|
During her 4 years as
Secretary of State of the United States (2009-2014), Hillary Clinton
controlled US foreign policy. She had access to the most confidential
information and state documents, numbering in the tens of thousands,
from all of the major government departments and agencies, Intelligence,
FBI, the Pentagon, Treasury and the office of the President.
She had unfettered access to vital and secret information affecting US policy in all the key regions of the empire.
Today, Mme. Clinton’s
critics have focused on the technical aspects of her violations of State
Department procedures and guidelines regarding handling of official
correspondences and her outright lies on the use of her own private
e-mail server for official state business, including the handling of
highly classified material in violation of Federal Records laws, as well
as her hiding official documents from the Freedom of Information Act
and concocting her own system exempt from the official oversight which
all other government officials accept.
Prof. James Petras, image right.
For many analysts, therefore, the issue is procedural, moral and
ethical. Mme. Clinton had placed herself above and beyond the norms of
State Department discipline. This evidence of her arrogance, dishonesty
and blatant disregard for rules should disqualify her from becoming the
President of the United States. While revelations of Clinton’s misuse
of official documents, her private system of communication and
correspondence and the shredding of tens of thousands of her official
interchanges, including top secret documents, are important issues to
investigate, these do not address the paramount political question: On
whose behalf was Secretary Clinton carrying out the business of US
foreign policy, out of the review of government oversight?
The Political Meaning and Motivation of Clinton’s High Crimes Against the State
Secretary Clinton’s private, illegal handling of official US
documents has aroused a major FBI investigation into the nature of her
activities. This is separate from the investigation by the Office of
the Inspector General and implies national security violations.
There are several lines of inquiry against Mme. Clinton:
(1) Did she work with, as yet unnamed,
foreign governments and intelligence services to strengthen their
positions and against the interest of the United States?
(2) Did she provide information on the
operations and policy positions of various key US policymakers to
competitors, adversaries or allies undermining the activities of
military, intelligence and State Department officials?
(3) Did she seek to enhance her personal
power within the US administration to push her aggressive policy of
serial pre-emptive wars over and against veteran State Department and
Pentagon officials who favored traditional diplomacy and less violent
confrontation?
(4) Did she prepare a ‘covert team’,
using foreign or dual national operative, to lay the groundwork for her
bid for the presidency and her ultimate goal of supreme military and
political power?
Contextualizing Clinton’s Clandestine Operations
There is no doubt that Mme. Clinton exchanged minor as well as major
official documents and letters via her private e-mail system. Personal,
family and even intimate communications may have been carried on the
same server. But the key issue is that a large volume of highly
confidential government information flowed to Clinton via an unsecured
private ‘back channel’ allowing her to conduct state business secretly
with her correspondents.
Just who were Secretary Clinton’s most enduring, persistent and
influential correspondents? What types of exchanges were going on,
which required avoiding normal oversight and a wanton disregard for
security?
Clinton’s covert war policies, which included the violent overthrow
of the elected Ukraine government, were carried out by her ‘Lieutenant’
Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a virulent neo-conservative
holdover from the previous Bush Administration and someone committed to
provoking Russia and to enhancing Israel’s power in the Middle East.
Clinton’s highly dangerous and economically destabilizing ‘brainchild’
of militarily encircling China, the so-called ‘pivot to Asia’, would
have required clandestine exchanges with elements in the Pentagon – out
of the State Department and possibly Executive oversight.
In other words, within the Washington political circuit, Secretary
Clinton’s escalation of nuclear war policies toward Russia and China
required secretive correspondences which would not necessarily abide
with the policies and intelligence estimates of other US government
agencies and with private business interests.
Clinton was deeply engaged in private exchanges with several unsavory
overseas political regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, Honduras
and Turkey involving covert violent and illegal activities. She worked
with the grotesquely corrupt opposition parties in Venezuela, Argentina
and Brazil
Clinton’s correspondence with the Honduran armed forces and brutal
oligarchs led to the military coup against the elected President Zelaya,
its violent aftermath and the phony election of a pliable puppet.
Given the government-death squad campaign against Honduran civil society
activists, Clinton would certainly want to cover up her direct role in
organizing the coup. Likewise, Mme. Clinton would have destroyed her
communications with Turkish President Erdogan’s intelligence operations
in support of Islamist terrorist-mercenaries in Syria and Iraq.
Secretary Clinton’s e-mail would have shown her commitment to the
Saudis when they brutally invaded Bahrain and Yemen to suppress
independent civil society organizations and regional political rivals.
But it is Clinton’s long-term, large-scale commitment to Israel that
goes far beyond her public speeches of loyalty and fealty to the Jewish
state. Hillary Clinton’s entire political career has been intimately
dependent on Zionist money, Zionist mass media propaganda and Zionist
Democratic Party operations.
In exchange for Clinton’s dependence on political support from the
Zionist power configuration in the US, she would have become the major
conduit of confidential information from the US to Israel and the
transmission belt promoting Israel-centric policies within the US
government.
The entire complex of Clinton-Israel linkages and correspondences has
compromised the US intelligence services, the State Department and
Pentagon.
Secretary Clinton went to extraordinary lengths to serve Israel, even
undermining the interests of the United States. It is bizarre that
she would resort to such a crude measure, setting up a private e-mail
server to conduct state business. She blithely ignored official State
Department policy and oversight and forwarded over 1,300 confidential
documents and 22 highly sensitive top-secret documents related to the ‘Special Access Program’.
She detailed US military and intelligence documents on US strategic
policies on Syria, Iraq, Palestine and other vital regimes. The
Inspector General’s report indicates that ‘she was warned’ about her
practice. It is only because of the unusual stranglehold Tel Aviv and
Israel’s US Fifth Column have over the US government and judiciary that
her actions have not been prosecuted as high treason. It is the height
of hypocrisy that government whistleblowers have been persecuted and
jailed by the Obama Administration for raising concerns within the
Inspector General system of oversight, while Secretary Clinton is on her
way to the Presidency of the United States!
Conclusion
Many of Clinton’s leading critics, among them two dozen former CIA agents, have presented a myth that Hillary’s main offence is her ‘carelessness’ in handling official documents and her deliberate deceptions and lies to the government.
These critics have trivialized, personalized and moralized what is really deliberate, highly politicized state behavior. Mme. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not ‘careless in managing an insecure mail server’.
If Clinton was engaged in political liaison with foreign officials she
deliberately used a private email server to avoid political detection by
security elements within the US government. She lied to the US
government on the use and destruction of official state documents
because the documents were political exchanges between a traitor and its
host.
The 22 top secret reports on ‘Special Access Programs’ which
Clinton handled via her private computer provided foreign governments
with the names and dates of US operatives and proxies; allowed for
counter-responses inflicting losses of billions of dollars in program
damages and possibly lost lives.
The Inspector General Report (IGP) deals only with the surface
misdeeds. The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has gone a step
further in identifying the political linkages, but faces enormous
obstacles from Hillary’s domestic allies in pursuing a criminal
investigation. The FBI, whose director is a political appointee, has
suffered a series of defeats in its attempts to investigate and
prosecute spying to Israel, including the AIPAC espionage case of Rosen
and Weismann and in their long held opposition to the release of the
notorious US-Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard. The power of the Zionists
within the government halted their investigation of a dozen Israeli
spies captured in the US right after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Clinton’s choice of conducting secret private communications,
despite several years of State Department warnings to abide by their
strict security regulations, is an indication of her Zionist power base,
and not a mere reflection of her personal hubris or individual
arrogance.
Clinton has circulated more vital top-secret documents and classified material than Jonathan Pollard.
President Obama and other top Cabinet officials share her political
alliances, but they operate through ‘legitimate’ channels and without
compromising personnel, missions, funding or programs.
The executive leadership
now faces the problem of how to deal with a traitor, who may be the
Democratic Party nominee for US President, without undermining the US
quest for global power. How do the executive leadership and intelligence
agencies back a foreign spy for president, who has been deeply
compromised and can be blackmailed? This may explain why the FBI, NSA,
and CIA hesitate to press charges; hesitate to even seriously
investigate, despite the obvious nature of her offenses. Most of all it
explains why there is no indication of the identity of Secretary
Clinton’s correspondents in the various reports so far available.
As Sherlock Holmes would say, “We are entering in deep waters, Watson”.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment