a private server, and then deleted those 33,000 emails. The penalty for violating Title 18 is life and even death. The official line now is that she simply violated a tiny piece of the Federal Records Act–the penalty for violating the FRA–a slap on the wrist. If that.
See, I told you they’d find a way not to indict the good former Secretary of State, even when she was caught dead to rights. How did that happen?
The media jumped into the lead wagon and circled the wagons, and have gone into full protection mode–she was just trying to protect her privacy! don’t you know. Having survived, escaped, evaded, and resisted the media and the vast right wing conspiracy on the issue of espionage, the official word “now” is that it’s all just a big misunderstanding. An error of judgment, a casual oversight–all in the name of protecting her privacy.
Riiiiight! And if you have another view, you had better sit down, shut up, and keep your mouth shut. If you know what is good for you, that is.
I’ve done some IG work. Office of Internal Audit for the DOJ. I was singled out to conduct some very sensitive investigations. I’ve investigated senior military officers for a variety of offences. To me, untrained in the law but ordered to conduct an investigation, the most amazing thing was how the lawyers “left it up to me” as to which way I wanted the investigation to proceed. I interviewed people, collected relevant information, analyzed testimony and the evidence, and came to a conclusion. With one exception, there was no unlawful or undue “command influence,” that legal concept within American military law. Unlawful or undue command influence occurs when a person bearing “the mantle of command authority” pressures—or even appears to pressure—military judicial proceedings, like an investigation. Military commanders may exert significant control over their units, but under the Uniform Code of Military Justice a commander must take a detached, quasi-judicial stance towards certain disciplinary proceedings such as a court martial or an investigation. In my case, I had a colonel that wanted me to hammer “the obvious guilty” party. When I didn’t, because that is not where the evidence or the law would take me, I suffered greatly. I violated the “sit down, shut up, do what you are told, and keep your mouth shut” phase of the investigation.
The media has ridden on a wave of goodwill, expected to conduct investigations and report them, “fair and balanced” as the guy on Fox news says. A reporter, journalist, correspondent or whatever they call themselves these days, are an investigator and a reporter. They work for a “commander,” someone bearing “the mantle of authority,” (which could be a senior editor all the way to the CEO, I suppose). These journalists also learn to comport themselves a certain way to ensure “the messaging” from the highest “authority” is complied with and is consistent. When every White House correspondent is a registered democrat, as is the case today, what are the chances anything that deviates from the accepted and approved “message” is not reported and is squashed. If you want to be invited to the White House correspondent’s dinner and the briefing room, you are expected to play and not give “the boss” any grief. In other words, if you like putting “White House Correspondent” on your business cards, you had better sit down, do what you are told, and keep your mouth shut.
Ms. Clinton had plenty of warnings to use official communications methods so as to ensure her records were properly preserved and to minimize cyber-security risks. She ignored them. The news media had to pretend there was ambiguity there when there really wasn’t any ambiguity, now’s there no ambiguity as the ambiguity is gone with the IG report. The media was slightly more shocked than the Vichy France Prefect of Police Captain Louis Renault was upon learning “there’s gambling going on” at Rick’s as his table winnings are being stuffed into his hand.
The IG report. These “journalists” (I’m making quotation marks with my fingers…) have come to the point at which where they can no longer willfully ignore at least some part of the truth, they can no longer carry that bucket of swill, as the stench has become too great and it begins to rub off onto them. I suppose it leaves a “residue,” to borrow a phrase. When journalists are forced to tell the truth, at some point to demonstrate that they have some microscopic level of journalistic integrity left in their body, they break like a bucking bronco, and say, “Well, yeah, ya’ caught me. It’s over.”
How do you defend the lies that we’ve all known were lies, all of these years?
The Espionage Act of 1917 was passed, along with the Trading with the Enemy Act, just after the United States entered World War I in April 1917. It was based on the Defense Secrets Act of 1911, especially the notions of obtaining or delivering information relating to “national defense” to a person who was not “entitled to have it”, itself based on an earlier British Official Secrets Act. The Espionage Act law imposed much stiffer penalties than the 1911 law, including the death penalty.
The current law that covers espionage is Title 18, Chapter 37 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.
If that isn’t what Hillary Clinton did, just like Alger Hiss–a democrat, lawyer and senior State Department official–that is remove classified information, store it on a private email server, and willfully retained classified information and failed to deliver over 33,000 emails “on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it.”
Oh, yeah, that’s right. Sit down, shut up, do what you are told, and keep your mouth shut! The media is on the job.
More to follow.