“THE STAKES ARE TOO HIGH”
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2016
(Oct. 20, 2016) — The overwhelming stench of the ongoing cover-up by the Usurper at 1600 (“BHO”) and Hillary Rotten Clinton (“HRC”) grows more pungent and toxic with each passing day. And yet the mainstream media, again led by the Gray Trollop in New York and the Washington Post in the District of Columbia, continue to trumpet the virtues, impeccable qualifications and credentials of HRC over her opponent.
Meanwhile, roving bands of Blue-state Brownshirts trash Trump supporter cars, firebomb GOP facilities in North Carolina and shatter the windows of a GOP office in Indiana, reminding one on a smaller scale the events of Kristallnacht in Nazi Germany, November 9-10, 1938. One is tempted to ask: who, exactly, are the victims here; and who are the Nazis?
A semi-complicit mainstream media, of course, issues its standard “tsk-tsk” editorials, then returns to bashing Trump and lauding Little Rock’s most accomplished congenital liar. This practice used to be simply called “yellow journalism.” Recently, however, the mainstream media has refined its modus operandi into pure editorialized propaganda. Rest assured, this was not what was intended when the Founders adopted the First Amendment. But to quote HRC: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Your humble servant’s obligatory denigration of the mainstream media segment of this post now completed, let us turn to substance.
We now learn from the most recent release of an additional 100 pages of interview notes from the FBI that, during the “investigation” by that once-respected agency of the HRC private computer server and the tens of thousands of e-mails kept on it, a single e-mail in particular attracted the attention of one Mr. Patrick K. Kennedy. Kennedy was another HRC flack, serving as the State Department Under Secretary of State for Management.
Specifically, in its interview on a [redacted] date at a [redacted] location, the FBI questioned [redacted]. See FBI Notes, Clinton Investigation, Part 4 of 4, .pdf at p. 28. It is believed that the individual being interviewed was another FBI official, one Brian McCauley. That individual (presumably Mr. McCauley) worked in the International Operations Division of the FBI.
He told the FBI agents who were interviewing him that Kennedy wanted “a favor” and his “assistance” in persuading the FBI to alter the classification on a particular e-mail which was being included in its “investigation” of whether HRC violated federal law with regard to her unauthorized private computer server and e-mails stored thereon.
To “sweeten the deal,” Kennedy “intimated” to Mr. McCauley that if the classification alteration could be done, the FBI might just be the beneficiary of State Department authorization for more FBI personnel in foreign countries.
The State Department and the FBI, of course, deny that any such “quid pro quo” was involved. I mean, “quid pro quo” or “pay to play” in a matter involving HRC? Seriously? In any event, Kennedy’s request for the alteration of the e-mail’s classification was denied, likely before FBI Director James Comey ever got wind of Kennedy’s request. Had that occurred, a different result might well have happened.
But wait… there’s more.
The individual (presumably McCauley) learned from a discussion with [redacted # 2] that “the e-mail of Kennedy’s concern was classified by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division (CTD) and was related to the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi .” (Emphasis added). See FBI Notes, id., .pdf at p. 29. He also stated that in the conversation he had with Kennedy, a specific request was made by Kennedy to change the classification of certain information in the e-mail from “classified” to “B9.”
He also confirmed that Kennedy told him that if the e-mail were to be reclassified to “B9” – the “B9” reference being interpreted by the FBI through its own bracketed insertion as presumably relating to the exemption from Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(9) – it would allow Kennedy “to archive the document in the basement of DoS [Department of State] never to be seen again.” (Emphasis added).
“Never to be seen again?” Really? What could possibly have been so radioactive in an e-mail relating to “the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi?” Curiously, keep in mind that the FOIA exemption provision in 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(9) exempts from disclosure “geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.”
Hmmmm… what information in an e-mail originally classified by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division might be both (a) related to the attacks of September 11-12, 2012 on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and (b) descriptive of “geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells?” Plainly, if Kennedy could have sought reclassification of the e-mail under one or more of the eight (8) other exempting subparagraphs of the statute, why was he focusing only on subsection (b)(9)? There is no immediate or apparent explanation, other than ones based on speculation premised in turn on available information. So let us proceed to speculate.
First, it is clear that Kennedy was seeking the re-classification in order to ensure that the e-mail would be archived “in the basement of DoS, never to be seen again.” When Kennedy uses terminology like that, it is normally not suggestive of HRC’s secret yoga positions or wedding plans contained in an e-mail. Those might be disgusting or embarrassing, but not exactly “terroristic.”
On the other hand, an e-mail referencing elements of a scheme to allow a structured kidnapping of an American ambassador for future political gain in a swap for an imprisoned Islamic terrorist in North Carolina….just might qualify as an e-mail that some people – oh, like, say… HRC and BHO – would want buried so deep it would never again see the light of day. If an e-mail has escaped BleachBit assassination, its printed paper twin must be either destroyed (a violation of the Federal Records Act, 44 U.S.C. §§ 3101, et seq.) or put away for good, “never to be seen again.”
Second, although it is not known who authored the e-mail, who the recipient was or the date of the document, we do know that HRC and the Usurper at 1600 exchanged at least 18 separate e-mails between one another, to and from her private computer server and that BHO occasionally used a pseudonym in one or more of them. BHO’s claim that he only learned of HRC’s unauthorized computer server when everyone else learned about it in the news was – let us be polite here – manifestly and demonstrably untrue.
Third, we also know that it was not uncommon for HRC and others, presumably including the usurper, to communicate in coded terms when composing their e-mails. See FBI Clinton Interview Notes, HRC July 2, 2016, interview at 7. That being the case, one is free to speculate further that the e-mail which Kennedy wanted the FBI to alter in terms of its “classified” status to a FOIA “B9” so he could “deep-six” it may have used coded terms intended to camouflage the suspected abduction plan… perhaps even using “geological and geophysical” terms. The one thing that was apparently not coded was the word “Benghazi.”
Fourth, assuming the matters set out in the foregoing three points to be possible – not “incontrovertible” or “positively,” but potentially true based on empirical evidence – might such an e-mail between BHO and HRC have cryptically stated: “The Benghazi well was dry, so no water could be recovered or delivered. Fallout will be bad, since the stand-down order was ignored and the plan went south from there. We need to blame the internet video, and we need to do that now. Make it so.”
Far-fetched? Perhaps. Impossible? Not at all. Those who thirst for power are capable of doing many evil and even criminal things. And when they get caught, they frequently try to evade responsibility and accountability by doing equally evil and criminal things, including destroying evidence or hiding it with the goal of it never again seeing the light of day.
Memo to the electorate: you can ignore these hypotheticals, but you do so at your peril. You also do so at the peril of the nation. HRC should not be the next commander-in-chief if anything close to the hypothetical e-mails discussed here either exists or at one time existed. The stakes are too high. And if you don’t like either candidate, take a look at this post which, although not originating at The P&E, articulates some salient points to consider as November 8 approaches: Vote carefully.