One of the things that the Republicans keep doing in asking their questions is: “Would a normal person, would an average person in the same situation,” blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. “Well, how about if this situation applied to a normal citizen or an average citizen?” And that’s not who we’re talking about here.
We’re not talking about an average citizen; we’re not talking about a normal citizen and what an average citizen would know as it goes to intent or prior knowledge or gross negligence, and we’re not talking about a normal person. Clearly we’re talking about Hillary Clinton, who is very well versed. I think Trey Gowdy said it better than anybody today. Trey Gowdy is saying that Hillary was not extremely careless. She was extremely careful. That she had a well-thought-out plan that would allow her to do this and skirt the edges of the law and maybe break it, that she was not careless.
They’re presenting her as some bumbling nerd — no, not a nerd — she’s some bumbling person that doesn’t understand computers. She doesn’t understand the operation of computers. She doesn’t know what servers are. She doesn’t know any of the computer terminology. She just wanted to be able to send and receive email and not have everybody see it. That’s BS. That’s how they’re trying to portray her.
I find it fascinating. Here’s the smartest woman in the world one day, yet today she’s a neophyte. Today she doesn’t know what she’s doing. Today she’s innocently wandering aimlessly through her job as secretary of state being unfortunately caught up in all these conflicting statutes and laws. Poor Mrs. Clinton, she’s trying her best but she just doesn’t know what she’s doing. It’s a crock.
But I’m gonna tell you this, too. On social media, she’s not getting away with this. (interruption) What do you mean, she’s not sophisticated? She’s not sophisticated. She doesn’t have a sophisticated understanding. She couldn’t have set it up on her own. In fact, Comey said today it wasn’t even her system, it was her husband’s. Yeah, it was Bill’s server in the basement there and she said (imitating Hillary), “Hey, you got a server? Cool. You know what? I want to put my stuff on your server.” And so they went and brought a guy in to do it and she didn’t know, she didn’t know. That’s how she didn’t have intent. She didn’t know.
And I don’t know about you, folks, but it doesn’t wash with me that the smartest woman in the world doesn’t know anything. But isn’t it convenient how often it is said that she’s some bumbling idiot wandering aimlessly through some confusing world. She knew how to delete them. She knew how to get ’em off the server. She knew how to move servers to different locations. Of course she knew all that stuff. Gowdy is right; she was being careful, not careless.
She’s not gone out and done a nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah, “I got away with it because I didn’t do anything. I never once trafficked in classified information, not once, not a single time ever. I did not have sex with it, I didn’t do it.”
She hasn’t done any of that. She hasn’t circled the bases, acting like she’s hit a home run here. She’s soft selling this. She doesn’t want any more attention called. She doesn’t want to be the reason any more attention is given it. She knows that the Republicans are not gonna let it go, but she doesn’t want to say or do anything that is gonna continue to breathe life into it. I think this is a good point.
The fact that she has not taken a victory lap is instructive because “she’s gonna continue to face withering attacks that she cannot wave off as ridiculous conspiracy theories.” In other words, she can’t say this is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, because, “after all, FBI Director James Comey publicly shredded all the defenses Hillary used for the past year.” Which he did. Every defense. I mean, that’s why the questions he got, “Did she lie to Congress? Did she lie to the American people?” Because she did all this.
Normally, she’s the Smartest Woman in the World. But there are times where she’s this bumbling idiot who doesn’t even know what the words “top secret” mean when they’re on documents that she’s dealing with! “UPDATE: FBI director says questionable whether Clinton had sophisticated-enough understanding to recognize classified email markings.” You see? She’s just… She didn’t know what she was doing!
Now, remember, this is not saying that the FBI director says it’s questionable whether she understands email, whether she understands servers, whether she understands on-site, off-site, offline, online. This is simply saying the FBI director says, a Reuters tweet akin to a report in 140 characters or less that Comey is saying it’s questionable whether she was sophisticated enough, her understanding was sophisticated enough to recognize classified email markings.
So she’s reading an email, and he’s saying it’s got a mark on it that clearly indicates that it is classified, top secret, super top secret, nobody can see it but you, whatever, but that she doesn’t know enough to recognize those markings. Now, isn’t it convenient that whenever she gets in trouble, one of two things is to blame: Either somebody’s playing the sex card on her and she becomes this big victim of some bias against women. Or, she’s blissfully ignorant. She just didn’t know. She’s not sophisticated in her understanding of this high-tech stuff, that she didn’t recognize the checkmark up there or she didn’t recognize where it said “top secret” or whatever the marking is.
No, of course not. She’s only secretary of state, for crying out loud. She’s only traveling the world representing and negotiating foreign policy. She only established the policy that got rid of Moammar Khadafy and left Libya exposed, where four Americans ultimately died. Yeah, she doesn’t know what she’s doing. Now, that could be true in the sense of how you define smart, ’cause I don’t think she is very smart.
But let’s not forget, 1992, some of you weren’t old enough or weren’t even born yet. When this woman came on the scene, do not doubt me, the media narrative on her was that she was the Smartest Woman in the World. She had come out of Wellesley, she had come out of Yale, she could have been anything, she could have done anything, is why people say they were shocked when she married that hayseed from Arkansas named Bill Clinton.
But she’s never been anything but the Smartest Woman in the World. I’ve talked about this I don’t know how many times. I know Republicans and conservatives scared to death of this woman, scared to death. And it isn’t because they think she’s not sophisticated. It isn’t because they think she’s stupid. But she gets into trouble enough or she fails enough, like when she does poorly in a primary, what do they chalk it up to? Sexism, like Don Lemon did. Sexism.
She throws that sexism victim card right down, starts crying, starts talking about how hard it’s been. She was raising Chelsea, she was doing her best, and her husband was doing that, and the attacks are so mean and so cruel, the attacks are so vicious. And she hung in there. And then the other thing they do is say she didn’t know, she’s ignorant, she’s not up to speed. I don’t know how any of it jibes with the Smartest Woman in the World.
How does Hillary get the benefit of the doubt when Comey says, “You know what? I just didn’t see a sophisticated knowledge. I didn’t see in Mrs. Clinton a understanding of classified markings on emails.” How in the world do they get the benefit of the doubt? How many congressional hearings have there been over the course of the last two and a half decades looking into actions taken by, perpetrated by the Clintons? And yet they continue to get the benefit of the doubt.
“Oh, no. No, no, no. Hillary would never knowingly traffic in classified data. Bill Clinton would never, ever knowingly put any woman in a dangerous situation. Oh, no, it would never happen.” How? It seems like that’s the stretch. The stretch is not believing that Hillary would traffic in this stuff and intended to. That’s the stretch. The stretch is believing that they didn’t do it any of this stuff. The slam dunk way to look at it is, of course, they did. I can answer my own question and get the benefit of the doubt because the left circles the wagons around their people like they did Dan Rather, like they do everybody.
I want to go back to Trey Gowdy. We have one more sound bite from Trey Gowdy. Again, when he was questioning Comey, he wasn’t really questioning him. He was laying out the case for intent that Comey said he didn’t find. He was laying out for the audience — that would be you and me — that there clearly was intent, despite the fact that the FBI director said, “Couldn’t find enough intent here to recommend prosecution.” Here’s one more Trey Gowdy bite on all of this.
GOWDY: She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account. She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account. So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you don’t know whether or not she was. And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records. And yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so. You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove.
RUSH: Well, you know, intent, you legal beagles are gonna have to correct me on this if I’m wrong, but there’s another factor with intent that is left up to a jury to decide. You know, in many cases intent isn’t a dominant factor in the decision to charge or not. But in Comey’s world he’s making it out that it is, it’s the big deal, that there wasn’t any intent, couldn’t prove it, and therefore nowhere to go here. And major arguments are now ensuing in the legal circles over this.
My buddy Andy McCarthy has already posted a piece at National Review Online in which he thinks that it has resulted here that Comey’s reasoning has been disputed successfully and refuted, that the jig’s up on this. It’s not gonna change anything, but the legal circle of people debating this and analyzing it, what Robert Bork called the intellectual feast, is ongoing, and there are a lot of people tearing this apart right now. And that’s what Trey Gowdy is trying to do here in his way, and his way is communicating with the American people, who will see this.
And, believe me, a lot of the American people are gonna see this. They may not see their cable TV, but they’re gonna see it streamed, they’re gonna see excerpts of it put together, video streamed on various social media sites. And I think Gowdy has been powerful today in laying out how there was clearly intent. And this latest example is just as good as the first two that we had.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account. That would have meant that it was accountable and subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account. She didn’t even divulge that, but it was discovered. Having a private email account to conduct official business, to Trey Gowdy, signals intent.
So you have, he says here, a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked and you, Mr. Comey, don’t know whether or not she was. And this scheme, Hillary’s private email server, took place over a long period of time, resulted in the destruction of public records.
That’s, again, a reference to the 30,000 emails she threw away. Of the 60,000 on her server, she threw 30,000 away, telling Congress and telling the State Department, “That’s private. It had nothing to do with anything. I’ll save you the trouble of reading ’em. I’m tossing ’em.” That is destruction of public records. That is intent to hide. And Gowdy says to Comey, “And yet you say there’s insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.”
I’m sorry. Common sense rears its head here. It’s impossible to say she didn’t have intent. That’s the stretch, to me. It’s a stretch to say she didn’t intend to hide anything. To me the tougher thing to prove would be that she didn’t intend to keep all this hidden from public view. It seems like that would be the easiest case to make, but Comey didn’t want to make it, he didn’t want to go there for whatever reason, and he didn’t.
Jim Jordan, who is from Indiana and on the committee as well, and he had a great day. He said that former secretary of state Clinton had misled Congress under oath when testifying to the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October of 2015. He was speaking to Washington Watch with Tony Perkins on a radio show. And specifically, Clinton told the Benghazi committee she had “turned over all my work-related emails from her private email server to the government, that there was nothing marked classified on my emails, and that her attorneys went through every single email.” And, according to James Comey, all of those statements are false.
So that’s the meaning of the Fox News story, that, according to Comey, he admits that many of her statements about sending emails made under oath were not true, raising the question of doing so she committed a felony and lying to Congress. Which is a big deal. It is. In terms of the law, it’s a big deal to mislead or lie to Congress. And keep something in mind here. We wouldn’t even know about Hillary’s secret home server if requests for her emails hadn’t been — today, to this moment, we wouldn’t know about it.
So this is why people want to know what she said in her interview, her three and a half hour interview on Saturday. What did Hillary tell the FBI under oath? And how did the FBI and the professional prosecutors analyze her three and a half hour testimony so quickly and decide that she had not lied to them?