RUTHFULLY YOURS

Hillary Clinton used more than a dozen email devices during her time as secretary of state, and a technician took steps to delete an archive of her emails after House lawmakers demanded they be saved, according to documents released Friday by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The newly public information also shows that Mrs. Clinton was warned at the outset of her tenure by former Secretary of State Colin Powell that her work-related email messages could become subject to public release. And in an interview with FBI agents in July, the Democratic presidential candidate offered a defense of her handling of sensitive drone-strike conversations.

The new disclosures were contained in two documents released by the FBI on Friday—a report summarizing the bureau’s investigation of Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement, which concluded with a recommendation that she not be prosecuted, and a summary of her interview. The FBI said it was releasing the material in the interests of transparency.
On Friday, Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said, “We are pleased that the FBI has released the materials from Hillary Clinton’s interview, as we had requested.” He added, “While her use of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the Justice Department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case.”

The documents disclosed few dramatic new facts, but they painted a picture of Mrs. Clinton as inattentive to computer security and unsophisticated about the classification system. They also confirmed a Wall Street Journal report in June that the FBI was especially concerned about email exchanges including Mrs. Clinton that concerned possible drone strikes.

Much in the documents is redacted, with information removed for security, privacy or other reasons, leaving significant gaps in the FBI’s information and conclusions.

The report contains the descriptions of an email exchange between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Powell, secretary of state under President George W. Bush, in which Mr. Powell warned her two days after she became secretary that if her use of a BlackBerry became “public,” her emails could become part of the “official record and subject to the law.”

“Be very careful. I got around it all by not saying much and not using systems that captured the data,” said Mr. Powell. A spokeswoman for Mr. Powell didn’t respond to a request for comment. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Left wins many arguments by setting the framework of the debate, often by indignant brushback pitches establishing that certain topics are strictly out of bounds – on pain of banishment from polite media society. Generally, those topics are the ones they know can hurt them. As Nathan J. Robinson illustrates in a striking profile of the Clinton Foundation in Current Affairs, Camp Clinton is striving to set a firm rule for discussions of the “charity” now at center stage in the presidential campaign: Don’t you dare question the good work done by the Foundation. Robinson notes, for example, James Carville’s admonition that “somebody is going to hell” for questioning the Foundation’s fundraising practices in light of all the wonderful things we are to believe it does.

As has reliably been the case over the years, establishment Republicans and other Clinton critics feel compelled to salute Bill and Hill’s heroic dedication to “public service” – their unimpeachable intentions and sincere efforts – before zeroing in on the shenanigans by which the pair has managed to cash in to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Recall the praise heaped on the Clintons by the Bush family and Senator John McCain.

Things are no different when it comes to the Clinton Foundation: Public etiquette requires genuflection to the Clintons’ selflessness before one may marvel at how they grab with all four hands.

It is a good strategy. The Clintons’ grubbiness is surely extraordinary, but only by degree – albeit big degree. Putting the State Department or the White House up for sale is huge, but it is not different in principle from what other shady pols do on the smaller scale available to them. Since the public tends to think of politics as an inherently shady business, the Clintons are apt to be given immunity, even for their monumental corruption, if it is stipulated from the start that it is all for the greater good of charity on a grand global scale.

But of course, it’s not. Indeed, it is not charity at all. As acknowledged (in Robinson’s piece) by longtime Clinton confidant Ira Magaziner, head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, “the whole thing is bankable…. It’s a commercial proposition. This is not charity.” Robinson continues:

Instead of aid, the Clinton Foundation spends much of its effort “creating new markets,” finding lucrative investment opportunities in the developing world for Western private capital. These have included everything from “using business methods to streamline fertilizer markets in Africa” to “working with credit card companies to expand the volume of low-cost loans offered to poor inner city residents.” (Note that typically, enticing poor people into taking on large amounts of credit card debt is not among the activities of a charitable foundation.) Bill Clinton is open about the fact that in this work, he is trying to help corporations profit from the developing world. He attempts to “reinvent philanthropy” as a lucrative enterprise for his partners because, in his words, “I think it’s wrong to ask anyone to lose money.”

It’s hard to keep track of all the “commercial propositions” the Foundation is engaged in, because it operates in a highly unusual fashion. Ordinarily, charitable foundations make grants to outside organizations. But only 15% of the Clinton Foundation’s spending is on charitable grants. Instead, it spends most of its money on its in-house programs, whose efficacy can be far more difficult to track. The task is made even more difficult thanks to the Foundation’s ongoing allergy to transparency.

Partly because of that, Charity Navigator, a watchdog group, at one point added the Clinton Foundation to its watch list of problematic charities, and still does not rate the organization because its “atypical business model. . . doesn’t meet our criteria.” The Clinton Health Access Initiative has refused to allow the charity evaluation organization GiveWell to analyze its outcomes, and the Better Business Bureau has listed the Clinton Foundation as failing to meet the basic standards for reporting the effectiveness of its programs. Bill Allison of the pro-transparency Sunlight Foundation has gone much further, and said that the organization operates as a “slush fund for the Clintons.”