My position is that I want the US government to respond to every “hack” by a foreign government with a cyber attack of their own – and not a proportional attack; a very disproportional attack, a YUGE attack. I do not in any way condone Russians interfering with our elections whether I like the election result or not.
However, before we leave the 2016 election and the noise from the Democrat Party, let’s do a “fact check.”
[Source: The Russia hacking report is an indictment of Obama, not Trump, by Mark A. Thiessen]
Americans reached their conclusions about Secretary Clinton before WikiLeaks first began publishing hacked emails (whether or not Russia was the source). It was none other than the New York Times that broke the story that Clinton used a private server while she was secretary of state.
She then had a news conference in which virtually every word that came out of her mouth was a lie. It was not WikiLeaks that proved each of those lies, it was the FBI! (Footnote)
Wikileaks only confirmed that even Hillary’s own campaign team was terrified about potential perceptions of her activities with the Clinton foundation. However, It wasn’t WikiLeaks that “broke the story.” It was The Washington Post (Pravda on the Potomac) that revealed the Clinton Foundation had accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state.
It was WikiLeaks and the Russians!!!! Oops, no again. It was the Wall Street Journal that exposed the deal Clinton had cut with a Swiss bank to protect tax-dodging Americans while the bank gave $1.5 million in speaking fees to Bill Clinton and $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
And it was the Democrat Party sycophants at ABC News (and not the Russians or Wikileaks) that revealed that the Clinton State Department gave special treatment to “FOBs” (friends of Bill) and “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) after the Haiti earthquake.
And let us not forget Huma Abedin’s husband whose computer was seized during a completely unrelated investigation that showed, as REPORTED BY NBC News – not WikiLeaks – that the FBI had discovered emails that appeared to be germane to the Clinton email scandal on his computer.
And it wasn’t Julian Assange but the FBI Director who told the American people that Clinton had been “extremely careless” and the “definition of negligent” in handling classified information.
By the time Clinton was officially nominated at the Democrat Convention a CNN poll taken July 13-16 (WikiLeaks did not post their first purloined email until July 22) found that 65 percent of voters said Clinton was neither honest nor trustworthy and that 57 percent would not be proud to have her as president.
So did Russia mess with us? Absolutely. Did they ruin Clinton’s reputation. Clearly the answer is, “No!”
Footnote (Gowdy was a former Federal Prosecutor):
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her classified email, was that true?
COMEY: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
GOWDY: …Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received, was that true?
COMEY: That’s not true…
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material,” was that true?
COMEY: There was classified material emailed.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said she used just one device, was that true?
COMEY: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department, was that true?
COMEY: No, we found work-related emails–thousands–that were not returned.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account, was that true?
COMEY: …There’s no doubt there were work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive, did her lawyers read the email content individually?
GOWDY: …I’m going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements — they are used for what?
COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
GOWDY: Exactly. Intent, and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?
GOWDY: Consciousness of guilt, and intent. In your old job, you would prove intent, as you just referenced, by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record. And you would be arguing, in addition to concealment, the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent.
You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme: when it started, when it ended, and the number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified. You would argue all of that under the heading of intent.
You would also probably, under “common scheme or plan,” argue the “burn bags” of daily calendar entrees, or the missing daily calendar entrees as a common scheme or plan to conceal.