Questionable Gaps in Clinton’s Email Record Raise Suspicions

Sleeping children, a ringing telephone, a voiceover that hints at a grave security threat. Clinton’s “3 A.M.” campaign ad from the 2008 primary is widely considered to be one of the most effective of all time. It painted her as capable of leading the country during a world crisis and it portrayed Barack Obama—without explicitly saying it—as an untested neophyte incapable of keeping us safe.

But in hindsight it looks absolutely ridiculous. The FBI Investigation into Clinton’s use of an insecure, home-brew email server may not have resulted in prosecution, but it did indict her character. It revealed the numerous lies she told throughout the campaign in order to hide the enormity of her recklessness, and it showed that she was “extremely careless” in her handling of the nation’s secrets.

“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey concluded.

In other words, Clinton—the one we’re supposed to believe is the person best qualified to take the 3 a.m. phone call—can’t even exercise the same judgment as a “reasonable person.” She can’t even keep her email safe. Perhaps worst of all, she can’t even remember the mantra of Watergate, the impeachment investigation she worked on as young lawyer: “It’s not the crime. It’s the cover-up.”

Her myriad misstatements may just be the start of a much longer saga. In fact, we may just be learning of the depth of Clinton’s attempt to cover up her misdeeds. Peter Schweizer writes for Politico:

But, when it comes to Clinton’s correspondence, the most basic and troubling questions still remain unanswered: Why are there gaps in Clinton’s email history? Did she or her team delete emails that she should have made public? …

One useful approach in determining what emails might be missing is to overlay the Clinton emails with State Department cables that were released via WikiLeaks. As one might expect, the volume of cables and the volume of emails about specific events tend to rise and fall together.

But then there is an instance where the State Department cable traffic rises and there are few if any Clinton corresponding emails. It’s the case of Rosatom, the Russian State Nuclear Agency: Clinton and senior officials at the State Department received dozens of cables on the subject of Rosatom’s activities around the world, including a hair-raising cable about Russian efforts to dominate the uranium market. As secretary of state, Clinton was a central player in a variety of diplomatic initiatives involving Rosatom officials. But strangely, there is only one email that mentions Rosatom in Clinton’s entire collection, an innocuous email about Rosatom’s activities in Ecuador. To put that into perspective, there are more mentions of LeBron James, yoga and NBC’s Saturday Night Live than the Russian Nuclear Agency in Clinton’s emails deemed “official.”

If the Rosatom name sounds familiar, that’s because a New York Times investigation from April found that Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra began buying up uranium mines—including 20 percent of the entire United States’ reserve—and then sold a majority stake of his company to Rosatom, the Russian Atomic Agency. Here’s where things get fishy fast: Giustra donated $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation the same year that the deal was under review by the Clinton State Department. The Times dug into some other questionable dealings:

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock

Uranium One’s chairman wasn’t the only one to make donations to the Clinton Foundation. The story goes on to say that “a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia” donated between $1.3 million and $5.6 million to the Foundation. The goal of these enormous donations was not purely charitable, it was an attempt to purchase influence, to sway the decisionmaking of a key player in the decision over whether the deal could move forward. As one Foundation insider said candidly, “Why do you think they are doing it – because they love them?”

Hmm. Clinton really had nothing to say in email about Rosatom’s attempts to dominate the market? Highly doubtful. The more likely scenario is that these emails were deemed “personal” and deleted in order to hide the quid pro quo arrangement she had with Giustra. Welcome to a Clinton presidency: Secrets available for free, influence available for the right price.