A Gawker reporter pawed through some of Hillary’s emails (released via a Gawker Freedom of Information Act request filed in 2012) and discovered some messages between Clinton consigliere Philippe Reines and Ambinder regarding an important policy speech in 2009.
In these emails, we get a glimpse of the sort of “quid pro quo” between powerful Democrats and their toadies in the media, that goes on probably a lot more frequently than we would like to admit.
In exchange for early access to a policy speech that Hillary gave, Ambinder was asked to describe said speech as “muscular” in his write-up and also mention the heavy-hitters sitting in the front row of the audience.
From: [Philippe Reines]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15 2009 10:06 AM
To: Ambinder, Marc
Subject: Re: Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?
3 [conditions] actually
1) You in your own voice describe them as “muscular”
2) You note that a look at the CFR seating plan shows that all the envoys — from Holbrooke to Mitchell to Ross — will be arrayed in front of her, which in your own clever way you can say certainly not a coincidence and meant to convey something
3) You don’t say you were blackmailed!
One minute later, Ambinder responded:
From: Ambinder, Marc
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 10:07 AM
To: Philippe Reines
Subject: RE: Do you have a copy of HRC’s speech to share?
Ambinder made good on his word. The opening paragraph of the article he wrote later that day, under the headline “Hillary Clinton’s ‘Smart Power’ Breaks Through,” precisely followed Reines’ instructions:
When you think of President Obama’s foreign policy, think of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That’s the message behind a muscular speech that Clinton is set to deliver today to the Council on Foreign Relations. The staging gives a clue to its purpose: seated in front of Clinton, subordinate to Clinton, in the first row, will be three potentially rival power centers: envoys Richard Holbrooke and George Mitchell, and National Security Council senior director Dennis Ross.
And that’s how it works, folks.
That question has been answered thanks to the belated
State Department document dump that was executed in the middle of the night.
Among this latest tranche of Hillary’s emails, Fox News picked up on
a significant exchange that is –let’s just say — highly problematic.
The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton’s personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday. In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels. Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account. The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent. However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means. In response to Clinton’s request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, “They say they’ve had issues sending secure fax. They’re working on it.” Clinton responds “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was “surprised” that a diplomatic officer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.
Hillary, of course, as Secretary of State, had been explicitly instructed by the State Department on the correct procedures for disseminating secure information.
Mrs. Clinton may have been especially “surprised” at Godfrey’s actions because they came after
she’d been issued a dire warning
that foreign entities were aggressively targeting State Department officials’ personal, unsecure email accounts. But lest you need reminding, Hillary Clinton exclusively
used such accounts to conduct all of her official business — via an improper, unsecure, private server — before and after this urgent red flag was brought to her attention.
(2) “Clinton…has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account.” This assertion has been disproven by the more than 1,000 classified emails discovered on her private server, including 66 additions from this batch alone. Her myriad excuses for this have been debunked piece by piece.
(3) Her final justification — which is legally irrelevant, as Hillary herself has personally attested — is that none of the sensitive material that she wrongfully transmitted through her unsecure server was “marked classified” at the time. Again, this is meaningless, especially when it comes to highly secret material that she was obligated to recognize and protect as soon as it was produced. But the email chain referenced above includes an instruction from Hillary Clinton to a State Department aide (who now works on her campaign) to strip classified information — it remains redacted to this day — of its classified markings [“identifying heading”] and “send nonsecure.”
Only one such email was found, but note her “matter-of-fact” attitude. This has all the appearance of standard operating procedure for her.
Hillary is so busted.
The only questions now are whether Comey’s recommendation to indict will be heeded by Loretta Lynch, and whether she will continue running even if indicted. There are different opinions on that.
The question of whether or not Hillary Clinton signed an exit statement saying she turned over all of her public information to the State Department when she departed, is now dogging Hillary Clinton when ventures out in public.
Fox News’ Ed Henry tried to pry an answer from her on Monday, but she rushed right past him, refusing to even acknowledge the question.
Bill O’Reilly said he was confused as to why she wouldn’t answer the question and the State Department is stonewalling.
Here’s another question, Bill said, “who is telling Miss Psaki to stonewall. Somebody is. John Kerry’s in charge, but he’s negotiating nukes with the Iranians. Why would he care about the exit document? I mean – this is so strange…everybody KNOWS the State Department is dodging. Why are they doing it?”
Excellent question. Not that we will ever be given an answer.
O’Reilly noted that the way they’re handling this issue is similar to the Bowe Bergdahl situation. “Everybody knows, the Army knows exactly what Bergdahl did in Afghanistan,” O’Reilly explained. “So why delay the announcement? The fallout is going to be the same whether it’s now or in two months. Why embarrass a proud institution like the Army by playing games?”
“None of this makes any sense at all,” he continued.
“She either signed it or she didn’t! So say it, already!”
“All of this is insulting to we the people,” he added. “I’m teed off here – this game playing at our expense is horrendous!”