In this interview between Director James Clapper and Charlie Rose, they touched on U.S. / Russia relations and the allegations about “hacking” and “threat to impact U.S. elections.”
The implication are abundantly clear far beyond the notion of interfering and influencing each other’s electoral outcomes by raising the question about the disclosures discovered in the wikileaks emails belonging to Hillary Clinton.
What is not being discussed is the violation by Hillary Clinton in the reckless mishandling of Top Secret intelligence on an illegal email server. There are but only two conclusions; if a foreign intelligence agency got their hands on it because the server was unprotected, then the responsibility lay with the custodian as the law prescribes.
If the wikileaks emails that uncovered embarrassing communications between Hillary and her campaign operatives were also hacked by a foreign intelligence service and released to the public, then that too is the responsibility of the custodian, Hillary Clinton.
The irresponsibility cuts deeper when we hear the top intelligence officer for the U.S. announce some type of retaliation against Russia, instead of prosecuting the custodian responsible for it. Hillary Clinton, after four years of passing intelligence on an unsecure server may be argued as disclosing more national secrets to hostile intelligence collectors than what Edward Snowden did when he informed the American public that they were being spied on by their own government.
Other reports counter the Administration claim that the emails were hacked by foreign intelligence but instead leaked by disgruntled staffers and government employees.
Here is the rub. If U.S. intelligence information fell into the hands of the Russians because Hillary did not secure it in accordance with the law and her custodial responsibilities, then why is she not being held to account and prosecuted for it?
If unclassified information were hacked and made public that unmasked a secret agenda and hidden promises to special interest, then how can she be entrusted with the Presidency?
Further, it is a dangerous game to promise retaliatory cyber attack against a sovereign nation, which will invite counter retaliation in return, until there is an escalation beyond the boundaries of cyber, to infrastructure, to hostile engagements militarily, be it hot or cold.
Most disturbing in this analysis is the extent these politicians will go utilizing our national security apparatus to spy on the American public and cover their own malfeasance and incompetence to the point of saber rattling with a nuclear armed power like Russia.
I must disagree with the Director when he told Mr. Rose that whichever candidate is elected President, they should continue the policies of the current President. This idea fails to make sense. Under his watch, national secrets were breached. Terrorist attacks occurred on U.S. soil. This Administration has been caught by surprise too many times to suggest any continuance of current policy should be adopted.
The Administration was caught off guard when the President of the Philippines announced in a meeting with China, to sever high level engagement with the U.S. The revelation that U.S. arms fell into the hands of terrorists and escape of high value ISIS leaders from the Mosul offensive was not supposed to happen.
Not to mention, the shocking information exposed by Edward Snowden and wikileaks, Guccifer, and other cyber attacks on the DNC showing voter manipulation within the party. All of this alone makes a case to reassess the damage done by the policies of the Obama Administration.
It also begs the question again, why does Hillary Clinton have a security clearance and why is she not being prosecuted, when by his own admission sensitive information in her custodial responsibility fell into hostile hands?
Here is the interview link: http:// clapper rose interview council of foreign relations