Will Hillary Clinton Get Favored Treatment?

Exclusive: Hillary Clinton’s private emails jeopardized the safety of undercover CIA officers, suggesting criminal charges, but the Obama administration might make an exception for the Democratic frontrunner, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is in a legal pickle over her careless email practices – in that she appears to have endangered national security secrets including the identity of covert CIA officers and done so for selfish reasons (personal convenience or keeping her documents out of reach of transparency laws).

The facts of the case would seem to merit criminal charges against her, since Clinton’s situation is analogous to problems faced by other senior officials, including former CIA directors John Deutch and David Petraeus who were accused of mishandling classified information, Deutch by having secret material on his home computer and Petraeus for giving notebooks with highly sensitive information to his lover/biographer.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Deutch agreed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor but was preemptively pardoned by President Bill Clinton; Petraeus pled guilty to a misdemeanor in a plea deal that spared him from jail time and was widely criticized as excessively lenient, especially since the Obama administration had jailed lower-level officials, such as former CIA officer John Kiriakou, for similar violations.

In 2012, faced with a multiple count indictment, Kiriakou agreed to plead guilty to one count of violating the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act for giving a reporter the phone number of a former CIA officer whose work for the spy agency was still classified. Though the reporter did not publish the ex-officer’s name, Kiriakou was sentenced to 30 months in prison.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act was also a factor in the “Plame-gate affair” in 2003 when officials of George W. Bush’s administration disclosed the CIA identity of Valerie Plame as part of a campaign to discredit her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had challenged Bush’s claims about Iraq seeking yellowcake uranium for a nuclear program, one of the falsehoods that was used to justify invading Iraq.

Right-wing columnist Robert Novak blew Plame’s undercover identity but a special prosecutor chose not to indict anyone, including Bush’s aides, under the 1982 law. He did, however, convict Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, of obstructing justice. However, Bush commuted Libby’s sentence so he avoided jail time.

The recent State Department Inspector General report makes clear that Clinton blithely disregarded safeguards designed to protect the most highly classified national security information and that she included on her unprotected email server the names of U.S. intelligence agents under cover.

In other words, there is legal precedent for Hillary Clinton to be charged in connection with her decision to handle her State Department emails through a personal server in her home in Chappaqua, New York, rather than through official government servers. But there’s political precedent as well for the well-connected to be either slapped on the wrist or let off the hook.

A Biblical Warning

Beyond Clinton’s legal predicament over secrets, there is also the question of how she manipulates information on small matters as well as big. There’s a pertinent Bible quotation: “If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities.” (Luke 16:10)

Army veteran and ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, standing in protest of a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb. 15, 2011.

Army veteran and ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern, standing in protest of a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb. 15, 2011.

And I happen to have personal experience with how Clinton has been dishonest in the little matter of my brutal arrest on Feb. 15, 2011, after I stood with my back turned toward her while she delivered a speech at George Washington University about the importance of respecting dissent (in other countries, that is).

I have looked closely at her relevant email exchanges from late February 2011 after Secretary Clinton didn’t miss a syllable as I was roughly dragged away by security personnel right in front of her. From my review of those emails, I had two take-aways: (1) Secretary Clinton is not truthful about the smallest of things; and (2) she had a much more important issue to worry about at the time; namely, rallying support for a “no-fly zone” as a gateway to a “regime change” war on Libya.

Could that be why she never took up her confidant Sidney Blumenthal’s suggestion that an apology to me might be in order? Since the emails speak so eloquently to both issues, I will cite them below:

On my standing silently at George Washington U. on Feb. 15, 2011:


From: sbwhoeop [Sidney Blumenthal]

To: H (Hillary Clinton)

Sent: Fri Feb 18, 09:27:25, 2011

Subject: H: FYI, an unfortunate incident. Sid

“Don’t know if you are aware of this unfortunate incident described below on Larry Johnson’s website. Ray McGovern, a former CIA officer who gave the daily brief for President George H.W. Bush, is pretty well known in the intelligence community. He’s become a Christian antiwar leftist who goes around bearing witness. Whatever his views, he’s harmless. Something bad happened at your speech at GW. And it’s become a minor cause celebre on the Internet among lefties. You might have someone check this out and also have someone apologize to Ray McGovern. Sid”


From Sidney Blumenthal (continued)

“Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. He left government … in October 1993 … and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics.)”

Blumenthal then quoted from a blog piece that Johnson wrote after hearing what happened during Secretary Clinton’s speech at GWU on Feb. 15:

“During a speech by Hillary earlier this week at George Washington University retired CIA analyst, Ray McGovern, was physically accosted and arrested for disorderly conduct for the simple act of standing up and turning his back to Hillary. Ray ended his career at the CIA as one of the senior officers who provided George H.W. Bush his daily intelligence brief. Since then Ray has emerged as an anti-war activist. Ray is a fearless but he also is a kind, gentle soul. …

“Unfortunately Hillary is getting blamed for what happened to Ray, but it is not her fault. Hillary is not in charge of her security detail. … He had every right to stand and silently protest. He posed no threat to Hillary and made no threatening move. The security folks grossly over-reacted. … Since the folks inside the auditorium had gone thru a metal detector there was no reason to assume that Ray represented a threat to do harm. It is the ultimate irony that the Obama Administration is calling on foreign leaders to tolerate protest and dissent but when it comes to an old man standing silently there was no tolerance at all.”

[end of shortened text of email from Larry Johnson, quoted by Sidney Blumenthal]

Clever Wording

Secretary Clinton then replied:

To: Sidney Blumenthal Subject: “H: FYI, AN UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT. SID”

From: H [email protected] [one of two email accounts that Clinton used]

To: sbwhoeop

Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:14 AM [replying to Blumenthal less than an hour later]

Subject: Re: “H: FYI, an unfortunate incident.”

“Sid I appreciate your sending thgis (sic) to me. Neither State nor my staff had anything to do w this. The man stood up just as I was starting and GW–which claims their quick actions were part of their standard operating procedures to remove anyone who stands up and starts speaking while an invited guest is talking–moved to remove him. GW claims he was not in any way injured. We have no other info but I will see what else can be done.”

In this brief email, Secretary Clinton takes two misleading tacks. Though she had first-hand knowledge that I had not been “speaking” — since she was there — she suggests otherwise while not actually saying so. She just strongly implies that I was “speaking.”

Not only was she an eyewitness, numerous videos on the Internet in the days prior showed that I did not say a word until the security people had me in a headlock and almost out the door and into the street. Lawyers like Hillary Clinton apparently parse words – even on minor matters, and even in emails that they hope will never see the light of day. (And what, by the way, is the meaning of “is?”)

Ray McGovern displaying the aftermath of his arrest during a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb. 15, 2011.

Ray McGovern displaying the aftermath of his arrest during a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb. 15, 2011.

Similarly, Secretary Clinton attributes to GWU the claim that I “was not in any way injured.” Case closed. … except for the photos sent around on the Web a few days earlier.

So, as you might guess, there was no apology from the Secretary of State or a statement that perhaps the “unfortunate incident” with McGovern had unfortunately stepped on her passionate and surely heartfelt denunciation of Iran for not respecting the right of dissidents to protest their government’s policies.

Targeting Gaddafi

But the incident with me was minor compared to what Secretary Clinton was then cooking up for Libya, where she was outraged that Col. Muammar Gaddafi was citing the need to root out Islamic terrorists operating around Benghazi. Dismissing Gaddafi’s claims, Clinton and her State Department preferred to denounce Gaddafi’s domestic “war on terror” as a “genocidal” attack on innocent dissenters in eastern Libya.

Again, Clinton was communicating with her outside adviser Blumenthal about how to rile the world up enough against Gaddafi to push a “no-fly zone” through the United Nations Security Council.

Secretary Clinton’s private emails also contradict her testimony before the House Benghazi Committee that Blumenthal “was not at all my adviser on Libya,” although I guess it depends on what your definition of “adviser” is. The emails show that she actually took immediate proactive steps to follow up on his advice, as can be seen in the following:


From: sbwhoeop [Sidney Blumenthal]

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 10:32 PM

To: H Subject: H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. S

“UK former Foreign Secretary David Owen has called for a no-fly zone over Libya, imposed by the United Nations and/or Nato … US might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities.”

[Article from Aljazeera as quoted by Blumenthal]: “In the wake of reported aiattacks (sic) on civilian crowds by the Libyan airforce, former Foreign Secretary Lord David Owen has called on the UN Security Council to immediately meet in emergency session and authorise a `No Fly Zone’ over Libya. Speaking on al Jazeera, Lord Owen called for a UN Charter Chapter 7 intervention (meaning the authorisation of both military and non-military means to ‘restore international peace and security’) to be enforced by NATO air forces with Egyptian military support to demonstrate regional backing.”


From: H <[email protected]> [the other Clinton email, using her maiden name initials, Hillary Diane Rodham]

To: Sullivan, Jacob 3 [deputy chief of staff]

Sent: Mon Feb 21 22:42:21 2011

Subject: Fw: “H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. Sid”

“What do you think of this idea?”

Slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi

Slain Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi


From: Sullivan, Jacob J [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 04:59 AM [early the next morning]

To: H

Subject: Re: “H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. Sid”

“Several have proposed it but honestly, we actually don’t know what is happening from the air right now. As we gain more facts, we can consider.”


From: H [email protected] [back to the other email address]

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:09 AM

To: sbwhoeop

Subject: Re: “H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes.”

“Sid, We are looking at that for Security Council, which remains reluctant to ‘interfere’ in the internal affairs of a country. Stay tuned!”


From: H <[email protected]>

To: Sullivan, Jacob J

Sent: Tue Feb 22 06:34:15 2011

Subject: Re: “H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. Sid”

“I’ve heard contradictory reports as to whether or not there are planes flying and firing on crowds. What is the evidence that they are?”


From: Sullivan, Jacob J <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 7:21 AM

To: H

Subject: Re: “H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. Sid”

“Not much – unconfirmed reports. Though helos firing seems more plausible.”


On to War

It took three more weeks, but on March 17, 2011, Secretary Clinton got her wish for a “no-fly zone” approved by the UN Security Council, acting under the military authority of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. The vote was ten in favor, zero against, and five abstentions.

The five abstentions were: Brazil, Russia, India, China and Germany; Russian and China, which as permanent members could have vetoed the motion, complained later that they were deceived as to the real purpose of the “no-fly zone,” not realizing that it was a pretext for another “regime change,” which involved slaughtering much of the Libyan army before driving Gaddafi from power.

When Gaddafi was captured in his home town of Sirte on Oct. 20, 2011, he was tortured with a knife, which was used to sodomize him. Then he was murdered. When Clinton was notified of Gaddafi’s demise, she  declared, “we came, we saw, he died” — and clapped her hands in undisguised glee.

It turned out, however, that Gaddafi was right that many of his adversaries in the east were radical jihadists and terrorists, a truth that Clinton learned when U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel were slain by attackers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

Clinton’s deception around the Libyan “no-fly zone” – as a gateway to yet another brutal U.S.-backed “regime change” – also helped poison U.S. relations with Russia and China, which balked at similar U.S. demands for a “safe zone” inside Syria, an idea that Clinton has advocated both as Secretary of State and as a presidential candidate.

In other words, Clinton is no more honest about big things than small, just as the Bible passage foretold, except now the fate of the world may hang in the balance.

Ray McGovern works with 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 used to brief every other morning one of Secretary Clinton’s predecessors, George P. Shultz, with the President’s Daily Brief.

53 comments for “Will Hillary Clinton Get Favored Treatment?

  1. Mike Lamb
    June 10, 2016 at 18:21

    If memory serves me right Peter Fitzgerald charged Scooter Libby with lying, not with providing a person with no clearance the name of a CIA agent.
    Fitzgerald was interviewed after his indictment of Libby.
    In that there was a question as to why the “espionage act was not used.”
    Fitzgerald went around that.
    The Obama Administration has repeatedly used the espionage act to go after whistleblowers.
    Libby was no whistleblower. As far as anyone knows Valerie Plame Wlison, at the time, had done nothing to have deserved “blowing the whistle” on.
    In the Libby case the leak was political retribution for her husband telling the truth.

    However, what is important is that Hillary seems to be given very favorable treatment.
    No FBI sent with a warrant to seize her server and whatever else they might want.
    Ties to the State Department providing for arms sales to countries donating money from the foundation fell out of the emails and set up another area to investigate. (meaning the Foundation’s emails which she may have deleted as “private” became fair game to pursue).
    Bill being paid big bucks by an Education group that got money from the State Department opened up another area for investigation.

    Can’t the FBI decide whether there is anything to indict on one thing without having to have all the expanding areas settled all at once?


  2. Brad Smith
    June 7, 2016 at 20:27

    “I’ve heard contradictory reports as to whether or not there are planes flying and firing on crowds. What is the evidence that they are?”

    Subject: Re: “H: Option: no-fly zone over Libya. David Owen proposes. Sid”

    “Not much – unconfirmed reports. Though helos firing seems more plausible.”

    So it’s actually not plausible that he was using planes to fire into crowds and they knew this at the time. We now know of course, that it didn’t happen and neither did the helos. This of course didn’t stop Killary from claiming Gadhaffi was slaughtering his “own” citizens. (As opposed to us doing it for him).

    About the only good that can come from this mess; hopefully it was a fatal blow to the ignorant R2P crowd.

    Who am I kidding right? But a guy can dream.

  3. Defiant
    June 7, 2016 at 10:13

    Hillary is ALREADY getting favored treatment. Name another person who could cause a national security debacle–like her email scandal–and remain today STILL unprosecuted! And the emails are just the crown jewel of Hillary’s crimes. It’s PLAIN that some pigs are more equal than others…

  4. Dave
    June 7, 2016 at 06:06

    Your statement regarding your unfair arrest is powerful and emotional. I don’t necessarily support your stand against Hillary for her refusal to help, but I understand.

    Your comparison of her e-mail security practices to other acts of intentional treason is weak and strained, at best.

    By presenting these arguments together with your analysis of Libya, you make the Libya facts seem like a personal vendetta rather than a powerful case for peace in a complicated region.

  5. Terry Marshall
    June 7, 2016 at 04:18

    No booze allowed in Okinawa….the revolution starts there…

    Good job Ray, as always…

  6. Joe Tedesky
    June 7, 2016 at 01:52

    Bill Maher refers to Hillary’s email scandal as being a ‘Nothingburger’. A variety of pundits including Senator Barbara Boxer, has gone on TV describing what Hillary did with her private server, as being a big nothing. Hillary herself uses the childish excuse, how ….’well Colin Powell did it’. Madeline Albright stated, ‘how no one died’. Hillary’s surrogates are out there, and from the looks of it they are performing their warmup act well, for when the DOJ headliner finally comes to rock out her rescue. There are laws on the books to prosecute people who disregard our nations security, but these rules don’t apply to the Clintons. As unbelievable as it maybe, as unfair as it is turning out to seem, you will need to accept the reality of believing it, and as your father had once cautioned you, ‘Life isn’t always Fair’. If laws are determined by precedent well then Hillary is seriously setting one hell of a fine (sarcasm) example. I’m sure Hillary will get a nice dinner seat next to Jonathan Pollard, at her celebration party to be held inTel Aviv.

  7. Zachary Smith
    June 6, 2016 at 19:56

    Will Hillary Clinton Get Favored Treatment

    If BHO can manage to get Hillary off the hook and into the White House, I’d predict he will do so.

    Read an interesting theory last week about the ‘why’ of it – the guy claimed that if Sanders followed Obama, he (BHO) would look like total crap by comparison. I’d extend that to say Obama might well fear that Trump would go into the history books as a better overall president if the two of them were back-to-back presidents. BHO really wants Hillary.

    (Hope I’m wrong)

  8. Bill Bodden
    June 6, 2016 at 19:41

    If the public were paying attention they would realize how bizarre politics in America can be. The spectacles presented to us by the various characters are really nothing new – just more extreme. Witness how Hillary can make the most outrageous statements (lots of examples on recent Clinton-related posts on this and other sites) without so much as a blush or batting an eye and Obama can do something similar (no one is above the law, etc.) with a straight face.

    Psychologists and psychiatrists would probably disagree, but many people among the public using laypersons’ understanding of the terms must wonder if these two people and their cohorts are sociopaths or psychopaths.

    • Bill Bodden
      June 6, 2016 at 21:07


      “Hillary Clinton and The New Nixonians” by Jonathan Turley – https://jonathanturley.org/2016/06/06/hillary-clinton-and-the-new-nixonians/

    • eugene o'neill
      June 6, 2016 at 21:17

      Oh I think the top psychiatrists and psychologists, if they have no Fascist leanings, would definitely agree that Barry and Hill are definitely Psychopaths.

      • Bill Bodden
        June 6, 2016 at 22:53

        Could be. If not they must surely have some other clinical term for whatever their condition might be.

  9. Pablo Diablo
    June 6, 2016 at 18:45

    Hilary Clinton charged with criminal acts. HAHAHAHA HAHA

  10. Ellen Corley
    June 6, 2016 at 18:18

    I always appreciate Ray McGovern’s perspective and take his word on things like this primarily because I am very concerned that the public is not able to evaluate the problem with candidate’s foreign policy positions in general due to the military having undue influence on the way stories are told and the way stories are not told. One story that is not told are stories about other undue influencers paid by Republican abd Democratic party operatives like William Casey who was Reagan’s Chief of Staff, the head of the Republican party, the SEC, the CIA, and then Capital Cities when it bought ABC and other media and who also founded the right wing think tank, the Manhattan Institute, which then manufactured public policy legislation based on right wing propaganda regarding profiling (Linda Chavez), climate change. What is most scary is they were behind the deregulation agenda which went on to throw out the Fairness Doctrine and replace it with a essential takeover of the media by corporate interests. This is the definition of Fascism. I also am most concerned that they wrote the Contract with America and then had it put into the little known or discussed National Security Revitalization Act of 1994 which essentially made it impossible to fund peacekeeping through the US and tilted all US peacekeeping toward NATO. This is the act that needs to be looked at because I am convinced that all of this was put in place by the corrupt original heads of the CIA, John Foster Dulles and Allan Dulles, who used the Hitler’s Nazi Head of Intelligence, Reinhard Gehlen to continue the Nazi, Fascist, Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Fascist “Propaganda Due” False Flag Terrorist Imperialist war through the covert operations financed and carried out by the secret services of the U.S., Israel, the UK, and NATO as well as the major banks like J.P. Morgan Chase, the CIA. In other words, we have to expose the corrupt connection between Hillary Clinton and the parties and the military-industrial complex and the corporations and the banks before it is too late. If we could get this investigation before Congress before the elections, we have a chance of stopping the Manchurian Candidates from extending their McCarthy like coup d’etat of America.

    • Rob Roy
      June 6, 2016 at 22:54

      Well said. Not waiting with bated breath.

    • M.
      June 7, 2016 at 17:20


  11. Dennis Rice
    June 6, 2016 at 17:44

    If anything Hillary Clinton will always be dismissed with “No criminal intent was found”, or at BEST, released on her own because she is “too big to fail.”

    • M.
      June 7, 2016 at 17:18

      But she is not too big to vote for!

  12. F. G. Sanford
    June 6, 2016 at 17:01

    Ray, they just can’t afford to risk jury nullification on a national security case. She’s gonna get special treatment. The executive endorsement should be out any day now.

    • Dennis Rice
      June 6, 2016 at 18:31

      F.G. Sanford, if/when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, Hillary will get a presidential pardon.

      And we can all bet nothing of ill repute about her will come out before the Democratic National Convention.

      The “excuse” will be, “We did not want to influence the election” when in fact, that behavior of itself is to,
      and will, influence the election.

      • jim256
        June 7, 2016 at 11:35

        Keeping the FBI’s findings under wraps until after the convention — while disingenuously explaining that it’s to avoid influencing the election — is probably what most insiders in the media-political establishment are thinking. But it will be about as plausible in retrospect as the claim that Hillary is the stronger candidate, or that she “clinched the nomination” on the even of the CA primary (a claim being echoed in the global media). In that event, it will be obvious that the FBI/DoJ failure to disclose the one thing with the power to break the Cult of Shillary spell (that she faces credible prosecution for serious crimes) led to to a national catastrophy. I suspect the decision-makers understand this.

    June 6, 2016 at 16:39

    “standard operating procedures to remove anyone who stands up and starts speaking while an invited guest is talking – moved to remove him.” The Donald is not the only candidate with a goon squad at campaign rallies.

    • GM
      June 6, 2016 at 19:13

      Bernie Sanders rallies: only ones where attendees don’t risk being beaten up by campaign goons.

  14. Bill Bodden
    June 6, 2016 at 16:03

    Will Obama run cover for Hilllary? Here is a clue:

    “Obama Administration Bars Release of Clinton’s TPP Emails Until Post-Election: Response for FOIA request was ‘abruptly’ changed from spring 2016 to late November 2016” by Lauren McCauley, staff writer – http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06/06/obama-administration-bars-release-clintons-tpp-emails-until-post-election

  15. Terry Sneller
    June 6, 2016 at 15:36

    The faint exponitial fade to darkness began November 22, 1963.
    The total loss of light, and our tear-filled vision to be free,
    Will flow away like the rivers — with the last leaf of the last tree.

    Tarry Faster

  16. Harry Shade
    June 6, 2016 at 15:27

    Obama (a so-called Constituional Lawyer) pointedly refused to indict Bush for his war crimes, by saying that we should all look forward not backward. Don’t expect him to indict his own Secretary of State. If he did, he might expect to be indicted for killing even Americans without due process. He swore at the inauguration ceremony to protect the Constitution, but went right ahead and did precicely that. Indeed the Devit is the Lesser Evil.

    • GM
      June 6, 2016 at 19:10

      He’s already said there will be no indictment (but he’s not involved in the deliberations haha)
      BTW-Robby Mook, former DOJ official, Loretta Lynch formerly worked for law firm that represented the Clintons..just sayin’.

    • jim256
      June 7, 2016 at 11:10

      But in contrast to $Hillary’s legal situation, there was no focused year-long FBI investigation of criminality focused on the Bush admin war crimes. And those war crimes are a much higher bar to prosecute in contemporary USA than the kinds of violations of Title 18 law in which the FBI is so experienced in building cases. I don’t see Obama as having any option but let the case against her unfold — a Hillary Defense precedent would be too toxic for the system to bear, given the level of self-serving criminality at the Clinton Foundation-SoS nexus that will eventually be clear to the public.

  17. Dr. Ibrahim Soudy
    June 6, 2016 at 15:03

    I agree with you, Ray. The question is “what are you suggesting that the people of the U.S. do?”. Americans, as I have observed them could be classified into 4 categories:

    – Top 1% who are the elite and those are exploiting almost all the rest to make money.
    – Bottom 1% who are good people, like Ray, but have very little impact on the well entrenched system.
    – Middle 98% who are EITHER way too comfortable to give a damn about anybody but themselves OR just trying to survive in the very brutal very capitalist every one for him/herself society we have to also care about others!

    So, here you have it Ray, “What is the solution?”…A Political Revolution, like BS says, just does not happen……Empires have to collapse…….that is well proven through very long history

    • Rikhard Ravindra Tanskanen
      June 6, 2016 at 15:56

      That’s three categories.

      Also, I don’t like the term “99%”. Now, don’t get me wrong, I support Occupy Wall Street. But those who are not members of the 1% (the super-rich or wealthy), who are well-off – the rich, the upper-middle class, and the middle-class – are just as bad as the 1% – they own corporations and companies, support lower taxes, and don’t give their employees raises. It’s the lower-middle class, the working class, and the underclass that we should care about. The rich, the upper-middle class, and the middle-class should not be members of Occupy Wall Street.

      And I heard in the Toronto Star in 2011 that the leaders of Occupy Wall Street were surprisingly the alienated children of the 1%, despite the fact it is about the poor. Don’t get me wrong, I understand they care about the poor, but the poor should lead themselves. I say throw them of the movement. Now, they can donate money – I support that – but they shouldn’t be leading the movement.

      • Dr. Ibrahim Soudy
        June 6, 2016 at 16:02

        the middle 98% are two categories………….The way too comfortable AND the trying to survive…..(EITHER……OR..)

      • GM
        June 6, 2016 at 19:06

        Is it possible that the poor are too demoralized from decades of oppression to stand up for themselves? Bernie noted that poor people don’t even tend to vote.

        • M.
          June 7, 2016 at 17:01

          I don’t know what the percentages of poor people not voting are, but I think if efforts to disenfranchise them don’t prevent them from voting, matters of day to day survival may. (Yes, I certainly can imagine some thinking, “What’s the point?”) I did some calling for the Bernie Sanders campaign. I was calling voters in Alabama before their primary. People were sometimes at work or no longer living at/using the address/phone number we had. Two voters that I did speak to really stayed with me. I believe they were African American. One was at work and said to me several times with emphasis, “I cannot take this call at work.” He gave no indication of whether or not he would vote or for whom he would vote. The other was elderly, judging by his voice. He listened and said, so politely, that he didn’t know if he would be able to vote because he was having heart trouble. He was sitting in a clinic waiting to be seen. I said that I understood and wished him well.

          Voting by mail isn’t the only answer. I think voting sites need to be open for weeks or months to give people a chance to exercise their democratic right to vote — and maybe have U.N. monitors. Of course we need a short campaign season, (and a shortened pundit season) with intense debates on issues only, with everyone voting at the same time, and without the use of voting machines. Everyone would feel that their vote was important. I think we all feel to a greater or lesser degree disenfranchised in the current system.

          Regarding the 1% of people like Ray:

          My father, Que en Paz Descanse, always said, “the Irish are loyal.” Thank you Ray McGovern. He was a prisoner of war in World War II, a radio, morse code, operator in the Air Force. flying at a time when about half were shot down, (he would later learn); the first flight had engine trouble, the second, whose mission was to bomb a munitions plant, was shot down – two stayed with the plane and died – the pilot and the rear gunner- the rest parachuted and were taken prisoner by the Germans almost immediately – except for one who thought they should try to evade capture, but apparently perished trying to swim the Danube – it was at flood stage. My father was in four different prison camps – I think he said Stalag Luft, one near Nuremberg, one in what is now Poland, pretty well protected by the Geneva Convention – although towards the end of the war the prisoners were moved outside while their quarters were riddled with bullets-perhaps a message to warn them not to try to escape as the war was nearing its end; ultimately they would be marched through the countryside until they were liberated. An irony: he was half German, and half Czech. Another irony: he worked with someone who had been a prisoner of war in the United States. He told my father that when he was being taken on a long, cross country train ride to one of our P.O.W. camps, he was sure they were being fooled into thinking our country was much larger than it really was. Another irony: I was traveling in Morocco and met a German couple, the man spoke English and greeted me. He said, ” I was a prisoner of war in your country.” I said, “Really? My father was a prisoner of war in yours!” He stretched out his hand, and we shook hands. My father, Bernie, was always for a strong defense, but he was against the Vietnam War. He felt it was wrong. We left the Catholic Church because the hierarchy supported it. He felt one of the greatest dangers we faced was from within: hyper, blind patriotism joined with a rabid, militaristic Christianity. Surely one flag was enough. He died in 1996. He died a week before turning 75. He had said that he didn’t think he would see 75. I don’t know what he would have said about all of the Iraq Wars. I remember him being critical of our soldiers fighting on behalf of the wealthy Kuwaitis. I think he would have seen through the post 9/11 Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al., push for and prosecution of war, and the continuing, and successful, push for wars and regime change by others. I think he would have seen through the military, industrial, congressional complex — with great worry and sadness. I’m not sure what he understood of it. I think he would have respected Ray McGovern for his integrity and courage, especially given his life’s work – and others like him.

          I am sure that it is a much greater percentage than 1% who would like to see a thoughtful and intelligent and critical political debate about how to have a sane and humane country and a world without weapons of mass destruction. The numbers are great who would like to see honest and committed politicians and see their country engaged in endeavors that affirm, and feed, and educate, and house, and care for, and sustain, and rebuild lives, and cope with the current and ongoing and dire problems that confront us here and in the world. The corporate media, their backers, the entrenched kleptocratic powers would like us to believe our numbers are small, but they are wrong and biased, as in so many things. They would like us to doubt ourselves. They would like to marginalize us. They would like us to believe that we are small in numbers, because they know we can affect change. My goodness, just watch MSNBC!

          Happy Father’s Day. Even if you don’t have children, I believe all men are fathers.

    • Bill Bodden
      June 6, 2016 at 16:19

      Bottom 1% who are good people, like Ray, but have very little impact on the well entrenched system.

      It is true that the bottom one percent have little impact, but the Sanders revolution might be among the first steps towards an expansion of this minority. Revolutions take time, and we should hope that all Sanders’ supporters (or at least most of them) will realize they can be a force for change. They could learn some useful lessons from the Tea Party, not philosophically, but tactically to effect change. The authoritarians in the un-Democratic Party oligarchy are too entrenched, so perhaps, a third party is the way to go to bring about the demise of one half of Wall Street’s duopoly.

      We could also learn from Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement. Many of his key allies joined the un-Democratic where they were co-opted by one means or another and are now part of Clinton’s plantation.

      • Dr. Ibrahim Soudy
        June 6, 2016 at 17:37

        I do not agree with you for the following reasons:

        – Sanders’ Supporters are just as fools as Trump’s. Sanders promises them all they want for free knowing that he cannot deliver!! They just think that he will correct things and they do not have to do much if anything but elect him!!

        – Humanity today does not produce people of the caliper of Martin Luther King…….It produces people of the caliper of Condi Rice, Susan Rice, Colin Powell, to name a few!! Change now comes by celebrities NOT LEADERS who do not exist!!

        – Again, the issue is NOT political BUT cultural……..The corrupt self-centered culture of the US produces people who are mostly self-centered corrupt……….The US will be on the right track when you see a REAL ANTI-WAR movement that forces the government to behave itself on the world stage………

        • GM
          June 6, 2016 at 19:08

          He’s promised nothing for free. He’s proposed tax increases across the board among other things. That’s not “free” in my world.

        • June 6, 2016 at 19:11

          And I would also add that I am almost certain that any positive change is NOT inspired and does NOT come about by people who have a very cynical and judgmental attitude about everybody and everything.

        • Bill Bodden
          June 6, 2016 at 20:16

          Humanity today does not produce people of the caliper (sic) of Martin Luther King

          I respect your position on this issue but disagree with the preceding quote and that Sanders’ supporters are fools.

          I would suggest Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers are leaders who have been responsible for some, if not enough, changes in Washington’s ways. To these I would add the courageous people opposing Israel’s right wing. Sanders and his supporters are giving voice to some of the many injustices inflicted on the American people. Would-be leaders don’t go anywhere without citizens supporting them. What this nation and the world need at this point is a leader who can inspire Sanders supporters (and perhaps a few of Trump’s supporters) and others to continue and build on this stage of a potential revolution which is built to some degree on the failed Occupy Wall Street movement. It may come to naught this time but perhaps next. If not then, perhaps the time after that, but it must come some day. Current injustices will continue to multiply so much that enough Americans will finally rise in opposition. If a revolution succeeds then, unfortunately, human nature will ensure we will begin another cycle, and another 200 or 300 years from now if the planet survives the people will go through a similar debacle.

        • Rob Roy
          June 6, 2016 at 22:39

          Of course free education and healthcare can easily be delivered. [Check out Finland, et. al. (Go see “What Country Shall We Invade Next?”)]
          1. Take back the Congress. 2. Cut military spending (a huge amount of which simply ‘disappears’ into the pockets of the military criminals). There you have it.
          P.S. Those I know supporting Bernie as far from being ‘fools.”

        • Bill Bodden
          June 7, 2016 at 12:33

          Again, the issue is NOT political BUT cultural

          An analysis from a cultural point of view will surely include references to American and Western decadence.

        • A. McNeal
          June 7, 2016 at 14:57

          Dr. Soudy, I agree with your first statement. My grandchild attending college to receive a pharmacy degree will have a bill of $60,000 just for tuition upon graduation. That is at a relatively inexpensive public university in our same state. To imagine that college costs will be “free” is absolutely ridiculous at this point. I was turned against Sanders when he made that statement and then campaigned heavily on college campuses. Although I agree with him on almost all of the other issues, he simply could never win the election when Trump would begin calling him a socialist/communist. I support Hillary because I believe that she can win despite all the vicious propaganda heaped upon her for over 20 years. The decision to oust Gaddafi was Obama’s, not hers. She fell in line with the administration’s decision to blame a video at first for the tragedy in Benghazi. I heard Susan Rice also say that it was a video in the first day or two afterward. The many diatribes against Hillary on progressive websites are fueled by Republican propaganda that the writers have absorbed. It makes me ill to see that she was called a “fucking whore” by a so-called progressive on another website. Also, the phrase “the lesser of two evils” has been used very negatively. Are people waiting for “no evil”? One man does not a “political revolution” make. Why doesn’t Sanders work for Democratic candidates, especially in the Senate? Actually, he is not a real Democrat with the incentive to work hard to change Congress. He has been and always will be an independent who is still working at this late date to topple Hillary, the only candidate who can win against Trump.

      • eugene o'neill
        June 6, 2016 at 20:59

        I love the remark about MLK’s former allies now being part of the Clinton Plantation. Brilliant!!!

        • eugene o'neill
          June 6, 2016 at 21:10

          You should send that comment about MLK’s allies now being on the Clinton Plantation to Tom Hayden, who announced he’s voting for Clinton in the California Primary because some of his old friends in the Civil Rights community are voting for her. You can reach him at the Peace and Justice
          Center, his organization. Can you imagine the Head of the Peace and Justice Center voting for a War Criminal???

          • Sfomarco
            June 6, 2016 at 21:52

            Tom Hayden was also dismissive of Bernie’s better poll figures v. Trump, because Trump has yet to go negative against Bernie. I cannot imagine what Trump has in store for HillBillious. Email server, yes, But will he touch the third rail of MENA?

    • Dr. Alton C. Thompson
      June 7, 2016 at 08:52

      Our problems will be over when our species joins the 150 – 200 species going extinct EACH DAY, during this period of the “sixth extinction.” Arctic climate scientist John Davies, writing in 2013, expressed his expectation that our species will be extinct by 2040! Given existing trends, it’s hard NOT to believe this!

  18. Bill Bodden
    June 6, 2016 at 14:43

    Hillary Clinton’s private emails jeopardized the safety of undercover CIA officers, suggesting criminal charges, but the Obama administration might make an exception for the Democratic frontrunner, says ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

    “Might”? It’s about as safe a bet as you’ll ever get that the Obama administration will make an exception for Hillary Clinton. Obama has declared on several occasions that no one is above the law, so at the animal farm in Washington that means some people are above the law. If someone of high rank or social or political status violates the law and is charged according to the law, then that will be an exception.

    • Herman
      June 6, 2016 at 17:36

      On to War

      “It took three more weeks, but on March 17, 2011, Secretary Clinton got her wish for a “no-fly zone” approved by the UN Security Council, acting under the military authority of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter. The vote was ten in favor, zero against, and five abstentions.”

      McGovern’s case a little shaky here if he is relying on communication he notes. Clinton never says she support the no-fly zone, unless I missed something. Best guess she did, and her comment her paraphrasing about We came, we saw etc. would indicate her approval of the outcome which was precipitated by the no-fly zone/attack on Libyan government forces. Also one of the most tasteless comments by a government official, exceeding the other lady Secretary about the death of Iraqi children. Well, both were pretty despicable.

      • GM
        June 6, 2016 at 19:05

        She boasted of her influence over the decision in the hard cover version of her book. The passages were notably absent in the paperback version.

      • Rob Roy
        June 6, 2016 at 22:30

        …and don’t forget Golda Meir, worrying through the night about all the “little Arab babies being born.” Seems women can be just as rotten as men when in positions of power. As for Hillary, she should never be in a position of decision-making when it comes to foreign policy, or national policy as well. Look at all the coups she’s backed, to the vast detriment of the people in those countries. She WILL push the nuclear button, probably on Russia. Beware.

        • June 7, 2016 at 07:07

          Bernie is very precise about everything he wants to accomplish. He’s super intelligent, has integrity, and also the foresight and fortitude to be a LEADER! His policies are for 95% of the American people- the only ones who should be against him are the upper 5%?. It’s a crying shame the American electorate fail to seize the day! They may never get another opportunity for real change post Hillary. I can assure you, the world after Clinton will not look like the world before Bushes! Some important things have been bent, many of them broken. The damage she will cause will make Robert Frost’s birches look like a few bent twigs.

          Hopefully, the truth of what professor Petras says will resonate with reason of ordinary Americans out there, if not with the political class. Electing a Foreign Spy for President?


      • incontinent reader
        June 8, 2016 at 22:16

        Ray cites one of a series of emails about Owen’s proposal for a no-fly zone with her name on it as a recipient or sender. As the facts have borne out, it is more than clear that this was a proposal endorsed by the Administration. Moreover, on the same day, Hillary published an Op-Ed on Syria endorsing regime change of that country as well, and it is no accident that the Benghazi compound was later used as a transit hub to coordinate the shipment of arms and jihadists to Syria.

        Hopefully, we’ll continue to hear more about Benghazi from Ray, and top counter-terrorism experts like Larry Johnson. (There are already a number of detailed and highly illuminating posts on the subject by Larry at his blog, noquarterusa.net )

    • Rob Roy
      June 6, 2016 at 22:22

      I’m waiting for him to pardon Chelsea Manning (35 years for telling the truth!) before he leave the oval office. Oh, and Leonard Peltier (proven innocent years ago) and letting Julian Assange and Edward Snowden out of their safety “prisons.” Our president turned out to be most unsavory.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      June 8, 2016 at 10:13

      Hi Ray,

      I must admit I’ve been flabbergasted over how Hillary could keep to her text in such a small room while you were plummeted by her gatekeepers.

      Clinton has lied on so many things that her liar resume would be rather imposing. One of my old time favorites was her describing her landing under fire in Bosnia. She even used that story to begin a major foreign policy at a Washington DC university.

      One of the all-time favorites of Hillary’s deceptions arose in an exchange about her e-mails in a hearing on the Benghazi attack. At one point Clinton declared emphatically that, “You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions that are – I’ve never had a subpoena. . . . Let’s take a deep breath here.” Representative Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), chair of the committee investigating the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack, promptly produced a copy of the subpoena.

      The problem with lying and being widely known as a liar is that it is difficult to wipe that character stain away. There’s a legal principle relevant here: falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. This principle is common sense: if a person is willing to lie about one issue, why should anyone believe that she’s not lying about the next issue? In Hillary Clinton’s case, she has lied herself into a suicidal character assassination.

      Wishing for peace, and hence wishing that Hillary Clinton the presumptive Democrat nominee gets derailed before the Convention.

Comments are closed.