The indispensable Judicial Watch, after protracted litigation in federal court docket, has pressured the State Department to start releasing Huma Abedin’s work-associated paperwork that had been discovered on Anthony Weiner’s private pc. The paperwork had been offered to the State Department by the FBI, which reviewed them as a part of its investigation of the Hillary Clinton e-mail server scandal. The first public launch of those paperwork got here on Friday, December 31.
Judicial Watch confirms that the paperwork embody categorised data from Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server. Not solely that, however at the least 4 of those paperwork had been marked “classified.”
You in all probability recall that Team Clinton tried to defend Hillary’s mishandling of categorised data by arguing that the data was not marked categorised at the time the doc was produced and when it was despatched or acquired. But this argument, by no means a powerful one, doesn’t apply to at the least 4 of the paperwork that Abedin shuffled over to her husband’s pc. In addition, as Jazz Shaw factors out, by sending this materials to Weiner, Abedin put it exterior the attain of the authorities.
Shaw additionally raises the query of whether or not Abedin lied to the FBI throughout its investigation:
[B]oth Abedin and Cheryl Mills had been referred to as in by the FBI and advised them that they didn’t even find out about the existence of the secret server. And that was in 2016. But right here now we have proof from 2010 of Abedin forwarding categorised paperwork from the secret server to an account referred to as “Anthony Campaign” which is presumably the e-mail account on her husband’s laptop computer. So doesn’t that imply that she (and presumably Mills) lied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation throughout their probe of the case?
I’ve been listening to lots recently about how individuals who misinform the FBI are in plenty of hassle and will face jail time, even when the topic of the dialog they lied about wasn’t unlawful. In this occasion we’re speaking a few clearly unlawful act, particularly sending clearly marked categorised State Department paperwork to a personal laptop computer managed by somebody and not using a safety clearance.
If mendacity to the FBI is such an enormous deal, aren’t we being a bit selective in prosecution if any individual isn’t indicted over this? Or does the indisputable fact that Clinton and Abedin are now not in the combine for a nationwide political workplace imply that we merely don’t trouble?
I feel the solutions to the two questions are “yes” and “yes.”