As the founding board president of the Transcendental Politics Foundation, I made minor editorial contributions to the Transcendental Politics Handbook, which my co-founder and the organization’s executive director Steve Harvey wrote.
The introduction to the Handbook opens with these words:
The purpose of this handbook is to provide some guidance for constructive public discourse and civic engagement in order most effectively to mobilize our minds and wills in service to our shared humanity. It is a “how to” guide for the practice of Transcendental Politics.
From time to time on my own Facebook page and in the Transcendental Politics-affiliated Facebook group Wise Uncertainty, I reproduce social media exchanges with the goal of providing examples of good engagement and also to invite commentary, including suggestions for improvement.
In this edition of Decency and Sense I provide such an example from earlier today.
Please comment! I very much desire your input!
This conversation took place on the Facebook page of a friend of mine. My dialogue on that page was not with the poster but with someone we both know from childhood and public school.
I will use letters (not their actual initials) to identify these people – CP for the friend who posted, BM for the person with whom I engaged.
On June 9, CP posted a popular meme and wrote the following words as commentary on the news of that day: “GUILTY! Just my opinion.”
A friend of CP (a third party to these exchanges) responded thus:
“While there's the "presumption of innocence" .... Wow, his own words incriminate him. I know Hillary and Biden have done the same, or worse, but one doesn't excuse the other. If this starts the vulnerability of politicians to accountability it's a welcome change. If I was Hunter Biden I wouldn't be celebrating this new era too hard.
BM weighed in with a string of comments in support of the notion that “Hillary and Biden have done the same, or worse.” And then BM wrote the comment immediately below, triggering our continued dialogue.
BM
My comments were simply to support the person who stated that Biden and Clinton did similar things. At least Clinton did. The US statute specifically says that government workers can not destroy their work product. You are not allowed. The reason being is that public servants work for us. We are entitled to access their work product in most cases. Freedom of information. The US statute is specific and there are penalties. In fact, one of them is if you hold office like secretary of state, you must forfeit that office and you are then ineligible to run or hold another office again. Now you ask why didn’t that happen, because HRC admitted to Congress that emails that should have been preserved were deleted. Well the AG under OBAMA, not Trump but OBAMA met with Bill Clinton on a private jet, emerged and said they would not prosecute. If you or I did that for any reputable private company we would be immediately terminated. Again, let’s not be partisan. Our two-party system in this country is failing. The things that are occurring are shameful. The media and the bias is shameful. Just look at who our leaders actually are, and what our choices are. It’s a disgrace. What successful bright person who has built a life in the private sector would ever put that at risk today to go into public service??
ERIC BRODY
One can in good faith argue either side of the Hillary culpable debate. One ought, though, to keep in mind this evidence:
As it happened, Clinton copied all work emails to the State Department system so they had them. The Justice Department inspector general issued a report in 2018 about the FBI Investigation and determined that the people tasked with marking documents as classified had not done so clearly. Moreover, only three email chains "contained any classification markings of any kind," and they were low-priority "call sheets" marked with the lowest priority of classification, which had info and details for Clinton to refer to when talking to a foreign leader. There were no nuclear secrets or war plans among them, needless to say.
The State Department under Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo did two separate investigations and found in 2019 that "there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information" and that Clinton bore no "individual culpability."
And let's dispense with the "magnanimous" Trump defense. Trump tried desperately to get the DOJ to investigate Clinton (and many others he considered his political enemies.) His White House counsel told him that the DOJ operated independently and if he ordered it there would be tremendous unrest from career officials and massive political blowback. That didn't stop him. He conspired with Matthew Whittaker, then an assistant to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to get Sessions to assign a Special Counsel to investigate Clinton. In the end, they succeeded in getting Sessions to assign John Huber, a US Attorney in Utah to look into all the allegations against Clinton, including the bogus "Uranium One" scandal which had also already been dismissed. That investigation didn't turn up anything either.
Notably, when Bill Barr became Attorney General he looked into all of it and also came up with nothing. If anyone thinks that Barr wouldn't have prosecuted Clinton if he could have doesn't recall just how much he hates her guts. The evidence just wasn't there. So, the FBI, the DOJ Inspector General, two State Department probes, a Clinton-hating attorney general and a U.S. Attorney assigned to review all the evidence found that Clinton committed no crimes. (I'm not even counting the 10 Benghazi investigations which were the genesis of the email scandal —- and also came up empty.)
[...]
When former FBI Director James Comey held that first notorious press conference in the summer of 2016, in which he larded with inappropriate personal judgments about Clinton, he laid out the criteria the Justice Department uses when it decides whether to prosecute classified documents cases. He said:
*****In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.*****
.
.
Assuming they have proof of the charges in the Trump indictment, there can be little doubt that they met three of those four criteria, (the fourth being disloyalty to the United States which I believe to be true as well.) So when you see these Republicans emitting their epic whines about how unfair all this is because Hillary didn't get indicted, keep in mind that it wasn't for lack of Trump trying to get it done. It was because, unlike him, she didn't break the law. And even Jeff Sessions, Rex Tillerson, Mike Pompeo and Bill Barr couldn't find a way to make it so.
BM
Eric Brody with all due respect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digby_(blogger).
The author is biased, partisan and has an agenda. This is part and parcel of what is wrong today in America. We can Google anything and find something out there to support any hypothesis or perspective. Just because it's out there does not make it correct. Hilary Clinton admitted to doing wrong. Her actions in any reputable private sector job would have led to immediate termination and in some cases would be considered stealing. Public officials on any level are not allowed to take or destroy work product. You can't get a thank you note from someone and tear it up. US Citizens are entitled to see those things. It is against the law. Doing so is a crime and it carries fines and possible jail terms. The fact that partisanship dismisses this, as well as what Pence did, and Biden also did, simply condones terrible behavior. It all should be punished, and none of it should be diminished. It tears away at the fabric of our country.
ERIC BRODY
BM, one can raise counter arguments or discredit the other person's evidence.
What a decent and sensible person does NOT do is toss out what another person has said simply on the basis of that person's leaning or agenda.
With all due respect.
BM
Eric Brody no matter the situation or the evidence do you believe that Heather Digby Parton would ever publish anything to defend Donald Trump or point the finger at HRC? I don't. It’s about credibility. Again, HRC destroyed work product as secretary of state. She has admitted to doing so. She removed government documents from the govt system to a private server. Admitted to it. Without comparing to anyone, do you believe those constitute a violation of us 18 section 2071?? Biden and Pence removed documents they were not supposed to take. Do you think that is a violation of US 18 code 2071? Trump did it too and very well may have violated other laws which he is now being indicted for so I guess that’s worse. But asking do you think Clinton, Pence, Biden and Trump violated a US statute that has penalties??
ERIC BRODY
BM, the point of truth seeking is to arrive at the truth.
One arrives at the truth by examining evidence critically and incorporating it into one's understanding.
So please, spare me your challenges to Digby's credibility.
She hyperlinked her evidence in the essay.
You have every opportunity to determine whether she has lied to the world in asserting (factually, as it happens), "The Justice Department inspector general issued a report in 2018 about the FBI Investigation and determined that the people tasked with marking documents as classified had not done so clearly."
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/4515884/DOJ-OIG-2016-Election-Final-Report.pdf#page=284
.
.
You have every opportunity to determine whether she has lied to the world in asserting, also factually:
The State Department under Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo did two separate investigations and found in 2019 that "there was no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information" and that Clinton bore no "individual culpability."
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22276420-final-ad j
.
.
Furthermore, you very well could have sought to uncover the REAL truth behind Digby's assertion that:
He conspired with Matthew Whittaker, then an assistant to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to get Sessions to assign a Special Counsel to investigate Clinton. In the end, they succeeded in getting Sessions to assign John Huber, a US Attorney in Utah to look into all the allegations against Clinton, including the bogus "Uranium One" scandal which had also already been dismissed. That investigation didn't turn up anything either.
It is all true, of course.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/20/politics/donald-trump-don-mcgahn-clinton-comey/index.html
.
.
But no, you instead rant about the purported criminal violations that some other commenter(s) – whom you choose to credit (and that's fine!) – put into your head.
And did that Hillary-bashing (I assume; by all means correct me) commentary mention that the Office of Inspector General, Secretaries of State Tillerson and Pompeo, and the DOJ – all under the former guy's administration – found no serious violation? My guess is no, but by all means cite your sources and let's look at it together.
I agree with you, BM, that some of Hillary's conduct was not great. There is legitimate room for criticism. Far from being a reflexive apologist for her, I said this at the time and again in this very thread, repeatedly!
I insist, though, on honesty and decency and sense in discourse. I do not suffer nonsense lightly.
BM
Eric Brody US statute 18 sec 2071 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2071 do you think that by removing original documents, classified or otherwise, and taking them to your private residence and sticking them there without anyone knowing, is a violation of the law I have linked above?
ERIC BRODY
BM, I understand from IG Horowitz's report the following with respect to Section 2071:
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2018/06/2016_election_final_report_06-14-18_0-2.pdf
page 36
The purpose of this statute is to prohibit conduct that deprives the government of the use of its documents, such as by removing and altering or destroying them.42 The Midyear prosecutors concluded that every prosecution under Section 2071 has involved the removal or destruction of documents that had already been filed or deposited in a public office of the United States (i.e., physical removal of a document). In addition, to fulfill the requirement that the individual acted “willfully and unlawfully,” Section 2071 requires the government to show that he or she acted intentionally, with knowledge that he or she was breaching the statute.43
page 254
As summarized below, the Midyear prosecutors concluded that there was not a basis to prosecute former Secretary Clinton, her senior aides, or others under any of these statutes. The prosecutors cited the following factual conclusions from the investigation as critical to its recommendation not to prosecute:
None of the emails contained clear classification markings as required under Executive Order 13526 and its predecessor. Only three email chains contained any classification markings of any kind. These email chains had one or two paragraphs that were marked “(C)” for “Confidential” but contained none of the other required markings, such as classification headers.
There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton believed or were aware at the time that the emails contained classified information. In the absence of clear classification markings, the prosecutors determined that it would be difficult to dispute the sincerity of these witnesses’ stated beliefs that the material was not classified. The senders and former Secretary Clinton relied on the judgment of employees experienced in protecting sensitive information to properly handle classified information.
The emails in question were sent to other government officials in furtherance of the senders’ official duties. There was no evidence that the senders or former Secretary Clinton intended that classified information be sent to unauthorized recipients, or that they intentionally sought to store classified information on unauthorized systems.
There was no evidence that former Secretary Clinton had any contemporaneous concerns about the classified status of the information that was conveyed on her unclassified systems, nor any evidence that any individual ever contemporaneously conveyed such concerns to her.
Although some witnesses expressed concern or surprise when they saw some of the classified content in unclassified emails, the prosecutors concluded that the investigation did not reveal evidence that any U.S. government employees involved in the SAP willfully communicated the information to a person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retained the same.
The senders used unclassified emails because of “operational tempo,” that is, the need to get information quickly to senior State Department officials at times when the recipients lacked access to classified systems. To accomplish this, senders often refrained from using specific classified facts or terms in emails and worded emails carefully in an attempt to avoid transmitting classified information.
There was no evidence that Clinton set up her servers or private email account with the intent of communicating or retaining classified information, or that she had knowledge that classified information would be communicated or retained on it.
page 257
The prosecutors also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, which prohibits the willful concealment, removal, or destruction of federal records. They concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that former Secretary Clinton or her senior aides intended to conceal records, citing testimony that these witnesses expected that any emails sent to a state.gov address would be preserved. The prosecutors acknowledged that this testimony was undercut by former Secretary Clinton’s admission that she sometimes communicated with her senior aides using their personal email accounts, as well as an email she received from former Secretary of State Colin Powell at the beginning of her tenure outlining his use of personal email. However, the prosecutors noted that Section 2071 had “never been used to prosecute individuals for attempting to avoid Federal Records Act requirements by failing to ensure that government records are filed appropriately.”
On the basis of this, it is my considered opinion that the continued invocation of Section 2071 with respect to Clinton is a bit tendentious and really quite absurd when mentioned in the same breath as the conduct that the indictment of the former guy illustrates.
Thank you for the conversation, which I do appreciate.
And I repeat, dear reader, I appreciate your thoughts as well. Please share them.
The discourse and fact checking are admirably patient and thorough. You are a better person than I am, because I’d have hung up after the second exchange. It was enervating to read, much less write!