Kiriakou writes: "Conservative and other Republican-leaning websites over
the July 4 long weekend began preparing their readers for the possibility -
the likelihood, maybe - that Hillary Clinton would not be indicted as a
result of her email scandal."
Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi,
October 22, 2015. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
What if Hillary Clinton Were a Whistleblower?
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
05 July 16
Conservative and other Republican-leaning websites over the July 4 long
weekend began preparing their readers for the possibility-the likelihood,
maybe-that Hillary Clinton would not be indicted as a result of her email
scandal. And this is despite the fact that former President Bill Clinton may
have improperly and inappropriately inserted himself into the case by
"running into" Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at an airport in
Phoenix, AZ. The former President claimed later that the two had spoken for
20 minutes, but only about his grandchildren. His wife's case, he said,
wasn't discussed. That meeting came within a day of news reports that the
presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had met with the FBI for
three-and-a-half hours to talk about her email server.
More importantly, Attorney General Lynch went so far as to say that she
would have to assess whether or not Hillary Clinton had "criminal intent"
when she had the email server set up and when she sent classified emails
from it.
Either this is a red herring or the Justice Department, the FBI, and the
judge in my case owe me and others an apology and the President owes me a
pardon.
Four years after I blew the whistle on the CIA's torture program I was
charged with five felonies, including three counts of espionage (for
speaking about torture with reporters from the New York Times and ABC News),
one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (for
confirming the name of a former CIA colleague; the reporter never revealed
the name, and it was never made public), and one count of making a false
statement, a "throwaway charge," the basis of which was never clear to me.
In my very first hearing, my judge, a Bill Clinton appointee who reserves
all national security cases for herself (me, Jeffrey Sterling, Ed Snowden,
and others), said that she would not respect precedent from the Tom Drake
case, saying that a defendant in a national security case had to have
criminal intent to be prosecuted for espionage. That begged the question of
whether a defendant could then "accidentally" commit espionage. "That's
exactly what it means," the judge said. I didn't stand a chance.
But in Hillary Clinton's case, it seems that everything rests on the notion
of criminal intent. Did Hillary, then, set up her email server specifically
to subvert the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Did she set up her email
server for the express purpose of passing classified information to people
not entitled to receive it? Of course not. But that's not the standard, at
least it's not in the federal Eastern District of Virginia.
I understand that life isn't fair. I understand the reality of American
politics that some people get special treatment and others don't. I
understand that I wasn't married to a president and that I'm not a former
Secretary of State. I sincerely appreciate the fact that two-yes, TWO-FBI
agents who worked on my case have discreetly apologized to me in the past
six months, saying that they were ordered to go after me for political
reasons.
But the Constitution says that all Americans are equal, even if they are
named "Clinton." We know that Hillary sent and received classified
information on an unsecured email system. That's a crime. I don't care
whether or not she had criminal intent. My own trial judge says that it
doesn't matter. But if Hillary didn't have criminal intent, and that's the
reason the Justice Department uses to not prosecute her, then Tom Drake and
I, at the very least, deserve a pardon. Otherwise, the system really is as
corrupt as so many Americans say it is.
________________________________________
John Kiriakou is an Associate Fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies
in Washington DC. He is a former CIA counterterrorism operations officer and
former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Hillary Clinton testifies before the House Select Committee on Benghazi,
October 22, 2015. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
http://readersupportednews.org/http://readersupportednews.org/
What if Hillary Clinton Were a Whistleblower?
By John Kiriakou, Reader Supported News
05 July 16
onservative and other Republican-leaning websites over the July 4 long
weekend began preparing their readers for the possibility-the likelihood,
maybe-that Hillary Clinton would not be indicted as a result of her email
scandal. And this is despite the fact that former President Bill Clinton may
have improperly and inappropriately inserted himself into the case by
"running into" Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at an airport in
Phoenix, AZ. The former President claimed later that the two had spoken for
20 minutes, but only about his grandchildren. His wife's case, he said,
wasn't discussed. That meeting came within a day of news reports that the
presumptive Democratic presidential nominee had met with the FBI for
three-and-a-half hours to talk about her email server.
More importantly, Attorney General Lynch went so far as to say that she
would have to assess whether or not Hillary Clinton had "criminal intent"
when she had the email server set up and when she sent classified emails
from it.
Either this is a red herring or the Justice Department, the FBI, and the
judge in my case owe me and others an apology and the President owes me a
pardon.
Four years after I blew the whistle on the CIA's torture program I was
charged with five felonies, including three counts of espionage (for
speaking about torture with reporters from the New York Times and ABC News),
one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (for
confirming the name of a former CIA colleague; the reporter never revealed
the name, and it was never made public), and one count of making a false
statement, a "throwaway charge," the basis of which was never clear to me.
In my very first hearing, my judge, a Bill Clinton appointee who reserves
all national security cases for herself (me, Jeffrey Sterling, Ed Snowden,
and others), said that she would not respect precedent from the Tom Drake
case, saying that a defendant in a national security case had to have
criminal intent to be prosecuted for espionage. That begged the question of
whether a defendant could then "accidentally" commit espionage. "That's
exactly what it means," the judge said. I didn't stand a chance.
But in Hillary Clinton's case, it seems that everything rests on the notion
of criminal intent. Did Hillary, then, set up her email server specifically
to subvert the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Did she set up her email
server for the express purpose of passing classified information to people
not entitled to receive it? Of course not. But that's not the standard, at
least it's not in the federal Eastern District of Virginia.
I understand that life isn't fair. I understand the reality of American
politics that some people get special treatment and others don't. I
understand that I wasn't married to a president and that I'm not a former
Secretary of State. I sincerely appreciate the fact that two-yes, TWO-FBI
agents who worked on my case have discreetly apologized to me in the past
six months, saying that they were ordered to go after me for political
reasons.
But the Constitution says that all Americans are equal, even if they are
named "Clinton." We know that Hillary sent and received classified
information on an unsecured email system. That's a crime. I don't care
whether or not she had criminal intent. My own trial judge says that it
doesn't matter. But if Hillary didn't have criminal intent, and that's the
reason the Justice Department uses to not prosecute her, then Tom Drake and
I, at the very least, deserve a pardon. Otherwise, the system really is as
corrupt as so many Americans say it is.
John Kiriakou is an Associate Fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies
in Washington DC. He is a former CIA counterterrorism operations officer and
former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
