The days of unity and commonality of purpose within the Democratic Party are over.
You don’t agree? Consider the Hillary Clinton email scandal, and the continuing revelations adding fuel to it in the media.
Without question the scandal has legs, as it certainly should. Among the elements adding up to the email affair as an item of major consequence are these: Clinton clearly operated on a “homebrewed” email server to the exclusion of the standard “state.gov” address protocol would have required, as did her most trusted advisers, purely to escape the transparency the government server would have imposed on her. She apparently committed a felony by destroying some 30,000 emails she says were not work-related but never submitted to the State Department for review, as the law requires. She also may have committed the crime of perjury by destroying those records if she signed, as all State Department officials are required, a Form OF-109 — which certifies that all records of a State Department employee have been turned over to the government.
And more, Clinton’s manner of turning over her trove of “relevant” emails was practiced in a manner wholly inconsistent with transparency; she didn’t deliver the emails themselves to the State Department but rather some 55,000 printed pages containing them. To do so is of a piece with her decision to build an email server of her own because it was too much trouble to carry around more than one mobile device housing separate email accounts (we know even that claim is untrue, as Clinton carried as many as four devices); saving the entire email account on a memory stick would likely have taken just a few minutes, but printing selected contents of it is a far more cumbersome process the purpose for which can only be to frustrate those who seek to find needles of relevant information in the haystack of paper she produced.
It isn’t hard to imagine an explanation for Clinton’s actions. She doesn’t want the public to get anything but a personally painted picture of her performance as Secretary of State. She isn’t interested in us knowing about conversations she might have had about Libya or Benghazi before and after the 2012 massacre of our ambassador and three other government employees and contractors there, she doesn’t want us to know about her performance vis-à-vis the Russians or the Chinese and one imagines she probably doesn’t want us to know about her ties with the Muslim Brotherhood — after all, her confidant Huma Abedin, who also operated on Clinton’s email server to the exclusion of a “state.gov” account, is practically Muslim Brotherhood royalty.
Clinton also clearly doesn’t want the public to have any hard information about the interaction between her job performance at the State Department and her ongoing work for the Clinton Foundation. We now know that the foundation was accepting donations from foreign sources, including foreign governments, while Clinton was Secretary of State, which makes it problematic that this was charitable giving. But without seeing Clinton’s full portfolio of emails we will never know whether she spent time as Secretary of State shaking people down for bribes.
Fortunately, since the Clinton email server lacked even mid-level security measures it’s only a matter of time before someone deposits its contents onto the Internet Wikileaks-style. It’s a virtual surety that Russian and Chinese intelligence operatives have hacked into those emails — hacking into the Secretary of State’s e-mail account is quite possibly the top intelligence prize imaginable for a hostile government — and releasing embarrassing Clinton emails or American intelligence secrets at just the right time to influence an American election would be a great boon for our rivals and enemies. We need only wait until a time of their choosing and we should know much more than we do now.
So the Clinton email scandal should have legs. It should be debilitating to her presidential hopes. It is, frankly, disqualifying — and were a Republican in this position the question wouldn’t be her prospective candidacy for president but her freedom from incarceration.
All that said, this would have been covered up but for the hatred that exists between the Clinton and Obama camps within the Democratic Party. That enmity predates Obama’s 2008 election, and it has obviously never gone away. Obama needed the Clintons to win election and re-election, and as such most of the ill feeling was swept aside, but things are different now that Hillary needs buy-in from Obama’s camp to run in 2016.
For example, a Politico piece by Edward-Isaac Dovere last week gave a good indication of how unhelpful the Obamites will be. Several White House aides speaking anonymously and attempting not to sound “critical” of Hillary essentially called her a crook. “You never feel like you’re quite getting the full story, because everyone’s got some side deal or some complicating factor,” one was quoted as saying. “I don’t think there was a conscious effort to watch out for scams. It was more just, you know who you’re dealing with.”
And then there is Edward Klein’s New York Post piece over the weekend. Klein is been the most aggressive documenter of the rift between Clintons and Obamas, and he has been criticized as a fabulist. But if Klein is making up his current allegations that Valerie Jarrett is driving the Clinton email story in the mainstream media, he’s being awfully specific about it — and in fact Klein’s reporting can be either proven or unproven based on this: “Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been going on at the State Department,” he wrote. “I’m told that the email scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come.”
Klein also says Jarrett has been meeting with Martin O’Malley and Elizabeth Warren about the possibility one or both might run against Hillary in 2016, with the Obamas’ blessing. If that’s the case, it isn’t just a reflection of the White House’s perception of Hillary as flawed. It’s the rivalry roaring back to life. Speaking for those of us who wish political apocalypse upon those camps, let there be much bloodletting to come.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.