All Episodes
Previous Next
July 5, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
28:00
3336 No Criminal Charges for Hillary Clinton!

FBI Director James Comey has revealed that he will not be recommending criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private server to house and process her emails while Secretary of State.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi, everybody.
This is Devan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio.
Coming down from my rollercoaster high and low of watching James Comey, the FBI director, talk about the, I guess, year-long plus investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a personal toilet-based email server while she was Secretary of State and the ramifications thereof.
Now, we'll get to some of the analysis in a moment.
We're going to go through what he said.
I'm, of course, not a lawyer.
I'm speaking as an amateur, but I am a moralist.
And have a little bit of something to say.
It may get quite passionate, so RIP headphone users.
So what Comey said, because of course Clinton has maintained, Hillary Clinton has maintained for a long time, that she did not send or receive anything that was marked classified at the time.
This turns out to be not entirely truthful.
Very unusual for Clintons.
For them, lying is what you and I would call...
Breathing, something like that.
So Comey said, quote, From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.
At the time they were sent or received.
Now, of course, Hillary's defense is, it didn't have a big classified stamp on it, so how was I to know?
Eh!
Doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter a damn thing.
You are supposed to know what is classified or not because you have an IQ somewhat above a wiener dog and you're trained on it.
It does not have to be marked classified in order to be considered classified.
That's just something you're supposed to know.
If, say, you're the head of the State Department.
So...
The fact that she says they weren't marked classified at the time is completely irrelevant and is an appeal to idiots who wish to excuse her in order to get the free stuff the Democrats always promise their political dependence.
Comey went on to say, 8 of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent.
36 chains contained secret information at the time, and 8 contained confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were up-classified to make them confidential.
The information in those had not been classified at the time the emails were sent.
He went on to say, We found those additional emails in a variety of ways.
Some had been deleted over the years, and we found traces of them on devices that were supported.
That support it all were connected to the private email domain.
Others we found by reviewing the archived government email accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.
I guess...
Satan email was scoured as well.
So, of course, the emails that Hillary Clinton sends and receive as part of her tenure as Secretary of State belong to the government.
They are essential government properties subject to Freedom of Information Acts, which I guess she didn't really want to comply with, which is why...
She put the email server in her house and really seems to have failed to secure it in any significant way whatsoever.
So she was supposed to turn over all these emails to the State Department to comply with Freedom of Information Act requests.
They are part of the government property.
If you withhold or delete, which is ineffectively to steal government property, those emails, that's pretty bad.
And people who steal government property are actually forbidden in many places or many circumstances from ever holding public office again.
So that's kind of important.
She said she had signed over.
I've turned over all work-related emails.
Turns out this was not the case.
Comey went on to say, I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted.
In an effort to conceal them.
Our assessment is that like many email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails or emails were purged from the system when devices were changed.
Now this is to me an astonishing statement of many astonishing statements made during this press conference.
First of all, as far as I understand it, Secretary Clinton did not have the right to delete work-related emails which technically and factually belonged to the government and should be available for the people through Freedom of Information Act requests to get that data.
Did not belong to her, did not own her.
I mean, I can't get a government car and just go crash it and destroy it and sell it on eBay because it's not mine.
So, the idea that Comey with a straight face would say there was no intent to conceal emails when, to my understanding, the entire purpose of this private email server was to keep her emails from the eyes of the government, the idea that there's no intentional effort to conceal them, that's the whole point of this server, James!
That's the whole point of the server, is to keep the emails from the public eye.
So the fact that she would delete emails on a server, that she has no archives, no backups that are available, and that she put her email on that server to keep it away from government servers, that is an attempt to conceal them, in my humble and obviously amateur opinion, but it seems pretty clear.
The idea that she set up a whole system where she could conceal, delete, purge, remove, erase the emails that she wanted, that is an effort to conceal them by its very nature and definition.
Director Comey went on to say, quote, because she was not using a government account or even a commercial account like Gmail, there was no archiving at all of her emails.
So it is not surprising that we discovered emails that were not on Secretary Clinton's system in 2014 when she produced the 30,000 emails to the State Department.
Right!
You see, she made a choice to put the emails on her private server where they weren't archived or even that secure.
And that is an effort to conceal by its very nature.
He went on to say, quote, It could also be that some of the additional work-related emails we recovered were among those deleted as, quote, personal by Secretary Clinton's lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her emails for production in 2014.
The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all her emails as we did for those available to us.
Instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try and find all All work-related emails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total emails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014.
So, you know, a great way, in my opinion, of not producing emails to the government is to mix personal emails in with professional emails and then just use some sort of, I don't know, ill-documented sorting or search term or header information to say, And these aren't.
And so the fact that she could have easily set up two email accounts on her server, you know, they can handle more than one.
She could have set up two email accounts on her server, one for personal, one for bidness, and then she could have just shipped all the business ones off.
But no, by mingling the personal in with...
The professional, she could say, well, you know, I deleted the personal, and here are the professional, and there's simply no way to do it.
But of course, this is the idea, that you just mix these things up so you can selectively delete.
And of course, the lawyers who use these terms are scrubbed and cleaned, so they couldn't get any more information from the systems they had searched.
So, what did the FBI find after, what, 150-plus agents scouring all this stuff for A year or more, he said, quote, although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
And then, I must tell you, my heart began to do a little happy dance pitter-patter, because the moment that he said that Clinton and her staff were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information, well, that's all you need, baby!
That's all you need.
Because it doesn't matter what your intention is with regards to the handling of classified information according to my understanding of the law.
It doesn't matter.
Intent doesn't matter.
It may change the severity, but it doesn't change the illegality.
If you are careless, if you put things in a situation where they can be accessed more easily, if you take secure or classified information from a secure system and put it on a non-secure system, you broke the law!
So when he said, oh, they're extremely careless and they're handling a very sensitive, highly classified information, I thought, boom!
Could it be?
Could it be that the moral planets have aligned and she might actually be charged with something?
Ah.
Well, let's find out.
So, he went on to say, for example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret special access program level, very top, when they were sent and received.
When they were sent and received.
Seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret slash special access program level when they were sent and received.
And again, it doesn't matter whether they were marked that way or not.
You're supposed to know.
You're responsible for knowing.
He went on to say, There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.
And again, I'm like, oh, could it be?
I don't think it's going to happen.
I never thought she was going to be indicted, but could it be?
Could it be that the system is even vaguely going to work even against the Queen?
Let's find out!
Because, you know, if you're going to take a run at the Queen, you don't miss.
You can't miss.
And he went on to say, quote, none of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system.
But their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at departments and agencies of the U.S. government or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
And I thought, man, he's drawing his bow.
Is it going to happen?
It's happening!
It couldn't happen.
And I couldn't believe it.
I couldn't believe it.
Because he's basically saying, as far as I understand it here, she broke the law.
Intent doesn't matter.
She put classified stuff and an unclassified system, boom, against the law.
But I dared not hope, I dared not hope, He also went on to say, separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information.
Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.
But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
Right?
Doesn't matter if it's marked classified or not.
It's a complete red herring.
If you're not smart enough to know when something's classified or not, you should never be given access to classified information, right?
So they train you on it.
They tell you how to tell classified from unclassified information.
That's the only way you get access.
To classified information is if you can prove and have been trained on how to recognize classified from unclassified.
If you're in contact with classified information, the markings don't matter because you're supposed to know.
So here he's saying, a reasonable person would have known this stuff was crazy classified.
It was put on an unsecure system.
Boom!
That's all you need.
Well, other than integrity.
Comey went on to say, quote, We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.
We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent.
So, this is important.
If you're sending email containing classified information to a non-secure system, i.e.
someone you are friends with, then aren't you then consciously moving classified information from a supposedly secure system or at least your own server to someone else's server where it could be hacked and accessed?
Isn't that also against the law when it comes to the protection of secure or classified information?
Comey went on to say, quote, I don't know, China, Russia, who knows, right?
Given that combination of factors, we assess that it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.
And then he dropped the bomb that they were not going to recommend any prosecution for criminal matters, for criminal activities.
And that's what Clintons do.
It's what happens around the Clintons.
There's this reality distortion field where the law warps into something completely the opposite of its intended activity and statements.
I remember this happened to me when I used to be a software entrepreneur and I was on a business trip with a salesman and heard about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky and inserting the cigar into her vagina and getting blowjobs and all that kind of stuff.
I remember thinking, well, that's it.
This is going to be a sea change in American politics.
The feminists are going to eat him for lunch.
I was back then still a fairly pro-feminist.
And one of the things that changed that was seeing the degree to which feminists in general rushed to his defense, to Clinton's defense, saying, well, it's only sex.
Of course, the feminist theory is that a power imbalance in a work relationship in particular means that consent becomes somewhat implausible.
If you can fire someone who doesn't go on a date with you or have sex with you, can they really consent?
And can there be a bigger power disparity than the President of the United States and an unpaid intern, or even if she's paid, doesn't matter, that he's basically using as his personal Kleenex and Geisha?
Well, they didn't care.
Didn't matter.
Just keep giving us welfare and abortions.
We don't care what you do.
You can use all the women you want.
You can destroy their reputation.
You can lie to them.
You can bully them and it doesn't matter.
And the degree to which feminists, of course, regularly seem to ignore, avoid or attack anyone.
Who talks about the fairly credible allegations of rape against Bill Clinton from a number of women?
Well, it doesn't matter.
It's about serving the collective.
It's about leftism.
It's about cultural Marxism.
It's not about feminism.
Feminism is just a cover.
So this is, you know, once every generation, the Clintons remind everyone just how corrupt the system actually is.
Youngstress, it's your turn!
So he said basically he's not recommending...
Any criminal charges against Clinton.
And he did say, he said, to be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.
To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
But that is not what we are deciding now.
Now, if the population as a whole in America was a little more aware, informed, and intelligent, and I'm doing my best to help with that, Then what he's saying here is that people who do this kind of stuff lose their security clearance.
Lose their security clearance.
That's kind of important, you know.
Somebody who's running to be President of the United States, I don't know.
Do you think they're going to need a fairly high security clearance?
Is there anything above the President of the United States when it comes to security clearance?
No!
Now, Comey is saying people who do this kind of crap lose security clearances.
That's important.
If you can read between the lines, he's saying, okay, if someone like this or someone who acted like this would lose their security clearance, maybe she shouldn't be president of the United States, which is the highest security clearance on the planet.
So, the intent.
He said, well, Clinton, there's no evidence in particular that she intended to break the law, but she and her staff were, you know, careless and irresponsible, and there was danger as a result.
Now, The applicable statute, at least one of them, 18 USC 793, actually doesn't even mention the word classified when it comes to sanctions against people who are irresponsible with security information.
The focus is on, quote, information respecting the national defense.
That potentially, quote, could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.
793F specifically makes it a crime for anyone, quote, Entrusted with any document or information relating to the national defense through gross negligence to permit the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.
You understand?
This is a crime.
Anyone entrusted with any document or information relating to the national defense through gross negligence to permit the same...
The document?
To be removed from its proper place of custody.
What was the proper place of custody for the special access program top secret information?
Was it a server hanging around near a toilet?
Clinton's house?
No!
Was it something that she put a domain name Clinton email which you can search for and easily find?
She didn't call it ostrich egg holder or something that might be just a little bit harder to find for people who are doing their searches?
Anyone who causes it to be removed from its proper place of custody is subject to a crime.
It doesn't matter what their intent is.
It doesn't matter what their intent is.
Now, the very fact that she set up her own private server, unmonitored, unpatched, unsecured.
They even turned off the security for a while because they were having trouble sending and receiving email.
Wide open, in many ways, on the internet.
Easy to find through the Clinton email domain registration.
She sent it to people who were on non-secured servers.
She did not keep an archive, which as far as I understand it, she's kind of legally required to do because you can't destroy government property.
And the emails she sent and received for work were government property.
What does intent matter?
It's like manslaughter.
Manslaughter is like, well, you took actions that ended up with someone dying, even if you didn't mean to kill them, doesn't really matter.
It's like drunk driving.
You don't drunk drive intending to hit someone.
But if you do, the fact that you're drunk driving, it makes it even worse.
The courts in America have repeatedly held that national defense information includes closely held military, foreign policy, and intelligence information.
And again, as Comey said, it doesn't require the information to be marked as classified.
And the fact that it was marked classified later...
This is evidence, if not downright proof, that the information met this test of national defense information in the first place.
This applies to thousands of Clinton emails.
Just because it's classified later means at the time you should have known that it was classified.
I mean, even if we say Hillary Clinton never intended for sensitive information to be exposed, the fact that she took direct action to move it outside of the normal storage and safeguards of the US government is more than sufficient for her to be prosecuted, in my humble opinion.
Again, prosecution only requires that the sensitive information somehow, in some manner, because someone did something, ends up being outside of its proper place of custody.
The intent angle doesn't matter.
This law clearly appears, in my opinion, to have been broken.
She moved it from secure to unsecure.
It was unlawful for Clinton to store secure data, classified data, sensitive data, in an unsecure server.
And she seems to have lied.
I never sent or received anything.
Information that was classified at the time.
First of all, that's the damn job.
Bill Gates, head of Microsoft, says, oh, I never sent or received any information related to computers or code or Microsoft or Office or anything like that.
Windows, never heard of it.
Can't open them in my office.
So she can say, well, I didn't know what was classified or not.
Then she's saying that she's incompetent.
And the job description says, basically, you are in the possession of classified information.
It is your job to know what is classified or not.
We're going to give you training on it.
You're going to sign off that you understand and you're responsible.
And then she says, I didn't know what was classified or not.
Okay.
Either lied or she's incompetent.
I'm not sure I care which is which.
I think also, Director Comey, I don't want to read too many tea leaves here, but he said something important, which was he said, well, lots of people knew that she was using unsecured email, right?
I mean, it was not a.gov extension, and therefore it's pretty evident that she's not using secure stuff.
Now, anyone who is aware of other people mishandling classified information is also subject to penalties.
See something, say something, as they say.
Now, this would be a total constitutional crisis.
Were she to be prosecuted because, of course, they would have to find everyone who knew about that information.
And the prosecution would call President Obama.
President Obama would, under oath, probably have to admit that he knew that she was sending and receiving information on a non-secured server.
Therefore, he would be liable to some degree.
The dominoes would fall, constitutional crisis, impeachment, mass disaster.
So, do they want to set that ball in motion?
With regards to intent, you know, people in the US have been charged if they leave their baby in a car, if the baby dies.
They've been charged.
Well, of course they didn't intend to, but they took actions which put a baby's life at risk.
Inadvertently, right?
Some guy thought he'd already dropped his kid off at the daycare.
It was terrible.
It was terrible.
So intent, with regards to the law, is one of these things that's really difficult to prove.
So when he says, well, we found no direct evidence that we're attempting to delete stuff, that blah-de-blah-de-blah.
Well, they set events.
Hillary Clinton set events in motion that resulted in those emails being deleted.
Because she didn't archive them.
She didn't back them up.
She didn't ship them off on a USB key to...
The government to back them up and to keep them.
So she took steps which ended up with those emails being deleted.
Which, as far as I understand it, she did not have the right to do.
Ah, well.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is being partly funded by a country that executes gays.
So...
Maybe that's slightly more important.
Hillary Clinton's foundation, Bill and Hillary Clinton Foundation, did receive a lot of money from foreign governments who seemed to get some extra special cherry on top treatment that I guess the FBI is continuing to investigate.
And just compare this to Aaron Schwartz.
Aaron Schwartz took some data, made it public.
The people who had the data, the information, the documents, after a while they didn't care, they didn't even want it to...
We want him to be prosecuted.
He was facing decades in prison for liberating information and making it public.
Hillary Clinton does this.
Does this.
Gets off scot-free.
Astonishing.
And to all those people who had high hopes for Director Comey, well, the system is the system.
So, yeah, Comey said, well, dangerous lack of judgment, careless judgment.
That's Clinton and the entire culture or the significant portions of the culture in the State Department.
Yeah, lack of judgment, carelessness, dangerous carelessness.
So yeah, let's give her the nuclear codes.
That sounds like a great idea!
Now, if the Democratic Party had a shred of integrity, I mean, they would have to dump her.
This is a very damning report.
The fact that she's not being pursued for criminal charges, despite what the law says, as far as I can see it, is not hugely relevant.
I mean, the fact is that she did do very dangerous things, very careless things, and did cause information to be moved from a secure facility to an unsecure facility, ran her little personal devices in foreign countries where it may have been easier to intercept the information.
Of course, she should not be running for the office of the president.
That's...
Inevitable.
That should be the next logical step.
This is not an exoneration.
This is not an exoneration.
No, he's not saying she didn't do anything wrong.
He's saying that people in similar circumstances have had their security clearances reduced or stripped.
That's kind of significant for somebody who's aiming for the highest.
But that's not going to happen.
Everyone's going to say she's been vindicated.
It's a right-wing witch hunt and all that kind of stuff.
And it's because the Democrats are dealing the drugs of free stuff.
The Democrats are dealing the drugs of free stuff.
Now, if you're addicted to a drug, and you get the real creepy-crawly heebie-jeebies, ants-under-the-skin feeling, if you don't get your drug, do you care about the ethics of your drug dealer?
You know, he kicked a dog yesterday.
I don't care.
I need the drug.
I don't care.
If you want to go and pick up your lottery winnings, and the guy behind the counter who's going to cut you the check, you know, he was a drunk driver.
He drove over someone a couple of years ago.
I don't care.
Just give me my, you know, give me my money.
Give me your mornings.
I don't care.
I don't care.
Give me the free stuff.
I don't care.
And that's the difference.
The people who care about this stuff are the people who care about some sort of ethics, integrity, rule of law.
The people who don't care about this stuff are addicted to the free stuff being sprayed out by the Democrats.
And that's all they care about is give me the free stuff.
Whatever we have to say, whatever we have to do, give me the free stuff.
And this is why the media explodes in incoherent and apoplectic rage when Donald Trump tweets a picture of corruption which involves a sheriff's star, which everyone says, Oh no, that's the star of David!
The guy whose daughter converted to Judaism to marry a Jew is anti-Semitic!
Yeah, it's about clipart!
Not state secrets about war and peace and allies and traitors.
It's about clip art.
That's where our outrage should be.
And this is why nobody cares who's addicted to free stuff from the government.
They don't care what she's done.
They don't care how many promises she broke, how many laws she may have violated from others.
They don't care.
They don't care.
Give me my drug.
I don't care what you've done.
Damn the law.
Damn standards.
Damn integrity.
I need my fix.
▲
Export Selection