aside The Final Definitive Explanation About Hillary Clinton’s Email Scandals

Hillary Clinton checks her messages upon departure from Malta for the as-yet-undisclosed location, Tripoli, Oct. 18, 2011.
Diana Walker for TIME

In long past blogs, I have been arguing that the former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton’s supposed email scandal, based on when she served in this post from 2009-2013, was blown way out of proportion to what it should have been. While it was a news worthy story, the amount of coverage was way over the top. AND then it was fueled by the news media frequently printing headline stories about her emails, in collusion with Russia’s and WikiLeaks’ well timed leaks of stolen emails regarding Mrs. Clinton and other democratic officials, without the appropriate context and/ or caveat of how the material was obtained. These were news items which constantly haunted the democratic candidate Mrs. Clinton throughout her 2015-2016 presidential campaign.

It didn’t help that the democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton initially avoided the press when pressed with questions by reporters about the email issue, and then when she did try to explain, she never presented an easy to understand accounting of what and how her emails were handled.

Doug Mills—The New York Times/Redux

The Clinton email debacle propped up again at the 5/2/17 US Senate Intelligence hearing where the senators were asking questions of the FBI Director James Comey over his gratuitous statement that some of the newly discovered Hillary Clinton’s emails which was the basis of his October 28, 2016 controversial letter, included classified material (100S OF THOUSANDS) which had been sent by Mrs. Clinton’s aid to her husband, Anthony Weiner’s computer. This comment invoked inquiries by the senators as to why this wasn’t considered criminal activity.

Later on 5/8/17, the FBI issued a letter that the FBI Director James Comey had in fact, mispoke. As per a 5/8/17 ProPublica article by Peter Elkind, “The (FBI) bureau addressed the matter in a two-page letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee from its congressional liaison, explaining that it was “intended to supplement” Comey’s testimony, by providing “the full context of what was reviewed and found on the laptop. In it, the FBI acknowledged that only a “small number” of more than 49,000 “potentially relevant” emails found on Weiner’s laptop had been forwarded from Clinton deputy Huma Abedin to Weiner, her husband, not hundreds or thousands as Comey had stated. The FBI said just 2 of those messages contained classified information.”

Here is the rest of the story…

What the FBI Director Comey has never explained well to anyone’s satisfaction, is how the system works within the state department. If I could request just one thing of news reporters and /or US House representatives, it would be for them to find and interview a current or recently separated state department employee, to verify for themselves what the real story is regarding the Clinton’s email saga.

The mail, data, whatever correspondence comes into the state department is reviewed and then separated by experienced eyes into classified data and non classified material. This is why documents, as per standard procedure, require the heading “CLASSIFIED,” at the top in bold letters.

Benjamin Lowy for TIME
Benjamin Lowy for TIME

THE NON CLASSIFIED MATERIAL is what the former secretary of state and her aid were dealing with through whatever computer system was used at the state department for non classified data. Nothing they received, responded to or forwarded, was supposed to be of a classified nature.

And if an audit were to be done before Hillary Clinton took office (2009-2013) and afterwards, there would be similar number of mistakes as what Director Comey reported for Mrs. Clinton’s work product. There would still be classified data slipping through with the non classified material that should have been appropriately separated out and marked “classified” at the start. That is why a small percentage of these documents are retroactively marked as “classified.”

What Mr. Comey discovered after reviewing all of her emails was about 110 out of thousands that should have been marked “classified’ and 3 which were not headed with the word “classified” at the top of the page but there was a “C” in the body of the document.

This is why, the FBI Director Comey was never in a position to prove INTENT TO PASS CLASSIFIED DATA to anyone not cleared to view it, which is a requisite standard to criminally charge anyone. The question he should be asked, is what steps has his office and/ or the state department have taken to improve the state department’s rate of accuracy in dividing correspondence between that which is classified and that which isn’t?

Hillary Clinton campaigning in the N.H. presidential primary at Winnacunnet High School, in Hampton, N.H., on Feb. 3, 2016.
James Nachtwey for TIME

Incidentally, the government server that Secretary Hillary Clinton and her aid were expected to use was not a secure system and never has been.  Also, it has been hacked successfully on more than one occasion in recent times, including by the Russians.

And contrary to the FBI Director Comey’s assertions, I can state with 100% confidence that the Russians did not hack into Mrs. Clinton’s private server, because they definitely would have shared her personal emails if they had possession of them. Those emails have never been produced which is absolute proof that they did not penetrate her private server.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
Charles Krupa—AP

Plus, at the time when Mrs. Clinton was serving as secretary of state from 2009-2013, nothing was codified into law until late 2014, which would have prevented her from using a private server. as her predecessors have admitted to doing. Thus, the only way, the FBI Director Comey could have criminally charged Mrs. Clinton, is if she ever lied to the FBI, which of course, she did not.

As per an 11/7/16 ABC News report, “President Obama signed the Federal Records Act into law in late November 2014, requiring the head of each agency (including the state department) to “make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures and essential transactions of the agency.”



  1. Bottom line why Hillary lost the election – she’s not very well liked by the public, presents a very cold and calculating image that does not endear her to the masses. Also she made many political enemies over the course of her career, who would gladly attack her at every opportunity.

    It also doesn’t help that she keeps getting in hot water with her shady actions, ie Benghazi, Chinagate, Email-gate, Filegate, Gift-gate, Pardongate, Pedogate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Clinton Foundation, Pay for Play, and she even had a role in the original Watergate!

    With a track record like that, is it any wonder that she’s not exactly the trustworthy/ innocent type. It is my conclusion that DDT won by default, not b/c the majority of Americans believed in him, they just voted against Hillary and the corruption she represented.
    Don’t get me wrong, DDT is just as corrupt in his business dealings, if not more. Only now are all his foibles revealed for all to see.

    The really sad part is the DNC stole the primary from Bernie Sanders, who was the overwhelming favorite heading into this election. I know he would have captured the “undecided” voters, beating Trump handily.

    In good conscience, I had to boycott this election, as did an overwhelming number of citizens b/c we did not want to support a system that allowed two of the WORST unpresidential-like candidates in the history of the US. This is not a choice, it’s a lose-lose situation for everyone, and as usual the American ppl gets screwed every time. I only hope the French get a fair shake, and elect a better leader this Sunday.


    • Could Bernie have beaten tRump? Some people assume he could, but others who are more open eyed think not. ( )! You do realize that your first link was to a writer who is very heavily vested in the conservative movement, and the second is a conservative driven anti Clinton site, right? While I would have preferred to have someone different on the ticket for the Democrats, I knew to vote for one of the none electable candidates that I would be probably casting a vote indirectly for the tRump. I voted for Mz. Clinton, in hopes of the party could find a better candidate for 2020… I knew that if elected she would accomplish very little due to the division within the party and the hatred of the right wing of this nation, but I was willing to accept nothing happening in the hope we could find more qualified people In the near future.

      Liked by 1 person

      • You may very well be right Crusty, those are valid points the writer brought up, and Bernie may not beat Trump in the end… but I’m betting he had a much better chance than Hillary. The email scandal, FBI investigation and WikiLeaks revelations put the nail in her coffin. At least Bernie had a fighting chance b/c he’s relatively clean, compared to pussy-grabbing, foul mouth, misogynist Trump – he’s a veritable saint!

        Yes I do realize the first site is alt-right and biased, but that does not mean they’re all lies. Plenty of skeletons in old Hillary’s closet, the fact that she’s not in jail proves how formidable a political animal she is. Fact is – the American ppl just don’t trust her, which makes her unelectable. Should we as voters choose her as the lesser of two evils, I’m not so sure.

        As for the second site, Washington Post is most certainly not anti-Clinton news media, just the opposite in fact. WaPo is decidely leftist bias publication, even they have to acknowledge the truth sometimes – Hillary is simply corrupt! What other Presidential couple stole hundreds of thousands worth of furniture, art, fixtures etc upon departing the White house? Jeezus, how disgustingly low can a politician get? That’s the sort of criminal behavior deeply ingrained in Hillary’s flawed character.

        Is Trump any better, I think not. But those are the hands dealt, we’ll have to see it played out over next 4 yrs. Honestly by 2020 things will get so bad, I’d be disappointed if there wasn’t a revolution.


        • Dear 1EarthUnited,

          Here are some alternative sources regarding theft from the WH: (CONSERVATIVE WRITERS DO WRITE FOR THE WASHINGTON POST, THE NY TIMES AND WSJ.)

          Hillary Clinton Stole $200,000 in White House Furnishings –

          Claim: The Clintons were forced to return an estimated $200,000 in furniture, china and art they “stole” from the White House. See Example(s)
          Claimed by: Internet
          Fact check by MOSTLY FALSE

          Hugs, Gronda

          Liked by 1 person

        • Dear 1EarthUnited,


          Michael Arnovitz’s Defense Of Hillary Clinton – Gronda Morin

          Will The Real Hillary Clinton Please Stand UP? Part I – Gronda Morin

          Will The Real Hillary Clinton Please Stand Up, Part II – Gronda Morin

          Will The Real Hillary Please Stand Up, Part III (Early Adult Years …

          Will The Real Hillary Clinton Please Stand Up, Part IV (Years 1973 …

          Will The Real Hillary Clinton Please Stand Up, Part V (Years 1973 to …

          Will The Real Hillary Clinton Please Stand Up? Part VI (Zombie Story .

          Will The Real Hillary Please Stand Up? Part VII (Watergate Era …

          Will The Real Hillary Clinton, Please Stand Up, Part VIII (1975 Rape …

          Will The Real Hillary Clinton Please Stand UP? Part IX (1979 … – Dr. Rex

          Will The Real Hillary Clinton, Please Stand Up? Part X (About The 4 …

          Liked by 1 person

      • Dear Crustyolemothman,

        I just put my two cents in a response to you and 1EarthUnited. What I didn’t say, is that when HRC first started running, I was not an enthusiast. But as I did tons of research on her, I changed my attitude. Was she a perfect candidate?. No, she wasn’t but she was definitely a much better choice than DDT.

        This blog was intended to address one issue only, that was the email handling by HRC because this subject came up a lot at the recent Senate hearing where the FBI Director Comey was testifying.

        Ciao, Gronda

        Liked by 1 person

        • Thank you Gronda and Crusty, I’ll take all your references into consideration. Who knows, she might very well be suitable for office and serve the country well, but now we’ll never know. Since we don’t know her personally, we can only go by public opinion & news sources. She’s such a polarizing figure, stories about her are bound to be unjustifiably biased. Would she have made a better president? Maybe, maybe not, but she did agree with Trump about launching the missile strike at Syria, and most likely would have done the same. So I would say she’s par for the course.


    • Dear 1EarthUnited and Crustyolemothman,

      First, This blog was intended to set the story straight about ONE ISSUE ONLY, HRC’s email handling.

      I am going to have to respectfully disagree with some of your premises. I can admit that for many HRC was unpopular but in my opinion, she is a saint when compared to DDT.

      Being much older, I have watched the right make a cottage industry of attacking her as in the Clinton chronicles which was only the tip of the iceberg. There was a website developed (one of the first fact checkers) to counteract a lot of the falsehoods.

      You watched what the right did to President Barack Obama but they only had 8 years to try to bloody him. They have had 40 years for HRC. You may not know this but she was part of the legal team in the Watergate era v President Nixon and this is when the right’s hatred for her started.

      What was interesting to me is that she had high approval numbers when she was actually working as Secretary of State and as Senator. When she was a senator, a conservative writer/ pundit Mark Halperin took time to interview her republican coworkers. He was shocked when he couldn’t find one who had a bad thing to say about her. She was well liked in this position. She assisted in developing lots of legislation, often without credit, she crossed the aisle and truly worked hard.

      Her numbers plummeted whenever she was running for office. Was she a saint. No, she was a politician. Did she contribute to her loss? Yes, she made some serious errors. Was she a better choice than DDT? THE ANSWER IS YES, BIGLY AND A HUUUUUUUUUUUGE DIFFERENCE FOR THE BETTER.

      If there is a silver lining for HRC, it is that she has been spared the excruciating pain that she would have had to endure from the right. But they are now dealing with a leader who they are covering for, whose sins are huuuuge and bigly. HRC is not in the same league.

      Hugs and Ciao, Gronda

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mz. Gronda, “”Being much older””, wow, you just made my day much brighter! I feel a real spring in my stumble now.. Now, for the record, I do agree with you on the political hit job that has been pushed upon and against the Clintons, and also agree that much of it is entirely fabricated and unfounded, and the portion that is somewhat factual has been blown up out of proportion in an effort to discredit them for political purposes. Have a wonderful day full of sunshine! 😉

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dear Crustyolemothman,

          And here you sound so young.

          And I do agree with your analysis about Hillary Clinton. She is not Bill Clinton where she is a natural politician. And I based my support of her based on her work performance while she was on the job.

          The hate from the right against President Obama was based on racism and I suspect that a bit of misogyny was at play when it came to HRC

          Ciao, Gronda.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. One of the few really amusing things that has come out of all the investigations done by various Republican panels, is the lack of actual evidence to prove crimes have/had been committed! This leads many of us to accept that either there were no crimes committed or the Republican party is filled with totally inept investigators! I heard it said many years ago that a good prosecutor could if given a week or so convict a rock of being too soft or water of being too hard! Too bad they don’t desire to expend nearly as much energy and effort to investigate tRumputin gate! I wonder what their reaction would be if every time tRump appeared in public that people started to shout out “lock him up”? Perhaps we should apply the same criminal claims that were pointed at Mz. Clinton to the tRump! It would save a lot of time and money for the nation, too bad that we on this side of the aisle realize that there is a constitution that applies to the guilt or innocence of all people equally and not just one political party membership…

    Liked by 1 person

    • I have to agree with you Crusty, we should apply the same standard for all political aspirants. After the Syrian missile strike, I’m the first in line to demand “lock the bum up”!!! What he did was immoral, unconstitutional, illegal (without Congressional approval), the basturd should be impeached!
      Why are Democratic hardliners like Schumer, Pelosi, even McCain praising Trump for his criminal actions!! Why is this idiot not facing congressional hearing for his immediate impeachment?!!!

      I would say his incompetence and short sight vision ranks up there with Hillary’s power hungry warmongering ways. The problem we have now, Trump is a far more dangerous madman. His hubris and warped ego can start WW3.

      Truth is both parties are equally inept, they do not reason or represent their constituents’ best interest, only to push their own party’s agenda. Hence we all lose. What are our options, to blindly follow these psychopathic so called “leaders” of democracy, or start our own revolution? I don’t have any answers.


Comments are closed.