Posted on 03/25/2015 7:13:22 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
It is hypocritical that some leaks will land you in jail, while others just lead to a slap on the wrist
Leaks that benefit Hillary Clinton probably wont land you in jail.
When it comes to classified information, some leaks are more equal than others. If you are a whistleblower like Edward Snowden, who tells the press about illegal, immoral or embarrassing government actions, you will face jail time. But its often another story for US government officials leaking information for their own political benefit.
Two stories this week perfectly illustrate this hypocrisy and how, despite their unprecedented crackdown on sources and whistleblowers, the Obama administration - like every administration before it - loves to use leaks, if and when it suits them.
Consider a government leak that ran in the New York Times on Monday. The article was about 300 of Hillary Clintons now notorious State Department emails, which had been hidden away on her private server for years and were turned over to Congress as part of the never-ending Benghazi investigation. Four senior government officials described the content of her emails to New York Times journalists in minute detail on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to jeopardize their access to secret information.
Surely the Obama administration will promptly root out and prosecute those leakers, right? After all, the emails havent gone through a security review and the chances of them discussing classified information are extremely high. (Even if they dont, the Espionage Act doesnt require the information to be classified anyways, only that information leaked be related to national defense.) But those emails supposedly clear Clinton of any wrongdoing in the Benghazi affair, which likely makes the leak in the administrations interest.
But that disclosure was nothing compared to what appeared in the Wall Street Journal a day later, in the wake of Israels Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus underhanded attempts to derail a nuclear deal with Iran. The Journal reported on Tuesday that not only did Israel spy on Americans negotiating with Iran, but they gave that information to Republicans in Congress, in an attempt to scuttle the deal.
Petraeus leaks: Obama's leniency reveals 'profound double standard', lawyer says
How does the US know this? Well, according to the Journal and its government sources, the US itself intercepted communications between Israeli officials that discussed information that could have only come from the US-Iran talks. The disclosure of this fact sounds exactly like the vaunted sources and methods - i.e. how the US conducts surveillance and gets intelligence - that the government continually claims is the most sensitive information they have. Its why they claim Edward Snowden belongs in jail for decades. So while its apparently unacceptable to leak details about surveillance that affects ordinary citizens privacy, its OK for officials to do so for their own political benefit - and no one raises an eyebrow.
We can be quite certain that no one will be prosecuted for the leaks given that they benefitted the administrations powerful former Secretary of State, and bolsters its position in its public dust-up with Israel.
When it comes to leaks, the powerful play by different rules than everyone else - despite the fact that theyve violated the same law theyve accused so many other leakers of breaking. Thats why David Petraeus was given a sweetheart plea deal with no jail time after leaking highly classified information to his biographer and lover. (Hes apparently already back advising the White House, despite leaking and then lying to the FBI about the identities of countless covert officers).
Its also the same reason why investigations into a leak suspected to have involved General Cartwright, once known as Obamas favorite general, have stalled. As the Washington Post reported: the defense might try to put the White Houses relationship with reporters and the use of authorized leaks on display, creating a potentially embarrassing distraction for the administration.
Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling faces sentencing next month after being found guilty of leaking information to New York Times reporter James Risen. Sterlings problem is that he leaked information showing a spectacular and embarrassing failure on the CIAs part - which did not help a powerful politician score points. He is also not a general.
As a result, he faces decades in jail.
I forgot the link:
I think they would kill Snowden if they got the chance.
He spilled the beans big time.
I think they did kill Michael Hastings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.