What About Hillary’s E-mails, Mr. Comey?

If anyone could shed some light on the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigations, it would be former FBI director James Comey. After all, he not only headed these investigations, he also wrote a tell-all book about his experiences in Trumplandia and his subsequent firing by Trump in 2017.

His book A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership just came out this week. So I haven’t started reading it yet. That’s why I can’t in good conscience review it yet. When book reviewers “review” books they haven’t actually read or haven’t yet finished reading they’re engaging in special kind of dishonesty. But such unethical practices go on all the time. Readers might be surprised at the sheer volume of books that have been reviewed without ever being read.

What’s happening now, though, is that everyone seems to “know” what Comey has written in A Higher Loyalty. Thanks to pre-publication leaks, excerpts from his book have been published and already discussed on various cable news programs. Comey himself gave an interview on ABC-TV that aired on Sunday, days before the official publication date of Tuesday, April 17th. He also gave another interview with the ladies of The View on Wednesday, April 18th. And yet, conspicuously absent in this media blitz was insightful clarification about the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigations.

Somehow, vital information that might have led to further understanding has gotten lost. Why? What Happened?

Certainly, during one of these interviews, Comey could have easily mentioned something about the bureau’s investigative M.O. without divulging any deep dark classified secrets or violating any federal laws. I know he could have because I’ve already studied the procedure and written about it in 2016. And journalists could have legally and ethically asked Comey about his directives and M.O.’s, too. Or, at least offered some op-eds about this process — as I did two years ago.

So far, no one has exhibited any curiosity or attempted any clarification on the matter —and they should have. Both James Comey AND the media should have. But they never did.

Based on everything I’ve read and studied about this case, I’ve concluded something about Hillary Clinton and her e-mails that they’ve failed to vigorously address. It’s something no one else seemed to realize, either.

I’m convinced that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State she communicated unclassified information in her e-mails. Then after she left office, the mundane info she’d handled suddenly got recategorized into “classified information.”

For reasons I don’t quite understand, I seem to be the only American citizen wondering about this matter — and seriously considering this realization about Hillary’s e-mails.

On July 12, 2016, I posted an opinion piece in The Richfield Patch called “Smearboating Hillary with Media Distortions.” In it, I raised questions about defining and interpreting classified information. Here’s an excerpt from that piece:

“…The real problem here is that government classification of classified information is a highly arbitrary, subjective ongoing process.

In other words, determining which materials are classified and which ones aren’t depends a lot on who’s doing the classifying.

So one government official might label something as “classified,” while another government official might decide that the same thing is “non-classified.” Furthermore, something that is considered “classified” today might easily be “de-classified” tomorrow. Or something that is now considered “non-classified” might someday become “classified.”

Just as there are various levels of clearance for State Department employees, there are also different levels of classification for various materials. Classified information includes not only paper but photographs, maps, motion pictures, CD’s, videotapes, microfilms, as well as databases and hard drives. TOP SECRET, SECRET, CONFIDENTIAL — sometimes a fine line exists between all these categories.

Consider this text Hillary Clinton might have sent to her husband: “Running late. Reception at FR embassy in OT. Will meet U at R’s Cafe around 8.”

Would that message be classified information?

Most people would probably say no. And yet, a hacker would be able to learn a lot about this Secretary of State’s schedule. He would know that she was delayed at the French Embassy and also know when and where she’d be having dinner with the former U.S. President. Then again, would such mundane info really be considered a threat to National Security?

So it’s highly possible that Hillary actually believed — and was correct in believing — that she’d never sent or received any classified information. Why? Because at the time, such information now in question might NOT have been considered classified…”

***

But even earlier, on May 31, 2016, I posted another op-ed with The Richfield Patch about the retroactive timeline that Hillary’s detractors had used to establish her criminal activity

In a piece entitled “Swiftboating Hillary — Without a Swift Boat,” I questioned the numerous accusations launched from GOP accusers and their supporters, like FOX NOOZ. Here’s a pertinent passage from that op-ed:

“…According to news media and nearly all the Republicans on Capitol Hill, Secretary Clinton broke the law. She violated the Federal Records Act. They’re leaving out some important details, though. They’re not telling you that the Federal Records Act was passed by Congress on September 10, 2014, and signed into law by President Obama on November 26, 2014.

And when was Hillary Clinton Secretary of State? She became Secretary in February, 2009, and resigned on February 1, 2013, on the same day John Kerry became new Secretary of State. That means that Hillary left office nearly 2 years BEFORE the Federal Records Act became law.

That means that these laws she allegedly violated were literally not in existence during her 5 years of service. That means that her detractors are so determined to keep her from being elected President that they’re using laws that weren’t even around when she served as Secretary of State!That means they really ARE out to get her.

Whatever your political affiliations are, you’ll have to admit this kind of character assassination is pretty extreme…”

Whatever your political affiliations are, you’ll have to admit that depicting her as Secretary of State-gone-rogue defies common sense. There’s no way she could have devised her own complex communication system in the way her opponents have charged without any knowledge or support or approval from the government. There’s no way she could have set up such a system, either, without necessary government clearance. Could it be then that those critics fuming over her improper use of technology are themselves tech-impaired?

Possibly. What’s more likely is that these anti-Hillaryites are so entrenched in their own witch hunt that they no longer know what they’re criticizing. Not only did Hillary inquire about combining her personal and professional communications into one system, she actually got approval from the federal government to do so. The approval came in 2009 when she initially became Secretary of State…”

***

Although I haven’t finished reading his book, I haven’t heard Comey clarify very much about his investigations of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails in his interviews. I haven’t heard any discussion that might have answered questions I specifically raised in my 2016 op-eds, either. I’m hoping that he — or the media — will be shedding more light on this subject sometime soon.

When you write a tell-all book and then promote it as extensively as Comey has, you’d better relate all the information you can possibly give. You can’t just omit the important details that might make you look bad…Otherwise, the fascists have won.