Hillary’s Emails
I have written about this before, sometime ago before things
had heated up (see posting for (3/8/2015 and 8/23/2015). Here is some of what I said from that latter
post:
“While I believe that it was not a good idea for Hillary to
use a private server for her State Department-related email, I also recognize…
that (it was not) unusual for high-ranking officials in State and other
departments to do so. There were protocols established in the State
Department (and other departments) as to what could be used or discussed while
using such servers, and what could not, but those protocols were not strictly
enforced nor entirely clear. There were even disagreements as to what
should and should not be 'classified.'
The point: there is no such thing as one unqualified definition across all of
government that is determinant of what is considered "secret" or
"classified" because it is difficult to determine the meaning of
vague terms in those definitions. But the Republicans continue to flail
away hoping you will believe this fiction.”
Wikipedia has some helpful information in summary form regarding levels of
classification.
"The United States government classifies information according to the degree which the unauthorized disclosure would damage national security.”
Top Secret
"Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe."
Secret
This is the second-highest classification. Information is classified Secret when its unauthorized disclosure would cause "serious damage" to national security. Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity level.
Confidential
This is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if publicly disclosed, again, without the proper authorization.
"The United States government classifies information according to the degree which the unauthorized disclosure would damage national security.”
Top Secret
"Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe."
Secret
This is the second-highest classification. Information is classified Secret when its unauthorized disclosure would cause "serious damage" to national security. Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity level.
Confidential
This is the lowest classification level of information obtained by the government. It is defined as information that would "damage" national security if publicly disclosed, again, without the proper authorization.
Those now 'hyping' the situation are focused on what might in retrospect be
classified as 'secret' but may not have been so classified at the time the
emails were written. What is being missed in this whole issue is of major importance:
Who
determines if something in Hillary's emails might have been
"reasonably expected to cause serious damage to national
security" at the time they were written? Not the Congress,
although they can investigate and criticize all they want. Not the
President, although his State Department can determine if any of their
rules were violated. Certainly not the Republican candidate
for President. Not even the FBI – they only get to make the decision
as to whether their investigation is conclusive enough to request that
charges be brought against the perpetrator.
In the
final analysis, the Courts
get to decide whether there was a reasonable expectation that exposure of
certain information in those emails at the time could have caused 'serious
damage' to national security (except in the case of impeachment which is discussed below).
It is obvious from the reporting engaged in so far, there is
nothing but hype, innuendo and inference governing this situation to attract
voter attention and to make this story seem like something huge in implication,
but to date, nothing substantiates that judgment or claim. Let us now view Director Comey’s first letter to
Congressional leaders in the context of the definitions from Wikipedia, leaving aside the names of committees to whom it
was addressed:
October 28, 2016:
Dear Messrs. Chairmen: In previous congressional testimony, l referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.
In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.
Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.
Sincerely yours,
James B. Comey
Director
“The ACLU released a
statement noting that “As the second-highest ranked Justice Department official
under John Ashcroft, Comey approved some of the worst abuses committed by the
Bush administration. Specifically, the publicly available evidence indicates
Comey signed off on enhanced interrogation techniques that constitute torture,
including waterboarding. James B. Comey
Director
A Republican, Comey has donated about $10,000 to Republican candidates and organizations over the years, including $2,300 to John McCain in 2008 and $5,000 to Mitt Romney's 2012 campaign.”
I will leave the full-out conspiracy theories to Dr. Paul
Krugman, who has tweeted some remarkable speculations about Comey’s motives. For me, it is enough to know that Comey is a
Republican who has been involved in the G.W. Bush administration, has donated
to Republican candidates, and was appointed to the FBI Directorship by
President Obama who has appointed other Republicans to prestigious positions (Gates
at Defense) when he believed that such a display of bi-partisanship would help
to produce good outcomes for the nation.
It has not done so.
I concur with the words of Eric Holder, immediate former
Attorney General, who said just days ago that this was a serious breach of
principles and policies that are currently in place at the Justice Department
(which oversees the FBI as its investigatory arm). He said this, in part:
“I am deeply concerned about FBI Director James B. Comey’s
decision to write a vague letter to Congress about emails potentially connected
to a matter of public, and political, interest. That decision was incorrect. It
violated long-standing Justice Department policies and tradition. And it ran
counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper
way to conduct investigations during an election season. That guidance, which
reinforced established policy, is still in effect and applies to the entire
Justice Department — including the FBI.
“The department has a practice of not commenting on ongoing
investigations. Indeed, except in exceptional circumstances, the department
will not even acknowledge the existence of an investigation. The department
also has a policy of not taking unnecessary action close in time to Election
Day that might influence an election’s outcome. These rules have been followed
during Republican and Democratic administrations. They aren’t designed to help
any particular individual or to serve any political interest. Instead, they are
intended to ensure that every investigation proceeds fairly and judiciously; to
maintain the public trust in the department’s ability to do its job free of
political influence; and to prevent investigations from unfairly or unintentionally
casting public suspicion on public officials who have done nothing wrong. Director Comey broke with these fundamental
principles.”
And recently, MSN.com reported that “A bipartisan group of
nearly 100 former federal prosecutors and senior Department of Justice
officials, including Attorney General Eric Holder, signed a letter expressing
concerns over FBI Director James Comey’s decision to inform Congress of new
emails that may or may not be relevant to Hillary Clinton’s private email
server. ‘… his unprecedented decision to
publicly comment on evidence in what may be an ongoing inquiry just eleven days
before a presidential election leaves us both astonished and perplexed,’ said
the signatories. “We cannot recall a prior instance where a senior Justice Department official — Republican or Democrat — has, on the eve of a major election, issued a public statement where the mere disclosure of information may impact the election’s outcome, yet the official acknowledges the information to be examined may not be significant or new’.”
Here is my main point about the latest attempts by Trump
and his followers to denigrate and bring down Hillary Clinton with the help of
this misuse of FBI investigatory power (in much the same vein as Director J.
Edgar Hoover used to do, especially regarding the Kennedys whom he despised).
There are several very important principles involved in
accusing people of crimes (‘Hillary is a Crook -- ‘Throw her in Jail’, which
Trump promised to do if elected!) This
whole trumped-up charge that something crooked has occurred with her Emails is
entirely unsubstantiated, to the extent that the FB I and Comey refused to
recommend to the Justice Department that formal charges be brought against
Clinton in a Court of Law. Why? Because
they knew they would have no “standing” before the Court. In his October 28th letter to congressional leaders, Comey admits that the “FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant.” If that is so, he had no justification for writing that letter because there is no substantive evidence for re-opening the investigation, only speculation, and therefore an effect on the closed investigation does not exist. That being the case, it is no wonder that Senate Minority Leader Reid and many congressional Democrats, as well as over a hundred federal prosecutors and members of the Justice Department (including Republicans) called for full disclosure of facts, and the possibility of charges against Comey of violating the Hatch Act that prohibits Public officials from influencing elections by using the powers of their office to do so.
Here is my take on the matter in relation to “standing” in the Courts: nothing has been found in Hillary’s Emails to prove:
- malicious intent
- that harm has come to the
nation because of any of these emails
- that any of the criteria
for classification of secrets has been substantially violated
- No exceptionally grave
damage to the national security has been caused by any of
those emails
- No serious grave
damage to the national security has ever been proven to exist
because of any of her emails
- No damage whatsoever, even at the lowest levels of classification, has ever been proven to have occurred.
- Finally, regarding any kind of civil suit, there has been nothing to indicate that any personal harm has ever occurred to any individual because of her emails existing on a private server.
- Add to those criteria the fact that every citizen is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law and that every person has the right to a (speedy) trial by jury, and Donald Trump is caught on his own petard.
Now, of course, we have the inevitable second Comey letter
to Congress as of Sunday, Nov. 6th (with just one full day remaining
before Election Day) that indicates, after thorough examination of those Emails
on Weiner’s laptop, there is no evidence which would change the stance of the
FB I in July: they will not initiate
charges against Hillary Clinton obviously because nothing of substance –
nothing criminal – was found in those latest emails. "Based
on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July
with respect to Secretary Clinton," he wrote.
Clinton spokesman
Brian Fallon said the campaign never doubted that the new investigation would
come to the same determination as the first did. "We were always confident
nothing would cause the July decision to be revisited," Fallon tweeted.
"Now Director Comey has confirmed it."
Sources told ABC
News tonight that the new batch of emails contained duplicates the FBI had
already reviewed and therefore did not contain new information that altered
their initial findings. Agents were aided by computer programs that sorted
through thousands of emails found on the laptop shared by Abedin and Weiner.
In my opinion, we have here not only an admission that the
July stance is still operative, we have the second letter, by its very
existence, confirming that the first letter was truly interference by a
federal agency in a Presidential election.
Nothing of substance that needed reporting to anyone was in the first
letter, and the second letter simply confirmed that fact. Interference is thus the only viable motive
for the letter. Moreover, there was no reason for
the FBI to have reported to Congress on a closed investigation until the moment
when they uncovered new evidence, and had determined that charges would be
advanced! The mere existence of the new
emails was not in any way an expansion of Comey’s testimony. In light of the second letter, the first
letter can only be seen as interference in this election.
Unfortunately, from much of the reporting on this incident,
there appears to be a faction within the FBI that supports Trump while
despising Hillary Clinton. That small
cabal may have pressured Comey to act as he did; we may never know for sure,
although a (hopefully) Democratic Senate might want to hold some hearings of
its own on this violation of protocol and policy by the FBI Director!
It is Donald Trump who is the larger problem here, just as
he was with the “birther” allegations against Barak Obama. He is a perverse liar and a user of innuendo,
gossip, made up stories, and distorted principles of business. His absolute need to belittle and besmirch
all opponents -- to best and beat those he cannot fairly confront in debate, or
those with whom he cannot compete in the realms of intellectual or business
acumen. This is a dangerous man, and an
even more dangerous politician, because he is not above using the law to flout
the laws and standards of justice in our democracy. He is the epitome of a destroyer of
democratic principles.
Equally striking, is his ability to rail against
someone else’s flaws and mistakes, and negligence or even crookedness when he
is doing or has done the same exact thing.
Take the example of Emails that are destroyed after an official notice
has been served to gain access to them.
Now we learn that Trump and his company have done the exact same thing
when he was being investigated for alleged wrong-doing in his business. And, it has happened more than once (revealed
in a recent story in NEWSWEEK)! Such
duplicity and hypocrisy are stock-in-trade for this man.
From my humble Blog, I challenge this faker, this con man,
this duplicitous hypocrite to arrange for a suit against Hillary Clinton for
whatever he believes is criminal behavior; to do any less is tantamount to
neglecting his civic duty and abetting criminal behavior by not acting. In fact, if he knows of any evidence that
would prove criminality, he is committing an unlawful act of withholding
evidence. He should figure some way to
take her to court now and prove to the American people that he is not just a
bag of wind; that he will act on his word.
Do it now, on a fast track before
the election, so that the Court can tell you what I hope the intelligent
voters will tell you on November 8th:
YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED
WORDS HAVE NO STANDING IN A COURT OF LAW and HOPEFULLY NO STANDING WITH MOST OF
THE ELECTORATE AND CERTAINLY NOT WITH THE ELECTORS of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE!
IMPEACHMENT?
Donald Trump
has called for Hillary’s impeachment, and even predicted that it would happen
when the Department of Justice finally indicts her for crimes involving her
Emails, or Ben Ghazi, or something yet to be discovered.
First, no
impeachable offense has been found that even fits the definition of “conviction
of Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors.” It might well be possible to convince a
radical Right-ruled House to impeach; that is, to form a bill of charges for
whatever they think President Hillary Clinton has done that is impeachable in
their eyes. But conviction on any of
those listed charges in the Senate is another whole story. Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson were both impeached
by the House, but not convicted by the Senate.
Revenge and political “gotcha” are apparently not good enough reasons
for a conviction. However, the hateful
climate created by Donald Trump could well infect a Republican-retained Senate
and result in a poorly conceived conviction.
BUT wait just a minute:
isn’t there still a question to be raised about timing? Has that issue ever been entirely settled? Can a sitting President have charges brought
against him/her because of some wrong-doing performed before they held the
office of President? I would argue in
the negative: the charges would have no relation to the office of President
since whatever “crime” was committed before the oath of office was taken, means
that the person was not President.
Secondly, I would argue that, in such an instance, the articles of
impeachment formulated by the House of Representatives would constitute a
legislative act, and the Constitution specifically states: “No … ex-post facto Law shall be passed.” An
ex post facto law is defined in the legal freeddictionary.com as:
“Latin,
"After-the-fact" laws.] Laws that provide for the infliction of
punishment upon a person for some prior act that, at the time it was committed,
was not illegal. Ex post facto laws (also)
retroactively change the rules of evidence in a criminal case, retroactively
alter the definition of a crime, retroactively increase the punishment for a
criminal act, or punish conduct that was legal when committed. They are
prohibited by Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, of the U.S. Constitution. An ex
post facto law is considered a hallmark of tyranny because it deprives people
of a sense of what behavior will or will not be punished and allows for random
punishment at the whim of those in power.”
Since there are several definitions that fit numerous circumstances, I would depend on the definitions that imply punishment that does not fit the crime or that brings a punishment for something that was not illegal at the time committed; in this sense – the punishment of impeachment and loss of office as well as prohibition from ever holding civil office again could be argued to be an increase of punishment for certain questionable crimes such as deleting private Emails. Or, it could be argued that many of the Emails in question, now thought to contain “classified information” were not so designated at the time of their sending.
At any rate, bringing an act of impeachment by the House
and subsequent conviction by the Senate of crimes and misdemeanors said to be
committed before Secretary Clinton took the oath of office of President is
fraught with restrictions on the “whims” of those in power, and in those
seeking power and revenge.
AND WHAT ABOUT
THOSE POLLS?
Let us not mince words here:
Polls are always somewhat inaccurate because no polling sample is
perfectly representative of the larger constituency for whom they supposedly
speak. If they were accurate, there
would be no need for an acknowledgement of “margin of error.”
Polls are always faulty in terms of how questions are asked,
and because of different interpretations of those questions by those being
surveyed. That is, every person brings
his or her own biases and experiences to the words and to the questions
themselves. Thus, the answers given
have true meaning only to the answerer.
Polls are always inaccurate because no subject or issue,
with all its facets, implications and meanings can ever be thoroughly plumbed
by any poll, no matter how sophisticated its methodology.
In terms of polls that are taken to determine who leads in
the race for the White House, all of them are built on a false premise: they attempt to measure the popular
vote instead of the Electoral College Vote, which is the only vote that
counts under our Constitution. As far as I know, no polling methodology exists
which can accurately measure the electoral college vote mainly because states
have different rules for how that vote is apportioned. In most states the winner of the popular vote
wins all of the electoral votes apportioned to that state. In Maine and Nebraska, the popular vote is
apportioned by districts.
So, one can
translate the results of the pre-election polls to this extent: one can know
from the polls what state’s electoral votes may be won by each candidate if their popular vote
projections are accurate. One thing we do
know -- not only from the Florida vote in 2000 where the Supreme Court decided
the outcome, but from votes earlier in our 18th century history when
two undecided elections were thrown into the House of Representatives - polls
cannot be relied upon to accurately measure unforeseen circumstances. One of those circumstances, which may occur
in this election is the rare occurrence where one candidate wins the popular
vote (as Al Gore did in 2000) and the other wins the electoral college vote (as
George Bush did after the SCOTUS decision about Florida). Guess who becomes President?
The only polls that matter are the
ones where you cast your ballot on Election Day, and the one where the official
Electors cast their votes in their own states and send certification of their
vote sometime before Jan. 6th of the new year, when traditionally the Congress
meets in joint session to reveal the electoral vote count, and the victorious
candidates for President and Vice President.
So, beware of putting
too much trust in pre-election polls that cannot tell you with deadly accuracy
who will win the Presidency. Instead,
make sure YOU VOTE, and that everyone around you does as well. Polls are inherently inaccurate – YOUR VOTE represents the only answer that matters!
