Obama on Hillary's Private Email Server: Didn't Pose a National Security Problem

Tweet

Reporting that "The State Department has concluded there was 'top secret' material in Hillary Clinton's email correspondence from the time she was secretary of state," Rosalind S. Helderman and Carol Morello go on to say in a Washington Post article entitled "The State Department: Hillary Clinton’s email correspondence contained ‘top secret’ material":

"Kirby also said for the first time that some emails between Clinton and President Obama have been located and will also be withheld from public release. He said there were 18 emails between the two, comprising eight email chains. None will be released publicly."

Query: To which address did Obama send emails to Hillary?

Now consider the following interchange between President Obama and Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes on October 11, 2015:

"Steve Kroft: Did you know about Hillary Clinton's use of private email server--

President Barack Obama: No.

Steve Kroft: --while she was Secretary of State?

President Barack Obama: No.

Steve Kroft: Do you think it posed a national security problem?

President Barack Obama: I don't think it posed a national security problem."

Hillary must withdraw from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. It only remains to be seen whether she can do this in a dignified manner.

On the other hand, President Obama's problems involving Hillary's home server have just begun.

Sean Sullivan and David A. Fahrenthold, "Marco Rubio wants to unite later by staying vague now": WaPo's War Against Rubio

Tweet

In 1960, presidential candidate John F. Kennedy declared:

"But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

Or stated otherwise, there exist situations where the judicial branch of government's construal of the Constitution or legislation necessarily must be respected by American politicians and trump (no pun intended) their personal views, e.g., on abortion. Yet, in a lead Washington Post article entitled "Marco Rubio wants to unite later by staying vague now" by Sean Sullivan and David A. Fahrenthold, we are told:

"It is a habit with Rubio, a candidate aiming at moderate and conservative voters who often seems to advocate two positions at once. He tells voters that he has a personal view on the subject — whether abortion, immigration, Syrian refugees or gay marriage. But he also has a view of what is politically possible. Which, usually, is not what he personally wants.

That tactic allows Rubio to offer two right answers to the same question, and lets him carve out wiggle room on topics where none seemed possible."

"Wiggle room" or respect for the American system of government and the views of other citizens? Moreover, as president, might a former senator need to adapt her/his stands owing to her/his service elsewhere in government? Consider how Hillary Clinton, once a pro-Israel senator from New York, served as President Obama's "designated yeller" at Netanyahu.

Sullivan and Fahrenthold's article follows on the heels of WaPo's December 12, 2015 lead article "The drug-smuggling case that brought anguish to Marco Rubio’s family." Yup, a brother-in-law was arrested when Rubio was 16 years old. Fascinating.

And then there was WaPo's December 3, 2015 article entitled "Before Senate win, Rubio turned political ‘juice’ into personal profits," in which Rosalind Helderman examined Rubio's income during the two-year interval between stepping down as Florida House speaker in 2008 and becoming a US Senator in 2010. Helderman wrote:

"Even before he left office in late 2008, his longtime aide sent a letter on behalf of a new private consulting group Rubio was launching, seeking business from a potentially major client: Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami’s busy public medical center.

That was an initial step in what became a profitable two-year stretch for Rubio between his time as a state legislator and his 2010 election to the U.S. Senate. Although he spent much of his time on the campaign trail, Rubio built a consulting and legal practice that made more than half a million dollars."

Helderman acknowledged that following "a complaint filed by a political critic who, among other things, alleged that the former speaker had scored clients as remuneration for his legislative support," Florida ethics officials who investigated the matter "found no evidence to support the allegation."

This smacks of scandal? Is The Washington Post remotely aware of how many former members of Congress go on to highly lucrative careers at law firms or lobbying organizations, built upon their knowledge of the ins and outs of politics and the legislative arena?

Any mention of Hillary Clinton in Helderman's article? Not one. Apparently, it doesn't matter that Hillary and Bill Clinton earned in excess of $25 million for 104 speeches since early 2014 and that Hillary charged $300,000 to speak at public universities.

How do you begin to compare income of $500,000 over the course of two years with $300,000 for a one-hour speech? Answer: You don't.

Bottom line: Rubio would wipe the floor with Hillary (famous for her flip-flops) in November 2016. Any chance that this is influencing WaPo's choice of lead articles?

I'll let you form your own opinion.

Uranium One: Hillary's Quest for the Presidency Is Over!

Today, a New York Times article entitled "Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company," written by Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, tells us how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, acquired Uranium One, a Canadian company with extensive uranium interests around the globe, including uranium mines in the US. More important, we are informed by Becker and McIntire:

"Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

Moreover, Becker and McIntire acknowledge that their investigation is tied to material appearing in Peter Schweizer's new book, "Clinton Cash":

"The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book 'Clinton Cash.' Mr. Schweitzer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting."

Over the past several days, Clinton supporters have sought to disparage Schweitzer and his book. David Brock, interviewed on "Morning Joe," stated, "I think what we’re going to be left with here is 100 percent innuendo." However, the Times article seems to put an end to such claims.

Questions:

• How soon will government inquiries be launched against Hillary and Bill?
• How soon will Hillary withdraw her candidacy?
• How soon will Biden and Warren announce their candidacies?
• Will the radioactive fallout extend to the Obama administration?

[See also the lead Washington Post article entitled "For Clintons, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity" by Rosalind S. Helderman. Also watch DNC Chairman Howard Dean accuse The New York Times of "sloppy" journalism on "Morning Joe."]