The State Department has now withheld from production 22 emails housed on Hillary Ciinton’s unsecured private server. The emails were to be produced under the Freedom of Information Act; they were withheld on grounds of national security because the emails include information classified Top Secret. The intelligence community deems release of any part of the emails “too damaging” to release under any circumstances. The State Department announced this latest development yesterday.
This development once again puts the lie to just about everything Hillary Clinton has had to say on the subject. She continues to maintain that none of the emails were marked classified upon receipt. Whether or not this is true, however, it is irrelevant to many of the statutes under which her behavior can be deemed criminal. She has yet to answer questions that bore in on the irrelevance of her continued protestations in the Clinton style.
What do you say on behalf of Hillary Clinton under the circumstances? You say this:
We firmly oppose the complete blocking of the release of these emails. Since first providing her emails to the State Department more than one year ago, Hillary Clinton has urged that they be made available to the public. We feel no differently today.
After a process that has been dominated by bureaucratic infighting that has too often played out in public view, the loudest and leakiest participants in this interagency dispute have now prevailed in blocking any release of these emails. This flies in the face of the fact that these emails were unmarked at the time they were sent, and have been called “innocuous” by certain intelligence officials. We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years. And, in at least one case, the emails appear to involve information from a published news article.
This appears to be over-classification run amok. We will pursue all appropriate avenues to see that her emails are released in a manner consistent with her call last year.
I love that first sentence boldly protesting “complete blocking” of the emails. Translation: Part of the 22 emails can be released without undue harm to national security! Does this pass the laugh test? Andrew McCarthy provides helps with the translation here.
Every sentence of this statement could and should be annotated to explicate its vacuity, its evasions, its shameless effort to conceal criminal misconduct. Where is Chris Cillizza when you need him?
The highest and best use of this statement would be as evidence to support an aggravated sentence putting Clinton away for a good long time. The statement is a classic case of over-clintonization run amok.
UPDATE: Chris Cillizza weighs in.