Friday, April 8, 2016

The Attorney General's disappearing act in the Clinton email scandal

How many people know who the current Attorney General of the United States is? You know, the one who will not open an investigation into Clinton’s deliberate attempt to violate the Freedom of Information Act, concealing her State Department doings on her private, personal server, which illegally contained classified information—a criminal act punishable by that prison term that Clinton has been evading since at least 1979? And the one who failed to act before Clinton destroyed 30,000 communications which she chose to judge as too “personal” for prying eyes? No, it wasn’t the “same” with Colin Powell, as Clinton has tried to argue; he did his non-business email on a separate computer located in his office, set-up on a public Internet connection—not to classified State Department systems as Clinton and her closest (apparently all female) confidants’  Blackberries were, to appease their “comfort” level. 

Is there no one in the Justice Department who even  allows themselves to “speculate” what these people were saying to each other that required concealment? There are already too many people who are under the illusion that this was an isolated “lapse” on the part of Clinton, but in fact it is just part of an ongoing pattern of corruption and concealment that dates at least from the time that the Clintons refused to release tax records dating prior to 1992, which likely would have shed light on wrongdoing in “Cattlegate” and Whitewater. And we’re supposed to trust this person in the most powerful post in the country?

I suspect that there are many people out there who still think that Eric Holder is still the Attorney General, and perhaps they shouldn’t be scolded too freely for their failure to keep up with current events. For the past year the Justice Department has attracted very little attention from the news media or even the right-wing. In fact, in comparison to the early years when Holder was opposing right-wing attempts to violate the Voting Rights Act, Arizona’s fascist immigration law and other initiatives that incited the wrath of the Republicans (who among other things hypocritically attacked Holder on the Bush-era Fast and Furious DEA gun-running operation, and the use of drones), the past year has been relatively quiet.

Holder resigned from office in April 2015. His replacement is Loretta Lynch, a name many have not heard before. In fact her public footprint is lighter than air, leaving no imprint. Of course, that can be said of other Obama administration officials, which can be best explained by the lack of scandal. In fact, outside of Clinton’s activities, the administration has been remarkably free of the kind of corruption that seemed to be a frequent occupation of the previous Clinton administration. 

Of course, if Lynch doesn’t want to be known as an anonymous placeholder, she could go out with a “bang” merely by doing her duty by the American people—that is to say, opening up an official Justice Department investigation of Clinton’s private server business, which it should have done the minute she learned the reason why the State Department was unable to honor a FOIA request for Clinton’s official communications, because they couldn’t “find” them. 

Why is the Obama administration protecting Clinton? Obama certainly owes her no fealty. She wasn’t the “friend” the media claims she was after Obama’s nomination in 2008, she certainly didn’t work “hard” on his behalf. There were certainly hard feelings on both sides, but mostly on the part of Clinton who played dirty right to the end. Forget the racial code in the ears of white voters from both the Clintons and her feminist supporters. Forget at her at best “tepid” acceptance of reality at the convention and afterwards, both in 2008 and even 2012, letting Bill do all the talking.

Obama apparently felt he “owed” Clinton a top position in his administration, thinking that she’d be an “asset.” He gave her a position in which she was unqualified for by experience or temperament (and ethics, we should add), and far from being an “asset,” the truth of this would be born out after four wasted years in State. Not a single positive accomplishment can be credited to Clinton during those years. All she did, of course, was waste millions (hell, billions) in taxpayer dollars on a four-year tourist trip around the globe. 

Well, that was not the only thing she did: her personal failings supplied the Obama administration with its two most serious scandals, the Benghazi tragedy and email scandal, which are probably tied in some way among those 30,000 destroyed emails. Despite the perjury of (or rather because of) Clinton and her devoted underlings, the truth is still far from known. 

So why has Lynch not even considered doing anything at all about Clinton’s illegal activities? She has said that no one is “above the law,” but she also has said that the White House should “stay silent” during the on-going FBI investigation. Worse, she also stated that she will not feel beholden to any FBI recommendation for an official Justice Department investigation of Clinton. Furthermore, Lynch claims that she has not even spoken with Obama about Clinton’s email illegalities. 

Everyone should be disturbed by what this inaction suggests. It shows absolute contempt for the American people in the service of a megalomaniac who indeed believes she is above the law. All this in order to elect this woman as president at any and all costs. Does the fact that Lynch’s law firm before she took the AG job has close financial ties to the Clintons have anything to do with it? It also seems likely that the DNC and other party leaders have put pressure on the administration not to “mess things up” for Clinton, who they believe is the Democrats “best chance” to retain the White House—although I also suspect that more than a few see it as a deal with the Devil. 

It shows the level of corruption in party principles that it could back such an unethical, unprincipled person as Clinton for the rationalization that the country wants to vote for this female as president now, over a clearly more principled and dedicated to the rights of people candidate like Bernie Sanders.

No comments:

Post a Comment