Hillary and those Darned Emails

The New York Post had an online piece yesterday regarding the New Year's Eve release by the Department of State of a set of emails for public consumption.  I say "public consumption", but apparently not all the content was actually made public.  Some of the content was blacked out, or "redacted", because ... well, here's what the Post wrote:

"The content of the Hillary Clinton emails released New Year’s Eve doesn’t matter nearly so much as what the State Department held back: It found 275 of the messages to contain classified info — in two cases, “Secret” information ... The total so far is 1,274 classified emails, debunking Clinton’s claims that she never sent or received such info on the account run from the private, unsecured server in her home.

"Her fallback defense is that nothing was marked “classified.” Yet all State employees are warned that some stuff is “born classified.” That covers the redactions in the latest dump — info from other governments or concerning US policy on other governments ... Clinton put her personal control of access to her correspondence above basic security protocols — and when caught, she still exercised that control to destroy thousands of other messages she thought best to keep secret ... Her wants come first; her sworn obligations, a distant second — then, now and always. That’s the real bottom line of her record at State." 

You may decide that the very important element was that there were, again, emails containing classified information at a fairly high level of security.  And that is very important -- it is the very nature of the actions being illegal, and beyond what Gen. David Petraeus was charged with and penalized for.  The Post's description of "born classified" was a little oddly worded -- "classified material is classified at its creation by its creator" would be a better way to phrase it.

What I have to find nearly as contemptible as Mrs. Clinton's lie about there not being any classified material on her private server, is the Department of State's timing of releases of the emails.  Really, New Year's Eve?   Fridays before long weekends?  Other times clearly showing a pattern of avoiding the news cycle?

Here's the thing.  Hillary Clinton is no longer Secretary of State (thank God, not that John Kerry is any improvement).  The State Department under Kerry has no obligation to Mrs. Clinton ... none.  Its obligation is to the people of the United States.  So can someone please, please explain the pattern of release timings?

There can be no doubt that State's interpretation of the release schedule -- which the Clinton campaign keeps insisting was "set by the court" -- to have emails released at the least-read moments of the news cycle, simply looks like a fat, news-avoiding cover-up.  Literally over a thousand emails that were on her private server in Chappaqua, NY are classified -- a crime for which the FBI is likely doing its best not to investigate.

The court set deadlines by which emails needed to be released (which, by the way, have not been fully met).  It did not say that they had to be released on dead news cycles, only "release by" dates.

So why is State so gung-ho committed to not releasing those "[darned] emails" except at the times of least new attention?  Well, the answer is obvious, and it is as political as the day is long.  Duh.  But who is making the decision to do so?  John Kerry?  Does he really care that much?

Does Kerry have the ultimate accountability for when they're released?  Heck, yeah.  Has anyone asked him why the department he is secretary of, and which he oversees, chooses to release content on dates like New Year's Eve, when the reporter community has gone a-drinking?  Heck, no.

I'm not like Bernie Sanders, except for being over 60.  And I completely disagree with him that the USA is tired of hearing about Hillary's emails; in fact, making that statement was a candid admission that he really does not want to be president, just to stay in long enough to move Hillary even further to the left.  We do care about the emails, because it is insight into the self-absorbed person Hillary Clinton is.

We not only want to hear about the emails, we need to.  We try to learn, as a society, from mistakes so we don't make them again.  Hillary Clinton's blatant abuse of power as Secretary of State needs to be visible; her violation of Federal law regarding the protection of classified material needs to be prosecuted, lest the next secretary try something like that.  As a cleared contractor to the Federal government, I have gone through immense hoops regarding protection of classified data, and absolutely resent anyone thinking that she has the right to go around those laws for any reason.

The Justice Department -- this one or the next one -- needs to step up its pressure on the FBI to proceed with its investigation and make a determination -- early in 2016, if it's this administration.  I don't see how, given that over 1.200 classified documents are already seen to have been illegally stored, they can't act now.

But don't hold your breath.

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu.