Whistleblower Needed
A Need to
Clear Up Clinton Questions
Exclusive: As the Democrats glumly line up for
Hillary Clinton’s belated coronation, the risk
remains of potential criminal charges over her
Libyan testimony or her careless emails, as ex-CIA
analyst Ray McGovern describes.
By Ray McGovern
May 07,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Consortium
News"
-“Some people think they can lie and get away with
it,” said former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
with feigned outrage. And, of course, he has never
been held accountable for his lies, proving his
dictum true.
The
question today is: Will former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton’s Teflon coat be as impermeable to
deep scratches as Rumsfeld’s has proven to be?
With the
“mainstream media” by and large giving Hillary
Clinton a pass on her past, few Americans realize
how many Pinocchio faces need to be tacked onto many
of her statements. Clinton is said to be
“unquestionably” the frontrunner for the Democratic
nomination, essentially the presumptive
nominee. That is unquestionably true – but only
because she has not been questioned with much rigor
at all. And on those few occasions when she has
been asked hard questions, she has often ducked
them.
For
example, at the March 9 debate in Miami, Jorge
Ramos, the longtime anchor for Noticiero
Univision, asked Secretary Clinton whether she
would quit the presidential race if she were
indicted for putting classified information on her
private email server.
She
replied: “Oh, for goodness sake, it’s not going to
happen. I’m not even answering that question.” [See
Consortiumnews.com’s “Is
Hillary Clinton Above the Law?”]
Not so
fast, Madame Secretary. It is looking more and more
as if you will, after all, have to answer that
question.
Those “Damn Emails” Again
On
Wednesday in Washington, DC, a federal judge
issued an order that may eventually require
Clinton to testify under oath in a lawsuit related
to the private email server she used while Secretary
of State.
The judge
gave Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group,
permission to take sworn testimony from close
Clinton aide Huma Abedin and others over the next
eight weeks. It is possible that Clinton herself
will have to testify under oath on the serious email
issue before arriving at the Democratic convention
in July.
One key
issue in question is whether all relevant documents
have been provided to Judicial Watch. My guess is
that – given lawyers’ propensity, and often their
incentive, to secure delay after delay in such
proceedings – there may not be much likelihood of
all this happening that quickly.
More
precarious for Secretary Clinton, in my view, is the
possibility that FBI Director James Comey will be
allowed to perform a serious investigation and
pursue Clinton on sworn testimony she has already
given; for example, on whether she was aware of an
operation run out of Benghazi to deliver Libyan
weapons to rebels in Syria.
During her
marathon testimony on Oct. 22, 2015, to the House
Select Committee on Benghazi chaired by Rep. Trey
Gowdy, R-South Carolina, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kansas,
was very specific in his questioning, leaving
Clinton little wiggle-room:
Pompeo:
Were you aware or are you aware of any U.S. efforts
by the U.S. government in Libya to provide any
weapons, directly or indirectly, or through a
cutout, to any Syrian rebels or militias or
opposition to Syrian forces?
Clinton:
No.
Pompeo:
Were you aware or are you aware of any efforts by
the U.S. government in Libya to facilitate or
support the provision of weapons to any opposition
of Gadhafi’s forces, Libyan rebels or militias
through a third party or country?
Clinton:
No.
Did
Secretary Clinton think we were “born yesterday,” as
Harry Truman used to say? From what is already known
about the activities of the U.S. “mission” and
“annex” in Benghazi and the role played by the late
Ambassador Christopher Stevens there, it seems quite
likely that Clinton perjured herself in answering
No.
And I
believe this will become quite clear, if
the FBI is allowed to pursue an unfettered
investigation – and even clearer if the
National Security Agency shares the take from its
dragnet surveillance.
But those
are big IFs. If I read President Barack Obama
correctly, he will be more inclined to tell Attorney
General Loretta Lynch to call off the FBI, just as
he told former Attorney General Eric Holder to let
retired General (and CIA Director) David Petraeus
off with a slap on the wrist for giving his mistress
intelligence of the highest classification and then
lying about it to the FBI.
As for
Clinton, perjury is not the kind of rap that she
would welcome as she pursues the presidency. Trouble
is, not only FBI investigators but also NSA
collect-it-all snoopers almost certainly have the
goods on whatever the truth is, with their easy
access to the content of emails both classified and
unclassified. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hillary
Clinton’s Damning Emails.”]
Sadly,
Comey and his counterparts at NSA are likely to cave
in if the President tells them to cease and
desist. Indeed, like legendary FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover, they may relish the prospect of being able
to hold their knowledge of Hillary Clinton’s
possible perjury and other misdeeds like a sword of
Damocles over her head if she becomes president.
Whistleblower Needed
Thus,
unless another patriot with the courage of an Edward
Snowden or a Daniel Ellsberg recognizes that his
primary duty is to honor his/her oath “to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States
against all enemies foreign and domestic,” and acts
accordingly, the country could end up with a
compromised President beholden to Hoover’s
successors and the NSA sleuths who “collect
everything,” including the emails of the Secretary
of State – and those of the President.
Those at
the FBI and NSA with the courage to consider
whistleblowing need to be aware of the proud
tradition they would be joining. The
first recipient of the Sam Adams Award for
Integrity in Intelligence (2002) was Coleen Rowley
of the FBI, and in 2004 the award was given to FBI
analyst and translator Sibel Edmonds.
As for
signals intelligence, no fewer than four Sam Adams
whistleblower awardees have come from NSA and its
British counterpart GCHQ: the UK’s Katharine Gun
(2003), and three from NSA itself – Thomas Drake
(2011), Edward Snowden (2013), and William Binney
(2015).
More
distinguished company among people of integrity
would be difficult – if not impossible – to find. In
a few months, we will be considering nominations for
the award to be given in 2017.
Ray McGovern
works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the
ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city
Washington. He served as a CIA analyst for 27 years
and is co-founder of Sam Adams Associates for
Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII) and Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). |