The Clinton Revelations That Must Not Disappear as the News Cycle Changes

September 05, 2016

"Working on Labor Day? Man, you really hate labor unions, huh?"

The Federal Bureau of Investigation tried to bury the news on the Friday before Labor Day weekend; a major measuring stick for the Trump campaign will be how much they can get the revelations into the post-holiday-weekend news cycle.

Among the revelations . . .

1. The FBI investigation began because of a referral from the U.S. Intelligence Community Inspector General. This is not the vast right-wing conspiracy or one of Hillary Clinton's partisan foes; the IG's office is staffed by those whose professional duty is to protect our nation's secrets. Looking at the evidence, they grew concerned that a crime may have or is likely to have been committed. The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, III, is career law enforcement: FBI, Department of the Treasury, NSA.

2. The FBI cannot prove conclusively that hostile foreign actors accessed her server; but they did find that "hostile foreign actors successfully gained access to the personal e-mail accounts of individuals with whom Clinton was in regular contact and, in doing so, obtained e-mails sent to or received by Clinton on that personal account."

3. As we all know, Clinton claimed she used the private server for "convenience" because she only wanted to use one device. The FBI found 13 total mobile devices used to send e-mails; they asked for them and Clinton's lawyers said they could not locate any of those devices. The FBI identified five iPads used by Clinton; three were turned over to the FBI. Hillary's Blackberry phones were off-the-shelf from AT&T stores around the Washington, D.C. area. Apparently Clinton didn't like upgrades; "According to Abedin, it was not uncommon for Clinton to use a new Blackberry for a few days and then immediately switch it out for an older version with which she was more familiar."

No one knows where the old phones are; in two instances, her phones were destroyed with a hammer. This means there are eleven or so mobile phones with God knows how much classified information on them effectively missing.

4. Clinton was obligated to get permission to use her personal device; at no time did she do so. Everything she has said about her use of the personal device being permitted is completely false.

5. "State employees alleged that John Bentel, [a senior State Department official, handling IT for senior officials] discouraged employees from raising concerns about Clinton's use of personal e-mail." When interviewed by the FBI, Bentel denied anyone raising any concerns, that he had discouraged anyone from raising those concerns, or that he was aware she was using a personal account for State business. This seems implausible. As Clinton herself said to the FBI, it was common knowledge among State Department employees.

6. This should be thrown in the face of any Clinton defender who cites Colin Powell as an exculpatory witness:

7. "In 2011, a notice to all State employees was sent on Clinton's behalf, which recommended employees avoid conducting State business on personal e-mail accounts due to information security concerns." Clinton said she didn't recall sending that notice or ever getting any advice on using personal accounts.

Clinton told the FBI she could not recall or not remember 39 times.

Here's the really galling part, considering the screams of outrage that greet any comment about Clinton's age or health in this election cycle:

CLINTON stated she received no instructions or direction regarding the preservation or production of records from State during the transition out of her role as Secretary of State in early 2013. However, in December of 2012, CLINTON suffered a concussion and then around the New Year had a blood clot. Based on her doctor's advice, she could only work at State for a few hours a day and could not recall every briefing she received. CLINTON did not have any discussions with aides about turning over her email records, nor did anyone from State request them. She believed her work-related emails were captured by her practice of sending email to the state.gov email address of her staff. CLINTON was unaware of the requirement to turn over printed records at that time. Her physical records were boxed up and handled by aides.

Ace of Spades noticed, "Hillary's Brain Damage came right at the sweet spot: It came to provide her an alibi, then left just in time to permit her to be president."

Jeryl Bier reminds everyone that Hillary really cannot offer this excuse because she signed official documents affirming she had been properly briefed:

The second paragraph of the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement—which she signed on January 22, 2009—states that "I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of classified information." And the form also notes that classified information is not always so marked, but is still regulated by the agreement.

Obviously, you should be reading everything Andy McCarthy writes on issues of national security and the Clintons, and he points out that her excuses were nonsensical:

For example, when asked about an email chain containing the symbol "(C)" — meaning "confidential," a designation ubiquitous in classified documents — Clinton claimed not to know what it meant and, according to the notes, "could only speculate it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order." This is a response so absurd as to be insulting (the interview notes do not tell us if the FBI asked her to find (A), (B) and (D) notations that would be necessary to have the "alphabetical order" story make sense — assuming, for argument's sake that one would indulge the possibility that this could be a truthful answer from a classified information consumer as high-level as Clinton).

A Question for the 'All the Polls Are Rigged' Crowd

If all of the pollsters are rigging their polls to understate support for Donald Trump, as some Trump fans insist, why are those pollsters not doing the same for all Republican candidates, and (the theory goes) conspiring to really depress GOP turnout? If you've signed on for a vast effort to paint an inaccurate picture of the mindset of the electorate, why would you only do it for the presidential race but not for the down-ticket races?

If CBS/YouGov is cooking the numbers to create an artificial 8-point lead for Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania, why do they have Pat Toomey and McGinty tied in the Senate race? If they have Hillary ahead by 4 in North Carolina, why would they have incumbent Republican Richard Burr only down by one point? (For what it's worth, Franklin & Marshall have both Clinton and McGinty up by 5 in Pennsylvania; Monmouth has Clinton up 8, McGinty up 4.)

Why would Emerson have Clinton and Trump tied in Ohio, but Rob Portman up by 15? Why would the same pollster have Clinton ahead by 3 and Toomey ahead by 7?

Isn't a simpler explanation that Trump is a more controversial candidate, with lower levels of personal approval, and as a result, he's running behind incumbent Republicans who are more or less mainstream conservatives? The polls may be flawed, but that's not a synonym for rigged.

The One Congressman Who Earns His Pay, or at Least Gives You a Bargain

Meet David Young, Republican Congressman from Iowa's Third District, one of the more competitive House races this year . . . who hasn't collected a paycheck since April.

Young not only supports his "No Budget, No Pay" legislation he's cosponsored; this spring he sent a letter to the House Chief Administrative Officer requesting that his pay be withheld from April 16, 2016, until the House agrees to a budget resolution or the last day of the 114th Congress.

In his new ad, he declares, "No budget, no paycheck. It's that simple. It sure didn't make me very popular in Washington, but that's okay. I don't work for them, I work for you."

ADDENDA: If you like my Facebook Live chats, I'll be doing them regularly from now on, Tuesdays at 2 o'clock Eastern – 2 on Tuesdays, easy to remember, accessible from my work Facebook page or the NR Facebook page. I see almost a million people have liked National Review's page, and a whole . . . 1,700 or so have liked mine!

Over the weekend, I urged the world of professional sports to shut up about all of the social issues that they feel so compelled to speak up about and remember why everyone is watching them:

I just want to enjoy watching the game.

Nobody watches sports because they want to raise their level of "social awareness." Nobody tunes in to Monday Night Consciousness-Raising. Most sports fans are perfectly aware of the world's problems. They are much more likely to encounter those problems in their daily lives than any of the well-paid, famous players on the field. I can't speak for all of them, but I think their mentality isn't too far from mine.

I just want to enjoy watching the game.

There is no sin in this. Wanting to enjoy a sport as entertainment is not a sign of stupidity, selfishness, laziness, or lack of empathy for others. Enjoyment is what sports exist to provide. Yes, they've turned into a multi-billion dollar business and cultural touchstone, but that business is still the entertainment business. It runs on viewers. And do you know what attracts viewers?

They just want to enjoy watching the game!