Amicus Brief Supporting FBI’s Quest in Identifying Corrupt Public Officials

By Thomas Lambert Cranmer
Wednesday, June 8th, 2016 @ 8:10PM

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinmail
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

James B. Comey, Esq., Director

Re: Corruption of Public Officials: The Clinton Family, Foundation & Affiliates, and State Department Employees                                 

Dear Director Comey:

The FBI’s recent radio ads asked public assistance in identifying public corruption.  This amicus brief is in response to your request, based on my experience as a State Department employee with a top secret clearance and decades of work in corrupt countries from Albania to Zimbabwe. Therefore, I am alarmed by the steady decline of integrity among U.S. government and public official.

I studied law at Yale, Columbia, and New York University, but I am not a practicing lawyer. I worked as an international planner and a treasurer in Mobil Oil Corporation, a manager in the State Department, with a Top Secret clearance, and an international consultant, evaluating legal issues, studying corruption, proposing remedies and negotiating solutions. I am a fellow at the American Center for Democracy.

My letter is based on publicly available sources concerning what I believe to be one of the most astounding corruption cases involving a politician who wishes to lead my beloved country.

I understand that a large number of your agents are carrying out a criminal investigation of these cases, and I hope my enclosed analysis would help your efforts.

Public statements by federal government officials, and journalists indicate that either they do not understand, or refuse to acknowledge that serious laws were broken, not just a bunch of silly rules.

But the Rasmussen Report on a February 3, 2016, survey of 1,000 likely voters showed 81% “strongly believe the federal government is crooked.”  Gallup reported on September 19, 2015, in a survey of 1,000 adults, 75% “perceived corruption as widespread in the country’s government.”  In 2007, 67% responded the same way.

The U.S. international reputation is similarly appalling. Freedom House listed the U.S. as being perceived by 75% of respondents as one of the most corrupt countries of the world.  Only 12 countries of the world were regarded as worse.

Transparency International (TI) says on their website that 72% of people surveyed believe the U.S. government’s efforts to fight corruption are ineffective.  Other TI ratings for the U.S. are:

– 16th for corruption index out of 168 countries in 2015;

– 10th in bribe payers’ index out of 28 countries in 2011;

– 5% reported paying a bribe in 2010;

– 86th percentile in control of corruption;

– 5th in financial secrecy index out of 71 countries.

These perceptions are most disturbing. I hope you and the DOJ would not further this corrupt image by allowing political pressure to cover up and obfuscate the facts of your investigations. Our law enforcement agencies must show that politically powerful famous current and former officials are treated as ordinary citizens when they break the law. A failure to indict and prosecute the Clintons and their enterprise will encourage more corruption and the disclosure of more classified information, further endangering the U.S.

You have the reputation of being honest, competent and diligent, and I hope you will soon refer recommendations and backup research for criminal prosecution of the Clintons and their staff to the DOJ. That would ameliorate the decline in the public’s respect for the rule of law. If the DOJ refuses to impanel a grand jury or to prosecute, I hope you and many FBI agents resign in protest.  The integrity of the U.S. government and America’s national security are at stake.

Sources for Comments

Most of my comments are not original.  Many experts have done an excellent job of describing many of the violations of laws, including, but not limited to:  Judge and former AG Michael Mukasey, Joseph E. diGenova, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Sharyl Attkisson, Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Rep. Darrell Issa, Tom Fitton, Larry Klayman and Peter Schweizer. The State Department’s Office of the Inspector General provided valuable support for my comments on former Secretary Clinton’s and her staff’s corruption. This begs the question, why no Inspector General was appointed to the State Department for most, if not all of Hillary Clinton’s time at State?

The Clinton’s syndicate has been protected by many people.

Hillary and Bill Clinton, their lawyer, David Kendall, their aides Huma Abedin, Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s 2016 election top foreign policy advisor and her Deputy Chief of Staff, at the State, appear to have committed illegal acts including inter alia bribery, racketeering, and handling over 2,100 classified documents in an unsecured manner, thus violating multiple sections of the Espionage Act.  Numerous State employees, especially Patrick Kennedy, Daniel Smith and Lewis Lukens approved or ignored Hillary Clinton’s and her staff’s use of unsecured computers, cell phones and emails at State.  The Clintons and their Foundation employees have contributed to increased public mistrust, blatantly flouting U.S. laws by allegedly accepting illegal donations (bribes), and by not reporting them.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG), U.S. Department of State (State) did a comprehensive “Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements” dated May 2016.  Secretary Clinton and her aides have boosted the distrust by refusing to answer the IG’s questions about her email system and retention and destruction of records during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

Declining OIG’s requests for interviews (OIG, pp 2&5),  were:

  1. Secretary Clinton;
  2. The Counselor and Chief of Staff to Secretary Clinton (2009-13);
  3. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy to Secretary Clinton (2009-13);
  4. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations to Secretary Clinton (2009-13);
  5. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Communication (2009-13);
  6. The Director of the Office of the Secretary, Executive Secretariat (S/ES) Office of Information Resources (IR) Management (2008-13);
  7. A Special Advisor to the Deputy Chief Information Officer (2009-13) who provided technical support for Secretary Clinton’s personal email system;
  8. A Senior Advisor to the Department, who supervised responses to Congressional inquiries (2014-15);
  9. The Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources (2011-13); and
  10.  An individual based in New York who provided technical support for Secretary Clinton’s personal email system, but who State never employed.

Their refusal to voluntarily testify to the OIG, suggests that they should be charged with the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Public Law 91-452, 18 U.S.C. violations and conspiracy to subvert the law and justice. So I hope you subpoena them and their relevant records.

Violations of the Espionage Act regarding Clinton’s emails are the focus of many people. The focus also should be RICO’s broad definition of 35 crimes and includes the activities of the Clintons and their associates.  Penalties under this law, for each count, range between a fine of $25,000 to 20 years in prison.

The OIG noted, “A March 17, 2009, memorandum prepared by S/ES-IR staff regarding communications equipment in the Secretary’s New York residence identified a server located in the basement.” She used personal email “predominately through mobile devices.” (OIG p. 3) This server and the mobile devices containing classified email records were unsecured, a violation of the Espionage Act and State policy rules.  The OIG reported on p. 23 “Former Secretary Clinton did not use a Department email account and has acknowledged using an email account maintained on a private server for official business.”

The OIG commented further on p. 23:

“…sending emails from a personal account to other employees at their Department accounts is not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record.  Therefore, Secretary Clinton should have preserved any Federal records she created and received on her personal account by printing and filing those records with the related files in the Office of the Secretary.  At a minimum, Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business before leaving government service, and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.” And the OIG added on p. 23:

“Secretary Clinton’s production was incomplete.  For example, the Department and OIG both determined that the production included no email covering the first few months of Secretary Clinton’s tenure… OIG discovered multiple instances in which Secretary Clinton’s personal email account sent and received official business email during this period. For instance, the Department of Defense (DOD) provided to OIG in September 2015 copies of 19 emails between Secretary Clinton and General David Petraeus on his official DOD email account; these 19 emails were not in the Secretary’s 55,000-page production.”

The OIG reported on p. 27:

“The Department’s current policy, implemented in 2005, is that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized Automated Information System (AIS), which ‘has the proper level of security control to…ensure confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the resident information…Among these are requirements for certifying and accrediting information systems, retaining system audit records for monitoring purposes, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring the protection of communications.”

Hillary Clinton and her staff utterly failed in meeting any of these requirements, especially protection of communications.  This endangered the people of the U.S.

By court order, Judicial Watch deposed Lewis A. Lukens on May 18, 2016, in the Justice Department offices.  He was manager of logistics at State for the Secretary, with 110 people reporting to him.  Lukens testified that although he had a security officer in his department, nobody questioned Secretary Clinton about her email use, even though she did not have a secure means of communicating.  It was forbidden to use a wireless computer communication system in her office area, but Lukens saw her using a Blackberry in the hallways and in foreign areas.  This potentially exposed classified data to our enemies, who routinely attempt to hack government sites daily.  He testified that he did not believe State set up a State email address for Mrs. Clinton.  Lukens wrote in an email Cheryl Mills “says the problem is HRC [Hillary Rodham Clinton] does not know how to use a computer to do email, only BB [Blackberry].” If Clinton knew how to use a BB to send email why couldn’t she use a desktop?  What difference is there?  State set up my email address easily and it was simple to maintain.

The OIG reported on p. 29 State’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) in 2009 “prohibits use of personal digital assistants (PDAs) in Department facilities, except for strictly unclassified areas.”  An example the OIG cited as an unclassified area is the cafeteria.  PDAs “could not connect with a Department network except via a Department approved remote-access program, such as Global OpenNet.” (OIG, p. 30) Clinton did not have any approvals for her Blackberry (OIG, p. 36) or use of Global OpenNet.

The Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security (DS) “…sent a classified memorandum to Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff that described the vulnerabilities associated with the use of Blackberry devices and also noted the prohibition on the use of Blackberry devices in sensitive areas.  According to a DS official “Secretary Clinton approached the Assistant Secretary and told him she ‘gets it.’” (OIG, p. 33)

On June 28, 2011, the Department sent a cable “recently, Google asserted that online adversaries are targeting the personal Gmail accounts of U.S. government employees.”  The cable recommended Department users and their family members “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal email accounts.” (OIG, p. 34)

The U.S. government Office of Personnel Management (OPM) notified me my State Department records were hacked and probably copied. OPM offered to pay for my personal accounts to be monitored by a security service.  Over 20 million U.S. government employees and former employees had this experience.  Hacking of many other government departments, including DOD, has been reported extensively in the press.

Hacking of corporate data is widespread.  The Ponemon Institute Research Report published in January 2015 said: “Forty-five percent of respondents report their company had one or more data breaches in the past 24 months.” (p. 8) The Business Institute reported on October 6, 2014, that you said: “There are two kinds of big companies in the U.S.  There are those who’ve been hacked … and there are those who don’t know they’ve been hacked.”

One does not have to be famous to be hacked. My and my wife’s Yahoo accounts were hacked separately by people who used them to send out bogus emails.  The hackers eliminated most of 15 years of my personal emails and many of my contacts.  We reported this to Yahoo security people and arranged for our email addresses and the accounts to be eliminated.

Hacking of Clinton’s email was reported on January 9, 2011 to the Secretary’s Deputy Chief of Operations.  Clinton’s server was shut down.  But contrary to Department regulations and common sense, no report went “to computer security personnel or anyone else within the Department” (OIG, p. 40).  I hope your computer forensic experts can trace how many times Clinton’s unsecured email system was hacked and by whom.

On May 23, 2016, Julian Hattem of The Hill wrote that Marcel Lehel Lazar, aka Guccifer,” who had “access to longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal’s email account, first exposed Clinton’s use of a private email account during her time in office.”  Lazar has been indicted on nine felony counts related to his hacking into accounts of senior U.S. officials and plans to plead guilty. Lazar, a Romanian, claims he broke into Clinton’s unsecured personal email server. Why hasn’t Clinton been indicted for any of the counts cited in this letter?

State intimidated employees from reporting Clinton’s violations of law and State rules.  The Director of Clinton’s staff group stated their mission “is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”  (OIG, p. 40)

Secretary Clinton has said that others did what she did.  The OIG report makes it clear no other Secretary of State used their own server or transmitted or stored classified information in an unclassified environment.  Departmental regulations stated a stand-alone information network, such as a local network or server “were not to be used to carry out Department business or to transmit sensitive but unclassified (SBU) information.” (5 FAM 874.2 of May 4, 2004)

Only two others used non-Departmental email systems (not servers) on an exclusive basis for day-to-day operations:  Colin Powell and Scott Gration. Gration, an ambassador to Kenya, resigned when the Department was considering disciplinary proceedings against him for using of unclassified email systems. (OIG, p. 41)

A violation of a law is still a violation and what others may have done is not an acceptable legal defense.  Being caught driving at 80 miles an hour in a 55 miles an hour zone is not excusable by saying others were driving at 80 miles an hour also.

It was considered illegal for me to take an unapproved computer, cell phone or thumb drive into State and an embassy, even though I had a top secret clearance.  Sensitive information by its nature is classified, even if I or someone else does not write the words “confidential, secret, top secret” and similar designations on a document with classified information.  Anyone removing those designations on a document does not declassify the information.  The intent is immaterial, the act of mishandling documents is a violation of laws.

Laws Violated

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Esq. of Giuliani Partners LLC summarized the following laws violated, according to Sean Hannity on November 13, 2015:

  • 18USC§201   Bribery
  • 18USC§208   Acts Affecting A Personal Financial Interest (Includes Recommendations)
  • 18USC§371   Conspiracy
  • 18USC§1001  False Statements
  • 18USC§1341  Frauds And Swindles (Mail Fraud)
  • 18USC§1343  Fraud By Wire
  • 18USC§1349  Attempt And Conspiracy (To Commit Fraud)
  • 18USC§1505  Obstruction Of Justice
  • 18USC§1519  Destruction (Alteration Or Falsification) Of Records In Federal Investigation
  • 18USC§1621  Perjury (Including Documents Signed Under Penalties Of Perjury)
  • 18USC§1905 Disclosure Of Confidential Information
  • 18USC§1924  Unauthorized Removal And Retention Of Classified Documents Or Material
  • 18USC§2071  Concealment (Removal Or Mutilation) Of Government Records
  • 18USC§7201  Attempt To Evade Or Defeat A Tax (Use Of Clinton Foundation Funds For Personal Or Political Purposes)
  • 18USC§7212  Attempts To Interfere With Administration Of Internal Revenue Laws (Call To IRS On Behalf Of UBS Not Turning Over Accounts To IRS)
  • 18USC1001 Making false statements

The Espionage Act specifies a ten-year jail term for grossly negligent loss or destruction of information relating to national defense, especially in impeding an investigation.  The Clintons’ illegal acts and the lack of prosecution encourage government employees to take bribes, disregard secrecy laws and endanger the security of the U.S. and individual citizens.

Clinton, as Secretary of State, violated The Federal Records Act of 1950. The law requires that “The head of each Federal agency shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.”  (44 U.S.C. Chapter 31, Section 3101).

Secretary Clinton did not preserve records as required under the law and State rules. There are criminal penalties for the unlawful removal or destruction of Federal records (18 U.S.C. 2071 and 36 CFR 1228.102) and the unlawful disclosure of national security information (18 U.S.C. 793, 794, and 798). The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in a December 2004 bulletin stated when officials intermingle their personal and official files they all should be available for review. But Secretary Clinton claimed she deleted roughly 30,000 of her personal files, which she did not submit for review. Each record deletion qualifies as a criminal act.

In 2009 the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) added, “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.” (OIG p. 5) None of Hillary’s records were preserved in State’s record keeping system until two years after she left State and was compelled to surrender copies, but she surrendered only paper copies of only records she deemed official business.

The Foreign Affairs Handbook (FAH) “specifies that departing officials who wish to remove any documents (emphasis added) must prepare an inventory of these personal papers and any non-record materials for review by Department officials.” (OIG p. 17) No inventory was prepared, apparently.

Over ten thousand individual legal criminal counts appear applicable, so the grand jury’s review would take a long time.  This relates not only to multiple violations for the handling of each of over 2,100 classified emails but also for the counts of bribery, racketeering, perjury, lying to law enforcement officials, violations of the Federal Records Act, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.  The Freedom of Information Act was clearly violated.  Most people and journalists forget that Bill Clinton already has been convicted of perjury and had his law license revoked, and participated with Hillary Clinton in multiple illegal events.

Proof of intent to violate the laws is not a requirement for prosecution.  Claiming ignorance of laws is also not an acceptable defense. The violations should be prima facie evidence sufficient to obtain indictments.

Journalists and even most politicians seem too stupid and lazy to look at the wording of applicable laws since they don’t cite or quote the laws.  U.S. Code Title 18 defines (a) Classified information “any information or material that has been determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order, statute, or regulation, to require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security and any restricted data…” and (b) National security “means the national defense and foreign relations of the United States” (emphasis added).

The Espionage Act 18 U.S. Code section 793, for example, is very clear as it applies to Hillary Clinton:

“(c) Whoever…receives or obtains or agrees or attempts to receive from any person, or from any source whatever, any document, writing,. Or note of anything connected with the national defense…;

(d) Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing…or note relating to the national defense…willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated…to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; (emphasis added)

(f) Whoever being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, …note, or information relating to the national defense:

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed (emphasis added); or

(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction or destruction to his superior officer – Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (emphasis added).

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.”

It is clear at least 2,100 classified documents illegally in her possession for over two years, and the balance of unclassified emails was not produced as required by the Freedom of Information Act.  Clinton said she turned over her documents on a thumb drive to her lawyers.  Her lawyers were not authorized to receive the documents.  Clinton also destroyed half of the documents in her possession, roughly 30,000 that were co-mingled with documents she deemed official.  All of the documents should have been turned over to State.  She claimed the classified documents were not marked classified, but it is clear they were “abstracted” within the meaning of the Espionage Act.

Bribery

It is essential to subpoena internal records of U.S. and foreign corporations on why they agreed to give large speaking fees totaling about $115 million to the Clintons and “donations” to the Clinton Foundation and affiliates.  Corporations document who approved these gifts and why.

It appears many of Bill and Hillary’s actions violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq. (“FCPA”).  This involves

“authorization of the payment of money or anything of value to any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to a foreign official to influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an act… to secure any improper advantage in order to assist in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.” “With the enactment of certain amendments in 1998, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA now also apply to foreign firms and persons who cause, directly or through agents, an act in furtherance of such a corrupt payment to take place within the territory of the United States.” (DOJ Overview of the FCPA)

In addition, bribery of any sort is a crime:

“Section 201 of Title 18 is entitled “Bribery of public officials and witnesses.” The statute comprises two distinct offenses, however, and in common parlance only the first of these is true “bribery.” The first offense, codified in section 201(b), prohibits the giving or accepting of anything of value to or by a public official, if the thing is given “with intent to influence” an official act, or if it is received by the official “in return for being influenced.” The second offense, codified in section 201(c), concerns what are commonly known as “gratuities,” although that word does not appear anywhere in the statute. Section 201(c) prohibits that same public official from accepting the same thing of value, if he does so “for or because of” any official act, and prohibits anyone from giving any such thing to him for such a reason.”  (U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, Criminal Resource Manual 2000-2500)

The gratuities are large speaking fees given Bill and Hillary Clinton and payments to the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Global Initiative and other affiliates by foreign governments, foreign individuals, multi-national organizations and banks, public charities and public universities, in return for access and favors.

The criminal penalties differ between a bribe and a gratuity:

“A § 201(b) “bribe” conviction is punishable by up to 15 years in prison, while a § 201(c) “gratuity” conviction permits only a maximum 2-year sentence. Also, with a “bribe” the payment may go to anyone or anything and may include campaign contributions, while with a “gratuity” the payment must inure to the personal benefit of the public official and cannot include campaign contributions.” (Ibid)

The Clinton Foundation website presents one page of financial statements, but it does not disclose who did the audit or presentation details required for audits by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for non-profits.  I am familiar with these requirements because I was the V.P. for finance of the 501(c)(3) Student Conservation Association.

According to an analysis on 27 April 2015 by Sean Davis of the Federalist Society, based on IRS form 990 filings “Between 2011 and 2013, the organization spent only 9.9 percent of the $252 million it collected on direct charitable grants.” “The Clinton Foundation announced last week that it would be refiling its tax returns for the last five years because it had improperly failed to disclose millions of dollars in donations from foreign sources while Hillary Clinton was serving as Secretary of State.”

The book Clinton Cash provides more comprehensive documentation of bribes accepted by and given by the Clintons.  However, the following is one matter in which I have some expertise.

Bribery to give the Russians 20% of U.S. uranium.

One of the most blatant incidents of bribery to the Clintons is the sale of about 20% of U.S. uranium to the Russians through Uranium One.  See Schweizer, Clinton Cash, p. 41. He provides excellent details in his book, of the sordid sell-out of U.S. uranium. The Russians’ speaking fee of $500,000 to Bill Clinton and millions of dollars of contributions to the Clinton Foundation and Canadian affiliate are beyond all reason and precedent.  Clearly the Russian, Kazakhstan and U.S. governments, Frank Giustra and the Clintons conspired through bribery illegally to turn over the Wyoming property and other uranium properties ultimately to the Russians and to export uranium ore (carnotite) illegally out of the U.S.

“Giustra gave the Clinton Foundation $31.3 million” (Schweizer, p. 31).  Also, “Giustra announced a multiyear commitment to donate $100 million, and half of his future profits, to the Clinton Foundation…” (ibid, p. 34).  “The collective commitments and donations from investors who profited from the deal would ultimately exceed $145 million.” (ibid, p. 35)

Years ago I staked some claims on the 293,000 acres of the Uranium One Wyoming property.  My work in Wyoming as a geologist with others led to the conviction and imprisonment of at least two Atomic Energy Commission employees. They falsified data to be able to buy nearby properties at a deeply discounted price.

I dealt with Russia and Russian companies for many years and complained to State about money laundering through Cyprus to no avail.  I was very familiar with the wide-spread corruption in the Kazakh tyranny while I was with Mobil Oil.

Judicial Watch filed on October 21, 2015, a FOIA lawsuit seeking information on the Uranium One deal “seeking communications between the U.S. Department of the Treasury” and Hillary Clinton.  It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:15-cv-01776).  It appears the Committee on Foreign Investments (CFIUS) was not informed of the fees and donations the Clintons and their foundations received, and approved the deal in 52 days, instead of the required 72-day review and approval period.  I also filed a FOIA request for information relating to this uranium deal with CFIUS.

State conflict of interest rules and security laws.

As a State employee, I would have been punished if I even accepted a lunch from someone with a financial interest in what I was doing.  The punishment would have been severe if I even wrote by hand on a pad even a paragraph from a classified document because the impression of the paragraph was not properly secured in a safe or destroyed. Indeed, the writing on the paper would not have needed to have any words such as confidential, secret, or top secret.

The word “classified” alone on a document has no meaning, contrary to Hillary Clinton’s statements that none of the documents used the word “classified.”  The words “confidential, secret and top secret” are used to indicate the classification of a document.   If someone on Hillary Clinton’s staff wanted to copy parts of a secure document, it would have been easy to type or scan excerpts and illegally distribute them unsecured without the appropriate secrecy designation.  Such copying would not have changed the secrecy rating, but would have been illegal.

The State Department lies about unsecured emails

When State officials lied to Federal Judge Rudolph Contreras about not having copies of emails from Hillary Clinton and her aides, it was perjury and lying to public officials.  The emails that have finally been made public show that many State employees received emails from Hillary Clinton, including her staff using the address “clintonemail.com” as well as other addresses.  State apparently made no effort to have employees search for any emails sent from clintonemail.com.

Apparent bribery through the Clinton Foundation et al.,

Judicial Watch reported one of their: “…lawsuits in which the Clinton email system is at issue forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.  Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran, among others.”

Thank you for considering my comments.

Respectfully,

Thomas Lambert Cranmer

FOLLOW US
Facebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinyoutubeFacebooktwittergoogle_pluslinkedinyoutube


Categories: Latest News