In an unbylined 11:31 a.m. Eastern Time dispatch Saturday, the Associated Press demonstrated why anybody attempting to get to the reality concerning the standing of the Hillary Clinton’s personal server-scandal — which is clearly not over, and clearly has not been “litigated a million times,” as CNN’s determined Don Lemon claimed on Thursday in shouting down a conservative panelist — must go elsewhere to seek out it.
The AP report’s most blatant Democratic Party speaking factors-impressed spins tried to make a distinction which should not make a distinction concerning the nature of the categorized emails discovered on former congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop computer, and intentionally mischaracterized former FBI Director James Comey’s November 6, 2016 letter to Congress re-closing what had been a closed investigation 9 days earlier.
Here is the total AP report (offered in full due to its relative brevity and for truthful use and dialogue functions; crimson underlines and numbered tags are mine):
The dialogue which follows will take the crimson boxed or underlined objects in order.
For what needs to be not less than the thousandth time, whether or not these emails had been or weren’t “deemed classified” on the time they had been despatched is, per the associated statutes, irrelevant as to if against the law has been dedicated in sending, receiving, or storing them on unapproved gadgets over unapproved channels. That’s as a result of, as Andrew McCarthy at National Review defined over two years in the past, the emails had been born categorized primarily based on their content material (hyperlink is in unique; bolds are mine):
… Clinton rationalizes that as a result of the emails weren’t stamped categorized, she couldn’t have been anticipated to know they had been categorized. As I’ve been emphasizing since March, she is attempting to use the general public’s unfamiliarity with the excellence between categorized paperwork and categorized data – the previous are clearly categorized as a result of they’re marked as such; the latter, due to its nature, is well-known to nationwide safety officers to be categorized – no matter whether or not it’s marked as such and even written down in any respect. … Mrs. Clinton (had) plain information that she was pervasively exchanging categorized data over her personal e mail system.
… President Obama(‘s) Executive Order 13526, entitled “Classified National Security Information,” … explains that data is deemed categorized if its disclosure would trigger “damage to the national security.”
It was Mrs. Clinton’s job to know what data is assessed, no matter a doc’s markings. But even when she could not make the excellence, intent does not matter, nor does it matter whether or not your unlawful dealing with of categorized data had damaging penalties:
Accidentally eradicating a single categorized message from managed areas, with none proof of intent or publicity to hostile forces, can get you fired and value you your clearance. Repeated cases will land you in jail.
That is, except your title is Hillary Clinton, and your FBI Director on the time you must have been criminally charged was James Comey, who was being “helped” in guaranteeing that no prices could be filed by Hillary fan and rabid Trump-hater Peter Strzok.
As to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, the AP didn’t disclose that JW’s unique “Freedom Of Information Act lawsuit that resulted in Friday’s coming document-dump was filed in May 2015,” over 2-half of years in the past. Also observe that the State Department launched these emails on the Friday afternoon earlier than what might be the yr’s lowest-curiosity information weekend.
The AP’s breezy declaration that “the FBI declared that there was nothing new” just isn’t what Comey’s November 6, 2016 letter stated. In the context of occasions which have since transpired, it is cheap to imagine that the “nothing new” declare is fake.
Readers won’t discover the phrases “nothing new” in Comey’s letter:
I write to complement my October 28, 2016 letter that notified you the FBI could be taking extra investigative steps with respect to former Secretary of State Clinton’s use of a private e mail server. Since my letter, the FBI investigative group has been working across the clock to course of and evaluate a big quantity of emails from a tool obtained in reference to an unrelated felony investigation. During that course of, we reviewed the entire communications that had been to or from Hillary Clinton whereas she was Secretary of State.
Based on our evaluate, we now have not modified our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton.
I’m very grateful to the professionals on the FBI for doing a unprecedented quantity of excessive-high quality work in a brief time frame.
“We have not changed our conclusions” is most definitely not the identical as saying that there’s “nothing new.”
Perhaps it is not a stretch to achieve that evaluation when reported by a accountable regulation enforcement officer, however primarily based on what we have seen of him for the reason that election, nobody can moderately contend that Comey now suits that description. We now know that Comey has, at a minimal, lied to the American folks concerning the lack of felony intent on the a part of Mrs. Clinton and her apparatchiks, who deleted emails underneath subpoena; ensured pliant FBI would destroy the laptops of key potential witnesses; and leaked data to the press with out authorization. The AP’s blind assumption that Comey’s November 6, 2016 letter confirmed that there was “nothing new” is totally unwarranted.
As as to if Abedin and Weiner dedicated crimes, the identical logic applies to them as utilized to Mrs. Clinton. Based on the statutes concerned, they dedicated crimes; that the Department of Justice and FBI didn’t prosecute them does not change that apparent reality.
<<< Please help MRC’s NewsBusters group with a tax-deductible contribution right this moment. >>>
As to the blue line added to the AP report, that “Comey was the determining factor” in Hillary Clinton’s defeat, boo-freaking-hoo. It’s all Mrs. Clinton’s fault for having the personal server in the primary place. Once you commit overtly unlawful acts, you are in no place to complain about their unlucky penalties.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.