Hillary Clinton’s emails are a non-scandal … Given longstanding weaknesses in the State Department system, she made a rational decision. The pseudo-scandal over Hillary Clinton’s emails bubbled up again with the recent release of the State Department Inspector General’s report. –USA Today
Richard Ben-Veniste has written an editorial at USA Today that argues Hillary’s decision to keep her emails out of State Dept. hands was understandable and even prudent.
He argues that the State Dept. system itself is flawed and has been hacked numerous times. He believes the entire US government system is subject to hacking and not nearly so secure as has been portrayed.
The State Department system has a decades long history of failures, including successful intrusions by unauthorized personnel. Across our government, foreign hackers have gained access to millions of U.S. private records and pieces of sensitive information in recent years.
Some experts have suggested that Clinton’s server was as secure, and maybe even more secure, than the department’s system. It is no wonder that Secretary Clinton was not the first to choose to use a personal email account instead of the sub-optimal State Department option.
He goes on to argue that both Secretary of State Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice used personal email, though, in fact, Clinton’s system involved a more radical and disciplined avoidance.
Richard Ben-Veniste is actually a long-time defender of Hillary’s. According to Wikipedia, He was the Democrat’s chief counsel (1995–1996) on the Senate Whitewater Committee and took the successful position that the Clintons had done nothing criminal when participating in the failed Whitewater development.
Now he is defending Hillary again in the pages of USA Today. This is symptomatic of a larger societal theme that is developing to defend Hillary.
We wrote about it HERE: “New US Civil War? A Clinton Presidency Will Alienate Tens of Millions, Perhaps Violently.” We suggested the following:
The lengthy investigation has been overtaken by events. Hillary is now the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. This makes a criminal prosecution even more difficult.
Fox commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Thursday that an endorsement by President Obama of Hillary Clinton would be a major conflict of interest.
It happened anyway. Obama’s endorsement of Hillary sends a message to the FBI that the President of the United States wants Hillary to run and win.
One can see the propaganda being levered into play to propel Hillary forward. In fact, absent Hillary’s handling of emails and the current investigation, it’s fairly obvious that Hillary – anointed by the system – would be in a strong position to emerge victorious in the presidential race.
But the email scandal is a “wild card.” It was not something that Hillary’s backers expected and apparently it was not possible to cover up the extent of the blundering.
Hillary’s home-based server seems to have been extensively compromised and numerous of her emails including ones no doubt she wanted destroyed may soon be revealed.
WikiLeaks, for instance, has plans to release numerous Hillary emails.
It’s already “leaked” Hillary emails in a searchable archive format but founder Julian Assange promises a good amount more.
Assange claims that the upcoming email leaks “should be enough to indict her.” Assange made his claims in an interview on Britain’s ITV network, he noted that WikiLeaks “had a very big year ahead.”
But Assange isn’t the only leaking Hillary emails. The gossip website Radar – among other websites and publications – summarizes reports that the Russian government is “secretly planning to release emails intercepted from Hillary Clinton’s private server.”
Radar quotes the website OilPrice.com as claiming that “reliable intelligence sources” await the release of intercepted emails.
If these emails are released, it could prove that Clinton mishandled her private server while secretary of state, by exchanging classified information and allowing it into the hands of foreigners, subsequently violating U.S. Law.
Hacker Guccifer 2.0 has leaked an enormous file on Donald Trump compiled by the Democratic National Committee. A 237-page report on Trump was reportedly sent to Gawker and The Smoking Gun.
The report seems to feature strategic personal and business intelligence on Trump intended to discredit him and is entitled the Donald Trump Report.
In his interview Assange points out what we previously suggested, that the FBI may find it increasingly difficult to indict Hillary, especially given that she may well be the next president of the United States.
In fact, in return for not recommending an indictment, “The FBI could push for concessions from the new Clinton government.”
This is certainly a possibility. Another possibility is that an indictment could be issued but that the systemic support for Hillary would overcome any negative publicity.
Since President Obama’s Justice Dept. certainly won’t act on such an indictment the only reason to issue it would be to uphold precedent and palliate internal FBI forces that apparently believe deeply that Hillary broke the law.
Assange does, too. “There’s very strong material, both in the emails and in relation to the Clinton Foundation.”
What he is talking about there is Hillary’s apparent willingness to manipulate US policy to accommodate both public and private interests abroad in return for donations to the family’s Clinton Foundation.
This is presumably what the FBI has been investigating in addition to the general security setup and home-based email server.
There are a good many official and private interests supporting Hillary now that she has apparently won the nomination. She is comfortable with the constant state of warfare necessary to support the functioning of the military-industrial complex and the larger multinational structure.
Conclusion: Ultimately, Hillary’s goal is simply to expand state power for the benefit of her Wall Street, banking and multinational backers. She has no compunction about it and no concern that that the results will build an evermore intolerant and authoritarian United States. One could argue that her administration will be the first fully technocratic one. That’s no compliment.