Posts Tagged ‘James Comey’

Last week, E. Randol Schoenberg filed suit to see the warrant to examine Anthony Weiner’s laptop for Hillary Clinton’s emails.  Now a federal judge has responded to that request and is requesting the warrant.

A federal judge directed the U.S. government Tuesday to show him any search warrant application used to gain access to a new batch of Hillary Clinton‘s emails just before the election.

Judge P. Kevin Castel asked a government lawyer to turn over any pertinent documents by late Thursday in case he decides any portion of the materials must be made public. He also recommended the government advise what redactions are necessary should he rule that portions of documents must be disclosed publicly.

E. Randol Schoenberg, a Los Angeles-based lawyer who specializes in recovering works of art stolen by the Nazis, sued to obtain any search warrant and related papers used by the FBI to obtain the emails from a computer belonging to Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of Huma Abedin, one of Clinton’s top aides. Schoenberg’s lawsuit followed a Freedom of Information Act request for the documents.

Weiner, a Democrat, resigned his seat in Congress after sexually explicit texts and social media posts to various women. He is under investigation by federal authorities for online communications he had with a 15-year-old girl.

Read more >>>>

If the 4th Amendment was violated, we deserve to know.

More on this topic.

Judge wants to see the search warrant application that led to review of Hillary Clinton’s emails days before the election

Nate Raymond, Reuters

Probe of FBI’s Election Antics Put on Fast Track

Read Full Post »

If you saw the movie “Woman in Gold,” and I strongly recommend that you do, you know that as a young lawyer and new dad, Randy Schoenberg argued before Chief Justice Rhenquist’s Supreme Court and prevailed. He did this having given up his job and devoting all of his time, energy, and resources to helping Maria Altmann recover paintings stolen from her family’s Vienna residence by the Nazis.

Here is his Facebook entry.

E. Randol Schoenberg

So, I filed a lawsuit today against the US Department of Justice seeking immediate disclosure of the FBI search warrant for the e-mails of Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. As I explained in my blog http://schoenblog.com/?p=1008, I think we need to see what “probable cause” was shown for obtaining the search warrant, because whoever thought there was going to be evidence of a crime was obviously mistaken. And that mistake probably changed the outcome of the election. Journalists should contact my attorney Dave Rankin for more details.

E. Randol Schoenberg. Photo courtesy of E. Randol Schoenberg

E. Randol Schoenberg was confused when he read a New York Times article in the waning days of the presidential election reporting the FBI had obtained a warrant to seize new material in the Hillary Clinton email case.

“I thought, ‘What does that mean?’” he told the Journal. “Normally you have to show probable cause. That’s what it says in the Fourth Amendment.”


“It’s more likely something criminal happened in the obtaining of the search warrant than… Hillary Clinton did something wrong,” he said

Read more >>>>

We thank him and applaud his effort.  In a Gothamist article, Schoenberg says this.

“I like tilting at windmills, and sometimes it turns out not to be as crazy as everybody thinks,” he said. “[Maybe] I’m right that there’s some big story behind this, maybe i’m wrong…Sticking to your convictions, trying to think differently from everyone else is what I like to do.”

In the movie, Ronald Lauder tells Maria Altmann that her “schoolboy” lawyer is not equal to an argument before SCOTUS to help her retrieve family treasures looted by the Nazis. Maria tells Lauder that she will stick with her schoolboy.  He succeeded. Perhaps he is right. Maybe this is a battle worth having. Maybe it indeed is not “as crazy as everybody thinks. ”

Go for it, Randy! (We hope you don’t mind us calling you Randy. Maria got us accustomed to that in the movie.) donate-to-dems

Read Full Post »

So it turns out that Trump has a secret server.  The FBI probably knows this, but Director Comey resists releasing any information about the Trump-Russia investigation while being all to willing to make statements and write letters to GOP committee chairs about the FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails and server.

Comey is the subject of a Hatch Act violation complaint submitted by Richard Painter, George W, Bush’s ethics counsel.  See the bottom of this page.

Statement from Jake Sullivan on New Report Exposing Trump’s Secret Line of Communication to Russia

In response to a new report from Slate showing that the Trump Organization has a secret server registered to Trump Tower that has been covertly communicating with Russia, Hillary for America Senior Policy Adviser Jake Sullivan released the following statement Monday:

“This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.

“This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump’s ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists.

“This line of communication may help explain Trump’s bizarre adoration of Vladimir Putin and endorsement of so many pro-Kremlin positions throughout this campaign. It raises even more troubling questions in light of Russia’s masterminding of hacking efforts that are clearly intended to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign. We can only assume that federal authorities will now explore this direct connection between Trump and Russia as part of their existing probe into Russia’s meddling in our elections.”


Now more than ever, Hillary and Democrats need your support.  Please donate before the FEC deadline at midnight.


KODAK Digital Still Camera

Read Full Post »

Hillary spoke out today on the issue of the FBI’s investigation of Trump’s Russian relations.  What?  You didn’t know the FBI was investigating Trump?  Could that possibly be because Director Comey is applying a double standard by sending a letter to GOP committee chairs about an investigation related to Hillary’s email while refusing to speak about the investigation of Trump’s Russian ties? (I don’t mean neckties made in Russia.)  Hillary told the audience that it is important to choose the candidate who knows the difference between our allies and our adversaries.

FBI’s Comey opposed naming Russians, citing election timing: Source (via )

In Kent, Clinton Says Trump Cannot Be Trusted With Our National Security, Lays Out Vision for An America That is ‘Stronger Together’

In a speech in Kent, Ohio on Monday, Hillary Clinton continued to highlight the stakes on this election, making the case that Donald Trump is not only unfit to be commander-in-chief but also a clear danger to our national security. Trump cannot be trusted to command our nuclear arsenal, would lose his cool during a national security crisis and has a foreign policy vision contrary to America’s values and geopolitical goals, Clinton said. Trump also has a history of praise for dictators like Saddam Hussein and ties to strongmen like Vladimir Putin, she added, whose government is trying to influence our election and put its thumb on the scale for Donald Trump.

Clinton was introduced by Bruce Blair, a former U.S. Air Force Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile launch control officer who appeared in an ad for her campaign. The ad, titled “Silo,” highlighted the solemn responsibility of commanding our nuclear arsenal — all the more reason Donald Trump can never sit in the Situation Room.

Clinton laid out a different vision that is “about lifting people up, not tearing each other down” and “says we’re stronger together.” She added, “Millions of people across our country are standing up and saying: We believe in an America that is great because it is good. That is Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Because we believe in an America where women are respected. An America where veterans are honored, parents are supported, and workers are paid fairly … an America where marriage is a right and discrimination is wrong…. an America that leads in the world and lives up to our values… where everyone counts and everyone has a place. Where the American dream is big enough for everyone. This goes way beyond policies and partisanship.  We’re talking about what it really means to be an American in the 21st century. About the basic lessons we want to teach boys and girls, kids and grandkids.” Clinton closed by asking attendees to safeguard our future, security and values by voting early and helping to ensure the largest turnout in our nation’s history. Clinton’s remarks, as transcribed, are below: “Hello, Kent State! And Happy Halloween everybody! It’s great to be back in Ohio – even if, even if the World Series is making life very stressful for Cubs fans everywhere. I want to thank Bruce Blair for that introduction, and for his service to our nation.  I think every American should hear your story over the next 8 days before they vote. I also want to thank everyone who was part of the pre-program. In particular, let me thank Senator Sherrod Brown, such a great senator, my dear friend and great congressman Tim Ryan, State Representative John Boccieri, State Representative Kathleen Clyde, and let me thank the Kent Clarks, the acapella group that sang during the pre-program! My friends, we are about to enter the final week of this election, so I wanted to come back to Ohio, one of the most competitive and consequential battlegrounds in the country, to talk about what’s at stake in this election. But let me start with this.  I’m sure a lot of you may be asking what this new email story is about and why in the world the FBI would decide to jump into an election with no evidence of any wrongdoing with just days to go. That’s a good question! And first of all, for those of you who are concerned about my using personal email, I understand and as I’ve said, I’m not making excuses. I said it was a mistake and I regret it and now they apparently want to look at emails of one of my staffers and by all means, they should look at them. And I am sure they will reach the same conclusion they did when they looked at my emails for the last year. There is no case here. And they said it wasn’t even a close call and I think most people have decided a long time ago what they think about all of this. Now what people are focused on is choosing the next President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America. And did any of you see the debates? Well, I think it was important because I had a chance to talk about my 30 years of public service and my plans for our country. And then people could weigh that against what my opponent has done and said. I am running against a man who says he doesn’t understand why we can’t use nuclear weapons. He actually said, ‘Then why are we making them?’ And he wants more countries to have nuclear weapons. Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia.  Imagine nuclear weapons smack in the middle of the Middle East. And if you’re telling yourself he’ll surround himself with smart people who’ll stop these crazy ideas, remember this: When he asked who he consults on foreign policy, Donald Trump said he didn’t need to consult because he said and I quote, ‘I have a very good brain.’  He said he knows more about ISIS than our generals do. No, he does not. And of course, the people Donald Trump has had around him include two men whose activities are reportedly being investigated for their ties to Russia — Vladimir Putin and Putin’s allies. So, in these last days, let’s not get distracted from the real choice in this election and the consequences for your future. I started saying last June, I believe, that Donald Trump has proven himself temperamentally unfit and totally unqualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. And I’ve got to tell you, I did not take any pleasure in saying that. I have known, I have known for years now people who ran for President, Republicans and Democrats. And I had my differences with Republicans and even with Democrats, but I never doubted their fitness to serve. Donald Trump is different. That’s as serious as it gets. So today, I want to talk about our national security. Because when the election is over and people wake up on November 9th, we will have picked the person who will carry the responsibility for all these weighty decisions. And that should really convince anyone how high the stakes really are in this election. And I just want to focus on three of the most crucial questions facing the next President: Can you be trusted to command our nuclear arsenal and make literally life and death decisions about war and peace? How do you handle a crisis? And do you know the difference between our allies and our adversaries? We’ll start with nuclear weapons. Now, I know there are some who will say that any discussion of this topic could be fear-mongering, but I don’t think so and in part of what you just heard from Bruce Blair. When dozens of retired nuclear launch officers publicly state that Donald Trump should, and I quote, ‘not have his finger on the button,’ then this is a topic that can’t be avoided. And as I’ve said, Donald has repeatedly suggested that more countries should have nuclear weapons. He must not realize or care that the more nuclear material there is in the world, the more likely terrorists are to get their hands on it — or that someone will miscalculate and start a war that can’t be stopped. And when a few more countries go nuclear, their neighbors will feel pressure to do so as well. One of the reasons I worked so hard to impose sanctions on Iran so that we could get them to the negotiating table was so we would not have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and I am proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. But even the prospect of an actual nuclear war doesn’t seem to bother Donald Trump. ‘Good luck, enjoy yourselves, folks,’ was what he had to say about a potential nuclear conflict in Asia. I wonder if he knows that a single nuclear warhead can kill millions of people.  These are weapons today far more powerful than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.  To talk so casually, so cavalierly about mass annihilation is truly appalling. President Ronald Reagan once said — and he worked hard for arms control and I admired what he did working with the Soviet Union — and he once said he feared, and this is a quote from President Reagan, ‘some fool or some maniac or some accident triggering the kind of war that is the end of the line for all of us.’  That has been the fear and the commitment of Democratic and Republican presidents since the dawn of the Atomic Age. So what would he think about Donald Trump, who says he wants to be, and I quote, ‘unpredictable’ about using the most powerful weapons ever produced? And here’s the thing with nuclear weapons – as Bruce told you, when the President gives the order, that’s it.  There’s no veto for Congress, no veto by the Joint Chiefs. The officers in the silos have no choice but to fire. And that can take as little as four minutes. That’s why all those retired launch officers stepped forward and said Donald Trump should never be put in charge of our nuclear arsenal. Earlier you heard from one of them, Bruce Blair, and his story is worth remembering. In 1973, Bruce was a young military officer working in an underground bunker in Montana.  His job was to launch as many as 50 nuclear weapons if the President ever gave the order. Then one night in October, as the United States and the Soviet Union squared off over an escalating conflict in the Middle East, the emergency message he had trained for arrived: prepare for nuclear war. Like other American officers in bunkers and submarines and bombers around the world, Bruce and his colleagues started the process because that was their duty.  They unlocked the safe, took out the launch codes and the keys, and then strapped into their chairs to brace for the shockwaves that would come if a Russian warhead detonated above them. Then they waited for the final order from the President. Thankfully, it never came. But when Bruce looks at Donald Trump, and sees his hair-trigger temper, and he thinks about what it felt like inside that bunker that night. As I’ve said many times, a man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons. And that brings me to the second question I think voters should pose to both candidates: How do you handle a crisis? We’ve seen in this campaign that Donald Trump loses his cool at the slightest provocation. When he’s gotten a tough question from a reporter. When he’s challenged in a debate. When he sees a protestor at a rally.  When he’s confronted with his own words. So imagine him in the Oval Office facing a real crisis. Imagine his advisors afraid to tell him what he doesn’t want to hear, racing against his legendarily short attention span to lay out life-and-death choices too complex to be reduced to a single tweet. And then imagine him plunging us into a war because somebody got under his very thin skin. Now thankfully, he’s never been in a position where he had to help make life-and-death decisions for our country.  But there was one national crisis where we did get a good look at how Donald Trump handles himself.  Donald is a New Yorker, and his finest moment in this campaign was when he defended New York against Ted Cruz’s attacks in a debate. And then he invoked the days after 9/11, when New Yorkers really came together and took care of each other.  And I couldn’t agree more. That’s why it was so upsetting to learn what Donald was actually doing on 9/11. After the world watched with horror as the Twin Towers fell, he called in to a New York TV station. And even on that horrible day, when thousands of people lost their lives, he couldn’t stop himself from pointing out that now, because the towers had fallen, a building he owned was now the tallest in Lower Manhattan. What kind of a person brags at a moment like that? I’ll tell you: someone who should never set foot in the Oval Office and serve as Commander in Chief. For me, I take this very personally, my friends.  Because I was one of New York’s senators along with Chuck Schumer on 9/11. He and I were on the ground the very next day, meeting with the Governor, the Mayor, emergency officials. And I will never forget the sight of Ground Zero. The thick smoke made it hard to breathe or see. Some of the firefighters and other first responders we met had been on duty nonstop since the planes hit the towers. They had all lost friends.  In a makeshift command center, we were briefed on the damage, and it was clear we were going to need a lot of help to recover New York, and we were going to have to really make it our absolute mission to not only rebuild New York but to keep America safe. That’s what I did for eight years as a senator. I never stopped fighting to keep our country safer and to ensure that first responders got the medical care they needed. And I think it’s important to reflect on what each of us has done in moments like that. Because a lot of the crises that come at a president are not predicted. They happen. I’ll tell you a quick story. It was after President-elect Obama asked me to be secretary of state but before the inauguration. And I got a call to come to an emergency meeting in the White House in the Situation Room. And the new Obama national security team was on one side of table, and the outgoing Bush national security team was on the other side. And the Bush Administration had gotten credible intelligence that there was going to be an attack at our inauguration. So even before we were sworn in to do our jobs, we were faced with helping to make such a consequential decision. It really matters what your experience has, what your values are, whether you can be counted on to make that decision. You learn a lot about people in moments like that. And as I sat there with the pressure on, having to think through in my own head, how we evaluated this intelligence, how we did everything we could to preserve our inauguration of our first African American president on the Mall in Washington. We made the decision to go forward, obviously. Some of you might have been there. But we also did everything we could to double our efforts to find out about the intelligence and to secure the hundreds of thousands of people who would be there. So you have to ask yourself: in a crisis, who would you trust?  Who will listen to good advice, keep a level head and make the right call?  Because that’s the person you want as our president and Commander in Chief. Now let’s get to the third question for all of the voters to consider about each of us. Do you know the difference between our allies and our adversaries? Now this may seem like an easy question. If you got it on an exam, I think you’d be able to answer it. But apparently it’s hard for Donald. He has picked fights with our friends. I mean the President of Mexico, the British prime minister, the German chancellor, pretty much the entire nation of Japan… and he even picked a fight with the Pope. And at the same time he is praising tyrants and dictators like Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Un in North Korea and Bashar al-Assad for their supposed strong leadership.  He even praised the Chinese government for massacring protesters in Tiananmen Square. Trump has repeatedly suggested he would abandon our allies in Europe and Asia. He has called NATO, quote, ‘obsolete.’ Obsolete?  NATO is the greatest military alliance in the history of the world.  And it’s based on something called Article V, which says, ‘An attack on one is an attack on all.’ And Article V has only been invoked one time: when our allies came to our defense after 9/11. We still have NATO allies fighting side by side, working side by side with American troops in Afghanistan. They joined us in going after Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Now we’re supposed to tell them we won’t have their back? And by the way—right now, our NATO allies are helping identify and track terrorists who threaten America and Europe.  They’re hosting radar and missile defense installations that protect us against potential threats from Iran and elsewhere. And as our NATO forces in Afghanistan stand shoulder-to-shoulder with American troops, they share the risks and burdens. Now they’re moving into the Baltic States to deter Russian aggression. Treating our allies like the small businesses and contractors that Trump exploited and stiffed in Atlantic City – hanging them out to dry — would make our country and our world less safe.  And it would play right into the hands of Russia and China, which are envious of our alliances and eager to see them weaken or fail. But maybe that’s the point. Because what’s most striking about all of this — and I would argue most important for voters to consider – is the relationship between Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. As former Secretary Madeleine Albright put it, and I quote her, ‘We have never seen a mind meld of the kind between the Russian leadership and a candidate for the presidency of the United States.’ Michael Morell, who ran the CIA and grew up just a few miles from here, has said that Putin is manipulating Donald. Putin is a trained intelligence officer from the old KGB.  He knows he can use flattery to get into Donald’s head — to make Donald the Kremlin’s puppet. And It seems to be working. Donald has signaled to Putin that he will let Russia do whatever it wants, from Ukraine to Syria and beyond. He’s even said Putin is a stronger leader than President Obama. And it gets worse. The U.S. intelligence community has now confirmed that the Russian government, which means Putin, is directing cyber-attacks against targets in the United States to influence the outcome of our election. So ask yourself, why would Putin be trying to get Donald Trump elected President?  Could it be because of all of the nice things Donald has said about him, or the fact that he’s promised to adopt pro-Kremlin policies, or maybe because of his extensive business dealings with Russian oligarchs with ties to Putin? Since Donald still won’t release his tax returns, and don’t hold your breath, we don’t the full extent of his business relationships –but what we do know is disturbing. And we know this: We are dealing with something unprecedented in the history of our country. A foreign adversary trying to influence our presidential election. That should scare everyone, Democrat, Republican, and Independent. With the election just eight days away, this can’t wait any longer. Donald Trump should immediately disclose all of his ties and connections to the Kremlin and its associates. The American people deserve to know the full extent of these links and how they relate to what the Russians are doing in our election. When you step back and take it all in, it’s no surprise that 50 Republican national security experts wrote an open letter saying that they will not vote for Donald Trump, because he would be – in their words – ‘the most reckless President in American history.’ It’s no surprise that not a single former President, Secretary of State or Defense, or National Security Advisor from either party has endorsed him. It’s no surprise that Bob Gates, who served eight presidents over 50 years, Democrats and Republicans alike, has said Trump is, and I quote, ‘beyond repair… stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government… temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform… unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.’ I hope you and voters across Ohio and America will think about all of these national security issues when you cast your vote in this election.  Think about what it takes to lead — and how we want to secure the safety of our country, our children and our grandchildren. And who is best to do that. So make no mistake, that really is what is on the ballot this year. It’s not just my name and Donald Trump’s name. It’s our future. Our security. Our values. It’s who we are as a country. Donald Trump has a dark and divisive vision for America that could tear our country apart. But the good news is: There’s another vision for America.  Instead of dark and divisive, it’s hopeful and inclusive and optimistic and unified. And it is big-hearted, not small-minded.  It’s about lifting people up, not tearing each other down. It’s a vision that says, as I believe in my heart that we are stronger together. Millions of people across our country are standing up and saying: We believe in an America that is great because it is good. That is Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Because we believe in an America where women are respected. An America where veterans are honored, parents are supported, and workers are paid fairly … an America where marriage is a right and discrimination is wrong…. an America that leads in the world and lives up to our values… where everyone counts and everyone has a place. Where the American dream is big enough for everyone. This goes way beyond policies and partisanship.  We’re talking about what it really means to be an American in the 21st century. About the basic lessons we want to teach boys and girls, kids and grandkids. It turns out, if you dig deep enough, through all the mud of politics, eventually you hit something hard and true.  A foundation of fundamental values that unite us as Americans – basic beliefs about equality and opportunity and freedom and common decency. That’s something to defend – and to build on. And, in the end, that’s what this election is all about. Here in Ohio, you can make the difference.  Early voting has already begun. So now is the time. Every phone call you make, every door you knock, moves us forward. You can go to hillaryclinton.com, and sign up to volunteer.  Or text J-O-I-N to 4-7-2-4-6 to do the same. Sometimes — if you have studied history — you know the fate of the greatest nations comes down to single moments in time. This is one of those make-or-break moments for the United States.  And it truly is in your hands, as it should be. When your kids and grandkids ask you what you did in 2016, when everything was on the line, I hope you will be able to say: I voted for a better, stronger, fairer America. A place where our future will be created and charted by people will have confidence that that the best days of America are still ahead of us. Particularly young people who I believe absolutely should help make that future! So let’s come together, let us make clear that we are going to stand up for an America that we believe in because that America believes in us. And we are going to prove once and for all that love trumps hate. Thank you.”

Instead of dark and divisive, our vision for America is hopeful and inclusive. Big-hearted, not small-minded. It’s about lifting people up.

Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested that more countries should have nuclear weapons. Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia.

“[Launching a nuclear weapon] can take as little as 4 minutes. 4 minutes. That’s why…Trump should never be put in charge.” —Hillary

A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons.

What kind of a person brags on 9/11 that, now that the Twin Towers had fallen, a building he owned was the tallest in Lower Manhattan?

“Ask yourself: In a crisis, who would you trust? Who would listen to good advice, keep a level head, and make the right call?” —Hillary

U.S. intelligence has confirmed the Russian government is directing cyberattacks against the U.S. to influence the outcome of our election.

Why would Putin want Trump to win? The nice things he’s said about him? His promise to adopt pro-Kremlin policies? Or his business dealings?

“With the election just 8 days away…Trump should immediately disclose all of his ties and connections to the Kremlin and its associates.”

“That’s what’s on the ballot this year. It’s not just my name and Donald Trump’s name. It’s our future. Our security. Our values.” —Hillary

Sometimes the fate of the greatest nations comes down to single moments in time. This is one of those moments.

10-31-16-z-0110-31-16-z-01 10-31-16-z-03 10-31-16-z-0410-31-16-z-07 10-31-16-z-08 10-31-16-z-09 10-31-16-z-10

KODAK Digital Still Camera

KODAK Digital Still Camera

KODAK Digital Still Camera

KODAK Digital Still Camera

KODAK Digital Still Camera

Now more than ever, Hillary and Democrats need your support.  Please donate before the FEC deadline at midnight.


Read Full Post »

Hillary for America has organized some helpful information-at-a-glance around Friday’s “October Surprise” from FBI Director James Comey. In addition, they offer some fact-checking around other incendiary devices aimed at igniting the Clinton campaign.

Comey Under Fire After Sending Unprecedented Letter

FBI Director James Comey is under widespread criticism for breaking department precedent by commenting on an ongoing investigation, and doing so just days before a presidential election. Indeed, the Washington Post reported this morning senior Justice Department officials made perfectly clear to Comey that he would be in violation of long-standing DOJ policy.

Moreover, according to CNN, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates both objected to Comey sending this inappropriate letter to Congress. Nevertheless, Director Comey independently decided to move forward, rattling the presidential election with a note that was heavy on innuendo and extremely light on actual information or needed details.

The result? Broad bipartisan condemnation and demands for the swift disclosure of more information:

Washington Post: Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy: “Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey’s decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to officials familiar with the discussions. Comey told Justice Department officials that he intended to inform lawmakers of newly discovered emails. These officials told him the department’s position “that we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election,” said one Justice Department official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the high-level conversations.”

CNN: Comey notified Congress of email probe despite DOJ concerns: “Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates objected to FBI Director James Comey’s decision to notify Congress about his bureau’s review of emails related to Hillary Clinton’s personal server, law enforcement officials familiar with the discussion said. Comey decided to disregard their objections and sent the letter Friday anyway, shaking the presidential race 11 days before the election and nearly four months after the FBI chief said he wouldn’t recommend criminal charges over the Democratic nominee’s use of the server.

New York Times: Justice Dept. Strongly Discouraged Comey on Move in Clinton Email Case: “Mr. Comey’s letter opened him up to criticism not only from Democrats but also from current and former officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, including Republicans. ‘There’s a longstanding policy of not doing anything that could influence an election,’ said George J. Terwilliger III, a deputy attorney general under the first President George Bush. ‘Those guidelines exist for a reason. Sometimes that makes for hard decisions. But bypassing them has consequences.’”

Politico: Comey’s disclosure shocks former prosecutors: “James Comey’s surprise announcement that investigators are examining new evidence in the probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server put the FBI director back under a harsh spotlight, reigniting criticism of his unusual decision to discuss the high-profile case in front of the media and two congressional committees.”

Los Angeles Times: “The emails were not to or from Clinton, and contained information that appeared to be more of what agents had already uncovered, the official said, but in an abundance of caution, they felt they needed to further scrutinize them.

Washington Post Editorial: The damage Comey’s bad timing could do: “Mr. Podesta said he is ‘confident’ full disclosure ‘will not produce any conclusions different from the one the FBI reached in July.’ If so, the question will be how badly damaged was Ms. Clinton’s candidacy by the 11th-hour re-eruption of a controversy that never should have generated so much suspicion or accusation in the first place.”

New York Times Editorial: “But Mr. Comey’s failure to provide any specifics about a new, potentially important development, less than two weeks before Election Day, is confounding. As Mr. Comey put it in July: “The American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest.” They deserve details even more urgently today.”

Bloomberg: FBI Shocker on Clinton Fuels Criticism of Comey’s Tactics: “FBI Director James Comey is facing extraordinary pressure to explain himself after dropping a bombshell on the campaign of Hillary Clinton just 11 days before the presidential election… Former prosecutors and lawmakers from both parties expressed shock and dismay at Comey’s highly unusual decision, which flouted decades of legal custom that call for avoiding taking actions that could affect the outcome of an election.”

Washington Post: FBI Director James B. Comey under fire for his controversial decision on the Clinton email inquiry: “Nick Ackerman, a former federal prosecutor in New York and an assistant special Watergate prosecutor, said Comey ‘had no business writing to Congress about supposed new emails that neither he nor anyone in the FBI has ever reviewed.’”

Huffington Post: News Outlets Dial Back Reports Of FBI ‘Reopening’ Clinton Email Case: “The story took several other turns on Friday afternoon that complicated the early, screaming headlines, and then ensured the story would remain a topic of discussion in the days ahead. Multiple outlets subsequently reported that the new emails weren’t sent by Clinton and didn’t come from her private server.”

CNN Legal Analyst, Paul Callan: Time for FBI director Comey to go: “Comey’s public announcement in July that the FBI had concluded its investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server in the conduct of official State Department business and would not recommend the lodging of criminal charges was historically unprecedented in a high-profile political case.”

Washington Post Op-Ed by Former DOJ Spokesman Matt Miller: James Comey fails to follow Justice Department rules yet again: “With each step, Comey moved further away from department guidelines and precedents, culminating in Friday’s letter to Congress. This letter not only violated Justice rules on commenting on ongoing investigations but also flew in the face of years of precedent about how to handle sensitive cases as Election Day nears…. The director of the FBI has great power at his disposal…. With that independence comes a responsibility to adhere to the rules that protect the rights of those whom the FBI investigates. Comey has failed that standard repeatedly in his handling of the Clinton investigation.”

New York Times: F.B.I. Chief James Comey Is in Political Crossfire Again Over Emails: “The reaction was swift and damning, with Mrs. Clinton’s supporters and even some Republicans blasting Mr. Comey. Indeed, Mr. Comey, who was attacked this summer by Democrats and Republicans for both his decision not to bring charges against Mrs. Clinton and for the way he handled it, found himself in an even stronger crossfire on Friday.”

Los Angeles Times’ Michael McGough: FBI director should have known what his Clinton emails letter would unleash: “Having raised new doubts about Clinton so close to an election, Comey has an obligation —a moral obligation if not a legal one — to do everything he can to expedite the “additional work” required to determine whether this new information does, in fact, cast doubt on his earlier conclusion that Clinton wasn’t criminally culpable.”

Aurora Sentinel Editorial: FBI’s Comey needs to come clean on details, motivation — or resign: “If there’s damning or critical information about Clinton staff handling of email that creates the clear and immediate threat to national security that would warrant such a ploy, Americans deserve to have Clinton explain them, and Clinton must get that opportunity. Otherwise, Comey needs to apologize for his infelicity and possibly politically motivated stunt, and immediately step aside.”

Newsweek: Hillary Clinton’s Emails: The Real Reason The FBI Is Reviewing More Of Them: “Unfortunately, by trying to have things both ways – revealing the change in circumstances while remaining vague about what the agents know – Comey has created that misleading impression that could change the outcome of a presidential election, an act that, if uncorrected, will undoubtedly go down as one of the darkest moments in the bureau’s history.”

New Yorker: James Comey Broke With Loretta Lynch And Justice Department Tradition: “Coming less than two weeks before the Presidential election, Comey’s decision to make public new evidence that may raise additional legal questions about Clinton was contrary to the views of the Attorney General, according to a well-informed Administration official. Lynch expressed her preference that Comey follow the department’s longstanding practice of not commenting on ongoing investigations, and not taking any action that could influence the outcome of an election, but he said that he felt compelled to do otherwise.”

Charlotte Observer Editorial: Comey drops Hillary Clinton email bombshell; so tell us more: “But it is extraordinary for such volatile information to emerge so close to Election Day and that’s especially true given how few specifics are known. Because Comey was so vague, voters can’t know what to think. The new emails could be anything from meaningless to evidence of criminal activity by Clinton to most anything in between.”

ThinkProgress: The ‘new’ Clinton emails might all be duplicates: “So, to be clear, the FBI Director delivered a gut punch to the Clinton campaign, despite the fact that 1) he doesn’t know what he has; 2) it may be something that he already had; and, 3) whatever it is that he has, it reportedly didn’t come from Secretary Clinton, and was not sent to her.”

Huffington Post: Heat Rises For FBI Director James Comey As Both Campaigns Demand Email Answers: “Both camps demanded that FBI Director James Comey disclose more details about the emails and the bureau’s investigation, which he made known in a letter to Congress just 11 days before the election…. Many challenged the FBI director’s motives, increasing the pressure on him to comply with calls from both campaigns for more information.”

Once Again, “Bombshell” Clinton Revelation Fizzles As Facts Come Out

Yesterday, Republican Congressional leaders leaked an unprecedented letter from FBI Director James Comey, with initial reports including dire headlines for Hillary Clinton. But like most “bombshell” discoveries about Clinton over the course of this campaign, it fizzled rapidly as facts actually became available. Let’s review…

YESTERDAY’S BOMBSHELL: NBC News: FBI re-opening investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server

  • Jason Chaffetz: “FBI Dir just informed me, ‘The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.’ Case reopened”
  • GOP: “BREAKING NEWS: The FBI is re-opening their investigation into @HillaryClinton’s secret server.”

…facts emerge:

  1.       Investigation not reopened. Huffington Post: News Outlets Dial Back Reports Of FBI ‘Reopening’ Hillary Clinton Email Case
  2.      No emails had been withheld. NBC News: “the e-mails Comey announced today were NOT originally withheld by Clinton or campaign.”
  3.      Emils not from Clinton’s server. Bloomberg: New Clinton E-mails Not From Her Private Server, AP Says
  4.      Emails reportedly not to or from Clinton. Los Angeles Times: “The emails were not to or from Clinton”
  5.      No indication emails bear significance. Comey memo to employees: “we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails”
  6.      Many emails likely duplicates of ones already turned over. ThinkProgress: The ‘new’ Clinton emails might all be duplicates
  7.      Comey letter violates DOJ policy. Washington Post: Justice officials warned FBI that Comey’s decision to update Congress was not consistent with department policy
  8.      Comey overruled AG Loretta Lynch. CNN: “Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates disagreed with FBI Director James Comey’s decision to notify Congress about his bureau’s review…”
  9.      Former officials on both sides of aisle criticized Comey. New York Times: “Mr. Comey’s letter opened him up to criticism not only from Democrats but also from current and former officials at the F.B.I. and the Justice Department, including Republicans.”
  10.   Clinton and Trump both calling for more information. Huffington Post: “Both camps demanded that FBI Director James Comey disclose more details about the emails and the bureau’s investigation”

This is hardly the first time. It seems the script is always the same:

  1.       Bombshell allegation is made hastily without facts available
  2.      Media breathlessly covers the latest supposed Clinton Scandal
  3.      Republicans declare that this time they’ve found the smoking gun
  4.      Initial explosive reports slowly fizzle on account of facts

Here are just five of the many recent examples:

BOMBSHELL: @GOP, 8/30/16: “BREAKING: State Dept discovered 30 emails recovered from Hillary Clinton’s private server that discussed Benghazi.”

…facts emerge: Los Angeles Times, 9/7/16: “There appears to be only one new communication related to Benghazi… a complimentary note from a diplomat to Clinton, praising how she handled herself before a Senate panel investigating the matter.”


BOMBSHELL: @GOP, 5/5/16: “Hacker ‘Guccifer’ told news outlets that he repeatedly accessed Clinton’s unsecure email server & that ‘it was easy’”

…facts emerge: FOX News, 7/7/16: Comey: Hacker ‘Guccifer’ Lied About Accessing Clinton’s Emails


BOMBSHELL: @AP, 8/23/16: “BREAKING: AP analysis: More than half those who met Clinton as Cabinet secretary gave money to Clinton Foundation.”

…facts emerge: Vox, 8/24/16: “Except it turns out not to be true. The nut fact that the AP uses to lead its coverage is wrong, and Braun and Sullivan’s reporting reveals absolutely no unethical conduct….  the AP excluded from the denominator all employees of any government, whether US or foreign.”


BOMBSHELL: Washington Post, 8/22/16: The FBI found 15,000 emails Hillary Clinton didn’t turn over. Uh oh.

…facts emerge: CNN, 10/7/16: “Okay, so what’s in this latest batch? Short answer: No bombshells. More than half of the emails are these so-called “near duplicates” of previously released emails… There are also a number of emails between Clinton and her close aides in which they discuss scheduling matters – timing for phone calls, meetings, etc…. None of the new emails contained information marked as classified or upgraded to classified.”


BOMBSHELL: The Hill, 7/5/16: FBI director: Clinton emails were marked as classified at the time

…facts emerge: MediaIte, 7/7/16: FBI Director Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Were Not Properly Marked Classified


The campaign and the DOJ are treading carefully.  AG Loretta Lynch has referred to a break in tradition.  No official has yet mentioned the Hatch Act of 1939 (tweeters have), but it appears there could be grounds for a complaint.  Looking at this poster from the Office of Special Counsel, you can see the FBI clearly listed among the restricted agencies on the bottom left and, on the right, the second may not involves use of official authority to interfere in an election.

There is no better time than right now to make a donation to help Hillary secure the White House and Dems to capture seats in the Senate, House, statehouses, and assemblies.  Let’s not let this slip through our fingers.

New UPDATE!  Harry Reid’s 10/30 letter to Comey.

“Through your partisan actions,” he tells Comey, “you may have broken the law.”

The Hatch Act is what prevents members of the US military from attending political rallies in uniform, or government workers from wearing campaign pins to work. In other words, it applies to activity that’s a lot less significant than what Reid is accusing Comey and the FBI of: selectively telling the public about information that could be damaging to one candidate, while not telling it about information that could be (much more) damaging to her opponent.


and see letter >>>>

And now THIS >>>>

… on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.

(For the sake of full disclosure, in this election I have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order.)

Read more >>>>

Read Full Post »

Some of the recovered emails that the FBI investigators combed through had what could have been noticed or missed depending upon how far down a chain of emails you scrolled or how quickly your eye scanned the text. (c) To discern the marking you had first to know what it indicated and second had to read carefully and thoroughly through the email chain since the marking might have appeared in an early version of an email and might have been removed in later texts, or the marking might not have been removed when it should have been. Did you see it?  In testimony to the Oversight Committee, FBI Director James Comey stated that paragraphs or sentences bearing this mark were not offset with indentation.

(c) Now you see it.

At yesterday’s State Department press briefing, these little (c)s were the subject of a great deal of interest.  John Kirby is the State Department spokesperson.

QUESTION: Firstly, the marking of a parentheses “C” – where does that come from? What law designates a parentheses “C” as a valid classification marking?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know.

QUESTION: Can you check on that, so that we know?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know that it is governed by law, but I’ll be happy to check and see.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, if it isn’t, I would be interested to know how it’s indeed classified.

MR KIRBY: Not everything in terms of procedure is governed by legislation, Brad. But I’ll check and see where – if that’s covered in any way.

QUESTION: Well, I looked at Executive Order 13526, which seems to be – well, which proclaims to be the rule on classified national security information. And it doesn’t talk about anything about parentheses “C”s or anything like that. It talks about three valid terms – Secret, Top Secret, and Confidential. And it explicitly says any other marking is invalid. So if you could figure that out, that’d be great.

And then secondly —

MR KIRBY: I would – let me just – I will do what I can, Brad.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay.

MR KIRBY: But I mean, you’re – the issue of classification and markings is not a State Department responsibility in the government. I mean, we obviously have our responsibilities to obey the executive order, but I don’t want to set us up as the authority to speak to every issue of marking that the U.S. Government follows.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know that the U.S. Government follows this writ large. It seems that you follow it. But I’d like to know why, or based on what.

MR KIRBY: I’ll check.

QUESTION: Secondly, on the category of classification, I think yesterday you said it was to protect the idea of a call or to not get ahead of the Secretary’s decision-making process. Again, there are strict rules, as I see them, for classification, what can be classified – WMDs and critical infrastructure, covert intelligence. Can you tell me what protecting the Secretary’s decision-making process falls under?

At this point, the email in question marked with a (c) involved the scheduling of a call sheet.  There was a proposed call to perhaps be scheduled or perhaps not to a head of state offering condolences.

MR KIRBY: I don’t have the advantage of having that document in front of me, Brad. And I’m not an expert on it; I’m not going to pretend to be or purport to be. I’m happy to further research your question.


MR KIRBY: Happy to do that. But as I said yesterday, this was a – this is a fairly common practice and it’s designed to try to treat with care and prudence and not to close down decision space of the Secretary in advance of a recommended call – in case, for instance, that call doesn’t get made or it gets made under a different set of circumstances. So the degree to which it’s governed by regulation or order, I don’t know. And again, I’m happy to look. But I —

QUESTION: I have one more you might need to look into.

MR KIRBY: But – but I – but I think we need to take 10 steps back, take a deep breath, and look at this in perspective. This is a practice which many people use here as a way to try to protect what we believe is sensitive information and to try to preserve decision space for the Secretary of State in advance of, in this case, making a call. So look, I mean, we could have the debate over and over again —

QUESTION: Let me just have my last question. It also under classification rules say you have to put a specific date or event for declassification that must be stated. It doesn’t say when the Secretary decides and there’s a cognitive process inside the Secretary’s brain to make a call that that ends the classification. So can you tell me where this practice on kind of ad hoc expiration comes from as well?

MR KIRBY: I’ll ask the question, Brad.

QUESTION: And then —

MR KIRBY: I have to tell you, though – I mean, I’ll ask these questions; they’re fair questions.


MR KIRBY: But again, we’re talking about people trying to do the best they can to protect some sensitive information and protect decision space for the Secretary, and we’re – and of the entire universe of documents, we’re talking about an extraordinarily small amount. So I don’t – I am – again, I’m not pushing back and I will be happy – first of all, I’m happy to admit what I don’t know, happy to go try to find out for you, but I do think it’s important to keep this whole matter in some sense of perspective here in terms of the universe of the issue.

QUESTION: I do. But here’s why I think it’s relevant, and I’ll pose this as a statement/question.

MR KIRBY: There’s a surprise.

QUESTION: We had a discussion earlier this week where you forcibly rejected the notion that there’s a lax culture when it comes to classification in this agency, and now you’re saying that there are practices here that don’t – maybe don’t ascribe to any guidelines or rules, but just are done as a matter of practice for protecting decision-making processes or what, when there are strict guidelines on how you are supposed to classify things. And I don’t quite see what’s wrong with the law, as it is for the entire government —

MR KIRBY: Well, let’s not presume —

QUESTION: — that we need this separate process.

MR KIRBY: First of all – so first of all, let me go —

QUESTION: And why —

MR KIRBY: Let me go research it —

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah.

MR KIRBY: — and we’ll find out if there’s some sort of violation here. But when I refer to questions about a lax culture, it was a broad-brush statement that was made about a lax security culture at the entire State Department – which, as I said the other day, we don’t subscribe to. We don’t share that assessment. Now, you could look at it your way and say, “Well, if we’re not following the rules, then that proves the point.” I would look at it the other way, is that you have people that are trying to take extraordinary care in a pre-decisional environment for the Secretary of State and to preserve what could be sensitive information in advance of a call that might not be taking place. That to me doesn’t connote a culture of negligence and lackadaisical disregard for sensitive information. It actually, to me, says the opposite.

So let’s just agree that I’m going to go ahead and try to see what I can do to put some fidelity on these questions, but I am – still stand by my comment the other day that a broad-brush assessment that the State Department is lax, doesn’t have a healthy security conscience here, is simply without base.

So this (c) marking is a common practice at the department, elsewhere referred to as a “standard practice,” and may simply indicate that at the moment there is a suggestion to make this call but we are not making it public unless/until the secretary decides to make or not make the call.  In other words, it may be temporary.

QUESTION: Okay, great. Second thing: Going back to the discussion that you had yesterday and just now with regard to the practice of putting a “C” on such a memo prior to a decision that has been made for the secretary to place such a call, the – one of the emails talks about having a call at 7:30 a.m. or at some other point during the course of the day. Is it your view that the decision to make the call – this is the one about the condolences to the president of Malawi. Is it your view that the decision to make the call had indeed been made when those emails were sent and you were just talking about what time it would be?

MR KIRBY: I have no idea. There’s no way for me to know that.

QUESTION: Well, if you don’t know whether the decision to make the call had been made at that point, then how do you know the information wasn’t – wasn’t not just marked classified but actually classified when the secretary sent it – when the secretary’s aide sent it?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know – I don’t know how to answer your question. What I said yesterday – I’m not going to get into litigating each and every one of these emails. What I said yesterday is oftentimes it is practice to mark them Confidential in advance of a decision to make a call, and then once the decision is made they’re made Sensitive but Unclassified and they’re provided to the Secretary in a way that he or she can then use as they’re on the phone, and that – that by all appearances, it appears to us that the remnant “C”, if you will, on this particular email call sheet was human error because it appears to me from the traffic that the secretary had been asking, had been wanting the call sheet, which would, I think, indicate that the secretary was at that time intending on making the call.

But I can’t say that for sure because I wasn’t here and I wasn’t involved in the email traffic itself. So I’m being careful about how I’m wording this because we’re making assumptions here that I simply don’t know for a fact are true. But that’s why we believe in this case it was – it was simply human error in terms of the transmission of that particular subparagraph labeled “C”.

QUESTION: Okay. So it’s your assumption that the secretary had at that point made the decision, hence the information would no longer have been classified, hence the marking was a rogue or —

MR KIRBY: A human error.


MR KIRBY: A mistake. That’s our assumption, Arshad. But again, not having been here and party to that entire exchange, I don’t know that for – to be a fact 100 percent.


QUESTION: I have one more on this if people are – want to go on. I just wanted to ask if, in the event the secretary decides not to make the call, when does the classification expire?

MR KIRBY: I don’t know, Brad.

QUESTION: Well, isn’t that useful information given that there are strict rules as well on classification cannot be indefinite in this country?

MR KIRBY: We’re – I’m not going to get into a circular argument with you here on this. I told you I will look at the regulation.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay.

MR KIRBY: I will do the best I can to answer your questions, Brad. But all I’m trying to do is put some perspective on this.

QUESTION: It was – it’s a very confusing policy. That’s why there are so many questions.

MR KIRBY: I didn’t – it’s a – I didn’t call it a policy. I said oftentimes it is standard practice —

QUESTION: Practice. It’s a very confusing practice.

MR KIRBY: — for it to be deemed Confidential in advance of the secretary making a decision – hang on, Goyal – making a decision, and then it is rendered SBU so that the secretary can use the document in an unclassified setting to make the call. And again, I am not an expert enough to debate the expiration of the classified setting, the markings on it. I will do the best I can to answer your questions. I think, again, taking a couple of steps back, look at this in broad terms – it is staff members working hard to try to protect decision space for the secretary in case that call doesn’t get made.


MR KIRBY: And maybe we don’t want that out there that we decided no, we’re not going to call that foreign leader, we don’t think it’s okay to send him a condolence message. And that’s not information necessarily that we want to have in the unclass environment. And so you have people that are doing the best they can to try to protect decision space for the secretary and to protect – and to protect what we still would render as sensitive information. Again, that doesn’t connote to me a culture of laxity and negligence and —

QUESTION: Oh, I mean, I didn’t ask that on this question. But if you classify something and it’s to protect the possibility that maybe the secretary doesn’t make the call, that information still has to become public at some point. Whether you don’t want it to or don’t think it should be is regardless. It’s public information after a point of declassification.

MR KIRBY: No it doesn’t.

QUESTION: That’s how it works in this country.

MR KIRBY: It doesn’t automatically become public; it becomes declassified at a certain point.

QUESTION: It becomes declassified.

MR KIRBY: That doesn’t mean it has to be put in the public domain.

QUESTION: Well, it becomes declassified at a certain point, isn’t that right?

MR KIRBY: Eventually Classified information will have an expiration on it.

QUESTION: But in this case there was no expiration, so it just kind of was undefined.

MR KIRBY: Well, you and I don’t know that, do we? Because what we have is an email that was put on the unclass side. It was taken to – put on the unclass side, and one marking on one paragraph was labeled “C,” which we believe was a human error. But you and I haven’t seen what was the actual Confidential call sheet that was prepared before it was transferred over to the unclass side, so I don’t know how you and I could know what markings were on that call sheet or what dates were put on there, if any.

QUESTION: I don’t know —

MR KIRBY: Right.

QUESTION: — but I also didn’t know that this sentence comes from a Classified – a fully Classified document. I don’t think anyone had told me that before.

MR KIRBY: I said yesterday that call sheets are generally —

QUESTION: So this sentence —

MR KIRBY: — considered Confidential, and that doesn’t mean that —

QUESTION: This sentence was lifted from a Classified document and put into an Unclassified document?

MR KIRBY: No, Brad. I mean, the call sheets are generally held at a Confidential level in advance of the secretary making a decision to make a call. Not every paragraph of that have to be Confidential. Like, you could still have a Confidential document with four paragraphs, right, and maybe three of those paragraphs are Confidential but one’s Unclassified. So, again, I haven’t seen the actual call sheet that was drafted, so I can’t tell you for sure that every paragraph in there was labeled Confidential with a “C” or Unclassified with a “U.” All I do know is that the email that was processed through FOIA and released contained one paragraph – I think it was actually a sentence; it was like the purpose of the call, I think – that was – that the “C” marking was retained when it was transmitted over an unclass system to former Secretary Clinton. Again, we believe that that was simply human error as the call sheet was moved over to a format that the secretary could use. That “C” should’ve been removed; it wasn’t, because – I mean, the line was really – it was the purpose of the call, I believe is what it was, and so you can see if that’s the document being moved over, that’s the paragraph being moved over, it should have been – the “C” marking should have been taken off.

The bottom line is that, in picking needles out of the haystack, the FBI investigators, reading tediously carefully, found a few of these (c)s  – perhaps remnant (c)s – in texts of strings of emails. None of the emails had headings using the three valid terms – Secret, Top Secret, and Confidential according to Executive Order 13526. The FBI found three emails with this mark.  The State Department as of yesterday only knew of two of the three. (To see more of yesterday’s press briefing, click here.)

Hillary’s campaign released this statement on the subject.

FBI’s Comey: Emails Reported as “Marked Classified” Were Improperly Marked and Could Be Reasonably Judged as Not Classified

In a key development at today’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, FBI Director James Comey clarified an apparent inconsistency between his remarks earlier this week and Secretary Hillary Clinton’s long-running public statements.

Clinton has long stated that none of the emails she sent or received were marked classified at the time. Comey, however, said Monday that there was a “very small number” of emails that bore markings.

Moments ago, Comey reconciled this apparent contradiction. He acknowledged for the first time that there were only three such emails, and that in each case the emails contained only “partial” markings — meaning, he acknowledged, that they were improperly marked and that as a result, the materials could have been reasonably judged as not classified.

Comey’s statements add to the findings announced by the State Department yesterday. At a press briefing, a State Department spokesman said the markings on these emails were the result of “human error” and did not belong in these emails, as the underlying contents were not classified.

Below is the full exchange just now between Director Comey and Rep. Matt Cartwright:


MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don’t think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c’s on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?


MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record Mr. Chairman

CHAIRMAN: Without objection so ordered.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?


MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

 JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

Last night, several readers contacted me concerned about the news that the State Department has reopened its investigation into the matter of the emails and the server.  This is an internal inquiry that was underway and was suspended while the FBI investigation was ongoing.  It is set to continue, as it was expected to, now that the FBI investigation is complete and Justice Department has issued its decision.



phone calls (2)

Read Full Post »

Hillary’s campaign released a statement regarding FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee today.

Hillary for America Statement on FBI Director Comey’s Testimony Before House Committee

Hillary for America National Press Secretary Brian Fallon released the following statement Thursday following FBI Director James Comey’s appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: “Despite the partisan motivations of this hearing, we are glad it took place and that Director Comey had the opportunity to expand upon his remarks from earlier this week. Director Comey’s testimony clearly knocked down a number of false Republican talking points and reconciled apparent contradictions between his previous remarks and Hillary Clinton’s public statements. The Director’s explanations shut the door on any remaining conspiracy theories once and for all. While Republicans may try to keep this issue alive, this hearing proved those efforts will only backfire.”

15 Facts From Comey

FBI Director’s Testimony Backs Up Clinton, Debunks Republican Conspiracy Theories

Today, House Republicans brought FBI Director James Comey in to testify – after the conclusion of a year-long investigation – in hopes of uncovering new details to damage Hillary Clinton. Instead, Comey’s testimony only debunked GOP talking points and further substantiated Clinton’s case.

Here are 15 key takeaways:

  1.  Emails reported as “marked classified” were improperly marked.

MATT CARTWRIGHT:  I don’t think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little ‘C’s’ on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual? COMEY: No.

  1. And those emails could be reasonably judged as not classified.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: If Secretary Clinton were an expert about what’s classified and not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?  |  COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

  1. There’s no evidence Clinton ever knew she had received classified information or intended to retain it on her server.

COMEY: There is in my view not evidence beyond certainly probable cause, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she knew she was receiving classified information or she intended to retain it on her server.

  1. Guccifer admitted his claim he had hacked Clinton’s server was a lie.

BLAKE FARENTHOLD: And [Guccifer] claimed he gained access to Sid Blumenthal’s e-mail account and traced him back to Secretary Clinton’s private server. Can you confirm that Guccifer never gained access to her server.  |  COMEY: He admitted that was a lie.

  1. And there is no evidence that Clinton’s server has ever been successfully hacked.

COMEY: We were not able to conclude [any hacking attempts] were successful.

  1. The FBI’s investigation was not influenced by outside officials.

COMEY: “They didn’t influence it in any way.”

  1. Clinton’s case is nothing like the case of General David Petraeus.

COMEY: The Petraeus case to my mind illustrates perfectly the kind of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute. Even there, they prosecuted him for a misdemeanor. In that case, you had vast quantities of highly classified information, including special sensitive compartmented information, that’s the reference to code words. Vast quantity of it not only shared with someone without authority to have it but we found it in a search warrant hidden under the insulation in his attic and then he lied to us about it during the investigation. So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct, and a vast quantity of information. He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted. In my mind, it illustrates importantly the distinction to this case.

  1. Clinton’s case is nothing like the case of CIA Director John Deutch.

COMEY: The Deutch case illustrates [the difference between Clinton’s case and others who were prosecuted] perfectly. I mean he took huge amount of documents. Almost all at the TSSC I level. Had them in hard copy in his house, had them on an unclassified system connected to the internet, attempted to destroy some when he got caught. Admitted I knew I wasn’t supposed to be doing this. You have clear intent, huge amounts of documents, obstruction of justice. Those are the kinds of cases that get prosecuted. That’s what I said. I meant it when I said it. In my experience which is three decades no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know that frustrates people but that’s the way the law is and that’s the way the practice is at the Department of Justice.

9. Clinton’s case is nothing like the case of Navy Commander Bryan Nishimura

COMEY: Nishimura was prosecuted under the misdemeanor statute 1924 on facts that are very different. If you want me to go through them, I’ll go through them but they are very different.

  1. The FBI’s conclusion that there was no case against Clinton was unanimous.

WILL HURD: Was this unanimous opinion within the FBI on your decision?  |  COMEY: Well the whole F.B.I. wasn’t involved but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists — yes.

  1. Clinton’s email setup was, as she has always said, a matter of convenience.

COMEY: Our best information is she set it up as a matter of convenience. It was an already existing system that her husband had and she decided to have a domain on that system.

  1. Clinton did not instruct lawyers who performed the sorting of her emails.

JIM JORDAN: Did Secretary Clinton know her legal team deleted those emails they kept from us?  |  COMEY: I don’t believe so. | JORDAN: Did Secretary Clinton approve those emails being deleted?  |  COMEY: I don’t think there was any specific instruction or conversation between the Secretary and her lawyers about that.  |  JORDAN: Did you ask that question?  |  COMEY: Yes.  |  JORDAN: Did Secretary Clinton know her lawyers cleaned devices in such a way as to preclude forensic discovery?  |  COMEY: I don’t think she did.  |  JORDAN: Did you ask that question?  |  COMEY: Yes.

  1. Hillary Clinton did not lie to the FBI.

COMEY: We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.

  1. Clinton was not even evasive with the FBI.

COMEY: I don’t think the [FBI] agents assessed she was evasive [in their 3.5 hour interview with Hillary Clinton.]

  1. There is no truth to the idea that others are prosecuted for what Clinton did.

COMEY: There’s all kinds of folks watching this at home who are being told, ‘well, lots of other cases were prosecuted and she wasn’t.’ I want them to know, that’s not true!

The Republicans on that committee have been gunning for Hillary Clinton for years.  Time and again they have proven themselves to be the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

Flashback: Chaffetz and Gowdy Disclosed Sensitive Information, Outed a CIA Source

Chaffetz Flagrantly Used Personal Email

  • ABC News: Rep. Jason Chaffetz’s Business Card Lists His Gmail Address: “Hillary Clinton isn’t the only official who uses a non-government email address. A business card obtained by ABC News shows that Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, lists his Gmail address on his official House card.”


On Multiple Occasions, Chaffetz Inappropriately Disclosed Sensitive Information

  • Washington Post, 7/15/11: Homeland Security to Chaffetz: Stop the leaks of sensitive information “The Department of Homeland Security has complained to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) about what it says was an inappropriate disclosure of sensitive security information to the press by the House transportation panel that he chairs….a clearly miffed Department of Homeland Security Deputy Counsel Joseph B. Maher told Chaffetz that “sensitive security information” provided to his subcommittee by the Transportation Security Administration was illegally disclosed to the press.”

  • Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, 10/10/12: Chaffetz Revealed CIA Information During A Televised Congressional Hearing: “When House Republicans called a hearing in the middle of their long recess, you knew it would be something big, and indeed it was: They accidentally blew the CIA’s cover. […] Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) was the first to unmask the spooks.

    “Now that Chaffetz had alerted potential bad guys that something valuable was in the photo, the chairman, Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), attempted to lock the barn door through which the horse had just bolted. ‘I would direct that that chart be taken down,’ he said, although it already had been on C-SPAN. ‘In this hearing room, we’re not going to point out details of what may still in fact be a facility of the United States government or more facilities.’ May still be a facility? The plot thickened — and Chaffetz gave more hints. ‘I believe that the markings on that map were terribly inappropriate,” he said, adding that “the activities there could cost lives.'”

Similarly, Trey Gowdy Released The Name Of A CIA Source During The Benghazi Committee

  • POLITICO, 10/19/15: Gowdy appears to accidentally release CIA source’s name: “House Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy appears to have accidentally released the name of a CIA source in the midst of a back-and-forth with Democrats about how sensitive the information was and whether its presence in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account constituted a security breach.”

  • New Republic’s Brian Beutler, 10/9/15: Rep. Gowdy engaged in “flagrant misconduct” when he “fabricated a redaction in Clinton’s emails to make it look like she’d endangered a spy.”

  • Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, 10/20/15: Rep. Gowdy “made the sensational allegation” that Hillary Clinton burned a CIA Source, then completed the “comedy of errors” by publicly releasing the person’s name.

I remember that October 10, 2012 session so well. Chaffetz and the Republicans were lording it over the Dems on the committee because they had gone on a junket to Libya that they not only did not invite the Dems to, they didn’t even tell them they were going.  Showing off for having been there,  Chaffetz made a big scene when an aerial photo of “the annex” was shown.  He started saying that when he was there he was told never, never to discuss that building, and, in his flash of hubris, the world knew that “the annex” was actually a CIA operations base.  In exposing that information, Chaffetz clumsily shot himself and his party in the foot.  Their incessant cry asking why the Benghazi consulate remained open when other consulates had closed was answered with three letters.  There was also an active CIA operation in Benghazi.

Perusing the #ComeyHearing on Twitter, I saw Watergate come up in a few tweets.  To be clear, the only commonality between Watergate and this Benghazi come emails come server expedition is this: both the break-in at the DNC Watergate headquarters and the Republican Oversight Committee fishing expedition were Republican efforts to influence a presidential election.




phone calls (2)

Read Full Post »

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Statement from Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch Regarding State Department Email Investigation

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch released the following statement today regarding the State Department email investigation:

“Late this afternoon, I met with FBI Director James Comey and career prosecutors and agents who conducted the investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email system during her time as Secretary of State.  I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

Updated July 6, 2016

Read Full Post »

Hillary spoke to the National Education Association in Washington, D.C. today.  Among the issues she addressed was teacher salaries which, she noted, are the lowest for college graduates.  Refinancing student loans and debt forgiveness for those long in the “first and primary public service” were among her proposals to relieve financial strains for teachers whose work she called most important.

07-05-16-Z-01 07-05-16-Z-02 07-05-16-Z-04 07-05-16-Z-0507-05-16-Z-03

While Hillary was speaking, FBI Director James Comey also spoke at length and in detail about the investigation into Hillary’s use of a private server as secretary of state. He said the bureau would not recommend charges, that there was no evidence that she intentionally sent or received classified information, and that that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the findings of the investigators.

Hillary Clinton Delivers Remarks at National Education Association

At the NEA in Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Hillary Clinton promised educators nationwide she would be their partner in the White House and they would always have a seat at the table. Clinton highlighted her commitment to modernizing and elevating the teaching profession – an integral part of ensuring every child receives a world class education.

Clinton also contrasted her vision with that of Donald Trump, who believes America invests too much in educating our children and whose education expertise consists mainly of the now defunct Trump University. Trump’s for-profit school has been accused of both fraud and high-pressure sales tactics to separate vulnerable Americans from their savings. Clinton said, “If you want to know how Donald Trump approaches education, look at his so-called Trump University…Donald Trump would leave out our most vulnerable students and let them fend for themselves.”

Clinton’s remarks, as transcribed, are below:

“Oh, we are hearing those thunder sticks all across Washington. The NEA is in town, and people should pay attention. I want to thank your president, Lily.  You are a wonderful leader, you are absolutely dedicated, determined, and fearless, and as the song says, you keep fighting.  That is your trademark, and I want to thank you and the officers, every single member of the NEA.  That’s something you don’t hear often enough, is it?  Thank you, thank you, thank you so much.

Thank you for caring for all of our children – no matter what they look like, or where they come from, or who they are – and thank you for the insights that you have shared with me, not only through this campaign, but going back many years.

I want to say right from the outset that I’m with you. And I can’t be too presumptuous, but if I am fortunate enough to be elected president, educators will have a partner in the White House, and you’ll always have a seat at the table. You see, I have this old-fashioned idea that when we’re making decisions about education, we actually should listen to our educators. And I can tell you, it meant so much to me that you had my back during the primary.  I would go to events across our country and I’d see your T-shirts, I’d see your signs – it just made me feel so terrific, because we are in this together, and we are stronger together, and we’re going to win together in November.

Today, I am asking for your support in the general election.  I’m asking you to campaign with me, campaign for me, campaign for us for our future, because like you, I get up every day and ask, ‘What can we do that will make it better for America’s kids?’  It is a disgrace that in this country, we have children who are hungry, children who are living in the worst kinds of poverty, children who are not being given the same chance to fulfill their own potential that we want for all kids.  I am committed to making sure every child in this country receives a world-class education with good schools, and good teachers, no matter what ZIP code they live in. And you know what that means.  That means supporting parents to be their child’s first teachers, something you all have talked to me about a lot; expanding access to quality – high quality – childcare, and universal preschool for every child.

It also means repairing our crumbling schools; buildings new, modern schools; investing in the training and support that our educators deserve to have – because when we invest in education, we invest in our country’s future, and we invest in making a stronger economy that works for all of us, not just those at the top. And I know to make good on this commitment, we need to focus on reaching new heights, not rehashing old arguments.  It is time to stop focusing only on quote, ‘failing schools.’  Let’s focus on all our great schools, too. Let’s replicate their success everywhere across America.

And when schools get it right, whether they’re traditional public schools or public charter schools, let’s figure out what’s working.  No, let’s figure out what’s working, and share it with schools across America.  We can do that.  We’ve got no time for all these ‘education wars’ where people on the outside try to foist for-profit schools on our kids – we will never stand for that.  That is not acceptable. So that’s what I’m – that’s what I’m asking all of us to do – let’s sit at one table.  Let’s sit and listen to each other, and particularly, let’s listen to you – the teachers and the support professionals who are with our kids all day, every day.

And rather than starting from ideology, let’s start from what’s best for our kids.

Now some of you know, these issues are not new to me.  My first job out of law school was working for the Children’s Defense Fund.  I went door to door in New Bedford, Massachusetts. I was there to try to figure out why so many kids were not in school.  We looked at census data, and we looked at school enrollment, and there was a big gap.  Well, what did we find?  We found children with disabilities who desperately wanted to go to school but they couldn’t, either because their local schools were unequipped and unwilling to give them the support they needed, or because their families couldn’t afford something so basic that would open up the world to them, like a wheelchair or a hearing aid.  So we collected information from across the country, and we presented our findings.  Those were the days when you actually could present facts to the Congress and they would pay attention to you.

And we got the first legislation, as you know, so well in the entire world, guaranteeing access to education for students with disabilities.  I was so proud of that, and I’m proud of all of you who have made it real in the lives of the kids, like those that I met all those years ago in New Bedford. And then years later, when my husband was Governor of Arkansas, national experts said – a national expert said the schools there were among the worst in the country.  Well, we didn’t like hearing that, did we?  So Bill asked me to head up a committee charged with trying to make some differences.  We held hearings in every county and came up with a plan, and boy, did we fight hard to get more resources as well as higher standards – especially for really small schools.  And teachers – teachers finally got the raises they deserved, the highest increase of any state in the country at that time.

So, I carry the lessons that I’ve learned from experiences like these with me every day.  If people will come together, work together, listen to each other, we can get the resources that our schools and our educators deserve and need to succeed.  My plan to strengthen public education comes down to TLC: teaching, learning, and community.  Let’s start with teaching. I know what you see every day.  America is asking more of our educators than ever before.  You’re preparing kids for a competitive economy and staying on top of new technologies and theories, and everybody looks to you to fill in the gaps that we as a country have neglected – like giving low-income kids, English-language learners, kids with disabilities the support they need to thrive.  And we also ask you to help right wrongs – from poverty and homelessness to the legacy of racial inequities stretching back centuries.  We ask so much of you – and we don’t give you near enough in return.

As president, I’ll launch a national campaign to modernize and elevate the profession of teaching.  I want all educators, at every stage of your careers, to know that they’ll be able to keep learning, improving, innovating. And that goes for administrators too.

And we need to be serious about raising your pay. Because teachers make nearly 15 percent less than other college graduates in America.  No educator should have to take second and third jobs just to get by. And the last thing a teacher needs when you’re just starting out is a mountain of student debt. So I want everyone to be able to refinance your student loans, so you never have to pay more than you can afford.  And for people who go into public service – and I include teaching because it is the first and primary public service – any remaining debt after you refinance will be forgiven after 10 years. And we’ll go even further for those who teach in hard-to-fill subjects such as computer science or special education.

And we should also pay support staff better than what they are currently receiving. I think it is an outrage that so many of the food service staff, the bus drivers, the paraprofessionals, and Education Support Professionals who keep our schools running and our children learning struggle themselves to provide for their own families.

And you know better than most, supporting educators also means finding the right balance on testing.  Tests should go back to their original purpose: giving useful information to teachers and parents – so that you know and parents know how our kids and our schools are doing, and then we can come together to help them improve.  But when you’re forced to teach to a test, our children miss out on some of the most valuable lessons and experiences they can gain in the classroom.

And you know who that hurts the most?  That hurts our low-income kids and communities the most.  Because when I look at what’s being offered in schools from district to district, and I see how extracurricular activities have been stripped out of schools serving low-income kids but not out of schools that are better funded, that is fundamentally – that is a form of inequality, and we are not going to stand for it.

And that’s why I believe supporting educators means supporting unions that helped create the strongest middle class in the history of the world. You see, I know you’re not just fighting for your members.  You’re fighting for your students, and for families across America. So here’s what I want you to know.  For anyone who has faced a hostile state legislature, a union-busting governor or both, help is on the way. I will fight back against the attacks, and I will stand up for your right to organize and bargain collectively.

Now, all these things can only be done in partnership, so I’m asking you – and educators across the country – to work with me.  But I’m also asking you, as I’ve told Lily many times: advise me and hold me accountable.  Keep advocating for your students and your profession.

Now, the second part of TLC is learning, and we need to educate our children for the future, not the past.  Technological change is transforming every aspect of our lives.  And we want our children to be creators, innovators, entrepreneurs – critical thinkers who can collaborate and communicate within their own communities and around the world.  We need our students to be nimble, flexible, and brave enough to adopt and build on their skills.

And you know this better than most.  The world is changing, but our education system is lagging behind.  Consider this: There are more than half a million open jobs that require computing skills across the country and in every major industry.  But the majority of schools in the United States do not offer computer science.  It isn’t just that there’s a shortage of computer science teachers.  It’s that we haven’t made a commitment to do that.  But I have.  I’m going to prioritize – give our educators the time and the resources they need to learn how to integrate digital tools into the curriculum.

And on top of that, more than 70 percent of teachers assign homework that requires broadband access – but more than 5 million children don’t have it.  We need to finish the job and make sure every home in America has access to high-speed, affordable broadband connectivity. We’re going to close the gap so that every child has a chance to know computer science.  We’re going to close the homework gap.  We’re going to use all the tools at our disposal, including technology, to give our kids and our educators what you need in these times that we’re living in.

And finally, there’s the ‘C’ in TLC – community.  So much of what happens inside your classrooms is determined by what happens outside your classrooms. And you see it every day.  Too many of our public school students are living in poverty.  That’s on all of us.  You see students coming to school hungry, or exhausted from a long night at a shelter.  One night in Iowa during the caucus there, a group of teachers was sitting in the front row of my event, and when it came time for questions one of the teachers said, ‘What should I do?  It’s cold outside and I have kids coming to school with no jackets, nothing warm to put on.’ She said, ‘I’m going to go buy them something, but that’s just the beginning.’  It is time we treated every child as our precious child, and not—” AUDIENCE:  “Hillary!  Hillary!  Hillary!” HILLARY CLINTON:  “I’ll tell you, let’s not ignore the weight of the problems that those little kids bring on their little shoulders to school every day.  We need to tackle all the problems holding our kids back, and we need to do it together, as one American community.

Let’s create more community schools, more partnerships between schools, social services and nonprofit organizations to provide a range of services and opportunities for kids. You should not have to be from a well-to-do family to get good mental health services or join a soccer team or be in a play at school. These should be within reach of all our kids.

Now, fixing problems like these will take all of us working together from the community level all the way up to the presidency.  That’s just one of the many reasons why this election is so important, because Donald Trump has a very different idea about all of this. For starters, he wants to, quote, ‘largely eliminate’ the Department of Education, but he said maybe he’ll leave some, quote, ‘tentacles’ out there – whatever that means. Now, that agency doesn’t always get it right, but it provides support for vital programs from pre-K to Pell Grants, and crucial resources that help low-income students, students with disabilities and English-language learners.  Donald Trump would leave out our most vulnerable students and let them fend for themselves.  He’s even said that America spends too much on education, and this is coming from someone who wants to give millionaires a $3 trillion tax cut over the next decade. I’d like to hear him explain that to parents in Detroit, where students share classrooms with rodents, or in rural South Carolina, where the schools are falling to pieces.

If you want to know how Donald Trump approaches education, look at his so-called Trump University. Hard to believe, but they took advantage of vulnerable Americans, encouraging them to max out their credit cards, empty their retirement savings, destroy their financial futures.  No wonder Donald Trump is being sued for fraud.  The bottom line is that just like Trump shouldn’t have his finger on the button or his hands on our economy, he should not have anything to do with our children’s education and our public schools.

Parents and educators across America are already worried about what they are calling – and telling me they’re calling – the Trump effect: bullying and harassment is on the rise in our schools.  Last week, a mother in Wisconsin wrote me a letter saying that her adopted son had turned to her and said, ‘If Trump becomes president, he’s going to make me go back to Ethiopia.’  That’s the kind of fear Donald Trump is creating in the heart of a 10-year-old American boy.

So I wish more people thought about how Donald Trump’s rants are being heard by our children.  What do they […] from his racist attacks against a federal judge, or when he encourages his supporters to punch protesters in the face and then offers to pay their legal bills?  You would not tolerate that kind of behavior in your classrooms.  Let’s not tolerate it from someone trying to become president of the United States.

My friends, we are so much better than this.  America is a bighearted, fair-minded country.  We teach our children this is one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And that means it.  That means for all – not just those who look a certain way or worship a certain way or love a certain way.  That’s why we’re counting on the American people to make the right choice in November for our future.  We are stronger when our children have the chance to live up to their full potential.  And we are stronger when we invest in public education and our educators.

I feel passionately about this because I’m the product of great public schools and great teachers. I could keep you here all day telling you stories about what they taught me.  In first grade, Miss Taylor read us Winnie the Pooh.  In fifth grade, Mrs. Krause taught us about Sputnik and told us we had to work a lot harder on math and science. In sixth grade, Mrs. King drilled us in grammar.  And in junior high and high school, my teachers challenged me; they helped me understand the world I lived in and what I might do to make a difference.  That’s what all of you do every day – spark a student’s love for learning, change the course of his or her life for the better. And now, I heard Lily when I was backstage talking about her granddaughter, Lily Jo. And I’ll tell you, as passionate as I’ve always been, I’m even more passionate now.  With my granddaughter and my grandson, I’m going to make sure not only that they have opportunities – that’s not enough.  I want to make sure every child has opportunities.  I want to make sure our country lives up to our promise to the next generation.  I want them to feel they can go as far as their hard work and talent, and that every other child has the same chance.

So let’s keep going.  Let’s keep making our case.  Let’s keep working for better schools, more resources, more support for educators.  And boy, I can’t wait, because I know that Lily and everybody will not let me rest.  And I don’t want to rest, Lily.  There’s too much work to be done.  I will be a president who helps you get the support you deserve and need.  That’s a promise, because I believe in public education.  I believe in educators.  I believe in all of you.  Let’s give our kids every chance they deserve.  Thank you so much!”




phone calls (2)

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts

%d bloggers like this: