“Innuendo fuels Clinton email saga”

That’s the headline above Juan Williams’ op-ed at The Hill.

Williams is right, but the innuendo is his as he contributes to the Left’s attempt to cover up Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s misbehavior.

Mainstream news shows have now joined conservative websites and magazines in roiling political waters with the suggestion that Hillary Clinton could be indicted. Such charges, the theory goes, would pertain to her sending secret government information over her personal email account while she was secretary of State.

Or, the NLMSM finally is awakening to the depths of Clinton’s misbehavior.

The email story broke last March when the New York Times reported Clinton “used a personal email account to conduct government business as Secretary of State.” In July, the story escalated when the Times incorrectly reported that requests had been made for a criminal investigation of Clinton’s handling of email.

Even after a correction on that story, her totally legal use of a private server while at the State Department became an acceptable short-hand for political opponents….

Use of the private server may not be illegal, but it is against State Department regulations—her State Department regulations—to use a private email address, much less a private server, for government business. Private email addresses are allowed for private emails, but government business—government emails, for instance—must be handled through government addresses, and so via government servers.

Oh, and that non-existent criminal investigation? The FBI doesn’t do security reviews; they’re running an investigation into the potential of her criminal behavior.

…NBC News reported that emails that had been retroactively declared classified had also been sent to the personal email account of former secretary of State Colin Powell and to key aides of his successor, Condoleezza Rice.

No, they weren’t retroactively declared classified. They were classified from their inception because of the classified information contained in them. They were only marked classified retroactively, in belated recognition of their classified nature.

Therein lies the felony aspect of Clinton’s handling of these classified emails and of her handling them via her unprotected private email server. It’s a crime to mishandle classified information; any markings of classification or their lack is wholly irrelevant to that. Indeed, properly marking classified data is part of the required handling of classified data. Clinton, who has said she’s well trained and knows all about handling classified data—and who, as Secretary of State, is the ultimate classification authority of State-originated classified data—knew all of this at the time of her mishandling.

And that bit about Powell and Rice aides similarly mishandling: that’s the Liberal morality we’ve come to know and love. Somebody else did it, so it’s all right for Clinton to do it, too. The rightness or wrongness of her behavior isn’t at all intrinsic in her behavior. The comparison, also, is cynically disingenuous. Powell’s and Rice’s aides’ dozen or so mishandlings stacked against Clinton’s 1,700? The former are certainly wrong, but the numbers show their accidental nature. This is what’s being compared with Clinton’s deliberate disregard.

It has never been shown that Clinton shared information marked as classified at the time it was sent or received.

That’s Williams’ strawman; no one is arguing otherwise. He’ll have to play with his dolly without me.

And of course there is still no evidence that she broke any law.

On the contrary, there are 1,700 instances of mishandling classified information. 50 US Code § 783 makes this mishandling clear.

More broadly, many people beyond the campaign believe the furor contributes to the perception that Clinton is not honest.

Perhaps that’s because these events are showing her dishonesty. We’re up to those 1,700 emails with classified information in them on her private server, including another 81 in the just-released batch that have been—after the fact—marked classified at one level or another.

Iran’s Enriched Uranium

A State Department official told lawmakers Thursday he was unsure of the precise location of tons of low-enriched uranium shipped out of Iran on a Russian vessel as part of last summer’s nuclear agreement.

Ambassador Stephen Mull, the lead US official overseeing the deal’s implementation, said during testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the stockpile is a Russian custody issue.

Russia is every bit as trustworthy as Iran, though. Isn’t it?

Don’t know means don’t know. On what basis, now, do we conclude the enriched uranium has even left Iran? Or isn’t back in Iran, if we can believe the carefully unnamed “senior administration official” who, leaking speaking without authorization assured the AP that the stuff had made it to Russia.

Lawlessness

The intelligence community has deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging” to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a US government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.

But they weren’t too damaging for Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to bruit about via her unprotected email server: to pass along to staffers lacking the clearance to have access to this sort of information, to make available to the intelligence services of our enemies, or to make available to any hacker who might have taken a notion to go look at what Clinton had on her unsecured server.

Once again, whether the emails were marked classified is irrelevant. Classified data are classified by their existence and nature; markings do not classify anything, they only indicate data that are classified.

Once again, intent in the handling of classified data is irrelevant. Simply mishandling them is a felony.

Despite these plain facts, the Democratic Party continues to support Clinton for President, and it continues to deny the lawlessness of Clinton’s behavior and to minimize the damage to our country from her lawlessness.

This is the party that would rule us after the coming elections, if we’re not very careful.

Malfeasance

It’s rampant at the Veterans Administration. And “leadership” there and in the White House plainly don’t care, as their decision to be inactive demonstrates. Here are some examples, from The Wall Street Journal.

  • After the biggest scandal in VA history, in which 110 VA medical facilities across the country maintained secret lists to hide long waits for care, only three low-level VA employees have been fired for wait-time manipulation.
  • In September the VA’s Office of Inspector General revealed that two VA senior executives inappropriately used their authority to game the agency’s hiring system, allowing them to benefit from more than $400,000 in taxpayer-funded relocation expenses. [The VA reassigned them at their existing salary rather than terminating them for cause.]
  • In December the public learned of two internal VA investigations that found whistleblowers at the Phoenix VA Hospital were retaliated against by two senior managers…. More than a year after…the VA has refused to hold them accountable.

Robert McDonald, VA Secretary, promised to fix this sort of thing when he was handed the job 16 months ago. These failures are demonstrations of his decision not to rock the boat. That his decisions have been allowed to stand unchallenged are clear demonstrations of President Barrack Obama’s lack of concern for the welfare of our veterans.

veteranos administratio delende est

Why Aren’t They

…fired for cause?

The Department of Veterans Affairs said Friday two high-ranking officials were finally demoted in response to a federal probe that found they manipulated the agency’s personnel system for their own gain, but a key lawmaker is asking why they weren’t prosecuted.

The two high-ranking officials are Diana Rubens, director of VBA’s Philadelphia regional office, and Kimberly Graves, director of VBA’s St Paul regional office. The behavior of these two women (I won’t call them “ladies;” their behavior has established what they are, and they’ve already named their price) warrants termination for cause.

Congressman Jeff Miller’s (R, FL) question—he’s the “key lawmaker”—is an entirely valid one, too. Their behavior seems criminal enough to warrant that type of investigation, too.

And my own question: what has taken the VA so long to do even this trivial hand-slap? Even the original October move (allegedly having to be redone due to “administrative error”) was far too slow in coming. What’s the VA’s excuse [sic] here?

Veteranos administratio delende est