November 6, 2015

How much help can Hillary Clinton expect from the White House or the FBI in keeping her email dilemma from tainting her presidential campaign?

The right answer would be: not much.

President Barack Obama and his former Secretary of State are at loggerheads to begin with. And the FBI is nothing but an arrow in Obama’s quiver — as well as an embarrassment to the Justice Department.

But aside from the obvious political tensions at work, Hillary’s email problems are much more serious than the public has been led to believe. In fact they are fraught with a danger not even a friendly FBI could ignore.

Part of her problem is an executive order Obama issued in 2009 raising the ante for doing what she did in setting up an email server she used, in part, to kibitz about matters of national security.

What she did was a no-no any federal employee with a grammar school education would have recognized in a nano-second. Not even Liechtenstein would treat its claim to privacy so cavalierly.

What this woman did out of sheer arrogance and ignorance — both of which are indicative of her nature — could exact such a high price on her ambition that she’ll be forever denounced for not calling it quits.

A conspiracy theorist might imagine that Obama foresaw the hole she was digging herself into when she excused herself from government oversight all those years ago and decided to let her keep digging.

Either way, she is in trouble and he put her there.

Nobody pays less attention to laws and legal barriers than Barack Obama, but he set some stiff ones with that executive order. In fact, congress liked it so much they preserved it for the Ages in a thing called the “Reducing Over-Classification Act of 2010,”

Alias “Public Law 111-258” this act of congress is prominently featured in the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual. You’d think the Secretary of State or one of the thousands of people sworn to protect her might be familiar with it. Well, guess again.

It says among other things that all federal employees who have original authority to classify information, as well as all employees entitled to classify material derived from other sources adhering to a classification guide, MUST undergo training in how to handle that information.

Those with original authority, like the Secretary of State, must endure refresher training every year. Those with derivative authority must undergo re-training every two years. Nobody can opt out of it.

The State Department designed a training course called “Classified and Sensitive but Unclassified Information: Making and Marking.” Employees who don’t complete it are denied access to classified and unclassified networks and systems. If they don’t take the course their classification authority is suspended.

On August 18, Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act requests to verify that Secretary Clinton and her top aides, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, had successfully completed the course. The department ignored the FOIAs, so Judicial Watch is now suing State in federal court.

The plaintiff wants a list of all State Department employees required to take the course, and a list of those suspended for noncompliance, plus evidence like certificates or transcripts that indicate compliance.

One objective of the training is to avoid over-classification and another deals with declassification standards.

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, sums up Hillary’s problem this way: “Did Hillary Clinton and her top aides bother to take the training legally required for the handling of classified information? The Obama State Department is illegally covering up the answer to this question, What training did Hillary Clinton take to allow her to make credible representations about classified information on her illicit email system?”

Devious as she is, the mainstream media worships her. The press doesn’t want to remember that she was fired as a staff researcher for the Watergate committee in 1974 because she drafted impeachment articles against President Richard Nixon that claimed he had no right to legal counsel, then removed from public access (to her office) all the files proving that Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas had that right during his impeachment ordeal in 1970.

This new lawsuit could start an avalanche of fresh lies.

NENS closing file…