How blackmailable is Hillary?


I started asking myself that question after I put together, in my own mind,
several web documents I had recently come across.

To organize our thoughts on this subject,
we might ask several questions
(some background on each question appears below):

  1. Does Hillary have something she wants to hide? (Seems a definite "Yes")
  2. What might it be? (Pure speculation)
  3. Who might have access to information that she wants kept secret?
  4. How might such information be used?
  5. If the "responsible" media and Democratic political elite
    are aware of problems in this area,
    shouldn't they, like, publicize the problem and consider the problems it engenders?

1. Does Hillary have something she wants to hide?
Consider the following from
her 2015-10-22 appearance before the House Benghazi committee
(the emphasis is added):

I got one last question.
The FBI's got your server, they're doing a forensic review of your server.
They may -- they may -- recover e-mails that you deleted from your system.

So, I didn't say this, you said it.
And you just said it a little bit ago, too, transparency.
You said you were the -- more transparent than anybody else ever.
So I'm going to ask you just one simple question.

If the FBI finds some of these e-mails that might be deleted,
as they're reviewing your server,
will you agree to allow a neutral third party -- like a retired federal judge --
to review any e-mails deleted
to determine if any of them are relevant to our investigation?

CLINTON: Congressman, as you point out,
there is a security inquiry being conducted by the Department of Justice
and I trust that they will do whatever is appropriate to reach their conclusions.

JORDAN: But you would, as the most transparent person ever,
would you commit to saying whatever they find,
I want a retired federal judge to evaluate that and look and see
if we need some of that information to get to the truth?

CLINTON: I have been releasing my e-mails to the public.
That is transparency.
And as I stand by my statement, so far as I know in the modern era,
I am the only government official who's ever done that.

JORDAN: Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Secretary.

GOWDY: The gentleman's time is expired.

So, as a check on whether some of the "deleted" emails might in fact be work-related,
she will not even allow a retired federal judge to review them.
(And note that when she says "I have been releasing my e-mails to the public"
that that does not apply to the emails to which Congressman Jordan is referring,
the "deleted" emails.)
The only explanation I can think of for all this
is that she really does have something in there she wants to hide.

She wants to restrict who can see the deleted emails
to the smallest possible audience,
and she knows that the Justice Department and the FBI
are restricted in what they can reveal,
and that the scope of their inquiry is restricted to possible criminal violations,
not to material which would make her vulnerable to blackmail.
If they find something salacious in her emails,
they could not divulge that to the public.
Furthermore, if she becomes president,
they will be subject to whatever retaliation she chooses to inflict on them.
Also, they are, in fact, at present working for President Obama,
and subject to some degree of control from him.
As opposed to the independence a retired federal judge would possess.

2. What might Hillary want to hide?
This is, for me at least, pure speculation,
but there is a sizable number of allegations on the web
that Hillary has been having lesbian affairs.
Some allege that she has had them with members of her staff.
(Which, if true, would certainly pose an interesting comparison
to the feminist mantra that
"There is no such thing as consensual sex between a supervisor and a person supervised.")

For an example, see this Pamela Geller post.
Geller references a National Enquirer article.
I am fully aware that the National Enquirer is hardly a reliable source,
but am also aware that sometimes the MSM refrains from publishing stories
not because they are untrue,
but because they are considered beyond the pale.
Well, one can safely assume that
foreign adversaries will not feel bound by the same rules
if they become privy to information that can be used against an American president.

Note also that the earlier Geller post, to which she links,
cites mainstream journalist Ron Rosenbaum.
Note also Dick Morris long ago made some comments on
"Hillary having strange sexual tastes",
which he subsequently disavowed (under pressure?).

3. Who might have access to information that she wants kept secret?

For some views on how vulnerable her private server was,
see the following two entries in my post "Hillary Clinton private server":

4. How might such information be used?

The former CIA officer Michael Scheuer has written on this subject:
"Mr. Putin and Hillary Clinton’s e-mails".
While his information about who has accessed her server
is, I would think, speculative on his part,
his observations on how foreign powers might use information against her
are, I would think, based on some degree of inside knowledge about
how states use personal information.

5. What is the American media's role in this matter?

Again, on the web there are allegations that prominent American media organizations
have inside knowledge about facts in Hillary's background that could damage her politically,
but have chosen not to publish what they know because either
she deserves a zone of privacy (or some such argument), or
they simply are biased
(if it were about someone whose policies they oppose or abhor,
they would quickly dish the dirt,
but for someone who they support,
they will not damage his or her candidacy).

If the world were limited to America,
one can see, if not agree with, those arguments.
But the world is not limited to America.

If the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis, and so on
have the same information,
as Dr. Scheuer points out,
it would be foolhardy to think they would not use it to advance their interests
by blackmailing a President Hillary Clinton.

So, by suppressing this information from the American public,
they are enabling foreign powers to blackmail a future President Clinton.
Nicht wahr?

After formulating the above questions and answers for this post,
I ran a web search on the title of this post
to see if anyone else had made similar observations.
That turned up a 2015-08-14 post at Ann Althouse's blog,
which summarized and linked to
a 2015-08-13 post by Glenn Reynolds at pjmedia.com
in which he quotes an "anonymous journalist".
Here are the contents of that post:


Hillary will be totally blackmail-able if elected. Here’s the logic:

1. It’s safe to say that there were things on that server
which could cause Hillary tremendous harm politically –
which is why she destroyed the evidence that would have been exculpatory if you believed her explanation.
In my mind, it’s also why she used a private server to begin with.

2. She is lying about what was on that server,
potentially to include while under oath in her upcoming congressional testimony.

3. If someone had all the copies of her emails and those of her staff,
they could readily blackmail her because of the above.
They’d have proof of her wrongdoing and her lying about it.

4. Hillary Clinton, as both a future Presidential candidate and a sitting Sec. of State
would have been one of the Top 100 intelligence targets in the world
and probably one of the top 10.

5. It’s thus certain that the Chinese and Russians
would each have had a team focused on accessing her communications.

6. Every security expert I know of has said
it’s a virtual certainty the Chinese and Russians both
gained access to her server and all her emails.
From what I know about their capabilities, I’d agree.

There are probably a bunch of folks in China and Russia
who are praying (even if they’re atheists) for Hillary to be elected.
If she wins, they own the President of the United States.
I can just imagine in a meeting with Putin,
Hillary being told to back off supporting Ukraine or he’ll release her emails
(as he hands her a folder containing the most damaging ones for her to peruse).
Put in that position,
would Hillary fall on her sword or sacrifice a country like Ukraine?
I don’t know, but I wouldn’t want to be living in Ukraine…

Someone with that kind of vulnerability to blackmail
shouldn’t be allowed to sweep the floors of the NSA,
much less run our country.

Labels: ,