Obama’s Growing Conflict of Interest in the Clinton E-Mail Scandal

Loading

Andrew C. McCarthy:

The latest revelations regarding Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified information are stunning. For example, several of the former secretary of state’s “private” e-mails contain national-defense information so sensitive that it is classified at the highest levels.

Moreover, classified information so pervades the thousands of pages of e-mails communicated through and stored on Mrs. Clinton’s unsecured, homebrew server system that the court-ordered disclosure process has ground to a halt. Remember, Mrs. Clinton reviewed her e-mails before finally surrendering them to the State Department, and she initially insisted there was no classified information in them. Now, it turns out they were so threaded with classified information that the State Department and intelligence agencies have fallen hopelessly behind the court’s disclosure schedule: The task of reviewing the e-mails and redacting the portions whose publication could harm national security has proved much more complicated than anticipated. Thousands of remaining e-mails, and any embarrassing lapses they contain, will be withheld from voters until well into primary season.

So egregious have the scandal’s latest developments been that a critical State Department admission from last week has received almost no coverage: Eighteen e-mails between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama have been identified, and the government is refusing to disclose them.

The administration’s rationale is remarkable: Releasing them, the White House and State Department say, would compromise “the president’s ability to receive unvarnished advice and counsel” from top government officials.

Think about what this means. Not only is it obvious that President Obama knew Mrs. Clinton was conducting government business over her private e-mail account, the exchanges the president engaged in with his secretary of state over this unsecured system clearly involved sensitive issues of policy. Clinton was being asked for “advice and counsel” — not about her recommendations for the best country clubs in Martha’s Vineyard, but about matters that the White House judges too sensitive to reveal.

That explanation got me to thinking about General David Petraeus. Recall that the Obama Justice Department prosecuted Petraeus for mishandling classified information. His offense involved conduct narrower in scope than Mrs. Clinton’s systematic transmission and storage of classified information on her private system.

What is the relevance of Petraeus’s case? Well, in order to outline the factual basis for his guilty plea, the Justice Department filed a document describing the information involved. In the main, it was the classified contents of the general’s journals. Among the most significant of this information, according to the prosecutors, were notes of “defendant DAVID HOWELL PETRAEUS’s discussions with the President of the United States of America.”

In light of Mrs. Clinton’s numbing repetition of the legally irrelevant talking-point that the classified information found throughout her thousands of e-mails was not “marked classified,” it bears emphasizing that General Petraeus’s journals were not marked classified either. That did not alter the obvious fact that the information they contained was classified — a fact well known to any high government official who routinely handles national-defense secrets, let alone one who directly advises the president.

Moreover, as is the case with Clinton’s e-mails, much of the information in Petraeus’s journals was “born classified” under the terms of President Obama’s own executive order — EO 13526. As we’ve previously noted, in section 1.1(d) of that order, Obama directed: “The unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security.” In addition, the order goes on (in section 1.4) to describe other categories of information that officials should deem classified based on the national-security damage disclosure could cause. Included among these categories: foreign relations, foreign activities of the United States, military plans, and intelligence activities.

If the administration is refusing to disclose the Obama-Clinton e-mails because they involved the secretary of state providing advice and counsel to the president, do you think those exchanges just might touch on foreign-government information, foreign relations, or foreign activities of the United States — deliberations on which are presumed classified?

Will anyone in the press corps covering the White House and the State Department ask administration officials whether this is the case?

I believe some, if not all, of the communications between Obama and Clinton should be classified. To classify them now, however, would imply wrongdoing on both their parts since they knew they were communicating via private, unsecured e-mail. Essentially, Obama is invoking executive privilege because the effect of doing so — viz., non-disclosure of the e-mails — is the same as the effect of classifying them would be . . . but without the embarrassment that classifying them would entail.

Of course, Petraeus did not get executive-privilege treatment. His communications with Obama were deemed classified and he was prosecuted for failing to safeguard them.

To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Would this be a high crime or a misdemeanor?

McCarthy:

In light of Mrs. Clinton’s numbing repetition of the legally irrelevant talking-point that the classified information found throughout her thousands of e-mails was not “marked classified,” it bears emphasizing that General Petraeus’s journals were not marked classified either.

Hillary Clinton received unclassified e-mails which were subsequently classified when they were reviewed for public release. She retained them on a private server that she had taken pains to keep secure. There are no indications that she wasn’t successful in doing so.

General Petraeus knowingly shared classified information with his mistress. He deliberately placed journals containing classified information into the hands of a person who was not authorized to have it.

McCarthy can’t figure out the difference?

@Greg: I’m not sure how this can be made clear enough for someone like you to understand, Greg. We have all tried, but it doesn’t seem to be taking.

If information, that should have been classified, that contains what the government would, if it got the opportunity, classify as something that should be secured does not GET that opportunity (i.e., it goes directly into a secret, private, unsecured server without going through a process to evaluate and classify it, officially)… that information will have to be evaluated and classified at some later date, when the opportunity is afforded. For instance, when the FBI forces the owner of that secret, private, unsecured server to turn it over to the government.

The identities of intelligence personnel is NEVER not classified. No matter where it originates or ends up, those names are classified. Hillary had those on her server, according to (not Fox News but) the government. Those names are not something that suddenly becomes classified due to a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy… they are classified due to the nature of what the people do.

Also, information that has had its classification markings REMOVED and then put on the secret, private, unsecured server will have to be re-classified. It didn’t suddenly become classified information later, it always was, but the markings were removed so it could, ILLEGALLY be put on the secret, private, unsecured server.

And now we know Obama participated.

There are no indications that she wasn’t successful in doing so.

What are the indications that she was? After all, EVERY foreign policy initiative of Obama and Hillary was a failure. Every foreign adversary made them look like bumbling idiots… or, were they actually bumbling idiots? Guccifer found out about it; you think he/she simply stopped there after hacking into Blumenthal’s email (which contained classified information from Hillary’s secret, private, unsecured server)? You assume a lot. You miss a lot. You excuse a lot. You deny a lot.

…according to (not Fox News but) the government…

Government officials who are not authorized to speak on the record have said so—according to FOX News. That information is about as reliable as what they were supposedly told by unnamed sources on the ground in Benghazi and unnamed sources inside the CIA.

How shall I put it? They make things up. They also routinely spin facts, purposefully altering their appearance to convey meanings and conclusions that aren’t really there to begin with.

Guccifer found out about it…

All he found out was that Clinton had a non-government e-mail address. That doesn’t mean he was able to get through the layers of security protecting her own server. Guccifer’s modus operandi was to hack the inadequately secured accounts of persons peripheral to people of interest. For example, George Bush’s sister. He then waved around innocuous material to or from the person of interest as if he’d obtained confidential material from their own accounts. It’s not clear if all of Blumental’s memos are even real. Some are printed on pink paper with goofy fonts. Why would Guccifer have changed their appearance in such a fashion?

@Bill: I think dumber than a rock applies here!

@Greg:

How shall I put it? They make things up. They also routinely spin facts, purposefully altering their appearance to convey meanings and conclusions that aren’t really there to begin with.

Facts, please.

All he found out was that Clinton had a non-government e-mail address. That doesn’t mean he was able to get through the layers of security protecting her own server.

What “layers of security”? Please provide your proof of knowledge of this thorough protection.

I believe the burden of proof is generally on those who are cranking out the accusations.

As a general statement, anyone using a computer even for routine financial transactions, for personal or business correspondence, or for personal record keeping without maintaining layers of anti-intrusion and security software is a sitting duck. Everybody should know this by now.

The person who set up Clinton’s server was her 2008 campaign’s internet technology director. He’s also been contracted to do work in connection with the State Department’s mobile and remote computer applications. Given such a history, it’s a fair bet that he’s aware of the risks knows what he’s doing. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be relying on somebody from the Best Buy geek squad to keep her digital equipment and data safe. If nothing else, she knows she has powerful enemies.

I’ve read reports that Clinton’s server was scanned by foreign hackers. Really? That’s probably true of any computer connected to the internet. It’s the entire point of a firewall. I once made a detailed examination of my desktop’s security log as a matter of curiosity. There were attempts being made to access my machine every few minutes, involving an assortment of IP addresses that a quick lookup showed to be in China, Russia, and Ukraine. They’re constantly scanning and probing the entire internet, looking for any exploitable openings. Every online device is examined. Everybody is a target. Any IT specialist knows this. So does any computer user who’s been paying attention.

@Greg: And you believe that while the OPM, power grids and military networks are hacked, Hillary, who was stupid enough to even have such a system and think she could hide it, is safe? That’s what you base your faith in her protecting our national security on?

Good Lord.

@Greg: whose side are you on anyway? It doesn’t appear to be on the side of the United States. The government IS responsible for our nation’s security. Hillary’s actions and obama’s actions ARE treasonous. What will it it take? A nuke near or on your neighborhood? don’t be so ignorant.

Whose side are you on anyway?

I’m most definitely not on the side of Donald Trump or Raphael Cruz. I don’t like the flimflam they’re peddling, and I don’t like the way they’re going about peddling it.

I think the question was is Greg on the side of America or on the side of those who fail to keep America’s secrets. The troll changed the subject again like always when forced to look at the real issues.

@Randy: All Greg ever does is spew baseless assertions, eg:”layers of security” and then contend the burden of proof is on anyone who disagrees with him or his idiotic pronouncements. Anyone who disagrees with him being defined as “anyone with functioning gray matter”.

The relentless smoke screen Greg and other utterly retarded Clintonistas utilize to obscure the Clinton Crime Syndicate’s misdeeds is as obvious as it is ineffective. The worst part is, it destroys their credibility in any other discussion.

@Me, #12:

Actually, what I’m pointing out that the vast majority of baseless assertions are “spewing” from sources somewhere over on the right.

Any computer user who is not an idiot will be running a firewall, an automatically updated anti-virus program, anti-spyware and anti-malware programs, and will have their system’s various security options set at a high level. It’s safe to assume Clinton’s server had such protections in place, since the person who set it up had considerable experience as her 2008 campaign’s internet technology director and as a mobile and remote computer applications contractor for the State Department. He would be very much aware that her server could be a target. Additionally, encryption was in place from the third month forward. Layers of security would be a phrase that would describe that situation.

Guciffer discovered the existence of her private e-mail domain address by hacking a computer that belonged to somebody else. He presented no examples of e-mail or documents that he was able to access directly on her server, however, and he would surely have very much liked to do so. Similarly, there doesn’t seem to have been anything stolen off her server by Edward Snowden. No documents have been leaked to the media by anyone that have come directly from her server. That absence is significant. If someone had such a cat in the bag, they would have let it out. Where’s the cat?

@Randy, #11:

I think the question was is Greg on the side of America or on the side of those who fail to keep America’s secrets.

Clinton’s computer seems to have kept any secrets it held far better than many officially secure government networks have done. The OPM breech revealed last year is only the most recent. 21 million files containing personal information and security clearance information were hacked in that case alone. I’m presently aware of three separate instances involving government computers where data concerning myself has likely been lost. It’s something that I take seriously.

@Greg:

I don’t like the flimflam they’re peddling,

But, you do like to have flimflam peddled to you, don’t you? You bought Obama’s flimflam and you are buying and defending Hillary’s flimflam. You actually don’t seem to know the difference between flimflam and straightforwardness.

Clinton’s computer seems to have kept any secrets it held far better than many officially secure government networks have done.

Uh… excuse me? Are you finally conceding that Hillary violated the law and stored confidential US government information on her server? By the way, while Hillary was utilizing her secret, private, unsecured server, if she discovered it had been hacked, do you think she would have notified the State Department and warned them? If anyone hacked her server, which most experts are pretty confident has happened, the hackers are not going to reveal what they discovered; they would hope the US government would keep operating as before so that they could maintain the advantage of knowing what we will do before we do it. So, everything found on her server has to be regarded as compromised and, at great expense to the US taxpayer, replaced.

The fact that the rest of the Obama administration shows utter incompetence does not guarantee that Hillary operated with any greater common sense.

@Bill, #15:

Uh… excuse me? Are you finally conceding that Hillary violated the law and stored confidential US government information on her server?

Any secrets it held concedes nothing.

If anyone hacked her server, which most experts are pretty confident has happened…

Any opinions they’ve expressed are pure speculation. Most experts haven’t had access to enough information about her system’s configuration, software, and security settings to allow a credible judgement to be made. Nothing has surfaced that was stolen from her server by hackers.

The troll changed the subject again. They always blame others and never take responsibility. OPM computers do not carry information that gets covert personnel killed. Get back on the subject troll!

@Randy, #17:

The stolen OPM information included a database identifying government employees, what departments they work for, their security clearance levels, and their current positions and work locations. If a foreign government wanted to prioritize it’s hacking or surveillance targets, they now have a very useful tool to help them do so.

We don’t have a clue concerning what of comparable importance was on Clinton’s server—if anything—and there’s no evidence that anyone hacked it.

The subject is the load of manure about Clinton that’s being shoveled by republicans and right wing media outlets as factual information. Basically, lies have become central to their entire campaign effort.

I watched Chris Christie as he knowingly lied to the audience about Planned Parenthood during the republican debate tonight. I should probably have known better, but I was genuinely shocked. The man is not stupid. He knows damn well that he’s repeating slander. He knows damn well that Planned Parenthood is not harvesting baby parts for profit, and that the allegation has been found to be totally without merit by 12 separate state investigations.

Do you think that’s a change of subject? The subject is liars. I’m telling you who I believe they actually are, and why I believe that.

@Greg:

Any secrets it held concedes nothing.

Well, sorry, but actually it does. It concedes that you finally accept the truth that Hillary lied, on a massive scale and she violated the law by having classified information of the United States illegally on her secret, private, unsecured server.

Any opinions they’ve expressed are pure speculation.

Aren’t you in the speculation business? You have speculated that no classified information was on Hillary’s server, which you now concede is false, you speculate that she secured her server, you speculate that nefarious entities did not gain access to her server. You speculate all over the place while ignoring the primary point; that whether it is speculation or fact, Hillary has put national security at dire risk by irresponsibly mishandling classified information… and that is NOT speculation, but a proven fact.

and there’s no evidence that anyone hacked it.

There IS evidence it has been hacked, as I showed. Once Guccifer discovered the server, do you think he/she stopped out of respect of Hillary? Oh, that’s right… you SPECULATE that Hillary secured the server more than federal data bases are secured. The sad fact is we may never know if it was hacked, by whom and what information was found BECAUSE to reveal that information would cause us to change our operations and negate the advantage of having that information. So, as I stated before, the US will have to, at great expense and delay to operations, change all the methods, programs and persons Hillary left laying out there.

She is in no way, form or fashion worthy of public service, much less the Presidency.

@Bill, #19:

Well, sorry, but actually it does. It concedes that you finally accept the truth that Hillary lied, on a massive scale and she violated the law by having classified information of the United States illegally on her secret, private, unsecured server.

An undetected gas leak blows an abandoned building to bits. “Any people inside there would have been killed instantly,” a firemen comments.

He’s not stating that people were actually inside the building. That’s the difference between an English quantifier such as any, and a definite article such as the.

There IS evidence it has been hacked, as I showed.

No one has presented any such evidence. Guccifer is not a magical cyber-criminal. The fact that a burglar has discovered the existence of a safe doesn’t automatically mean it was left with the door standing open, or that he was clever enough to work out the combination. If he did so, why was he only showing off odd bits of e-mail related to Clinton that he stole from other computers?

She is in no way, form or fashion worthy of public service, much less the Presidency.

She’s far more so than the current front runners for the republican nomination. So is Bernie Sanders, and so is Joe Biden. Ted Cruz? Please. The man is transparently devious. His speeches are performances. Trump, at least, is what he appears to be.

@Greg:

She’s far more so than the current front runners for the republican nomination. So is Bernie Sanders, and so is Joe Biden.

No. She isn’t. Not by any measure whatsoever. Not only has she never accomplished anything positive… EVER… but she is a despicable, corrupt, lying criminal that has demonstrated… DEMONSTRATED a disregard for national security, ethics and honesty with the American people.

Bernie is a socialist flake.

Biden is an idiot.

That’s your lineup, Greg. Mmmm…. yummy.

The fact that the right generally refuses to acknowledge any democrat’s accomplishments hardly means that they don’t exist. Clinton is no exception. Being a primary force behind the extension of health care coverage to 6 million children who had none isn’t nothing, in my opinion. Nor is what she accomplished as a Senator on behalf of military personnel, veterans, and 9/11 first responders.

@Greg: Aside from the fact that Obamacare has been a disaster, Hillary was not the driving force behind anything. And I recall NY Congressman Peter King pushing for relief for the 9/11 first responders (while Weiner tried to turn it into a political circus). As I said, Hillary has nothing on her resume’ but negatives.

Yeah, I well remember how helpful republicans were in connection with health care for the 9/11 first responders. Senate GOP blocks 9/11 first responders health plan bill. They have their priorities, and they’ll take hostages to see that they get their way.

“…Last week, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) released a letter signed by every Senate Republican pledging to block all legislative action until Congress acts on the expiring Bush tax cuts and passes a measure to fund the federal government into 2011…”

And that’s precisely what they did:

9/11 responders bill defeated by Senate GOP filibuster

A watered down version finally got through with reduced funding and a 5 year expiration date. 59 House republicans still voted against it.

Late last year, they were quicker to extend the expiring legislation. Given that they now control both the House and the Senate, it would be very difficult to place blame on democrats.

Well, what do you know. It turns out that Secretary of State Colin Powell and aides to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used private email accounts for official correspondence—some of which would be classified before FOIA public release, the same as Clinton’s has been. So, the difference is…

THE SHOCKING TRUTH: COLIN POWELL’S EMAILS DON’T MATTER

State Department: Powell, Rice staffers received classified info via personal email

Was a laptop and an AOL email account somehow a more secure arrangement than Hillary Clinton’s private server?

@Greg: Is Powell running for President? Is Rice running for President? Did either of the set up a clandestine server to preserve the option of deleting everything without anyone ever knowing?

By all means, investigate Rice and Powell or anyone else found having mishandled classified information. However, until data that is so sensitive that investigators cannot lay eyes on it is found on their devices and they want access to ALL sensitive information, the cases are quite different.