Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jun 28, 2015 in 2016 Elections, 2016 Presidential Election, Politics | 9 comments

Two More Statements Made By Hillary Clinton About Her Deletion Of Email Found To Be False

The past week was notable for two major liberal decisions from the Supreme Court. With all the major news, it might have been easy not to notice that, as reported by The New York Times and other news outlets, two more statements made by Clinton regarding the email scandal have been shown to be incorrect.

When it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had deleted email on her private server, the modern equivalent if Richard Nixon had destroyed the Watergate tapes, she claimed that she had only destroyed personal email. There was considerable skepticism regarding this at the time, and it has now been confirmed that this was not true. She failed to turn over email regarding Libya:

Her longtime confidant and adviser Sidney Blumenthal, responding two weeks ago to a subpoena from the House committee investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, gave it dozens of emails he had exchanged with Mrs. Clinton when she was in office. Mr. Blumenthal did not work at the State Department at the time, but he routinely provided her with intelligence memos about Libya, some with dubious information, which Mrs. Clinton circulated to her deputies.

State Department officials then crosschecked the emails from Mr. Blumenthal with the ones Mrs. Clinton had handed over and discovered that she had not provided nine of them and portions of six others.

If fifteen emails we know about are missing or incomplete, how many others that we have no way to know about bight be missing or have been edited?

Clinton also claimed that the email from Blumenthal regarding Libya was unsolicited but the email turned over from Blumenthal showed she was corresponding with him and soliciting the information from him. Her email included exchanges such as, “Another keeper — thanks and please keep ’em coming” and “This strain credulity based on what I know. Any other info about it?”

When Hillary Clinton was made Secretary of State there was tremendous concern, from members of both parties, about the conflicts of interest this entails. Two rules were established to attempt to prevent conflicts of interest. The first applied to all cabinet officials after the email scandals of the Bush years (which Clinton included in her attacks on the Bush administration for shredding the Constitution). To increase transparency, rules were established by the Obama administration in 2009 for all email to be archived on government servers. Clinton violated this, and used the private server to keep information both from Congress and the media. The top Freedom of Information Act official at the Justice Department has stated that Clinton was in violation of the rules and the State Department’s top Freedom of Information Act officer has called her use of a private server unacceptable. An ambassador under Clinton was even fired with failure to abide by rules related to not using private email being cited as a reason by the Inspector General (pdf of report here). Buzzfeed has obtained email showing that the top lawyer for the National Archives also expressed concern over Clinton’s use of a private server.

After Clinton’s press conference about the email scandal, news media fact checkers showed ares in which she was lying, especially with her claim of not breaking the rules. AP subsequently also found that her claim about not wanting to use two devices out of convenience did not hold up as she was actually using two devices for email when Secretary of State.

A second rule which applied exclusively to Hillary Clinton’s situation was that the contributions to the Clinton Foundation be disclosed. Hillary Clinton agreed to this, but failed to abide by the agreement and did not disclose over a thousand donors. The Foundation also failed to disclose many of these on their tax forms and was caught lying about this issue.

We also know that Bill Clinton saw an unprecedented increase in payments for giving speeches when Hillary became Secretary of State from organizations and countries which subsequently received favorable intervention from Clinton. His speaking fees jumped from 150,000 to typically 500,000, and as high as 750,000. Contributions to the Clinton Foundation raise similar ethical concerns.


In related news, while Clinton slams Republicans for their views on same-sex marriage following the Supreme Court decision, acting like she was for marriage equality all along, Gawker reminds us of when Hillary was against same-sex as recently as 2013.

H. A. Goodman at Huffington Post writes, It’s Official — Bernie Sanders Has Overtaken Hillary Clinton In the Hearts and Minds of Democrats. There is one mistake when he says “Sanders has supported the issue of gay marriage since 2000.” He has actually opposed laws restricting sexual activity, including homosexuality, since at least the 1970’s. He also voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

Originally posted at Liberal Values

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The Moderate Voice
  • KP

    Hillary is prolific. Self sabotage served in a platter. She just can’t help herself. I see no reason to expect that to change.

    • I figured there would be slip up in which the email she turned over wouldn’t match other copies of email which might be floating around.

      The “incomplete” email might raise even more questions than the missing email. Does this mean she edited email before she turned it over to the State Department?

      • KP

        Does a bear c… in the woods?(!)

        No need to answer.

  • The_Ohioan

    Considering how many emails keep turning up in the IRS investigation, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if the State Department’s records don’t match the committee’s records, yet. Condemning without absolute proof is an exercise in futility.

    The basic fact of a private server being used by a cabinet officer should be enough to give pause to anyone who is concerned. If it is proven that classified files were stored on a private computer, a prison term is specified for that offense. All that is required is proof – not speculation.

    • The IRS emails and Clinton’s emails are two quite different situations. The IRS did not have requirements to archive all email, and they were following usual government procedures–which are sloppy. It is not unexpected that many would be missing and later turn up with closer investigation.

      Clinton was working under specific regulations to both generally use government email and to turn over any email not on government servers to the government for archiving. Of course the key fact is that she failed to do this.

      If all of Clinton’s email was safely archived on her own private server, there should not be missing email as with the IRS email. Then we learned that she destroyed thousands of emails, claiming that she only destroyed personal email. This disproves the claim that she only destroyed personal email.

      The presence of email from other sources which don’t match what she turned over is absolute proof that she did not turn over all email related to non-personal matters.

      • The_Ohioan

        Maybe, or maybe it’s just proof that the State Department is no better than the IRS at finding things in their vast storage areas. I’m willing to wait and see if they turn up and leave absolute proof to the investigators.

        • We aren’t talking about things sitting around in the State Department since Clinton was Secretary of State as she failed to send her email to them for archiving as required. We are talking about a very recent and specific set of emails submitted by Clinton. If the email which Blumenthal submitted was present in what was sent by Clinton, the State Department should be able to find it. Of course this would have been simpler if Clinton had submitted electronic copies of the email rather than printing them out.

          • The_Ohioan

            Yes, they should be able to find them. The fact that they haven’t, yet, only means they haven’t, yet. If they never do it will be absolute proof at that time. I’m pretty sure this is going to eventually mean her private server will be searched by some authority and all those emails will be available – unless she takes a sledge hammer to it before then.
            Question, can the Secret Service detail be questioned under oath?

          • The State Department has said they are not among the emails turned over by Clinton. Sure there is a possibility that the State Department somehow missed them, but it is far more likely that Clinton failed to turn them over.

            It is also curious that some were submitted but incomplete. How did that happen?

            There has been speculation that this could lead to taking legal action to inspect the server. It is questionable if there is anything left to find. She sure has had a long time to try to delete anything present.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :