The revelation that Hillary Clinton used a private email address for most if not all of her official internal correspondence is raising all sorts of questions. According to widespread reporting, Mrs. Clinton turned over some 55,000 pages of emails to the State Department two months ago, long after she stepped down from her post in early 2013, and only after they were vetted by her loyalists.
One key issue getting a lot of ink is whether she violated the requirements of the Federal Records Act, which requires that official correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record. But another far larger issue might loom.
One reason that officials at the State Department are required to use official email addresses is security. State Department servers are hardened against hacking by foreign spies. Not long ago, Chinese hackers breached Google servers to obtain a database about U.S. surveillance targets. If they were skilled enough to unearth such intelligence information, they would no doubt find other private email servers a similarly vulnerable target.
According to the Associated Press, Mrs. Clinton’s servers were housed in her Chappaqua house, which of course is guarded by the Secret Service. The servers therefore, according to the AP, were “well protected from theft or a physical hacking.” But, of course, theft and physical hacking are not the only way into a privately-run server.
The danger of electronic hacking is precisely why the best encryption technology of our government is in use to secure the communications of our diplomats. State Department rules are clear. According to the department’s information management manual:
Users must not load classified information or Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information onto unclassified systems, and any information exchange between classified and unclassified or SBU systems may only occur following established Department guidelines, developed by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), or with a recommended waiver by DS and approved by the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO).
Did Hillary ignore this rule? Did she use any encryption, and if so was it government sanctioned? These are urgent questions. The correspondence of our Secretary of State ranks among the most sensitive of government secrets.
If Hillary Clinton was indeed communicating about classified matters using unsecured servers, she would have been engaging in a massive security breach and quite possibly violated the law. The Espionage Act of 1917 has a provision that criminalizes “gross negligence” when it permits national defense information to “to be removed from its proper place of custody.” On his last day in office, President Bill Clinton pardoned CIA director John Deutch for having merely put classified material on unsecured laptops. Hillary Clinton’s transgression appears to be on a far larger scale. Will Hillary now need a pardon from Barack Obama? This story doesn't have legs, it has wings.
Hillary Clinton is under increasing pressure for her exclusive use of a personal email address during her four years as secretary of state. In October 2011, Mrs. Clinton was interviewed by Savannah Guthrie of NBC's Today Show, and Guthrie asked about her personal email address. While Mrs. Clinton did not directly answer the question, she did acknowledge that she had "a lot of security restraints on what I can and can’t do":
If you are a German and fancy Pegida, or a Brit and fancy UKIP, or a Frenchman and enjoy marching with the National Front, it’s a reasonable guess that you don’t like immigrants. If you’re an American, the story is different. There is a lady in the harbor to welcome the legal ones and a man in the White House to roll out the welcome mat for millions of illegal ones.
The White House has argued that President Obama's executive amnesty order last week was made well within the existing law. But in remarks in Chicago tonight, President Obama went off script and admitted that in fact he unilaterally made changes to the law.
President Obama made the admission after getting heckled for several minutes by immigration protesters.
President Obama was asked whether he'll be delaying executive action on immigration until after the mid-term election. He told reporters he was still reviewing options but that he's going to act "within the legal constraints of my office."
In making the case for closing tax loopholes used by corporations, President Obama says in his weekly address that the American people "don't get to pick which rules you play by." Neither should corporations, Obama argues.
In the past week alone, President Obama has twice been rebuked by the Supreme Court for having run afoul of the Constitution (a 9-0 decision) or federal law (5-4). Unchastened, he brazenly picked the very day that the second decision was announced to reassert the Obama Doctrine — namely, that if Congress refuses to pass a political loser that Obama is
The IRS comissioner insists his agency did not break the law or relevant statutes. But under questioning by Rep. Trey Gowdy, the IRS commissioner also admitted that he doesn't know the law or the relevant statutes:
"You have already said, multiple times today, that there was no evidence that you found of any criminal wrongdoing," Gowdy said. "I want you to tell me: What criminal statutes you have evaluated?"
"I have not looked at any," the IRS commissioner admitted.
If there is any realm of policy that the American Founders were most firmly committed to having be decided by the most representative branch — the Congress — it was presumably the realm of taxation. Those who wrote the Constitution were not content even to let the Senate initiate tax policy. Instead, Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution specifies, “All Bills for raising R