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

“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?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013, about the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. 2012. (Photo from C-SPAN coverage)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies before Congress on Jan. 23, 2013, about the fatal attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. 2012. (Photo from C-SPAN coverage)

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.

FBI Director James Comey

FBI Director James Comey

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.

Gen. David Petraeus in a photo with his biographer/mistress Paula Broadwell. (U.S. government photo)

Gen. David Petraeus in a photo with his biographer/mistress Paula Broadwell. (U.S. government photo)

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).

48 comments for “A Need to Clear Up Clinton Questions

  1. Bernie Bro
    May 11, 2016 at 10:44

    Trump Tower now serving Roast Pantsuit in the main dining room…

  2. Jim Hannan
    May 9, 2016 at 14:37

    I think the James Clapper testimony about NSA surveillance has already determined that there is no penalty for lying to Congress.

    Regarding the emails, if there was a problem with a private server, why didn’t the IT folks at the State Department make sure it didn’t happen. It appears that other Secretaries of State have done something similar. The emails have been released. I have yet to read about anything of consequence from all the released emails.

    I’m more interested in Donald Trump’s tax returns. He told Lester Holt at NBC News the other night that he has been audited every year for the last 13 years. Does he need a new tax accountant? How will tax changes affect his own net worth? Does he use tax shelters? Does he stash cash overseas?

  3. Michael Wilk
    May 9, 2016 at 09:42

    Barring a miracle, it looks as though Democrats are stuck with Clinton as their party’s nominee. But if she thinks she’s going to be appointed dictator after Barry Obomber and George Shrubya, with Trump having been galvanized by the dropping out of his rivals for the Republican nomination and his attacks on her already going into full swing, then Clinton and the rest of the Democrat establishment are in for yet another rude awakening. Even if Clinton does somehow become dictator, the GOPhers already have articles of impeachment ready for the day after her coronation. Of course, Sanders supporters should vote for the Green Party nominee not only as a protest vote but as the long overdue start of a leftist tea party perfectly willing to make right-wing Democrats lose elections in order to get left-wing candidates into public office. We can’t afford to waste another four to eight years caving in to DLC bullying hoping for another Sanders to come along.

  4. Bruce
    May 8, 2016 at 21:24

    Since her answers’ SHITE; they Must INDICT !

  5. Akech
    May 7, 2016 at 14:36

    (1) As a government employee, which Secretary of Sate Hillary was, why did she create a private server ?
    (2) Why did she mix her personal/family e-mails with official government e-mails on that server?
    (3) Every computer server has attached stand-alone computers with their own hard drives. Why didn’t she save her private e-mails on the hard drive of one of the attached computer system instead of mixing official sensitive government communication with her so called private/family/friends communication?

    The whole explanation about the saga of this mixture, coming from someone about to assume a colossal power in which the lives of US citizens and the citizens of the world hang on, is very, very disturbing indeed. This lady, should she be elected, she will in charge of making life and death decisions affecting someone, somewhere in the world!

  6. Zachary Smith
    May 6, 2016 at 21:01

    Thanks to Mr. McGovern for this essay and the information that Obama might have to sweep his magic wand and make a perjury charge disappear. That one I didn’t previously know about.

    But even if Hillary isn’t (as seems likely) charged with anything at all, it’s my current belief that she can’t win an honest election where people get to actually vote and the votes actually get counted. The woman simply carries too much baggage, and all her trash-load is generally known throughout the country. Unless Trump cooperates, I don’t believe she’ll get away with demonizing him. Mind you, Trump is an undisciplined motormouth who might give Hillary the White House with some sort (or sorts) of stupidity, but he doesn’t have to. For example, if he picks a Ryan-type fool for VP as Vulture Capitalist Romney did, that would end up hurting him badly, for it would be evidence the man doesn’t have sound judgement. Speaking of Ryan, he seems to be demanding that Trump come around to ‘Republican Principles’ – the same Principles which have been screwing over GOP voters for many years. Trump won the nomination because every single one of his opponents was obviously worse than him, so he’d be a moron to put any of them in the VP slot on the ticket. He must keep in mind that he isn’t immortal, and despite the Secret Service’s best efforts they can’t protect him from a heart attack or a meteor strike. There are surely some honest and decent Republicans somewhere.

    So the Power Elites in this nation really do have to make some quick decisions. Would they be better off with Trump in the White House, or would their Rich white heinies be safer with Bernie Sanders? That’s the way I see it – Hillary isn’t going to win short of somebody engineering some mighty nasty stunts. The current efforts to destroy Trump by creating a Pure Republican third party are just a waste of time – in my opinion.

    If it’s Hillary vs Trump, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for Trump – unless he makes it impossible. That’s exactly what I did in the Indiana primary, BTW. It’s my considered opinion I’m not alone with that viewpoint.

    What a mess.

  7. Sojourner Truth
    May 6, 2016 at 19:51

    Ah, yes! Yet another column by Brother Ray on the same subject, complete with predictable, apposite commentary by the Trollenkampfverbande.

    This is propaganda, not journalism, the essence of which is presented here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/05/06/hillary-clinton-is-going-to-be-exonerated-on-the-email-controversy-it-wont-matter/

    Not only is the investigation of the e-mail non-scandal NOT directed at Clinton herself, it involves four–count ’em FOUR–e-mails out of 55,000 that were subsequently re-designated as containing classified material, AFTER they were sent TO Clinton, not BY her!

    BTW, the State Department’s server isn’t secure either, a fact that has apparently escaped the “analysis” presented here, although it has not escaped foreign intelligence services that might seek to penetrate Foggy Bottom’s communications net.

    How dismaying to see more of this Fresh Fertilizer, within a few days of Brother Ray’s last delivery.

    • Gozo
      May 7, 2016 at 14:29

      Nice summary effort by Sojourner Truth.

      If “Truth” were the general objective at places like this, Sojourner Truth’s summation would give readers some pause for thought. But to paraphrase the old saying, “Ideology doth make fools of us all.”

      Here’s hoping that the Left does not lose and suffer for its ideologically pure ambitions, the way that the Right current does.

      Thanks for the great WaPo link.

      Regards, (($; -)} Gozo!

  8. hal
    May 6, 2016 at 17:02

    The BIG four for Clinton:
    1. Email problem without question a problem.
    2. Her speeches to you know who. Also her contract states she has only copy.
    3 As SoS her deals to O.K. military aid to some of the finest countries in the world and in return money to the Foundation.
    4. Her health, problems standing up including a broken elbow in one of the falls.

    To take a good look at 91 speech and payments go to Citizen Uprising and get the list 91 speeches listed.

  9. Joe Tedesky
    May 6, 2016 at 09:44

    I think we are all missing the point. A Clinton battling a scandal while occupying the Oval Office is as compatible as ping & pong. Just like Bill didn’t have sexual contact with that intern, Hillary didn’t do anything wrong with her unsecure e mails. The only ones who don’t lose, is the news media. Either it’s crazy Donald, or Crooked Killary, and the media loves it, no matter who wins. Get ready, we are all going on a ride we have no choice of avoiding. I doubt Hillary will suffer much from this e mail server scandal, let alone serve any time for her deliberate misdeed…it’s the Clintons, damn it!

  10. Tsigantes
    May 6, 2016 at 02:23

    From a European perspective the amazing thing is that Americans keep treating these parties as if they are football teams, where it is unthinkable that an Arsenal supporter could vote Chelsea. We are done – DONE – with all that, and with the fake Left-Right paradigm and the Lesser Evil nonsense. You are choosing between 2 extreme right wing parties in the US (deep state, oligarchy, Wall st.). The only difference is that overall, historically, the GOP has had a less aggressive war record – yes, please check. The ROW [Rest of World] crosses themselves with each “Dem” win.

    There is no Lesser Evil with Hillary Clinton, that should be clear: she is the known, proven Greatest Evil candidate par excellence, both internally for the USA and externally for the ROW. As for the fantasy of being able to affect her politics, she’ll lie about going Left and adopting Sanders’ platform right up to election day. After that there is no accountability mechanism until 4 years – worse, 8 – down the line. Too much can happen in that time including the world war the USGov is preparing for now on European soil, and has been waging for 14 years now in MENA, and even more horrifically in the last 8 with thanks to Clinton and Obama.Thanks, Dem voters! Lesser Evil indeed!

    • Stephen Berk
      May 7, 2016 at 22:00

      I’m afraid you are right. One caveat. The George W. Bush administration, full of neocon strategists, is an exception to the Republicans being safer on foreign policy. But Hillary is a certifiable neocon, and a much more clever one than W. She and her friend Victoria Nuland have already baited the Russian bear in his backyard, Ukraine. Heaven only knows what she and her neocon buddies will do to facilitate war with Russia should she become president. It scares the hell out of me. She is wholly an ideologue on foreign policy, not at all pragmatic.

    • Daniel
      May 8, 2016 at 14:38

      Bingo. Hillary might have seemed a passable candidate to many at some point (not to me), but we know too much now about the Dems rot and corruption, just like that of the Reps. They are both rotten to the core, and always working toward the same goals behind the scenes while inflaming the electorate with hate messaging meant to divide us. The words Democrat and Republican as they pertain to these two parties are basically devoid of meaning, as is much of the English language here in the U.S., thanks to think tanks and wordsmiths who work to devalue to citizenry and the common language in service of their fat bonuses. Shame on all these people putting profit and power above all else.

      Where did I put that guillotine?

  11. Cal
    May 5, 2016 at 23:03

    Fact: Hillary is the Establishment.
    Fact: The establishment both left and right is corrupt ‘beyond reform.’

    This election is a real pickle for moderates and independents like me—–like Bernie for foreign policy, like Trump for domestic economic policy —two bad we cant cross breed the two and get a actual economically experiences, anti interventionist and ethical man of character.

    This election is another of the lesser evils choice— or– one known evil in Hilary and one unknown possible evil in Trump.

    Since the GOP is melting down nicely already (and the Donald aint going to be successful in reuniting it–so dream on –his supporters will throw another revolution if Trump backtracks on them) this is the year to write in Bernie’s name for Pres even if he’s not on the ballot—ALL Bernie supporters should do that, not waste a write in on Stein who will never make it. ..gotta melt down both parties if you want to get past the two party system.

    “IF’ a Bernie write in got to be a big enough movement that I had confidence all his supporters would do that I would give my vote to him in lieu of voting Trump against Hillary. Some would say well this would just be giving the votes to Trump——that may be—-but what the hell—-even if it was 30 or whatever % of Sander supporters writing in his name it would be a huge ,huge, blow to the Dem establishment and seriously undermine them just as Trump has under minded the GOP.
    As I said we are facing a known evil in Hilary and possible unknown evil in Trump—-if the American people are going to get screwed again in president choices then we should try and do all the damage to the ‘establishment parties’ we can possibly do as we lose yet again.

    • Don Rucknagel
      May 8, 2016 at 19:32

      Cal: There is a way to get beyond the two party system; namely. approval voting. See electology.org. Pleurality voting drives the two-party system

  12. Eduardo Cohen
    May 5, 2016 at 21:27

    According to her responsibilities and initiatives as Secretary of State, events and corresponding timelines Clinton probably played a significant role in
    1. the overthrow of the democratically elected president, the creation of a civil war and the resurgence of fascism in Ukraine,
    2. the creation and prolonging of a bloody civil war in Syria that has reportedly cost over 250,000 or more lives, and
    3. the planning and coordination of the destruction of Libya where citizens enjoyed the highest standard of living in Africa, free universal health care and free education from elementary to post-graduate studies and where women enjoyed more rights and freedoms than possibly anywhere else in the Arab World. (and she calls herself a feminist)
    And she was at least partly responsible for all of this death, destruction and misery before even becoming president.

    This may be unprecedented and we should all be frightened to death for people in the Middle East, Iran and around the world if she actually gets her hands on the keys to the Pentagon’s war machine. She may be the most dangerous non-incumbent presidential candidate in US History.

    Is Trump worse than that? I think she is the more dangerous of the two. Trump says ugly racist things about Muslims. Hillary KILLS them by the thousands. And we know she has already DONE just that!

    She very well may be the most dangerous American presidential candidate ever!

    • Eduardo Cohen
      May 5, 2016 at 21:34

      PS And yes, Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein are the ONLY benevolent and reasonable choices. And the conditions have never been better for a progressive third party ticket with significant support from independents to WIN! The poor and disenfranchised, the environment and the rest of the world desperately need us to do the right thing. Bernie and Jill!!!

    • Mickey Winfield
      May 7, 2016 at 16:22

      Your response is excellent. Would love to see it as a stand alone post that could be shared. People in the US are clueless about the countries we destroy. Most have no idea that Libya was far more progressive, in many ways, than the US

    • Stephen Berk
      May 7, 2016 at 21:49

      You are right. In foreign policy, Hillary Clinton is certainly more dangerous than Trump. Trump, much as he spouts ugly Republican boilerplate about climate change (he ignores it), immigrants (scapegoats), guns (he is all the way with the NRA), is more about somehow negotiating better trade deals than the big trade cartels that benefit chiefly the big bankers. He says he would like to bring manufacturing jobs back to the US. Probably true, but he would lower the corporate tax to zero to do so, and he opposes raising the minimum wage. However, Trump says he would get along with Putin. He has also said he would leave him and Russia for Angela Merkel to deal with. One thus could draw a conclusion that Trump does not want a confrontation with Russia or China, something any non-neocon would judge to be certifiably insane. I will not likely vote for Trump because of all the reasons I just listed. I will probably have to vote Green, for Jill Stein, if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination. Or, out of pure fear of nuclear war and her finger on the button, maybe I would indeed vote for Trump. In any event, if Bernie is not nominated, this is one helluva depressing election.

      • SFOMARCO
        May 8, 2016 at 01:22

        Hillary is already campaigning against Trump, saying he is too mentally unstable to have his figure on the nuke button (that I believe). But what if Trump elaborates on his willingness to dialogue with Putin and defuse the tense situations with Russia over Syria and Ukraine. That would figuratively put some distance between Trump’s finger and The Button, with Hillary “Everything’s on the Table” Clinton looking too unstable for a Commander-in-Chief.

        • Joe Wallace
          May 11, 2016 at 18:58


          If Trump’s tiny fingers won’t reach the nuke button, how is he likely to overcompensate?

    • chuck b
      May 10, 2016 at 17:02

      4. honduras coup d’etat

  13. Larry
    May 5, 2016 at 19:49

    “Glumly”. Your word. Speak for yourself. I’m not enthralled with H. Clinton, to put it extremely mildly, and am aware of all the things you’ve been posting about her (as have others) for years now (and completely agree with you about her hawkish credentials and her shifty ways). But glum I am not. Not thrilled, but not glum. And NOT defeated before we get the chance to push her the hell toward the left as much as we humanly can once hopefully she’s inaugurated. It won’t make her less of a dissembler (omg, she’s a politician! Eek, run!), but she’s a hell of a lot more pushable leftward than any GOP including whatever the hell Trump is. So…would you prefer Trump? Just askin’. Have loved Bernie forever including now and in the future. But would you mind cranking down your doomsday megaphone about Clintongeddon at least a bit? You’re becoming unfair and unbalanced.

    • Larry
      May 5, 2016 at 20:03

      And Mr. McGovern, she’s certainly not any worse than the lying warmongering president you served every day while on duty, providing the intelligence summary.

    • Bill Bodden
      May 5, 2016 at 20:26

      And NOT defeated before we get the chance to push her the hell toward the left as much as we humanly can once hopefully she’s inaugurated.

      Hillary has been on the right (not correct) side of the political spectrum since almost fifty years ago when she was a Goldwater Girl. That was followed by a stint on the Wal-Mart Board of Directors and her very well-paid alliances with Wall Street’s banksters. Do you really think it is possible to move her anywhere remotely towards the left other than through meaningless speeches?

      • May 5, 2016 at 20:48

        Vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie

    • ThisOldMan
      May 5, 2016 at 20:53

      I think the best outcome of the presidential election that can be hoped for right now is that Hillary wins but only Trump has dragged her through the TV screens of every potential voter in the country for her support of free trade, Iraq and hopefully a whole lot else. After which no stinking politician, D or R, will dare vote for TPP during the lame duck session, and Hillary herself will find another way to mess up the earth, greatly weakened before she even gets started.

    • Gozo
      May 7, 2016 at 14:03


      Larry (May 5, 2016: 07:49p) writes, “‘Glumly’….Speak for yourself. I’m not enthralled with H. Clinton…and am aware of all the things you’ve been posting about her….But glum I am not….And NOT defeated before we get the chance to push her the hell toward the left as much as we humanly can once hopefully she’s inaugurated….she’s a hell of a lot more pushable leftward than any GOP…”

      Larry posts a good and honest and direct assessment of the situation in relation to Secretary Clinton. (Naturally, I say this because I concur.)

      Would I prefer that Clinton make a better candidate? It goes almost without saying. But after following her career since the early 1990s, I can only be impressed by how hard she works, in every endeavor, and what she accomplishes.

      It recently occurred to me that, unlike her husband who is a natural campaigner, Hillary Clinton has introverted tendencies; that is, she thinks too much. It makes it difficult for her to give out glib answers, and thus makes her seem dishonest. Her lifetime record of acts, though, shows where her heart lies.

      Larry’s particularly salient point about moving her to the political Left is spot on. Here’s hoping, for America’s sake, that Hillary Clinton takes the White House, the Democrats or further-Leftists take Congress, and America can put an end to the thirty-five year race to mediocrity sponsored with such vehemence by the dismal, other party.

      Regards, (($; -)} Gozo!

    • Stephen Berk
      May 7, 2016 at 21:37

      Hillary is a neocon. See Robert Parry’s excellent article on that on this website. She will not be pushed left. Where is the leverage to push her? It doesn’t exist once she has secured the nomination and Bernie is gone. She can say anything she wants. Obama was going to close Guantanamo. Obama claimed he disliked the Patriot Act. Guantanamo is still open and the Patriot Act still is on the books. Hillary is very, very dangerous, because she is an ideologue on foreign policy. Unlike Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, both supposedly much more conservative than Clinton, she does not favor negotiation and détente with Russia or China. Instead, she pushes confrontation and endless NATO enlargement and provocation. I see her as the biggest threat of war with Russia, which, as Paul Craig Roberts has said, will go nuclear, in the history of the post World War Two presidency. Neocons do not negotiate. They are about sanctions, bombing, war and expanding the empire. NATO is the instrument of imperial expansion. Bill began its expansion to the Russian border after George H. W. Bush said it would not go an inch further east than the reunified Germany. In fact, NATO is a remnant of the cold war that is wholly superfluous today. Noam Chomsky has called it an American protection racket. It is certainly that. But it is also an instrument of the neocon wet dream of American world domination. And Mme. Clinton is the current expositor and true believer in that dream.

  14. Hegesias of Cyrene
    May 5, 2016 at 19:27

    “Oh, for goodness sake, it’s not going to happen. I’m not even answering that question.”

    It’s not arrogance or deception. She confidently knows she is above the law. If she ever gets indicted for this and there are appropriate consequences, I will eat my daughter’s dirty diaper coated in vomit. It ain’t going to happen. So let’s deal with reality. The reason it ain’t gonna happen is also the main problem we are trying to overcome. Massive corruption and immunity of the powered elite.

    • Larry
      May 5, 2016 at 20:01

      Given, there’s way too much unofficial immunity for government execs, but she knows she won’t be indicted because of the covert operation aspect of the Benghazi story (that apparently you are unaware of). There really was an ongoing covert CIA substation operation at the consulate, and probing deeper into the story won’t be allowed because of what would be revealed – it’s off limits. Your overall point though is excellent and well-taken.

    • Cal
      May 5, 2016 at 22:35

      ” The reason it ain’t gonna happen is also the main problem we are trying to overcome. Massive corruption and immunity of the powered elite.”…..Hegesias


  15. Charles
    May 5, 2016 at 18:56

    A cabinet official held to account for lying to Congress? Has that ever happened?

    Certainly lying about a question directed at covert operations will never be prosecuted. Nor would that really constitute a “sword of Damocles.” After all the Republican harassment of the Clintons in the 1990s, I doubt anyone will even take further investigations seriously.

    Clinton has all sorts of liabilities, but these are in my opinion not really among them. Much as I wish they were.

    • Larry
      May 5, 2016 at 19:59

      I think you’re right, Charles. The covert aspect is privileged information and rightfully declared off limits. And the GOP fever swamp has become totally inbred. It’s like a black hole that sucks back in all the projectile propaganda they try to catapault out. Some news purveyors will buy in somewhat but no one will be paying attention or caring except for the already programmed.

  16. Sfomarco
    May 5, 2016 at 18:38

    FBI’s Comey may only throw roasted marshmallows at Hillary, but Trump will fire hardballs over Libya/Syria, Clinton Foundation
    Conflicts-of-Interest, mega-fees for boiler-plate speeches, and Benghazi specifics.

  17. Bill Bodden
    May 5, 2016 at 18:18

    … primary duty is to honor his/her oath “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,”

    For most people who take this oath, except for friends of Ray McGovern, it appears to be meaningless. In October 2002 Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) informed his colleagues in the senate they would be violating their oaths if they voted to give Dubya authorization to use military force against Iraq. 77 Senators voted “aye.” A young Army lieutenant refused to serve in Iraq because he believed it would have been in violation of his oath to the Constitution and was charged with disobeying an order. The court set up to punish him let him off with a token punishment of little consequence and let him resign his commission after his defense attorneys signaled they wanted to make an issue of the illegality of the war. So what does that say about the rest of the military that served in Iraq? (Ray, you probably know who I have referred to and should invite him to join your group; although, he may have a preference now for whatever anonymity he may be enjoying.) How many times have presidents and members of their administrations in the recent past violated their oaths? Isn’t there something in the presidential oath of office about upholding the law? How many times has President Obama informed us that “no one is about the law”?

    • May 5, 2016 at 22:37

      Now there’s an Army captain suing Obama for the same thing. The Captain has an excellent claim that Obama’s orders are illegal as there is no congressional authorization of the new wars against ISIS. http://www.startribune.com/army-captain-sues-obama-says-he-lacks-authority-to-fight-is/378173801/ Congress has gotten even more derelict since Byrd’s speech! Now they refuse to even take up the issue.

      Unfortunately the fact that there is only one comment after the article about this development indicates that the American people are oblivious to wars that only cause deaths of foreigners (and suicides-homicides of the our poverty drafted “all volunteer” Americans).

      • Bill Bodden
        May 5, 2016 at 22:52

        From the link: “Members of the military are obligated to refuse to follow an order that is illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If they follow unlawful ones, they risk punishment.”

        This appears not to be common knowledge in the military. Either that or they lack the moral courage to do what is right. Meanwhile, Chelsea Manning languishes in prison while the criminals and their enablers she exposed go free.

  18. May 5, 2016 at 17:15

    In a lawsuit [as here] the suing party has a right to “discovery” of facts via sworn testimony as the Judge in this case has ruled.

    It doesn’t matter that you love Hillary…..and have characterized the suing party as a “Right Wing group”.

    2LT Dennis Morrisseau USArmy [armor – Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR retired.
    POB 177 W Pawlet, VT 05775
    802 645 9727 [email protected]

  19. Realist
    May 5, 2016 at 17:12

    The Democrats had better choose carefully their Veep candidate, as the Republicans may not be amenable to “taking impeachment off the table.”

    • Larry
      May 5, 2016 at 19:51

      As you allude to, the GOP already has impeachment on the table. It’s been their plan since they ‘uncovered’ a pretext to do so. The’ve been desperately rubbing their hands together in evil glee for the chance. Then they’ll use another pretext to impeach the sitting vice president once she/he replaces Clinton, and voila – President-Speaker Paul Ryan lies with his hand on the BIble and is sworn in. Easier than having the Supreme Court cheat the GOP into the White House. GOP coup d’etats have become so civilized-like since ’63.

      • Bill Bodden
        May 5, 2016 at 20:35

        But before Ryan becomes the next emperor, the Democrats can appoint another VP if the first VP replaces Hillary.

        • Mickey Winfield
          May 7, 2016 at 16:13

          True. However, any impeachment wounds our chances at the White House in the next election. Yes, Ford pulled it off after Nixon but it would be harder in today’s world.

          • Marilyn Gayle
            May 8, 2016 at 20:08

            After having replaced the disgraced Nixon, ca 1974, Ford lost his campaign for re-election to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Ford did not “pull it off.”

    • Angelo Fulcinetti
      May 9, 2016 at 12:36

      Yes. According to what’s online, the FBI is just finishing up with the espionage part of the investigation. ONce they make their recommendation to the DOJ, they move onto part two which is the corruption part of the investigation. In which case, who the heck knows what they’ll find that makes Clinton (assuming she’s even Pres) impeachable. What a mess. She shouldn’t be elected in the first place. The time and money she’s cost us. Her “foundation” (wink, wink) should be billed, otherwise, we’re paying for all of this.

  20. Bill Cash
    May 5, 2016 at 16:47

    Whether she is guilty or not, why is a right wing group being given permission to take sworn testimony? Have they paid off a judge?

    • Mickey Winfield
      May 7, 2016 at 16:11

      Violations of the FOIA laws

    • Angelo Fulcinetti
      May 9, 2016 at 12:31

      They’re just doing the work that the government itself has been failing to do. The judge that granted Judicial Watch permission was actually a Clinton appointee. According to Sullivan: “Judicial Watch raises significant questions in its Motion for Discovery about whether the State Department processed documents in good faith in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request. Judicial Watch is therefore entitled to limited discovery.”

Comments are closed.