Another Turn As Justice Department Now Helping FBI Investigate Hillary

 

hillaryshock

Mrs Clinton in shock

 

The FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s potential violations of the Espionage Act with her private email server were “angered” by President Obama’s attempt to defend her on national television, the New York Times reports.

“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it was a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable: “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Those statements angered F.B.I. agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton’s email setup had in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials.

Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges, according to the law enforcement officials. But to investigators, it sounded as if Mr. Obama had already decided the answers to their questions and cleared anyone involved of wrongdoing.

The White House quickly backed off the president’s remarks and said Mr. Obama was not trying to influence the investigation. But his comments spread quickly, raising the ire of officials who saw an instance of the president trying to influence the outcome of a continuing investigation — and not for the first time.

If we weren’t so numb to lawlessness and politicized bureaucracy from seven years of Obama scandals, this would be a national outrage. The President just tried to influence the outcome of a criminal investigation, on behalf of a powerful Democrat politician.  Of course, he loves to insert himself into politically useful criminal matters, while having nothing to say about politically damaging ones, such as sanctuary-city murders by illegal aliens.

Outrage requires at least a pinch of surprise, and Obama has so numbed the American people to corruption and the lawless exercise of power that it’s not surprising to watch him influence an active FBI investigation. As the Times notes later in its article, Obama made similar thoughtless – and, as it turned out, incorrect – comments when former CIA director David Petraeus was under investigation. Petraeus did have to face the music, but Obama’s politicized Justice Department arranged a misdemeanor plea bargain for him… even though he demonstrably lied to FBI agents during the investigation.

Unfortunately for Clinton, Obama’s effort to tip the scales on her behalf doesn’t seem to be working well. The White House was obliged to issue an extraordinary retraction of the President’s remarks, and the FBI agents working the case seem to be more inspired than ever.

As former FBI official Ron Hosko told the New York Times, “Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case.”

Notice that in the White House walkback, spokesman Josh Earnest still tried to pump a little hot air into Clinton’s favorite narrative trial balloon, namely her contention that she knows more about what should be “classified” than everyone in the intelligence community combined, and was trying to correct the spy kids on their excessive zeal for securing documents.

“There’s a debate among national security experts, as part of their ongoing, independent review, about how or even whether to classify sections of those emails,” said Earnest. “But, as the president said, there is no evidence to indicate that the information in those emails endangered our national security.”

Earnest appears to have forgotten that one of the classification rules Clinton violated most promiscuously was an executive order signed by his boss, Barack Obama.

Also, classified documents are not defined as “something that will instantly destroy America if unauthorized people read it.” The standard for indictable violation of the Espionage Act does not require proof that the exposed information has been certified damaging to national security with 100 percent certainty by some secret tribunal.

One of the reasons violations of the classification system must be punished vigorously, without regard to the apparent significance of the documents years after the fact, is that people who handle such material must not get the idea they can make personal value judgments and disregard security markings they find excessive. No intelligence service can afford to send that signal. If Clinton gets away with it, the damage to national security in the future will be far worse than whatever Chinese and Russian hackers might have gotten by raiding her email server.

Fox News reports that a group of national security whistleblowers held a news conference on Thursday to denounce the double standard working for Clinton, and demand she be treated the same way they were. They noticed Obama’s effort to give her cover on 60 Minutes, too:

NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake was indicted in 2010 under the Espionage Act for sharing unclassified material with a Baltimore Sun reporter. Drake, who also went to Congress with his concerns about the NSA, said his goal was to expose government misconduct.

“This is the secretary of state, one of the most targeted individuals by other intelligence entities and agencies in the world using a private server to traffic highly sensitive information and no doubt including classified information and no doubt including info about sources and methods,”Drake said at Thursday’s event.

He added the whistleblowers’ treatment shows there is a law for the average citizen, and apparently a different set of rules for the powerful.

“But hey, I’m secretary of state,” Drake said in a sarcastic tone. ”Even Obama gave her cover.”

Another whisteblower, former Justice Department ethics adviser Jesselyn Radack, brought up the Petraeus case, recalling how he “gave away more secret information, classified at a much higher level, to his mistress and received a sweetheart plea deal for a minor misdemeanor,” consequences she described as a mere “slap on the wrist.”

Fox also suggests that in addition to possible Espionage Act violations, the FBI might be considering obstruction-of-justice charges:

A former FBI agent, who is not involved in the case, said the inconsistent release of emails, with new documents coming to light from outside accounts, such as that of adviser Sidney Blumenthal, could constitute obstruction. In addition, Clinton’s March statement that there was no classified material on her private server has proven false, after more than 400 emails containing classified information were documented.

The FBI agents working on Clinton’s case are obviously justified in fearing political involvement. Unfortunately, there isn’t much they can do about it.

FBI Director James B. Comey likes to boast that “if you know my folks, they don’t give a rip about politics.” Doubtless that is true, but their hyper-political superiors at the Justice Department most certainly do, and they’re not likely to allow anything but the most ironclad case derail the Democrat frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nomination… unless they get a thumbs-up from the White House.

There are many ways this particular lightning bolt of scandal could be grounded, most obviously including the use of a few select Clinton aides as lightning rods. On the other hand, the description recently offered of the Espionage Act investigation makes it seem like the charges would be difficult to pin on underlings, given Clinton’s overall responsibility for creating the email system. Downgrading the consequences to a misdemeanor “slap on the wrist,” as with Petraeus, might not contain the political fallout in this case. “Vote Hillary 2016: She Was Only Indicted For Misdemeanor Offenses” isn’t much of a campaign slogan.

If the FBI decides to float some charges against Clinton, they had better have battleship armor, or else the same DOJ that swept Operation Fast and Furious under the rug is going to sink them. What Obama said on 60 Minutes might not have been aimed at the FBI, but rather intended to prepare the media battlespace for a high-level torpedoing of whatever case the agents come up with.

The coup and the Clinton connection

The coup and the Clinton connection

 

Berta Cáceres was an award-winning land activist, a leader in her community and a mother of four. She was shot four times while in bed, at 1am on 2 March. As a founding member of the Civic Council of Indigenous and Popular Organizations of Honduras (COPINH), Cáceres fought against logging, hydro-power and mining projects threatening indigenous people in Honduras. Her death has exposed the poor judgement of “impact investor” bank FMO, the bully tactics of mining corporations, and ‘murky situations‘ from Clinton’s time as Secretary of State.

Amnesty International and COPINH have already raised concerns about the investigation into Cáceres’ murder. Mexican activist Gustavo Castro Soto survived the killing by playing dead and was later detained by police. He was not treated well. The Mexican Ambassador almost got him on a flight to safety but ‘thugs’ at the airport dragged him back into custody.

Mourners demand justice for slain environmentalist Berta Caceres

 

FBI’s Hillary Clinton email investigation not letting up

Screen-Shot-2014-11-26-at-11.45.16-AM

Madame Clinton CAN’T HELP SHOWING HER DESIRES…

 

Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi Trey Gowdy wasted no words while explaining clearly and convincingly the purpose of the committee’s investigation and the reason former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was called to testify.

“Madame Secretary, I understand some people — frankly in both parties — have suggested this investigation is about you,” Gowdy said in his opening statement. “Let me assure you it is not. And let me assure you why it is not. This work is about something much more important than any single person. It is about four U.S. government workers, including our Ambassador, murdered by terrorists on foreign soil. It is about what happened before, during, and after the attacks that killed these four men.”

Six months after it began, the federal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server shows no signs of slowing down.

Former FBI officials said the length of the probe is not unusual and speculated that a decision on whether to file charges against Clinton or her top aides could come later this year, during the heat of the general election campaign.

“I don’t know that there’s any magical cutoff date,” said Ron Hosko, the FBI’s former assistant director of the criminal investigative division and a 30-year veteran of the bureau.

For Democrats, the extended investigation has become a source of some anxiety, with Republicans gleefully raising the prospect of the Democratic presidential front-runner being indicted.

“It does give pause to Democrats who are concerned that there may be another shoe to drop down the road,” said Andrew Smith, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire.

The government has been examining the former secretary of State’s private email server since last July, when the inspector general for the intelligence community issued a security referral noting that classified information could have been mishandled.

That referral came months after Clinton acknowledged that she had exclusively used a personal email address housed on a private server during her tenure as secretary.

The scrutiny of her email practices has mounted since then, with more than 1,300 emails that passed through her server found to contain information that has since been classified, some at the highest levels.

The State Department and Clinton’s campaign contend that none of the information in the emails was classified when it was originally sent, and they have portrayed the matter as an interagency dispute.

The FBI and Justice Department have refused to discuss the details of their investigation and declined to comment to The Hill.

Officials have indicated that the bureau is not targeting Clinton specifically, however, but is investigating whether any information on her account was mishandled. Earlier this month, Fox News reported that the FBI had expanded its inquiry to examine how the State Department’s work intersected with the Clinton family foundation.

In December, FBI Director James Comey pledged that the probe would be “competent,” “honest” and “independent.”

“We don’t give a rip about politics,” he told a Senate committee.

Yet the FBI is well aware of the high political stakes surrounding the investigation.

“I think the clock ticks louder every day,” said Hosko, who is the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “I’m sure they’re all incredibly sensitive to it.”

President Obama has downplayed Clinton’s email setup, claiming that it was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

Multiple former officials, lawmakers and lawyers have said they are confident that Comey, who is a Republican, will not let the presidential campaign influence the FBI’s investigation.

Yet many conservatives worry that even if the bureau comes up with sufficient evidence that Clinton broke the law, the Justice Department will decline to press charges. In response, some have pressed for a special prosecutor to be appointed, or for the FBI to pledge to release whatever evidence it digs up.

So far, Democrats have publicly shrugged of the threat of criminal action by painting it as a partisan attack from Republicans.

Clinton’s top rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), channeled the feelings of Democrats in October when he told Clinton during a debate that “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”

But Clinton will have to confront the issue more forcefully if charges are filed.

And should Clinton win the nomination, the topic is sure to be an issue in the general election campaign — even if no indictment is handed down.

A fight over the emails then could weaken Democratic enthusiasm and turn off swing voters, some analysts predicted.

“More likely, it’s going to sour some of those folks in the middle,” said Doug Roscoe, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

“Having to be in the news talking about this investigation takes her off message,” he added.

It might not be Clinton herself who faces the music for any potential crime, however.

The former secretary of State did not appear to send most of the emails now marked classified. Instead, they were largely sent or forwarded to her by aides.

“It’d be a lot harder to make a criminal charge for having received [classified] information,” said Bradley Moss, a lawyer who specializes in national security and protection of classified information.

 

Sorry, Hillary: Women care more about their president than his (or her) gender

455722978

Hillary Clinton speaks in Washington. Photo: Getty Images

 

Hillary Clinton was counting on voters — particularly American women — to salivate at the prospect of shattering the highest glass ceiling by electing a woman president. She’ll need a backup plan. It turns out women aren’t nearly as gender-obsessed as Hillary thinks they are, or wants them to be.

Clinton’s strategy does make some sense. After all, President Obama was buoyed by the widespread sense that his election wasn’t just his personal triumph, but all of ours, in burying the vestiges of America’s racist past. Given that women were also once treated as second-class citizens, why shouldn’t Hillary expect a similar wave of excitement and sense of history?

Perhaps the string of female secretaries of state and Supreme Court justices, as well as presidential candidates like Carly Fiorina and Clinton herself, has made the idea of a female president seem less than revolutionary. The feminist movement — which appears unwilling to acknowledge women’s gains — may also have overplayed its victim status. Young men with few job prospects and a lifetime of being bested by female schoolmates may not be overjoyed to applaud yet another sign of women’s ascendance.

The person of Hillary Clinton herself undoubtedly helps dampen enthusiasm about the prospect of a female president, and not just among Republicans who disagree with her political philosophy. The media is currently pondering how the re-emergence of her husband’s brutal treatment of ex-lovers impacts voters’ opinion of Hillary.

But Mrs. Clinton’s role as the long-suffering first lady to a roguish leading man is just one of her problems; her reputation as a scandal-drenched, corporate-backed and largely failed public servant has always made her an awkward feminist heroine.

Regardless of the explanation, the simple fact is most voters aren’t particularly anxious to see a woman — let alone Hillary Clinton — in the Oval Office.

Pew Research Center’s new report explored attitudes about women in leadership, and found that most Americans see women as just as capable political leaders as men. Women scored about equally on some key leadership traits such as intelligence and capacity for innovation, and received higher marks on attributes such as honesty, ability to compromise, compassion and organization.

Pew found big differences between how Democrats and Republicans viewed the sexes as potential political leaders. But before liberals start lamenting sexist conservatives’ “war on women,” Republicans didn’t see women as less capable, rather Republicans “are more inclined to say there isn’t any difference between men and women,” while “Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to say that women do a better job than men.” In other words, Republicans were more likely to truly see women and men as equals, while Democrats see one sex — men — as inferior.

But just because Americans see women as just as qualified and capable political leaders doesn’t mean they’re eagerly awaiting a female president. Just four in 10 (38 percent) of all adults “say they hope the US will elect a female president in their lifetime,” while a majority (57 percent) “say it doesn’t matter to them.”

Women are more likely to want to see a female president, but even that doesn’t translate into big support for Hillary. Take New Hampshire, where the latest poll shows just 38 percent of Democratic women voters plan to vote for Hillary compared to 52 who favor Sen. Bernie Sanders. Clinton is losing women’s support not just in Iowa and New Hampshire: A nationwide poll just released by Monmouth University found that Clinton’s edge among women has fallen from plus-45 percentage points in December to just 19 now.

Feminists may take the lack of excitement as more evidence that the deck is stacked against women. But this phenomenon can also be seen as progress: Women have come so far that it’s no longer big news for women to advance to a higher level of power. People really are judging others based on the content of their character and the skills they bring to the position rather than as a representative of any particular demographic group.

This makes it more likely that when we get a woman president (and three out of four surveyed by Pew expect to see it during their lifetime) she’ll have reached that position based on her qualifications, not out of a sense of obligation among voters. Now that’s something to be excited about.

Carrie Lukas is the managing director of the Independent Women’s Forum and vice president for policy of the Independent Women’s Voice.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s).  Unruly Hearts will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

WHY I DON’T TRUST MADAME CLINTON

Elizabeth-Warren-Time

BY AINHOA ARISTIZABAL – 30 SEPT 2015

Pathetic CLINTON: Using Decades Old Pics to Make Her Seem ‘YOUNGER’
Since launching her campaign last June, Clinton has flooded the Internet and filled her TV spots with surprising, little-known images of the candidate pulled from old family photo albums, all part of a larger campaign strategy to make Clinton (67 yrs old) look younger to voters.

hillary-clinton-winking-AP-640x480

CLINTON AND THE WHITEWATER CONTROVERSY AND CRIMINAL CASES:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr960602.htm

HER LATEST BATCH OF E-MAILS:
The latest batch of Clinton’S e-mails disclosed by the State Department is perhaps the most interesting. This is not because there is a bombshell; we know she destroyed “personal” e-mails, so we are not likely to find any real nuggets in those she turned over. (In one humorous e-mail previously released, she asked whether the e-mail can be printed out “without identifiers.”) GOD PROTECT US FROM THIS AMBITIOUS WOMAN!

No, this tranche of e-mails is revealing because it shows Clinton to be lacking real authority, surrounded and protected by political hacks, filthy rich and obsessed with political power. In short, this is the real Hillary Clinton.

As secretary of State, Clinton was on the periphery, lacking much influence and devoid of creative policy-making abilities. Her e-mails reflect that. Comically, Clinton hears on the radio that there is a Cabinet meeting and e-mails to find out why she is not invited. (“I heard on the radio that there is a Cabinet mtg this am. Is there? Can I go? If not, who are we sending?”) She shows up at the White House to find another meeting canceled. She is the third wheel, the least important person in foreign policy making.

HER CRONIES AND HACKS – HER JUDGEMENT AND INSULARITY
She is, however, immersed in a web of cronies and hacks. She solicits Sid Blumenthal for advice, and not just on Libya. (“[T]he newly disclosed emails show he also acted as an intermediary with officials involved in the Northern Ireland peace process and shared advice on issues from Iran to British politics to how to blame China for the breakdown of global climate talks.”) That she should be getting advice from a political hatchet man — one whom the White House banned from the administration — tells us something about her judgment and her insularity.

Clinton’s enormous wealth and the people who helped make her wealthy make an appearance. Clinton and Huma Abedin discuss what sort of private jet she will take and her trip to the Hamptons. Just like “everyday” people! And most troubling, her e-mails are filled with discussions of corporate cronies whom she was more than willing to assist: The former secretary of state also wrote an encouraging note to Bill Owens, chairman of AEA Holdings Asia, about an effort he was pushing to open a dialogue with retired Chinese military official. short for donors? Former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell is facing jail time for much less.

And then — this is the supposedly nonpolitical secretary of state with her fixation on news reports, interest in domestic politics and outreach to labor unions. The Wall Street Journal observes: “While serving as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was keenly attentive to domestic political issues—following the gay-rights debate, staying in touch with Democratic allies and keeping tabs on her public image—a batch of emails released by the State Department Tuesday shows. . . [She] received numerous updates from her department advisers about the changing politics of gay rights and activists’ frustration with the Obama administration. . . . The emails show Mrs. Clinton engaged with domestic political figures.” Why is this so significant?

Aside from using the taxpayers’ provided office and staff to attend to her political aspirations, it is evident that while in office Clinton was planning ahead, greasing the wheels for her campaign. That puts her receipt after leaving the State Department of outlandish speaking fees and foundation receipts in a clear light: Both she and the donors correctly figured this was cash flowing to a future presidential candidate.

And the e-mails are interesting for what they don’t include. Where is Hillary Clinton the wonk? Hillary Clinton the master of policy? Maybe there will be more of that to come. But she comes across as many critics have long surmised — vain, small-minded and, above all, politically calculating in everything she does.

One reason is that they’re usually stinking rich, even though they have to pretend not to be. Hillary Clinton’s primary interaction with lower income Americans in recent years usually involved firing them for not making her bed correctly, now she has to pretend as if she truly cares about them. It’s a tough gig.

So out come the older pictures from a happier time, before the soul-selling deal she made with her philandering husband took its toll and made her sour and imperious.Before she built up a huge bank of resentment for the American people for not giving her what she feels she’s entitled to.

Why is it that the party that portrays itself as the most caring about humans has such a difficult time making its presidential candidates seem…human? From Al Gore to John Kerry to Her Inevitable Madameship, they’re all about as personable as the stomach flu. Even Barack Obama, whose entire career is built on smirking, has been called cold and aloof by people close to him. The press calls him “professorial”, a code word for “cold and aloof”.

DONATIONS TO CLINTON’S FOUNDATION BY BIG CORPORATIONS
Unless Hillary Clinton immediately reinstates the ban on foreign countries giving to her foundation and returns the millions of dollars these governments have already donated, she’s setting an incredibly dangerous precedent,” said the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus. “The American people are not about to elect a president in Hillary Clinton who could expose them to the demands of foreign governments because they dumped massive sums of cash into her foundation.”

i DON’T TRUST MADAME CLINTON WITH ALL HER MONEY. BUT I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THAT SENATOR ELIZABETH WARREN HAD DECIDED TO RUN FOR THE PRESIDENCY. SHE IS YOUNGER, SMARTER, AND TOTALLY DEDICATED TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF THE POOR AND NEEDY.

The Hillary Clinton Email Saga: “Senior Intelligence Officials Said”

Region:

 

Hillary-Clinton-EmailsThere’s a bigger story hidden inside the New York Times report that “a special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program —  . . .  contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.” The review was undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which presumably originated the material. They concluded that the material had originally been given the U.S. government’s highest secrecy classification. Even if one of Clinton’s aides stripped the markings (a felony), Secretary Clinton surely knew satellite intelligence and North Korean nuclear deployments are the U.S. government’s most highly classified information.

The media correctly saw the news as political trouble for Hillary, but they missed two other crucial elements of the story. Somebody high up in the intelligence community leaked that story. And Hillary faces far more than political trouble. She’s being fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

The NYT story came from anonymous sources. For Camp Clinton, the most ominous words are “senior intelligence officials said.” They signal just how furious the intelligence community is at the gross mishandling of their crown jewels. Since the intelligence agencies must now sort through everything Hillary has given to the State Department, plus whatever the FBI can scrape from the server, you can expect the leaks to keep on coming. Worse yet for her, the spy agencies must conduct a full-scale damage assessment, based on the high likelihood her server was hacked by foreign governments (and perhaps some 17-year-old in his parents’ basement in Belgrade).

The intelligence services remember how seriously the Department of Justice dealt with former CIA directors John Deutsch and David Petraeus, who mishandled documents. They will demand equal treatment here. They will keep the heat on by leaking to the press. The Times story shows the faucet is already open.

Hillary’s legal problems stem from the “gross mishandling” of security information, which is a serious crime. It doesn’t matter whether the materials are stamped or not. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to violate the law or not. It is a violation simply to put them anywhere that lacks adequate safeguards. Like a private server. Nobody stamped Gen. Petraeus’ personal calendar, which he kept in an unlocked drawer at home. John Deutsch was just trying to catch up on work by taking his CIA laptop home. Those mistakes are trivial compared with what Clinton is already known to have stored on her private server in Chappaqua.

It’s just hand waving to keep saying the documents were not stamped. Satellite intelligence is always classified. So are private diplomatic discussions with foreign officials. They are born that way. Secretary Clinton is expected to know that, and she has said she was well aware of the classification rules. The straightforward conclusion is that she repeatedly violated laws for handling of national security materials.

As the investigation proceeds, Secretary Clinton should also be wondering how loyal her aides are. So far, they have marched in a solid phalanx with her. But whoever removed the classification markings on incoming satellite data faces years in jail. The FBI will be in a strong position to encourage them to speak “fully and frankly,” as they say in the State Department.

Valuable as the New York Times story is, it also misses a third crucial element. Although it highlights Hillary’s private email, it glosses over her private server. Reluctantly, she has begun to answer questions about the email account and even issued a limp apology. But she never mentions the server. When Fox’s Ed Henry asked her if she knew of any other government officials who had one, she refused to answer.

Why would a public official go to the time, trouble and expense of setting up a private server and paying her own IT people to run it?  Simple: to keep the contents under her control even if the email account was discovered. She managed to keep the email account secret throughout her tenure at the State Department and for two years after that, avoiding legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests. When she was finally caught, she took full advantage of the extra layer of insulation her server provided. She reviewed her own records, turned over what she wanted, deleted everything else, and hunkered down. If her account had been at Gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail, the federal judges overseeing the FOIA lawsuits would have ordered the Internet companies to turn over everything. The FBI could sort it out, and Hillary would have no way to delete the records. On the bright side, with a private server, she didn’t get a lot of pop-up ads for North Korean vacations.

The State Department is still doing its best to protect her, stonewalling and slow-walking requests for materials. To supervise the document releases, they hired Catherine Duval, who moved over from the IRS. Anybody who cannot find Lois Lerner’s emails has the right kind of experience for John Kerry. On Tuesday, Kerry announced he was beefing up his department’s FOIA office by naming Ambassador Janice Jacobs as “transparency coordinator.” Now, it looks like Jacobs just donated $2,700 to Hillary’s campaign. Was the State Department too dumb to even ask her about possible conflicts of interest?

The stonewalling won’t help. The reluctant apologies won’t help. The FBI investigation will keep grinding on, and the intelligence agencies will keep passing out any nuggets they find. If Hillary’s political troubles keep piling up, she won’t make it to the general election. If her legal troubles keep piling up, she’s going to wish the next president was Gerald Ford.

There’s a bigger story hidden inside the New York Times report that “a special intelligence review of two emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton received as secretary of state on her personal account — including one about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program —  . . .  contained highly classified information when Mrs. Clinton received them, senior intelligence officials said.” The review was undertaken by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which presumably originated the material. They concluded that the material had originally been given the U.S. government’s highest secrecy classification. Even if one of Clinton’s aides stripped the markings (a felony), Secretary Clinton surely knew satellite intelligence and North Korean nuclear deployments are the U.S. government’s most highly classified information.

The media correctly saw the news as political trouble for Hillary, but they missed two other crucial elements of the story. Somebody high up in the intelligence community leaked that story. And Hillary faces far more than political trouble. She’s being fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

The NYT story came from anonymous sources. For Camp Clinton, the most ominous words are “senior intelligence officials said.” They signal just how furious the intelligence community is at the gross mishandling of their crown jewels. Since the intelligence agencies must now sort through everything Hillary has given to the State Department, plus whatever the FBI can scrape from the server, you can expect the leaks to keep on coming. Worse yet for her, the spy agencies must conduct a full-scale damage assessment, based on the high likelihood her server was hacked by foreign governments (and perhaps some 17-year-old in his parents’ basement in Belgrade).

The intelligence services remember how seriously the Department of Justice dealt with former CIA directors John Deutsch and David Petraeus, who mishandled documents. They will demand equal treatment here. They will keep the heat on by leaking to the press. The Times story shows the faucet is already open.

Hillary’s legal problems stem from the “gross mishandling” of security information, which is a serious crime. It doesn’t matter whether the materials are stamped or not. It doesn’t matter whether you intended to violate the law or not. It is a violation simply to put them anywhere that lacks adequate safeguards. Like a private server. Nobody stamped Gen. Petraeus’ personal calendar, which he kept in an unlocked drawer at home. John Deutsch was just trying to catch up on work by taking his CIA laptop home. Those mistakes are trivial compared with what Clinton is already known to have stored on her private server in Chappaqua.

It’s just hand waving to keep saying the documents were not stamped. Satellite intelligence is always classified. So are private diplomatic discussions with foreign officials. They are born that way. Secretary Clinton is expected to know that, and she has said she was well aware of the classification rules. The straightforward conclusion is that she repeatedly violated laws for handling of national security materials.

As the investigation proceeds, Secretary Clinton should also be wondering how loyal her aides are. So far, they have marched in a solid phalanx with her. But whoever removed the classification markings on incoming satellite data faces years in jail. The FBI will be in a strong position to encourage them to speak “fully and frankly,” as they say in the State Department.

Valuable as the New York Times story is, it also misses a third crucial element. Although it highlights Hillary’s private email, it glosses over her private server. Reluctantly, she has begun to answer questions about the email account and even issued a limp apology. But she never mentions the server. When Fox’s Ed Henry asked her if she knew of any other government officials who had one, she refused to answer.

Why would a public official go to the time, trouble and expense of setting up a private server and paying her own IT people to run it?  Simple: to keep the contents under her control even if the email account was discovered. She managed to keep the email account secret throughout her tenure at the State Department and for two years after that, avoiding legitimate Freedom of Information Act requests. When she was finally caught, she took full advantage of the extra layer of insulation her server provided. She reviewed her own records, turned over what she wanted, deleted everything else, and hunkered down. If her account had been at Gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail, the federal judges overseeing the FOIA lawsuits would have ordered the Internet companies to turn over everything. The FBI could sort it out, and Hillary would have no way to delete the records. On the bright side, with a private server, she didn’t get a lot of pop-up ads for North Korean vacations.

The State Department is still doing its best to protect her, stonewalling and slow-walking requests for materials. To supervise the document releases, they hired Catherine Duval, who moved over from the IRS. Anybody who cannot find Lois Lerner’s emails has the right kind of experience for John Kerry. On Tuesday, Kerry announced he was beefing up his department’s FOIA office by naming Ambassador Janice Jacobs as “transparency coordinator.” Now, it looks like Jacobs just donated $2,700 to Hillary’s campaign. Was the State Department too dumb to even ask her about possible conflicts of interest?

The stonewalling won’t help. The reluctant apologies won’t help. The FBI investigation will keep grinding on, and the intelligence agencies will keep passing out any nuggets they find. If Hillary’s political troubles keep piling up, she won’t make it to the general election. If her legal troubles keep piling up, she’s going to wish the next president was Gerald Ford.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). UNRULY hEARTS will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.