The Hil­lary chron­i­cles

Her story has a theme of re­lent­less and un­re­pen­tant wrong­do­ing

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - By An­drew P. Napoli­tano

The bad news has con­tin­ued to cas­cade onto the Hil­lary Clin­ton for Pres­i­dent cam­paign, and none of it has any­thing to do with Mrs. Clin­ton’s opin­ions on is­sues. It all is about her fit­ness for of­fice. Since La­bor Day, we have learned that the folks into whose hands Mrs. Clin­ton re­posed her com­puter server for safe­keep­ing do not be­lieve it has been wiped clean of all emails, as her lawyer told a fed­eral judge it was. That means the 33,000 emails she thought she de­stroyed prob­a­bly still could be re­cov­ered. What will they re­veal?

And we learned ear­lier this week that of the emails re­leased thus far — those Mrs. Clin­ton did not at­tempt to de­stroy — there is a five-month gap for which no emails were pro­duced. For a gov­ern­ment of­fi­cial who sent or re­ceived about 15,000 emails a year, five months of si­lence is not be­liev­able. Two of those months fol­lowed the as­sas­si­na­tion of the U.S. am­bas­sador to Libya in Beng­hazi. Where are her emails from that time pe­riod? Why should you care about this? It is now well es­tab­lished that when she was sec­re­tary of state, Mrs. Clin­ton re­fused to use gov­ern­ment com­put­ers or servers for any of her emails — gov­ern­men­tal and per­sonal. She kept all of her emails from the gov­ern­ment. That con­sti­tutes theft of gov­ern­ment prop­erty, as it vi­o­lates a fed­eral law that man­dates that the gov­ern­ment owns the emails its em­ploy­ees gen­er­ate in their work, and if an em­ployee comin­gles her per­sonal emails with the gov­ern­ment’s, the gov­ern­ment owns those, as well.

Mrs. Clin­ton said she did this be­cause she be­lieved it would be eas­ier to do all email­ing from one hand­held de­vice, even though she even­tu­ally used four de­vices. In­stead of ac­cept­ing a se­cure gov­ern­ment-is­sued Black­Berry, she had aides buy an off-the-shelf Black­Berry. We now know that she was try­ing to con­ceal her Mid­dle Eastern es­capades — se­cret wars and per­sonal ap­provals of arms deal­ings to ter­ror­ists — from the pres­i­dent, from FBI in­ves­ti­ga­tors, from State Depart­ment col­leagues and from history.

But her most se­ri­ous crime is her fail­ure to safe­guard na­tional se­crets. The sec­re­tary of state is the na­tion’s chief diplo­mat. She deals with mil­i­tary, diplo­matic and na­tional se­cu­rity se­crets ev­ery day. One of the rea­sons gov­ern­ment em­ploy­ees are re­quired by law to use a gov­ern­ment-is­sued hand­held de­vice and a gov­ern­ment-owned and -se­cured server for their of­fi­cial work is to safe­guard the na­tional se­cu­rity se­crets that pass to and from them by se­cur­ing their emails with gov­ern­ment soft­ware and en­cryp­tion. Why should you care about this? When she be­came sec­re­tary of state, Mrs. Clin­ton told the pres­i­dent she wanted to hire her friend Sid­ney Blu­men­thal — whom the press has nick­named “the prince of dark­ness” and “grassy knoll” — to work as her se­nior ad­viser. The pres­i­dent him­self blocked the toxic Mr. Blu­men­thal from work­ing for the State Depart­ment, where­upon Mrs. Clin­ton had her hus­band’s foun­da­tion hire him. She then pro­ceeded to en­gage with him as if he were a se­nior ad­viser and to share top se­cret emails with him. Mr. Blu­men­thal did not have any na­tional se­cu­rity clear­ance, and it was a felony for Mrs. Clin­ton to share gov­ern­ment se­crets with him. Why should you care about this? You should care about this be­cause Mrs. Clin­ton is run­ning for pres­i­dent. Yet she is uniquely un­qual­i­fied for the pres­i­dency be­cause she is the moral equiv­a­lent of a com­mon crook.

Like a crook, she breaks the law, lies about why she broke the law, sees no wrong­do­ing in her ways and ex­pects to get away with it. Though mil­lions of Democrats have dreamed of her in the White House, and are ap­par­ently will­ing to over­look her crimes, her sup­port is be­gin­ning to erode.

How can a per­son with the mo­rals of a crook be the chief law en­force­ment of­fi­cer in the land, the com­man­der in chief of the mil­i­tary, and the repos­i­tory of more law­ful power than any per­son on the planet? How can she be en­trusted with na­tional se­cu­rity se­crets in the fu­ture when she has failed to safe­guard them in the past?

Be­cause Mr. Blu­men­thal lacked the gov­ern­ment’s en­cryp­tion on his email de­vices and server, he was hacked by for­eign agents. Be­cause he was hacked, Mrs. Clin­ton was hacked. Be­cause she was hacked, some of the na­tion’s mil­i­tary, diplo­matic and na­tional se­cu­rity se­crets in a dan­ger­ous world are now in dan­ger­ous hands.

A sailor faces 20 years in fed­eral prison for tak­ing a selfie in front of a radar screen and send­ing it to his girl­friend, and a coura­geous Marine who used his Gmail ac­count in an emer­gency to warn his su­pe­ri­ors of the near prox­im­ity of an as­sas­sin faces 20 years for fail­ing to keep the email about the as­sas­sin in a se­cure venue. Then-CIA Di­rec­tor David Pe­traeus kept se­crets in an un­locked desk drawer in his home, which was guarded 24/7, and he pleaded guilty to fail­ure to safe­guard se­crets.

Mrs. Clin­ton’s crimes are far worse, but is she any dif­fer­ent legally? Can she get away with her crimes be­cause of her last name? She seems to think so. Last week she apol­o­gized for mak­ing poor choices — not crimes, but poor choices. And she has given no co­her­ent le­gal jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for any of this.

While all this is go­ing on, Vice Pres­i­dent Joe Bi­den is dream­ing about his boss’ job be­cause he and many Democrats have come to the re­al­iza­tion that Hil­lary Clin­ton is ut­terly un­wor­thy of their trust, and power in her hands might be used for un­law­ful pur­poses. An­drew P. Napoli­tano, a for­mer judge of the Su­pe­rior Court of New Jersey, is a con­trib­u­tor to The Washington Times and Fox News. He is the au­thor of seven books on the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion.

It is now well es­tab­lished that when she was sec­re­tary of state, Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton re­fused to

use gov­ern­ment com­put­ers or servers for any of her emails. She kept all of her emails from the gov­ern­ment. That con­sti­tutes theft of gov­ern­ment prop­erty, as it vi­o­lates a fed­eral law that man­dates that the gov­ern­ment owns the emails its em­ploy­ees gen­er­ate in their work, and if an em­ployee

comin­gles her per­sonal emails with the gov­ern­ment’s, the gov­ern­ment owns those, as well.

IL­LUS­TRA­TION BY GREG GROESCH/THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.