HRC Had Exactly 193 More Than Zero Emails That Were Classified

I can’t believe we’re still talking about this, but my emails…

As Trump’s problems continue to mount, the right is trying to make this about me again. There’s even a “Clinton Standard."

The fact is that I had zero emails that were classified.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 6, 2022

"The fact is that I had zero emails that were classified." 

Oh, really? The FBI and the DOJ Inspector General have shown otherwise. So did the IGs at DOS and the Intelligence Community as long ago as 2014. In fairness, there was some back-and-forth over details at first – such as whether the emails were classifiable at the time they were drafted or only became classifiable later – and there was quibbling, such as Senator Feinstein’s excuse that Hillary didn’t send any of the classified emails that she received on her personal server, but all that dust had settled by 2018 when the DOJ Inspector General issued a 500-page report that is the last word on the matter of Hillary’s emails. 

Specifically, that last word was: “193 individual emails that were classified from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET levels at the time the emails were drafted on UNCLASSIFIED systems and sent to or from Clinton’s personal server … Seven of the 81 email chains contained information associated with a Special Access Program (“SAP”).” 

The OIG report even quotes former FBI official Peter Strzok, whose utter hated of Trump is beyond question, as noting that the FBI’s belated discovery of emails which had classification markings on them disproves Hillary’s flat denial that she had ever received material that was marked classified. 

Here’s the key passage from that DOJ report, on pages 74 and 75: 

None of the emails, including those that were found to contain classified information, included a header or footer with classification markings. As we discuss further in Chapter Seven, this absence of clear classification markings played a significant role in the decision by the Midyear prosecutors to recommend to Attorney General Lynch in July 2016 that the investigation should be closed without prosecution. According to the LHM [the FBI’s closing Letterhead Memorandum (LHM) summarizing the Clinton email server investigation], the FBI, with the assistance of other USIC [U.S. Intelligence Community] agencies, identified “81 email chains containing approximately 193 individual emails that were classified from the CONFIDENTIAL to TOP SECRET levels at the time the emails were drafted on UNCLASSIFIED systems and sent to or from Clinton’s personal server.” In other words, the USIC agencies determined that these 81 email chains, although not marked classified, contained information classified at the time the emails were sent and should have been so marked. Twelve of the 81 classified email chains were not among the 30,490 that Clinton’s lawyers had produced to the State Department, and these were all classified at the Secret or Confidential levels. Seven of the 81 email chains contained information associated with a Special Access Program (“SAP”), which witnesses told us is considered particularly sensitive. The emails containing Top Secret and SAP information were included in the 30,490 provided to the State Department. 

In June 2016, near the end of the investigation, investigators found three email chains, consisting of eight individual emails, that “contained at least one paragraph marked ‘(C),’ a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level.” According to a June 13, 2016 text message exchange between Strzok and Page, the emails containing the “(C)” portion markings were part of the 30,490 that Clinton’s attorneys had provided to the State Department in 2014 but the FBI did not notice them until June 2016 after the IC IG discovered them. By that point in time, as discussed in Chapter Six below, Comey had been drafting his statement announcing the closing of the investigation. Strzok wrote to Page that “DoJ was Very Concerned about this .... Because they’re worried, holy cow, if the fbi missed this, what else was missed?” Strzok further wrote, “No one noticed. And while minor, it cuts against ‘I never send or received anything marked classified.’” According to the prosecutors, Mills, Abedin, and Jake Sullivan were each parties to at least one email in the chains with the (C) markings. However, none of them were ever asked about the emails, because the FBI had not discovered the markings before their interviews and did not seek to reinterview them.

Oh yes, the little "(C)" marking. Bill Clinton, in a rare wingman role, once tried to explain that away.

Here's a link to the report, "A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election" dated June 2018.

So she did have emails on her private server that were classified, all the way up to the TS and SAP levels. That is a fact, and by now it's old news. 

How does Hillary expect to get away with denying that reality today, you might wonder? Well, the same way she has always gotten away with it in the past. Deny, deny, deny, and wait for your embarrassed voters and supporters to drop the subject. 

There must be a reason why hardly anyone names their daughter Hillary anymore. See this WaPo story for a chart that shows the popularity of the name taking a drastic nosedive in 1992. That was the same year Bill Clinton first ran for President and the American public were introduced to the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock. The Ozark Evita. 

Possibly the name suffers from the moral exhaustion that comes from ignoring Hillary’s endless lies and prevarications. Don’t take my word for it; even her supporters can only shake their heads sadly when her lies run up against an IG report, as they have done before.

   

How does she keep getting away with it? I suppose, like Bill Clinton, her superpower is the ability to make other people lower their standards. 

It’s never really politically convenient to hold either of them to account, so Official Washington and its news media establishment will only shake their heads yet again and move on.

Battling Chinese Encroachment Into Our Arctic Interests

The Department is looking for a Chief of Mission who can handle cold temps and long, dark, winters. 

Establishing an Ambassador-at-Large for the Arctic Region: 

The Ambassador-at-Large for the Arctic Region will advance U.S. policy in the Arctic, engage with counterparts in Arctic and non-Arctic nations as well as Indigenous groups, and work closely with domestic stakeholders, including state, local, and Tribal governments, businesses, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, other federal government agencies and Congress. The United States remains committed to constructive cooperation in the Arctic, foremost through the Arctic Council, and the Ambassador-at-Large will work in close partnership with the U.S. Senior Arctic Official, the federal Arctic science community, and the Arctic Executive Steering Committee. 

We look forward to continuing our strong partnership with the Congress to swiftly confirm the Ambassador-at-Large, once a nomination is sent to the Senate.

For once, wealthy Donor-Ambassadors will not elbow their way to the front of the line. 

I'd get in line for that job myself, since I've always wanted to go to the artic. I already have a good down jacket, and I think that my old magnetic compass will work above the artic circle.

At a minimum I could TDY-it to that new mission. If they need a frozen Fortress Embassy there I'll be right on it.

On Third Anniversary, Harry Dunn Supporters Continue to Search For Unspecified Justice

Statement from the Foreign Secretary on the third anniversary of Harry Dunn's death pic.twitter.com/lsQSFWNVGj

— Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (@FCDOGovUK) August 27, 2022

The GB News story was typical of UK media this weekend, that is, lots of calls for "justice" but no details about what that would mean, exactly. 

Oddly, the family did not show up in any news media interview or public event. Their spokesman was reduced to retweeting news articles on the anniversary observance and inviting supporters to light cyber candles. 

The only concrete action was taken by a small group of bikers - hardly more than a dozen, judging from photos - who parked their bikes in a pedestrian garden in the vicinity of U.S. Embassy London and ran their engines and horns for one minute.

   

 

So, take that, Uncle Sam! (Assuming, of course, that whoever was present in the embassy on a Saturday morning could hear anything through the blast-resistant windows of the building.) Know that those protestors promise to be back for another minute next year, and every year, and be properly chastised.

If You Can't Get Hungover in Moscow, Where Can You?

See the purported video from Embassy Moscow: here. 

Okay, he doesn't look like he would be in shape to drive. But give him a break, it was 5:18 in the AM!

24 Years Ago Today

24 years ago today, two bombs exploded in front of U.S. embassies in #Kenya & #Tanzania, leaving more than 200 dead and 5,000 injured. A sobering reminder of the dangers our #diplomats face working on the front lines of international affairs. #ForeignService pic.twitter.com/gEL6VQozx5

— AFSA (@afsatweets) August 7, 2022

Wrongful or Rightful, Don't Roll the Dice if You Can't Pay the Price

If you've been following the case of Marc Fogel, the U.S. citizen teacher at Moscow's Anglo-American School who has been sentenced to 14 years after he was caught bringing a small quantity of cannabis into Russia, then you've probably seen the story in the WaPo today which quoted his wife and family. That story had the first fairly solid details about his connection with U.S. Embassy Moscow that I've seen so far. 

Here are a few key quotes:

In suburban Pittsburgh, Jane Fogel has been watching the Griner case spool out and wondered whether her husband has been forgotten. Griner’s wife, Cherelle, received a call from the president. The Fogels have been stalled at the mid-functionary level of the U.S. State Department.

Don’t underestimate mid-level functionaries, I say. That’s where the real work of government gets done. 

He’d packed 14 vape cartridges of medical marijuana into his suitcase, stuffing some in his shoes, and placed some cannabis buds in a contact lens case, his wife said. Jane said she had no idea he’d done it. But why take such a risk? “It’s pretty simple,” his son Ethan said of his father’s plan to bring medical marijuana into Russia. “He thought he could get away with it.”

Oh? Very simply, I thought I could get away with it, your Honor is not something you should ever say in court. Nor will it get you much sympathy from the American public, I don't imagine. I’m beginning to understand the reason for that long sentence. 

Now, here's the part I found most interesting, because it cleared up some of the confusion in earlier news stories about Fogel's purported diplomatic immunity.

In previous years, they’d received visas sponsored by the U.S. Embassy that labeled them “technical employees,” a term of art that allowed them to work in Russia at the invitation of the embassy and afforded them certain diplomatic protections, even though they were not employed by the U.S. government. The embassy was involved because the school had been chartered by the American, British and Canadian embassies but overseen by a separate school board. The change in the Fogels’ visa status took place in 2021 when the school transitioned to being a nonprofit institution.

“Technical employees” who enjoy “certain diplomatic protections” sounds an awful lot like Administrative and Technical staff status. I've worked with a number of international schools that enroll USG dependents, but never before have I come across one that had an official connection to an embassy. From what I've learned about the history of AAS Moscow, I expect that some sort of quasi official status may have been necessary in order to get U.S. citizen teachers to work in Moscow during the years of Cold War and post-Cold War harassment. 

Getting back to today's WaPo story, the family is making a public pitch to persuade State and the White House to define Fogle as being wrongfully detained, and therefore to include him in the possible prisoner swap that might be in the works for two others prisoners who are so defined. 

The criteria for wrongful detention status are in the Robert Levinson Act, and, frankly, I don't see how they apply to Fogel's situation. There are some large differences between the circumstances of his arrest and that of Brittney Griner. 

Fogel was not a visitor to Russia, having lived and worked there for ten years, if news reports are correct. He can't credibly claim to be naïve about the place. 

Until recently he'd had some kind of connection to the U.S. embassy and reportedly even some level of diplomatic immunity as a result, and that seems to have caused extra Russian interest in him. According to a TASS report, "Mark Fogel was a teacher of an Anglo-American school, and previously served as a US embassy employee in Moscow. Prior to May 2021, he and his spouse enjoyed diplomatic immunity. According to one investigation version, he could have used it to establish a drug smuggling channel for distribution among the students of the school." 

Fogel had concealed his weed and cannabis oil in his luggage, packing them in a contact lens case wrapped in plastic and stuffed inside a sneaker. Unlike Griner, he couldn't use the ooops!-I-forgot-I-left-those-there defense. 

Fogel stated he has a medical need for marijuana, but his credibility suffers due to the very small amount he had in his luggage - ironically - given his claim to need the drug for pain management. He had less than half an ounce, and no way to resupply himself in Russia, where they do not do medical marijuana. Half an ounce seems more recreational than medicinal. 

Those suspicious Russians might have thought Fogel had another stash at home which his wife disposed of after he was arrested. According to a TASS report, "It was determined that his spouse, who was released, managed to get rid of the evidence that was present in the apartment ... Surveillance camera footage shows the woman carrying a bundle outside and throwing it into a dumpster. Later, the woman retrieved it, put it into a plastic bag, and carried it outside of the residence complex.” 

For whatever reason, the Russians were so interested in Fogel's case that they took eleven months between his arrest and conviction. Very unlike Gainer, who was arrested February 17 and put on trial in early July. 

Fogel's situation was raised at the State press briefing of July 26, and the Spokesman's phrasing about "the totality of the circumstances" does not give me the sense that State is very eager to define Fogel as being wrongfully detained.

QUESTION: And then the term “wrongfully detained” has not been applied to the case of Mark Fogel, so can you just explain why that’s the case, given there are some similarities to the crime he committed and the crime that Brittney Griner committed?

MR PRICE: Well, each case is unique. And in determining whether detention is wrongful, determining if the detention is wrongful, we look at the totality of the circumstances. And those circumstances are then weighed against a series of criteria and factors. The Bob Levinson legislation that was passed some years ago, and in fact was just codified in key ways into the EO, defined some of those considerations that we look at.

Yeah, I think Mr. Price might just as well have channeled Sammy Davis Jr. on that response.

"It is Understood" (by whom is unclear) the UK May Resubmit Extradition Request in Harry Dunn Case Next Month

A couple UK news outlets today are running this odd not-quite-a-news story that promises, but fails to deliver, anything actually new about the Harry Dunn case. 

Read it here: Harry Dunn family to seek extradition of alleged killer if criminal case fails. 

The confusion starts with the headline. The Dunn family will seek extradition of the American driver "if the criminal case fails?" How's that again? An extradition is necessary to prosecute a criminal case; if the criminal case fails to materialize, then what would be the point of an extradition request? 

Things get even more vague as the story go on.

"Dunn family supporters will call for her extradition if plans for a criminal trial by video link in the UK have not been agreed by the third anniversary of Harry’s death on August 27 2019."

-- snip --

“If there is still no agreement by the third anniversary, everyone is primed to resubmit the extradition request,” said a political source. “This cannot go on indefinitely. We cannot do the inquest until the conclusion of the criminal case.”

There are no real sources in the story, just insinuations. Let's see: we have "a political source" saying that "everyone" wants to submit a new extradition request. Only the UK Home Office can do that, but no one in this story speaks for them. Anyway, they already requested extradition and were refused, so how likely is it that they will step on that same rake again? 

"It is understood," the article says, that the Crown Prosecution Service has done such-and-such. But then, no one is quoting the CPS saying anything at all. 

"A government source" is said to refer to the CPS' last public statement on the case, which followed its embarrassing back-down from a court appearance that it had scheduled and then had to vacate, but that's as close as it gets. 

The only one this article quotes by name is the activist lawyer Mark Stephens, who has no apparent connection of any kind to the case, but nevertheless purports to tell us the inside story of what the U.S. and UK authorities are negotiating. Who told him? Maybe it came to him in a dream, since I don't think the authorities in either the U.S. or the UK are on secrets-spilling terms with him. 

The third anniversary of the fatal road traffic accident is no doubt going to be a difficult time for the Dunn family. By talking up more false hopes, their advisors and well-wishers are again showing their instinct for making things worse.