PLEASE NOTE: A copy of the Clinton emails saved on the WikiLeaks server was captured from a private email server that Hillary Clinton used to communicate with her staff and associates while she was the Secretary of State under President Barack Obama from January 21, 2009, to February 1, 2013. It's very important to understand the purpose and reason why Hillary Clinton would use a private, non-government email server for her professional and official communications as the United States Secretary of State. It's also important to note that not only did Hillary Clinton have every email scrubbed from her private email server, but she also had the server completely destroyed in an effort to eliminate any evidence of wrongdoing.
An investigation by the FBI found that she did use a private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State. The FBI also found that Hillary Clinton and her staff were "extremely careless" in handling classified information on a private email server. However, no charges were ever filed against Hillary Clinton for violating several federal laws, including the Espionage Act. This proves that even during the presidency of Barack Obama, there was a two-tiered justice system. Additionally, the suspicious and timely death of Seth Rich, who happened to be a DNC staffer and the DNC's Voter Expansion Data Director, is noteworthy. The death of Seth Rich occurred around the time the Clinton emails were published on the WikiLeaks server—perhaps just a coincidence.
It is illegal to handle classified information on an unsecured or unauthorized system. If classified information is transmitted or stored on a private email server that is not approved for handling such information, it is a direct violation of the Espionage Act.
UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State
Case No. F-2014-20439
Doc No. C05771996
Date: September 30, 2015
RELEASE IN PART B5
Exposing the Manipulation of U.S. Diplomacy: The Hidden Truth Behind the Davutoglu Communications
In the realm of international diplomacy, the shadowy dance of political maneuvering often conceals the uncomfortable truths about how decisions are made. The emails declassified on September 30, 2015, reveal a troubling example of such maneuvering involving key figures in the U.S. Department of State. These communications, dated December 17, 2010, provide a window into the covert efforts by U.S. officials to manage and manipulate the political landscape surrounding a contentious resolution.
The Controversial Resolution: A Political Hot Potato
The resolution in question was likely related to a contentious issue that had sparked significant debate and controversy. Based on the email exchanges, it seems to have been a resolution that was either directly tied to foreign policy interests or one that carried substantial political implications. The email thread captures a moment when the U.S. government was grappling with how to publicly and privately respond to this resolution, which had evidently drawn sharp reactions from various stakeholders.
The Players: Key Figures and Their Roles
1. Jacob J. Sullivan: At the time, Sullivan was a senior policy advisor, deeply embedded in the decision-making processes of U.S. foreign policy. His role in the email chain reflects his position in shaping the response to the resolution. The email he sent at 2:42 PM on December 17, 2010, stated: “Pi said from the podium today that ‘we strongly oppose the resolution.’” This indicates that the U.S. government had publicly articulated its opposition to the resolution, a stance likely designed to appease certain diplomatic partners or avoid political fallout.
2. Hillary Rodham Clinton (H): The former Secretary of State, Clinton, was deeply involved in managing U.S. diplomatic responses. Her email, sent at 2:29 PM, reveals a key decision-making moment: “In addition to calling him which I will do as soon as I land in NY, should I/we issue a public statement?” Clinton’s consideration of a public statement suggests a strategic approach to ensure that the U.S. stance was clearly communicated and reinforced, both through direct diplomacy and public messaging.
3. Huma Abedin: As Clinton’s close aide, Abedin was integral to coordinating the response. Her email at 2:26 PM noted that “Davutoglu has asked to speak to you about the resolution.” This shows that Ahmet Davutoğlu, then Turkey’s Foreign Minister, was keenly interested in discussing the resolution, reflecting its high stakes and the need for careful diplomatic handling.
4. William J. Burns, Richard R. Verma, Philip H. Gordon: These senior officials were part of the email chain, indicating their roles in the broader diplomatic strategy. Burns and Gordon, both influential figures in U.S. diplomacy, and Verma, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, were involved in shaping and executing the response to the resolution.
The Underlying Corruption: Concealing Political Agendas
The email exchanges reveal a coordinated effort among high-ranking U.S. officials to manage the political fallout from the resolution. The primary concern appears to be maintaining diplomatic relationships and managing international perceptions, rather than addressing the substance of the resolution or engaging in an open and transparent discussion.
1. Political Manipulation: The U.S. government’s decision to “strongly oppose the resolution” and the subsequent discussion about issuing a public statement reflect a strategic manipulation of diplomatic messaging. The emphasis was on controlling the narrative and mitigating any potential damage to U.S. interests rather than engaging with the resolution on its merits.
2. Concealment and Deception: The careful handling of the resolution and the discussions about public versus private responses suggest a level of deceit aimed at managing how the resolution was perceived by various stakeholders. The intention was to navigate the political landscape without exposing the full extent of the U.S. government's motivations and internal deliberations.
3. Diplomatic Posturing: The involvement of Davutoğlu, a key figure in Turkish politics, indicates that the resolution had significant implications for U.S.-Turkey relations. The U.S. response was likely influenced by the need to maintain a favorable relationship with Turkey, a critical ally in the region. This diplomatic posturing reflects a broader pattern of prioritizing strategic relationships over transparent engagement with international issues.
The Broader Implications: A Pattern of Corruption
The revelations in these emails are part of a larger pattern of diplomatic manipulation and corruption. The emphasis on controlling public perception and managing international relationships at the expense of transparency reveals a troubling approach to foreign policy.
1. Erosion of Trust: The covert handling of the resolution and the strategic manipulation of diplomatic messaging undermine public trust in government institutions. When officials prioritize political calculations over honest engagement, it erodes confidence in the integrity of U.S. diplomacy.
2. Influence Over Substance: The focus on managing perceptions rather than addressing the substance of the resolution highlights a broader issue in international relations, where strategic interests often overshadow genuine dialogue and problem-solving.
3. Need for Reform: The exposure of these practices underscores the need for reform in how diplomatic decisions are made and communicated. Greater transparency and accountability are essential to ensure that foreign policy is conducted with integrity and in the public interest.
Conclusion: Bringing the Truth to Light
The declassified emails provide a critical glimpse into the inner workings of U.S. diplomacy and the often-hidden motivations behind political decisions. The actions of Jacob J. Sullivan, Hillary Clinton, and their colleagues reveal a deliberate effort to manage and manipulate the political landscape, often at the expense of transparency and honesty.
By exposing these corrupt practices, we can begin to address the deeper issues within our diplomatic institutions and work towards a more transparent and accountable approach to foreign policy. The American public, and indeed the global community, deserve to know the full extent of how their leaders operate behind closed doors. Only through this exposure can we hope to restore trust and ensure that diplomacy is conducted with the integrity it demands.
Qx