Recent news reports on the Clinton Servergate scandal have made it clear that Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) does not deserve a term in the White House. Rather, she deserves a term in prison, a long term.
On January 19th, Fox News published an exclusively-obtained, unclassified letter written by I. Charles McCullough III, the Intelligence Community Inspector General for the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). His letter summarized the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified “several dozen” previously unreported classified e-mails stored on Clinton’s “secret” (yet unsecure) server that until 2013 was managed by Justin Cooper, an aide to former President Bill Clinton. According to published accounts, that server was kept in a home closet, and Cooper held no security clearance, and he had no expertise in computer security or classified document handling procedures. HRC later contracted privately with Platte River Networks, which was a continuing violation of both departmental procedures and Federal law (since their system was outside of official secure channels).
Most importantly, the “several dozen” e-mails quite obviously included intelligence products for Top Secret Special Access Programs (SAPs), also known as compartmented access intelligence and conversationally called “TS Codeword” material in intelligence circles. These intelligence gathering and analysis programs have “sources and methods” that are so sensitive that they carry the blanket proviso that any compromise to this compartmented information would cause “irreparable injury” to the security of the United States. Often erroneously referred to in the mass media as “Above Top Secret”, they are in fact collateral to Top Secret, but SCI access is very strictly guarded, and special codeword or corresponding acronym markings are used at the top and bottom of every page of these documents. In order to have Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), an individual must first have a Top Secret security clearance following a Special Background Investigation (SBI). Note that someone only gets a very expensive SBI if the intent is to give them potential access to one or more SCI programs.
It is apparent that HRC made repeated gross breaches of both national security policy and Federal law. After reading the news reports, I can only ask:
- Why, after all these months, has HRC not been interviewed by the FBI about this? (She recently claimed that she still hasn’t been interviewed by the FBI.)
- Why hasn’t she been “read off” of SCI and had her security clearance revoked? (If anyone else had done anything even remotely approaching the level of her alleged crimes, then that would have happened immediately after the investigation began (not to mention that the individual would probably have been arrested, advised of their rights, polygraphed, and confined without bail).
- Why wasn’t it until August of 2105 that Hillary’s secret e-mail server was finally seized by the FBI? (News of the private server was made public in March of 2015, but word of it had been circulating inside the Beltway much longer.)
- Why hasn’t a House or Senate Intelligence subcommittee been assigned to specifically investigate the potential damage that the “several dozen” e-mails containing SCI material could have caused or has caused, if it was somehow surreptitiously accessed? (Again, these were SCI products or summaries thereof that were stored on a non-secure server in a closet in a private home, not in a government facility, and that server was entirely outside of the DCI’s control procedure/channels. Furthermore, it was managed by a private contracted individual who had no security clearance!)
- It has been reported that more than 100 Federal agents (mostly from the FBI) have been assigned to this case full time, for many months. With so many people working on this for so long, and with such abundant evidence, why haven’t any formal charges been made?
- If what HRC did was “legal”, then why did her aide Bryan Pagliano plead the Fifth Amendment when subpoenaed to testify about what had happened? At the very minimum–even aside from the much more serious issue of SCI codeword material– Federal law prohibits “Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information”, per 18 U.S. Code § 793, paragraphs (e) and (f). That is a felony offense with a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment. Here are the applicable paragraphs:(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or (f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
- The feds have a prima facie case against HRC on violating those statutes. So why hasn’t that first simple charge been made? Oh, I think I might have the answer: Such charges are up to the prosecutorial discretion of the U.S. Attorney, both for what charges are filed and when they are filed and the U.S. Attorney for United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is Obama Administration appointee Channing D. Phillips, who is Democratic party faithful. So I’m not holding my breath.
- Under the 1950 Federal Records Act (which was codified under 44 U.S. Code § 3106 “Unlawful removal, destruction of records”):
The head of each Federal agency shall notify the Archivist of any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of the agency of which he is the head that shall come to his attention, and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of records he knows or has reason to believe have been unlawfully removed from his agency, or from another Federal agency whose records have been transferred to his legal custody. In any case in which the head of the agency does not initiate an action for such recovery or other redress within a reasonable period of time after being notified of any such unlawful action, the Archivist shall request the Attorney General to initiate such an action, and shall notify the Congress when such a request has been made.
So why hasn’t the more recent head of the Department of State made that formal referral to the Attorney General? Failing to do so is a violation of Federal law!
9.) HRC and her staff failed to provide records to fulfill a Congressional Committee subpoena, which violates Federal law. Why have no charge been brough on that?
10.) HRC and her staff failed to provide records to fulfill a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, which also violates Federal law. Why have no charges been brought on that?
11.) By law, immediately after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton must have signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) Nondisclosure Agreement that spells out the criminal penalties for “any unauthorized disclosure” of classified information. That legally binding NDA states:
“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.”
“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 that I have reason to believe might be SCI.”
That “unauthorized retention, or negligent handling” wording in the NDA seems pretty clear to me! Why wasn’t it clear to HRC? It was certainly clear to Edward Snowden. So why haven’t our nation’s prosecuting attorneys pressed charges against HRC, the same way that they did Edward Snowden?
Here is the bottom line, folks: Back when I was an Army Intelligence Corps officer, I held a TS/SBI clearance and was “read on” to access several codeword compartments of SCI. Those codewords themselves were classified as Secret, and the act of revealing them would be a crime, just by itself. Moving those files from a secure computer inside a SCIF on a memory stick and copying them to a unsecure computer or server grossly violates the basic “air gap” rule that was constantly drilled into us: “NO, NO, NO! Thou shalt not!…”
If I had done the same things that HRC reportedly did by copying actual SCI intelligence products to her private mail server, then right now I would now be in Leavenworth prison, awaiting trial. I would be facing at least one 10 year prison sentence–and probably multiple 10 years sentences, to be served consecutively.
So why isn’t Hillary Rodham Clinton already in prison? – JWR
(Note: Permission is granted for re-posting of this entire article, but only if done so in full, with proper attribution to James Wesley, Rawles and SurvivalBlog, and only if the included links are preserved.)