An Open Letter To Hillary
I haven’t been following your (unsecured, private) e-mail saga too closely, content to see where it would lead, what all would come out of it, as regards information, proof, and specific outcomes. But from an article in a recent issue of The New American,1 I see that ’it’ is worse than I thought; speaking to the full extent of the moral degradation of the American federal government, to say, of those who inhabit it.
But first things first.
You have hidden behind the niftily-parsed claim that you ”never sent or received any e-mail that was deemed classified, that was marked classified”. I will let go for now the inconvenient fact that “at least a dozen e-mails found on her server early in the investigation were classified, and at least two were ‘Top Secret’.” But that’s not the half of it. The author of this report goes on:2
“But did Hillary know [that she was lying]? The answer to that is found in two documents bearing her signature.”
- And here I’m going to pause and prepare my dinner. And listen to some Jackie Evancho. To clean my palate, as it were.3
“It is now known that Hillary signed two separate non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) as part of her job as secretary of state [written as original]. The first deals with Selective Compartmental Information (SCI). The second is a more general NDA dealing with the protection of all classified information…The language of the NDAs removes all doubt that Hillary Clinton was aware of the criminal nature and inherent national security risks associated with her actions. Disregarding something is not ignorance; it is worse.
“The NDAs signed by Secretary Clinton on her second day on the job spell out in language so clear that the meaning of the word ’is’ is quite unambiguous — her responsibility in handling the sensitive information to which she would have access in her new job. One part of the first NDA reads: ‘I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.’ The agreement goes on to address how Secretary Clinton could be sure she was abiding by the letter and the spirit of the agreement. ‘I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department…in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control…might be SCI,’ the NDA says. Regardless of whether or not Hillary saw any indication that the e-mails were classified, she was required to keep State Department information secure unless she obtained specific permission to release it.
“And yet, before the ink of her signatures could dry, Hillary made the decision to re-purpose Bill’s old e-mail server into her own private server to be used for official government business. She has defended the decision, not on the grounds that it was the best choice for the nation she swore and accepted the responsibility to protect, but on the grounds of convenience.”
Convenience to conduct private business with foreign contacts, to enhance your and Bill’s wealth…As for any argument about mere ‘formalities’:
“NDAs are fairly common and many Americans have signed such agreements as a condition of employment. Failing to abide by those agreements is cause for dismissal, civil action, and possible criminal charges. As a matter of integrity and simple self-interest, most people would take that seriously and ask themselves what the NDA requires and what it prohibits.
“But there’s a special type of narcissism,” Shaw fairly goes on, “that seems to have set up permanent residence in the minds of Bill and Hillary Clinton. The rules that apply to everyone else simply don’t apply to them. They keep straight faces while telling the biggest lies. It’s almost as if they believe it when they say, ‘I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski [sic],’ and ‘I never sent or received any e-mail that was deemed classified, that was marked classified.’ After all, they have dodged everything so far…: why should any recent scandal that is afoot be any different? After all, ’It depends on what the meaning of the word ’”s” is.’ Words are just tools to be used — and misused — to fit their purposes.”4
And on top of all of the specific legalities there is the implied aspect as well:
"Furthermore, inherent in her job was the understanding that certain intelligence is 'born classified.' In other words, certain information is considered classified by its very nature and the nature of its inception. If she then communicated that information to someone who lacked the appropriate clearance, she would be guilty of violating federal law. Likewise, if she broke the chain of custody for that classified information -- by, for instance, allowing it to be stored on and transmitted over a non-authorized [Note: and unsecured] server -- she would be guilty of violating federal law..."
It goes on. But the point is made. And in spades, as they say.5
So, what do we have here, dear Reader. We have a woman who, with her husband, has spent a good portion of her life sailing ‘close to the wind’ of criminality.6 There was the Whitewater scandal, based on their criminal tenure when Bill was governor of Arkansas. There was the Chinagate scandal, when he was POTUS, selling American defense secrets to the Red Chinese in exchange for re-election funds, and the likes of their mutual stripping of the People’s House of valuable furnishings when they left it. (How tawdry can you get.) And here they were, up to their old tricks again, when Hillary was SoS, getting bribery money - extortion money?? - into their money-laundering front, the Clinton Foundation, from foreign government and business officials, in exchange for decisions and other favors done for them, from her sensitive political position.7 All of which shenanigans were undoubtedly part of her private e-mail account, which she has kept the public knowing about, because of her convenient parsing of words.
It doesn’t matter if something was “marked classified” or not, Hillary. What matters is what was in your heart. And what was in your heart was, obviously, larceny.
So. To prison with you. For some seasoning. That you really get, that actions have consequences. Before you can move on. To say, up.
If you so choose.
Yours very sincerely,
Duane 'Stan' Stanfield
Yours very sincerely,
Duane 'Stan' Stanfield
P.S. Oh - and you could possibly have the cell next to Obama. A fitting tribute. And you two can share gender-neutral toilet facilities.
1 Yes yes; “a vast right-wing conspiracy” and all that potential rubbishing. But facts are facts. And if the mainstream media won’t inform the public as to the full version of the facts of a matter, and the supportive terrain to them, what’s a good citizen to do, but go to ‘alternative’ news sites for their info. Besides, the John Birch Society (The New American being their house magazine) is a very good source of info, because its material will be attacked relentlessly if they don’t have their facts correct, being a major enemy of the far Left in this country - outright communists, and its fellow travelers - since its inception, in the Cold War era.
(Its motto, for you younguns: ’Less Government, More Responsibility, And, With God’s Help, A Better World’.
Do I agree with their positions on all issues totally? No. But at least they are on the right track.)
2 C. Mitchell Shaw. The article: ‘Clinton’s Email Evasions,’ in the December 7 2015 issue of TNA.
3 Her ‘Dream With Me’ for tonight’s dinnertime concert. Highly recommended. Well; as are her other two. But this one is particularly pure.
Just what I need. To get the other taste out of my mouth.
4 (a) This business about ”the meaning of the word ‘is’“ for you too young to know what that reference is all about has to do with Bill’s shenanigans around the Lewinsky saga. Look it up, if you’re into tawdriness. As for the general subject of ‘the meaning of words’:
(b) I think we’ve had quite enough of Humpty ’Words mean what I say they mean’ Dumpties sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, and its specifically delegated protection of the wall of the Constitution - i.e., the rule of law in the nation - from being breached, without any more shenanigans along those lines. And I hope you think so also, dear American reader. Or this nation is toast.
5 But just to be spelled out crystal clear, so that no one, not even Hillary, can miss it:
“To Hillary material was only classified if it was marked classified and if it was marked so when she sent it or received it. The NDAs she signed do not accept that elastic definition. If the only information she had to worry about was that which was marked, there would be no need for Secretary Clinton to ’consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department…in order to ensure that [she knew] whether information or material within [her] knowledge or control might be SCI.’”
6 Possibly learnt from, or at least exemplified by, a political mentor of hers, Saul Alinsky; the Chicago ‘community organizer’ whom she wrote a college thesis about, and stayed in touch with on a personal level. ‘Whatever It Takes…By Any Means Necessary…’. Everything is relative; right, Saul? Right, Hill?? What is right is what advances your ends???
And the devil take the hindmost.
7 One of their main nemeses, Larry Klayman, dating back to Bill’s time as POTUS - then of Judicial Watch, now of Freedom Watch, and still on the job, as it were - has called them “the Bonnie and Clyde of American politics”. Rather fitting, I would echo.