On her email issue, the president recently made a public statement saying, “I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” This happened on Sunday (i.e., 10.11.2015) on CBS’s '60 Minutes'. And, the FBI, understandably, is extremely upset.
Why would they be upset? After all, the president was asked for his opinion on the subject and he gave it. He did not state it as fact, he only offered his opinion. And, as well all know, "everybody's entitled to their opinion", right? Yes, this is true. But, we all are not entitled to state our opinion(s) openly when the legal process may be influenced by our doing so. Whether we support this president or not, the opinion of the president carries a little more weight than for the rest of us.
So, here are a couple of potential outcomes from the president's statement:
1. The FBI, knowing the president's feelings on the subject and fearful for their jobs, decides to find in favor of Clinton's innocence - independent of the evidence.
2. The FBI, knowing the president's feelings on the subject and being angry about his perceived intervention, decides to find Clinton guilty - independent of the evidence.
Justice loses in either scenario. So now, no matter the final outcome, the validity of the result will be tainted with cries of corruption.
Further, it is widely believed that even if the FBI finds against Clinton, Obama will insist that the Attorney General, Lynch, not bring formal charges. Now, is such a belief well founded? A belief is the acceptance as fact that which can not be proven. So, maybe not. But, as was seen with the IRS scandal, this president's administration has used its power to unlawfully attack its opponents.
In fact the dynamics of this situation is very convoluted. It has to do with the presidential election of 2016 and the known fact that the Clintons and the Obamas are "not on the best of terms" - combined with the fact that Obama and Biden are close friends.
And, here, I won't even delve into Clinton's violations of Obama's own executive order on the subject. That is another story unto itself.
All the above aside, there is an issue with the email scandal that seems to have eluded the media's reporting. The media and the president keep focusing on the words "national security". Well, what does that mean exactly? And, what does that have to do with criminal activity?
For the public in general "national security" may connote a threat of major proportions to our nation. For the thousands upon thousands of us who spent our careers dealing in the classified world, it means much more than that. The media seems to be glossing over the broarder implications of mishandling classified information.
Had any one of us done what Clinton did with her emails, serious consequences would have happened. Just ask Gen. David Petraeus. His "grievances" were but a mere fraction of what Clinton did.
In the day-to-day classified world EVERY piece of classified information is treated as VERY important. Even the seemingly lowest level of classified information is important. Intelligence operatives (i.e., spies) are well versed in the art of "aggregation" - putting together disparate pieces of information, both low level and above, to obtain the "big picture".
With the "working stiffs" of the world, even minor infractions of improper handling of classified information are treated with severity in the "real world" - and, in many cases treated as "criminal".
For example, for a single lowest level infraction, at a minimum, a letter of reprimand would be issued issued, possible termination, and the chances of the person EVER being granted a higher security level is the same as a "snow ball's chance in hell".
For an issue such as Clinton's, the results for the rest of us would almost assuredly be as follows:
1. Revocation of any/all security clearances.
2. Termination - never again to be employable in the "classified world".
3. And, in all probability, jail time.
As to her assertion that she had permission to maintain a separate server for government work? BS! Even were she to be able to produce such a letter of authorization - which she hasn't and can't, she would still be in violation of security protocols and the president's own executive order (see above).
No one has the authority to circumvent the security procedures of the USA - not even the president. Having classified information on her privately controlled server, which has been proven to be true, is such a serious "no-no" that I'm surprised she's not in jail already.
But, it gets worse, folks.
Emails have been uncovered where, apparently H. Clinton sought/directed that classification markings be removed from documents so that they could be sent over a non-secure server so as to appear unclassified.
Anyone dealing in the "classified world" knows the penalties for mishandling classified information and what a serious issue this is. Are her actions proof positive of the ole"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton?. I believe this to be in full force here. No one is above the law - supposedly!
Just for reference, here's the actual law on this issue:
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 101. Section 2071, Paragraphs a & b
(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
Notice carefully the part in paragraph b colored in brown.
Think that may have anything important to say about someone running for the office of President?
Can it get worse?
To see, Click Here.
One may well assume, with such a serious subject at hand, concern would exist by a candidate for the presidency over not only the facts of this issue but also the atmospherics it generates. During an interview subsequent to the first democratic debate Clinton responded to the concerns many have relating to the email issue/scandal as well as her feelings on the related, ongoing FBI investigation. To see her response, Click Here.
To watch a very good commentary on this subject, Click Here.