A Republic Under Assault

by Tom Fitton

  In an email to Clinton’s personal email account, dated January 23, 2012, former British prime minister Tony Blair sent details that were redacted as classified.

  In an email containing classified information dated August 30, 2011, Jeffrey Feltman, then assistant secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, suggested Clinton meet Lebanese prime minister Najib Mikati in Paris to talk about Syria and other issues.

  In an email exchange on August 31, 2011, Clinton top aide Huma Abedin says she sent Clinton “a couple text messages,” and offers to “send Monica [Hanley] to hamptons to help you get organized.”

  What does all this mean? Magically, after years, the FBI finds more Clinton emails that show Clinton used text messages for government work, not to mention the continuing flow of classified information transmitted over her unsecure email system. These documents further underscore the need for a fresh, unbiased, and thorough criminal investigation into Clinton’s blatant malfeasance—and the related DOJ, FBI, and State Department cover-up. AG Barr?

  The production of documents in this case was to have been concluded with the FBI’s recovery of approximately 5,000 of the 33,000 government emails Clinton took and tried to destroy, but, as you see, this case is still in progress.

  IT IS TIME TO HEAR FROM HILLARY CLINTON!

  Hillary Clinton’s “convenience” explanation for her private email system was one of the worst whoppers of modern presidential politics. As you can see from the breadth and scope of the emails we uncovered, we have the answer to the question many ask, “What was Hillary Clinton trying to hide?” My answer: Everything!

  The Clinton email scandal is bipartisan, as she received email advice on how to avoid transparency at the beginning of her term at State from former Bush secretary of state Colin Powell. The emails are devastating—as they expose Clinton mendaciousness and Powell’s utter contempt for accountable government.

  Less than forty-eight hours after taking the oath of office, Clinton emailed Colin Powell with a “pressing question.” The question did not concern the global economic crises or how to deal with a foreign power. It was about her email. She wrote, “What were the restrictions on your use of your blackberry? Did you use it in your personal office? I’ve been told that DSS [Diplomatic Security] personnel knew you had one and used it but no one fesses up to knowing how you used it! President Obama has struck a blow for berry addicts like us. I just have to figure out how to bring along the State Dept. Any and all advice is welcome.” She wanted advice about how to do what she and her staff had been told not to do. And how to get away with it.

  And she received it. Powell provided her with “written guidance on why and how [he] had been doing it.”

  He first described his practice: “I didn’t have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone like (sounds ancient). So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road and in hotels.” He then explained the drawback: “However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it [is] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.” And he concluded with a warning: “Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data.” Clinton thanked Powell for his advice. Little did he know that Clinton and her team would use his guidance as a blueprint for how Clinton would communicate by email for the next four years.

  In spite of all their efforts to avoid the issue as advised by Powell, Clinton and her staff were definitely told not to use personal BlackBerrys on March 6, 2009. In an Information Memorandum to Mills, Eric Boswell, then–assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, wrote:

  We have worked closely… to review all options that would allow Secretary Clinton, you, and a small number of staff [to] use Blackberries.… Our review reaffirms our belief that the vulnerabilities and risks associated with the use of Blackberries in the Mahogany Row… considerably outweigh the convenience their use can add to staff that have access to the unclassified OpenNet system on their desktops.… We also worry about the example using Blackberries in Mahogany Row might set as we strive to promote crucial security practices and enforcement [of] important security standards among State Department staff.

  As an alternative, we suggest that DS work with S/ES-IRM to make access to the Secretary’s OpenNet account on her desktop workstation as easy and convenient as possible. For example, we are happy to work with IRM to lengthen or even eliminate the time-out function to allow the Secretary’s Special Assistant to log-on to review her emails and schedules.

  While we cannot recommend using Blackberries inside the Mahogany Row… we do not want to stand in the way of issuing Department Blackberries to the Secretary and her senior staff for use outside Mahogany Row. These Blackberries can be synchronized with your OpenNet Microsoft Outlook accounts, provide full cellular, e-mail, and internet functionality, and provide unclassified mobile technology when you are away from Mahogany Row.

  I cannot stress too strongly, however, that any unclassified Blackberry is highly vulnerable in any setting to remotely and covertly monitoring conversations, retrieving e-mails, and exploiting calendars. I am attaching reports from DS’s Office of Computer Security’s Cyber Threat & Analysis Division that give further background of those risks.

  Diplomatic security could not be clearer. The vulnerabilities and risks associated with using a personal BlackBerry were too great. And, it appeared that Clinton understood that and would comply with the recommendations, after a March 11, 2009, meeting, only five days after Boswell delivered the memorandum to Mills. As we told the Court “Clinton approached Boswell and mentioned that she had read the [Information Memorandum] and that she ‘gets it.’ ” However, Clinton’s perceived understanding and compliance were nothing more than an appearance. No less than two days after the memorandum was provided and three days before she said she “got it,” Clinton emailed a colleague, “Against the advice of the security hawks, I still do carry my berry.”

  Despite evidence of purposeful violations of law, rules, and ethical norms, Hillary Clinton has never been seriously or competently questioned about her email usage, especially as it relates to the law she obviously was trying to subvert—the Freedom of Information Act. She testified to Judicial Watch under oath, but in writing. And she tried to argue with the collusive support (!) of this Justice Department and State Department that she not have to testify in person to Judicial Watch. She essentially argued “What difference” would her testimony make! After all, she answered some questions under oath, albeit in writing, and had to sit through “11 hours” of hapless questioning by congressmen!

  Judge Lamberth rejected her arguments.

  “As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth said.

  The judge went on to recognize that while Clinton responded to written questions in a separate Judicial Watch case, “those responses were either incomplete, unhelpful, or cursory at best. Simply put her responses left many more questions than answers.” Lamberth said that using written questions this time “will only muddle any understanding of Secretary Clinton’s state of mind and fail to capture the full picture, thus delaying the final disposition of this case even further.”

  Lamberth even gave some examples of lingering questions about Clinton’s emails, such as how did she come to believe that her private emails would be preserved under normal State Department processes, who told her this and when, at what point did she learn department records management officials did not know about the server, “[a]nd why did she think tha
t using a private server to conduct State Department business was permissible under the law in the first place?”

  And so Judge Lamberth ordered Mrs. Clinton’s testimony:

  The Court has considered the numerous times in which Secretary Clinton said she could not recall or remember certain details in her prior interrogatory answers. In a deposition, it is more likely that plaintiff’s counsel could use documents and other testimony to attempt to refresh her recollection. And so, to avoid the unsatisfying and inefficient outcome of multiple rounds of fruitless interrogatories and move this almost six-year-old case closer to its conclusion, Judicial Watch will be permitted to clarify and further explore Secretary Clinton’s answers in person and immediately after she gives them. The Court agrees with Judicial Watch—it is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton.

  The court also ordered the deposition testimony of her top aide, Cheryl Mills. Rather than sit for the questioning, Mrs. Clinton and Mills made a desperate appeal to overturn Judge Lamberth’s well-reasoned order. They filed a writ of mandamus, which is generally reserved for the most extraordinary circumstances. Mrs. Clinton argued that, as a former government official, she simply is too important to testify. Sure enough, as this book went to print, a liberal-controlled appellate court issued a politicized ruling that protected Mrs. Clinton from having to testify. The decision deviated from precedent and created the appearance of favoritism toward Clinton—further undermining the public’s confidence in the fair administration of justice.

  OBAMA KNEW?

  Before I move on from the Clinton email issue, I must highlight how we uncovered the likely reason for the Obama and continued Deep State effort to disrupt our probe. We already describe how there are nearly twenty emails between Obama and Clinton still being withheld from us. But the discovery authorized by Judge Lamberth shows the Obama-Clinton email connection goes much deeper than those communications (which by the way, seem to curiously center around the time of the infamous Benghazi attack!).

  First, we had the revelation from a senior FBI official that the Obama White House was a “repository” for Clinton emails. E. W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, made the disclosure to Judicial Watch as part of the court-ordered discovery into the Clinton email issue. Priestap was the senior FBI official who supervised the Clinton email investigation.

  Priestap was asked by Judicial Watch to identify representatives of Hillary Clinton, her former staff, and government agencies from which “email repositories were obtained.” Priestap responded with the following non-exhaustive list:

  Bryan Pagliano [Clinton tech aide at State]

  Cheryl Mills [Clinton State chief of staff, Clinton campaign official, and lawyer]

  Executive Office of the President [Emphasis added]

  Heather Samuelson [Clinton State official, Clinton lawyer]

  Jacob Sullivan [Clinton State Spokesman]

  Justin Cooper [Clinton Foundation official]

  United States Department of State

  United States Secret Service

  Williams & Connolly LLP [Clintons’ personal legal firm]

  This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people!

  No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated—Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.

  But it got worse. Other documents turned over to us because of Judge Lamberth’s court orders directly implicate the Obama White House in the Clinton email cover-up.22

  The cover-up happened in 2012. It turns out the Obama White House was tracking a December 2012 FOIA request for records about Clinton use of nongovernment emails for government business. Months after the Obama White House involvement, the State Department responded to the requestor, the left-wing Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), falsely stating that no such records existed.

  The State Department’s Office of Inspector General issued a report in January 2016 saying, “At the time the request was received, dozens of senior officials throughout the Department, including members of Secretary Clinton’s immediate staff, exchanged emails with the Secretary using the personal accounts she used to conduct official business.” Also, the IG “found evidence that [Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills] was informed of the request at the time it was received.…”

  In a December 20, 2012, email with the subject line “Need to track down a FOIA request from CREW,” Sheryl L. Walter, director of the State Department’s Office of Information Programs and Services (A/GIS/IPS), writes to IPS officials Rosemary D. Reid and Patrick D. Scholl and their assistants:

  WH called—have we received a FOIA request from CREW (Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington) on the topic of personal use of email by senior officials? Apparently other agencies have. If we have it, can you give me the details so I can call the WH back? I think they’d like it on quick turnaround. Thanks! Sheryl

  In the same email chain, Walter on December 20, 2012, also emailed Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s White House liaison, describing the CREW FOIA request:

  Hi Heather—Copy attached, it was in our significant weekly FOIA report that we send to L and S/ES also. Do you want us to add you to that list? It’s a subset of things like this that we think likely to be of broader Department interest. More detail below re this request. As a practical matter given our workload, it won’t be processed for some months. Let me know if there are any particular sensitivities. If we don’t talk later, happy holidays! All the best, Sheryl

  Sheryl: The request is assigned Case #F-2012-40981. It was received on 12/6/2012 and acknowledged on 12/10/2012. The request is assigned for processing.

  On January 10, 2013, Walter writes to Samuelson that she is not including “personal” accounts in the FOIA request search:

  Hi Heather—did you ever get any intel re what other agencies are doing re this FOIA request that seeks records about the number of email accounts associated with the Secretary (but isn’t specifying “personal” email accounts so we are interpreting as official accounts only). We are considering contacting the requester to find out exactly what it is they are looking for. Do you have any concerns about that approach?

  Soon afterward, Samuelson responds, “White House Counsel was looking into this for me. I will circle back with them now to see if they have further guidance.”

  CREW’s general counsel, Anne Weismann, submitted a FOIA request to the State Department on December 6, 2012, seeking “records sufficient to show the number of email accounts of or associated with Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the extent to which those email accounts are identifiable as those of or associated with Secretary Clinton.”

  On May 10, 2013, IPS replied to CREW, stating that “no records responsive to your request were located.”

  Again, Samuelson became Secretary Clinton’s personal lawyer and in 2014 led the review of Clinton’s emails to determine which ones were work-related and which were personal. She was also one of five close Clinton associates granted immunity by the Department of Justice in the Clinton email investigation.

  The new documents also include a January 2013 email exchange discussing Clinton’s departure from the State Department in which Agency Records Officer Tasha M. Thian specifically states that Secretary Clinton “does not use email.”

  This was directly contradicted by an email exchange between Secretary Clinton and General David Petraeus dating back to January 2009—the very first days of Clinton’s State Department tenure—in which she tells Petraeus that she “had to change her email address.”

  Interestingly, this email exchange between Petraeus and Clinton was not produced in a related FOIA lawsuit23 seeking “all emails” of Hillary Clinton. The bottom portion of the email chain was produced, but not the beginning24 emails.

  In a January 2013 email under the subject “RE: Sec Clinton’s p
apers,” Thian writes:

  Just so you know, Secretary Clinton—she brought with her a lot of material as Senator and First Lady—47 boxes. In case you hear there are many boxes I wanted you to know what they are. She is taking her copies of photos, public speeches, press statements, contacts, templates (some of these are both hard copy and electronic), reimbursements, etc.…

  Although Sec. Clinton does not use email [emphasis added] her staffers do—I have agreed that the emails of the three staffers will be electronically captured (and not printed out).

  These smoking gun documents suggest the Obama White House knew about the Clinton email lies being told to the public at least as early as December 2012! If you want to know why DOJ, FBI, and State had zero interest in prosecuting Clinton, it is because Obama and his White House team were not only witnesses to any Clinton email crimes, but also coconspirators.

  BIDEN, INC.

  The assault on our republic has included the rise of a kleptocracy that has too often monetized public service for private fortune. The issue with Clinton Inc. was their brazenness. But the Biden Inc. operation seemed to show that the Biden clan could use public office to shake down foreign potentates as well as smooth-talking Bill and conspiratorial Hillary could.

  Let’s examine the cases of former vice president Joe Biden and his family. To be sure, Joe Biden was involved in a number of curious and suspect activities during his very long career as a senator from the state of Delaware.