The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
The FBI’s Two-Pronged Investigation of Hillary Clinton
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Judge Napolitano in the article below explains the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton. There are two aspects of the investigation. The original source of her trouble is the charge that she failed to safeguard national security secrets.

As Judge Napolitano explains, this crime does not require intent and can result from negligence or simply from a lack of awareness that a secret is being revealed, as in the case that Judge Napolitano provides of the US Navy sailor who was prosecuted for espionage because a “selfie” he sent to his girlfriend revealed a sonar screen in the background. An even more egregious case is that of the US Marine who was prosecuted for using email to alert superiors to the presence of an al-Quada operative inside a US military compound. The email is considered unsecure and thus the Marine was prosecuted for revealing a secret known only to himself.

In view of these unjustified prosecutions of US military personnel, the FBI has no alternative to recommending that Hillary be indicted.

Whether Hillary will be indicted ostensibly depends on the Justice (sic) Department and the White House. In fact, it is unlikely that either Wall Street or the military/security complex wants Hillary indicted as both have invested too many millions of dollars in her presidential candidacy, and both interest groups are more powerful than the Justice (sic) Department and the White House.

I do not think that Hillary was a good US senator and Secretary of State, and I do not think she
is qualified to be President of the US. Nevertheless, I do wonder how important are the secrets about which she is accused of negligance. Even the one possibly serious disclosure that Judge Napolitano provides of Hillary forwarding a photo from a satellite of a North Korean nuclear facility doesn’t strike me as important. The North Koreans, along with the entirety of the world, know that the US has satellites and communication intercepts operating against them 24/7.

Many things with secret classifications are not secrets. In my career I had many security clearances. As staff associate, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, House Committee on Appropriations, I had top secret clearances because secret weapon systems were at stake. It was a joke among the staff that many of the “secrets” were available in the public defense literature.

As Assistant Secretary of the Treasury I received the CIA’s daily briefing of the President. It was boring reading. I came to the conclusion that the CIA was not going to report anything of consequence that possibly could turn out to be wrong.

ORDER IT NOW

Later, as a member of a secret Presidential committee to investigate the CIA’s view of the Soviet Union’s ability to withstand an arms race, I had very high clearances as the committee had subpoena power over the CIA. If the Kremlin had had access to the top secret documents, all the Kremlin would have learned is that the CIA had a much higher opinion of the capability of the Soviet economy than did the Kremlin.

Distinguished law professors have concluded that the US government classifies documents primarily in order to hide its own mistakes and crimes. We see this over and over. The US government can escape accountability for the most incredible mistakes and the worse crimes against the US Constitution and humanity simply by saying “national security.”

In my opinion, it is the second FBI investigation of Hillary that should be pursued. This is a much more serious possible offense. There is suspicion that Bill and Hillary privatized their public offices and turned them into a money faucet for themselves.

This is a serious problem everywhere in the West. A few years out of office and Bill and Hillary can drop $3 million on their daughter’s wedding. A year or so out of office and Tony Blair was worth $50 million. As an Assistant Secretary of Defense once told me, “European governments report to us. We pay them, and we own them.”

In Anglo-American legal history, one foundation of liberty is the requirement that crime requires intent. I do not believe that Hillary intentionally revealed secrets. If she was negligent, that should be made public and should be sufficient to disqualify her from occupying the White House. What is clear to me is that the legal principle that crime requires intent is far more important than “getting Hillary.” This foundational principle of liberty should be protected even if it means letting Hillary go.

And certainly Obama should pardon the sailor and marine.

Two Smoking Guns: FBI on Hillary’s Case by Andrew P. Napolitano

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43947.htm

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Hillary Clinton 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I agree that most secrets are just more specific characterizations of what is publicly available. On the other hand, “sources and methods” are genuinely closely-guarded, since they enable the intelligence services to continue to collect information. A nation that knows the specifics of satellite surveillance and signals interception can take more effective countermeasures. Plus human sources have a tendency to end up dead (or turned double-agents), which impedes recruitment. If Hillary revealed sources and methods, even the Deep State could turn on her.

    I also agree that the vast accumulation of wealth of people who leave government is very troubling–what are they doing in office that enables them to receive that much money after they leave office. I remember Michael Deaver, but at least he was being paid for doing something (using his existing access and influence) in real time, not for what he had done while in the Reagan Administration.

  2. alexander says:

    Dear Mr Roberts,

    I haven’t read all the emails written by Mrs Clinton.

    But I do believe the Libya catastrophe, and her involvement in it , is worthy of disqualifying her from the democratic nomination.

    Mr Gaddafi,was , at worst, a “milk toast” dictator, who never presented a substantial threat , militarily or otherwise, to the United States of America.

    The fraudulent claims of an imminent “genocide “to be initiated by Mr Gaddafi which had to be stymied by a hasty R2P intervention..underscores the ability of our ex-secretary of state to abuse the R2P doctrine to create a catastrophe…not prevent one.

    The subsequent chaos that ensued , and continues to this day, demonstrates an allegiance, by Mrs Clinton, to a neocon ideology of “perpetual war” that has brought nothing but suffering, tragedy, and heartbreak to tens of millions of innocent people .

    I am not sure the FBI will bring forth an indictment of Mrs Clinton, but for all the decent people whose lives have been destroyed by her reckless “interventionist” agenda, I am not one who would object if they did.

  3. David says:

    PCR is the Random Column Generator. HCR intended nothing: a non-governmental server lay in her way and she found it, and installed it in her closet.

    We have an email where she specifically instructs a subordinate to send classified info on a non secure fax, but first to remove the label that the info was classified. How can we interpret this as anything but intent to break the law?

    Not taking a position on what the law should be about hurling US secrets from a parade float, but here we have PCR saying that the law as written is Not Who We Are, and it shouldn’t be enforced. Obama says that, too. Nepolitano says that, too. Maybe about different laws. But each is happy to subordinate the rule of law to the rule of himself.

  4. tbraton says:

    “And certainly Obama should pardon the sailor and marine.”

    Well, let Obama pardon the sailor and marine first. Then he can announce that Ms. Hillary should not be indicted. Otherwise, his AG should indict Ms. Hillary.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS