Judge Orders Discovery Process Begin For Clinton’s Private Email System

New evidence could derail Clinton campaign

Judge indicated his pique at the pace that the State Department and Clinton associates have been turning over evidence, and it seems that he is at the end of his patience.

“There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop?” Sullivan said, “This case is about the public’s right to know.”

In granting [plaintiff] Judicial Watch’s request, Sullivan said that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy created “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined.

Sullivan set an April 12 deadline for parties to litigate a detailed investigative plan–subject to court approval–that would reach well beyond the limited and carefully worded explanations of the use of the private server that department and Clinton officials have given.

Sullivan also suggested from the bench that he might at some point order the department to subpoena Clinton and Abedin to return all emails related to Clinton’s private account, not just records their camps previously deemed work-related and returned.

Sullivan said the State Department’s inspector general last month faulted the department and Clinton’s office for overseeing processes that repeatedly allowed “inaccurate and incomplete” FOIA responses, including a May 2013 reply that found “no records” concerning email accounts Clinton used, even though dozens of senior officials had corresponded with her private account.

The FBI and the department’s inspector general are continuing to look into whether the private setup mishandled classified information or violated other federal laws.

The State Department has been releasing Clinton’s newly recovered correspondence in batches since last summer with a final set due Monday.

Meanwhile, former Clinton department aides Mills, Abedin, Jacob Sullivan and Philippe Reines have returned tens of thousands of pages of documents to the department for FOIA review, with releases projected to continue into at least 2017.

The State Department is still arguing that the FOIA does not require the release of documents described as “self-selected” personal emails from their government accounts which are not under the agencies control. Clinton’s political handlers have recently claimed that the search and directives from Judge Sullivan are the result of a “right-wing distraction” in order to derail Clinton’s presidential campaign, which seems especially amusing given that the jurist was appointed by her husband, former president Clinton, in 1994.

Sullivan’s decision will almost certainly extend through Election Day an inquiry that has dogged Clinton’s campaign, frustrating allies and providing fodder to Republican opponents.

When the search began, Clinton initially declared that all pertinent government emails had been “wiped” from the server in spite of a federal requirement that all work related documents be saved. Then a backup was found, and Clinton claimed that emails were only non-sensitive missives of little importance. Over the months, as batches of emails have been released, it was actually discovered that well over a thousand emails were classified as top secret, and some beyond that to a special category called “special access program” (SAP) or super secret. The release of even one of these documents to a non-approved source would ordinarily be worthy of serious jail time, yet Clinton remains free even from indictment, at least for the moment.

“There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material,” a former senior law enforcement with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures told Fox News. “It is the most sensitive of the sensitive.”

Executive Order 13526 — called “Classified National Security Information” and signed Dec. 29, 2009 — sets out the legal framework for establishing special access programs. The order says the programs can only be authorized by the president, “the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each.”

The programs are created when “the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” and “the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved,” it states.

According to court documents, former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding “unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling … could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.” Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.

The strategy by the Clinton organization now seems to be to claim that this is a Republican effort to discredit her rather than a serious breach of national security. It is reminiscent of her claim so many years ago that charges of husband Bill’s dalliance with a young White House intern and his perjury before Congress were merely demonstrations of a “right wing conspiracy” rather than something of substance.

It appears that Hillary Clinton will continue to claim ignorance of the importance and classification of the communications, and that it is nothing more than a politically motivated witch-hunt to discredit her. The question remains whether the strong push by the Democrat party to exonerate her of any wrongdoing will once again save her from judgement and responsibility.

It is also hard to believe that the Democrat party and Clinton supporters are willing to overlook and ignore her willingness to lie and to break the law with such hubris. She is still the front runner and the leading representative of her party, an indication of the level of cynicism and desire for power at any cost that exists within the party.

The larger question is what happens if she is indicted and also selected by the people to be their candidate for president. The dilemma is astonishing and delicious, and should provide an interesting election season as the FBI and the Justice Department decide what to do next.

Source: washingtonpost.com