Of Grandkids, E-Mail Servers, and the FBI

Of Grandkids, E-Mail Servers, and the FBI

Is our government system rigged? Well of course it is. But not how we’ve been told. We’re led to believe that the 1% are evil and we need to protect ourselves from their greed. And yet …

fbiWho should we REALLY be worried about? The wealthy 1% who, according to our liberal friends, refuse to pay people a “fair wage” or “living wage”. That the wealthy 1% risks their own income to provide jobs is irrelevant. We need to “make them pay their fair share”.

No, I’m not going to wage a war on wealth or the wealthy. Even though some of our wealthiest citizens inherited their money, I’ve never worried about what belongs to someone else.

Who should we worry about? Those in power who act in their own interests and above the law. Then there are those in power who act in their own interests and above the law who also PROTECT others in power.

Hillary Clinton should scare the hell out of average Americans. And yet, half the population is ready to cast a vote to make her, arguably, the most powerful person in the world.

I don’t want to simply impugn the character (or lack thereof) of Ms. Clinton. I’ll allow FBI Director James B. Comey do it for me. I could include statements made by Ms. Clinton over the past 16 months which were blatant lies, but those are already well documented, AND she was really under no obligation to be truthful unless under oath. We’ve grown accustomed to this behavior from Ms. Clinton and her husband over the years.

For Mr. Comey, here’s a list of items he outlined of Ms. Clinton’s actions with her e-mail “servers” during her four-year tenure as Secretary of State.

  • “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Intent. The FBI concluded there was no “clear evidence” that Ms. Clinton intended to violate laws. Well, okay. I’m sure anyone being interviewed would have had to admit that they knew they were breaking the laws and no one actually admitted it. How can anyone prove what’s in someone’s mind unless that person actually says what’s on their mind?

Intent? Only those involved know. Score one for Clinton.

BUT, NO! Not so fast.

  • “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Intent isn’t a requirement when one is accused of “gross negligence”. The very definition of gross negligence is “extreme carelessness”, which is what Mr. Comey found in Ms. Clinton’s actions.

Oops. No score for Clinton here.

  • “None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Oops. Score two for Justice; One for breaking the law and one for breaking security protocols.

  • Only a small number of e-mails reviewed were marked classified. “But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”
  • “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).”

So, Hillary Clinton is … STUPID! Is she stupid? Is she a “reasonable person” in her position of Secretary of State? She sure as hell should be! She’s an attorney. She knows the law. She is one “who know[s] or should know”. So either she knew or should have known. Hmmmm, what happens to that “Intent” idea now?

Score 3 for Justice

  • “While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”
  • “For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.”

Do I need to make a comment here? Okay, I will. The lady who may become our next president is incompetent in security matters. Do we really want this level of incompetence in the White House? I don’t.

Score 4 for Justice.

  • “We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.”

While the hacking of Ms. Clinton’s server(s) cannot be traced (which is the goal of any hacker), it’s very likely they were. State secrets are in the wild. I have friends in the Military and agents of the ATF and DEA. Were their lives put at risk because of Ms. Clinton’s actions?

Score 5 for Justice. Now comes “Billy Mays Time”. (You younger folks, go ahead and Google that name. It’ll become clear.)

BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! And you won’t like it!

You heard that in “Billy Mays Voice”, didn’t ya?

fbiComey Shocks the World … and gives Hillary a Smile

These are the egregious violations of trust and laws. Ms. Clinton broke the trust of the American people. But that’s nothing new for her and no reason to prosecute her. Ms. Clinton broke the trust of the United States Government. Her handling of high-security e-mails put our National Security at risk and it may still be at risk. We simply don’t know.

As for our adversaries who may have hacked her server(s), we may never know the damage. But we need to ask this serious question: Do our state enemies have a blackmail file on Hillary Clinton? Has the United States been compromised by her lack of security measures? Can a Clinton presidency be held hostage to an enemy’s knowledge of her classified leaks?

The bigger question is DO WE WANT TO RISK IT?

By the way, those “news” outlets cheering Ms. Clinton’s “acquittal” are way off base. Mr. Comey is not the man who decides what will and will not be prosecuted. While highly unlikely, Ms. Clinton can still be put on trial (Updated 7/6/16: DOJ announced it will not prosecute. What a shock!). Mr. Comey simply gave his opinion that she should not be charged, which is not his job. His opinion on that topic is certainly up for serious review as the FBI usually doesn’t make prosecutorial recommendations, EVER!

His recommendation should be under scrutiny being that Loretta Lynch, our Attorney General, and Mr. Comey’s boss, met with Bill Clinton privately last week. She then made a point of telling America that she would follow the recommendation of the FBI, which rarely makes recommendations. Because Mr. Comey took the time to mention that he had not spoken with anyone about his statement, and the other missteps by Bill Clinton and Ms. Lynch, my bullshit meter is spiking, and yours should be as well.

Grandkids? Was I wrong?

I’m left to wonder if I’ve been wrong about the ill-advised meeting of Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch. Did they, indeed, discuss grandkids? If so, I imagine the conversation went something like this:

“Ms. Lynch, if you want to see your grandkids grow up, you’ll not prosecute my wife.”

Final thoughts (Yes, I lied)

Last thing. I lied. But Hillary supporters can forgive me, I’m sure. I said I wouldn’t use any of Hillary’s lying quotes as they’ve been well documented. Well, I have to bring this one up to draw a parallel to a former president who also told a bald-faced lie to the American people and was impeached for his lies.

“I did not e-mail any … uhm … classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material, so I’m certainly well aware … uh … of the … uh … classification … uh … requirements and did not send classified material.” -Hillary Clinton, May 2015

Sounds a lot like,

“But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski. I never told anyone to lie, not a single time. Never. These allegations are false and I need to go back to work for the American people.” – President Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998

Follow us on Facebook.

[Total: 1    Average: 5/5]

About Layne Mangum

I'm a white, old, man who will not succumb to the political gerrymandering of our great American political system. I'm conservative. I'm traditional. I'm no where in the vicinity of your lefty version of how I should or should not talk. I tell it like it is, from my point of view. If you have a different view, make a comment and let's discuss it rationally. If you start calling names, your comments will NOT be published. Keep it civil or stay away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.