Corruption Crime Politics

Joe Scarborough Explains Just How Bad Clinton Email Scandal Really Is

On Monday morning MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough took several minutes to unwrap the Hillary Clinton email scandal and to expose the huge holes and gaps in team Clinton’s story on the matter. Scarbrough, using clips of Clinton’s own comments, expertly dissects her defense proving that the Democrat frontrunner for President is a liar (even if Scarborough himself never calls her such).

Hillary Clinton: The facts are pretty clear. I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time.

Scarborough: That’s just counter to the reporting. That is counter to the State Department inspector general and counter to the intelligence agencies inspectors general. It’s stunning that she is still saying that this weekend. Hillary Clinton now claims the documents weren’t classified, quote, at the time. But again, the inspectors general say they were even if they weren’t marked classified. The Obama administration inspectors general looked at the information and the e-mails that Clinton provided and made a preliminary finding that she was and is wrong. They say the information, some from the CIA and some from the NSA, was clearly classified when sent and it’s classified now and it’s always been classified. According to the IGs, the four e-mails in question did not contain classified markings and/or dissemination controls even though in her press conference she said she was well aware of classification requirements. Unfortunately for the Clinton camp, that’s just not the only place that Hillary Clinton skirted the truth in her March UN press conference. 

Mark Halperin from Bloomberg News follows up and explains why Hillary’s technology decisions should be of major importance to everyone (though he doesn’t comment on her lying).

It matters in terms of security. If there was classified information in there — Secretary [Clinton] says there wasn’t, the Inspectors General say there was — and that got hacked into in the private server, that is a huge breach of her responsibilities. That to me is where the story’s going. Will the FBI investigate the question of was there a security breach on the private server, or on the outside server, the outside vendor that — the Clintons switched their information — making sure that there was no security breach. And they’ve not addressed that one bit.

 

 

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Hillary Clinton was in Iowa this weekend where she faced questions amid new reports we discussed here last week. Classified information may have been compromised due to Mrs. Clinton’s personal e-mail use. Exposed and potentially hundreds of e-mails according to two Obama administration inspectors general. That’s not Republican House members, but the internal monitors of Barack Obama’s State Department and intel agencies. They referred this issue to the Justice Department and the FBI which confirms they’re considering an investigation. Now that investigation could involve the key question, was the Clinton server compromised by foreign governments? 

The Clinton campaign, of course, forcefully pushed back early Friday morning noting this is a security investigation, not a criminal one. The inspectors general specifically stated in their letter this wasn’t a criminal referral even though, as the New York Times clearly states, “mishandling classified information is a crime.” And if you don’t believe that, just ask David Petraeus. Back in March, Clinton was  adamant that no classified information was trafficked on her private account. 

HILLARY CLINTON: I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material. So I certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material. 

JOE: But now the Clinton campaign is admitting the situation is much more complicated. On Friday, they said any released e-mails deemed classified by the administration had been done so after the fact and not at the time they were transmitted. But even after the corrections, the New York Times stated flatly that the Clinton claim was not true. And yet the next day on Saturday Hillary Clinton herself seemed to be again in denial. 

HILLARY: The facts are pretty clear. I did not send nor receive anything that was classified at the time.

JOE: That’s just counter to the reporting. That is counter to the State Department inspector general and counter to the intelligence agencies inspectors general. It’s stunning that she is still saying that this weekend. Hillary Clinton now claims the documents weren’t classified, quote, at the time. But again, the inspectors general say they were even if they weren’t marked classified. The Obama administration inspectors general looked at the information and the e-mails that Clinton provided and made a preliminary finding that she was and is wrong. They say the information, some from the CIA and some from the NSA, was clearly classified when sent and it’s classified now and it’s always been classified. According to the IGs, the four e-mails in question did not contain classified markings and/or dissemination  controls even though in her press conference she said she was well aware of classification requirements. Unfortunately for the Clinton camp, that’s just not the only place that Hillary Clinton skirted the truth in her March UN press conference. 

 HILLARY: After I left office, the State Department asked former Secretaries of State for our assistance in providing copies of work-related e-mails from our personal accounts. I responded right away and provided all my e-mails that could possibly be work-related which totaled roughly 55,000 printed pages even though I knew that the State Department already had the vast majority of them.

JOE: That claim, of course, has also been proven false by journalists. Disclosures by Sidney Blumenthal to the congressional committee investigating Benghazi shows that nine emails and parts of six others related to Libya weren’t included in those e-mails that Hillary Clinton handed over. Here’s more of Hillary Clinton back in March. 

HILLARY: I wanted to just use one device for both personal and work e-mails instead of two. It was allowed. And as I said, it was for convenience and it was my practice to communicate with State Department and other government officials on their dot-gov accounts. So those e-mails would be automatically saved in the State Department system to meet record-keeping requirements and that indeed is what happened. 

JOE: Two things, Clinton has been found using at least two personal devices, not one. She used her cell phone and iPad as e-mail as Secretary of State and the State Department did not automatically save all departmental e-mail until February of this year. Only a tiny fraction of its e-mails were saved. And that’s under the assumption she exclusively used State Department e-mails.

All in all, this appears just to be the tip of the iceberg. The State Department inspectors general said they found classified materials sent to and from Clinton’s Chappaqua home-baked server even though they only had access to a small sample of 40 e-mails. Of those, they found that four contained government secrets. That is information that if exposed could potentially harm national security. It’s information that is meant to be transferred and stored exclusively on secure computer networks with special safeguards. Again, of the self-selected e-mails that the Clinton camp chose to release, one in 10 of those e-mails seems to have held classified information. Put in perspective, Hillary Clinton turned in over 30,000 e-mails she said were work-related. She destroyed tens of thousands of e-mails, wiped clean her home-baked server and possibly destroyed copies of countless classified documents improperly stored and sent from the United States’ top diplomat. 

The extent of the cover-up, if there ever was one, will not be known because that evidence which could either clear or convict her is destroyed by the politician who is now at the center of this national security debate. Unfortunately, there seems to be much more to come from this story. But what we’ve seen so far is that it’s unlikely that this is going to be the last time Hillary Clinton will be changing her story. 

 

Later, journalist Mark Halperin cuts right to the most important aspects of the story when he says:

It matters in terms of security. If there was classified information in there — Secretary [Clinton] says there wasn’t, the Inspectors General say there was — and that got hacked into in the private server, that is a huge breach of her responsibilities. That to me is where the story’s going. Will the FBI investigate the question of was there a security breach on the private server, or on the outside server, the outside vendor that — the Clintons switched their information — making sure that there was no security breach. And they’ve not addressed that one bit.

 

This is a BIG deal, folks and we, America, deserve to know the truth. Thank you Joe Scarborough for tackling this in such a clear and thoughtful manner.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com


About the author

Onan Coca

Onan is the Editor-in-Chief at Liberty Alliance media group. He's also the managing editor at Eaglerising.com, Constitution.com and the managing partner at iPatriot.com. You can read more of his writing at Eagle Rising.
Onan is a graduate of Liberty University (2003) and earned his M.Ed. at Western Governors University in 2012. Onan lives in Atlanta with his wife and their three wonderful children.

Don't Miss Out!!

Get your daily dose of Eagle Rising by entering your email address below.

STAY IN THE LOOP
Don't miss a thing. Sign up for our email newsletter to become an insider.

Send this to friend