OPINION:
When the media establishment begins telling the truth, it is positive proof that a Democratic heir apparent has finally lost the Mandate of Heaven. Poor Hillary! When the Washington Post and the New York Times begin to ask, “Was she lying then or is she lying now?,” they already know the answer to this trick question. Because when you finally connect those dots, Mrs. Clinton’s’s lying is her only consistent behavior, then and now, from Whitewater to Benghazi, from both sides of her mouth and faster than most people can tell the truth.
Take Washington Post writers Marc Thiessen and Dana Millbank. On Monday, Thiessen pointedly reminded readers that Sandy Berger (President Clinton’s former national security advisor) was preparing testimony for the 911 Commission when he improperly removed five classified documents from the National Archives. Mr. Berger narrowly avoided jail-time but did lose his security clearance and law license, all for removing only five classified documents, not the thousands possibly residing on Mrs. Clinton’s server.
On Tuesday, Mr. Millbank opined that Hillary’s “ruinous secrecy” has been instinctive and enduring, from her reflexive 1993 refusal to release Whitewater records to the current “slow drip of disclosure” about her emails and private server. The gathering infamy even attracted scathing commentary from Grey Lady Maureen Dowd who used the august pages of the New York Times to compare Hillary to Boston Patriots quarterback Tom Brady: “They both have a history of subterfuge…Hillary with all her appearing and disappearing records.”
Probably the most remarkable thing is that Mrs. Clinton instinctively side-steps and conceals even when sanity suggests candor. Back in the early 90’s, I was staff director for a federal advisory panel charged with streamlining more than 800 defense procurement laws. Because those laws reflected an elaborate infrastructure of public and less-than-public interests, our meetings and deliberations were deliberately transparent. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), a “sunshine law” meant to outlaw backroom deals and improper influences, required that all outside experts be identified and their recommendations summarized. Our panel complied with FACA, finished ahead of schedule and provided the recommendations that in 1994 resulted in landmark legislation reforming all federal procurement.
But just as we were wrapping up, nasty stories began appearing about First Lady Hillary Clinton, then leading her husband’s efforts to overhaul healthcare. Mrs. Clinton had apparently gathered even wider advice than our modest panel, leading a 300-400 person staff and empanelling experts from all over the country to develop comprehensive legislative proposals. All done in secret behind the closed doors of the Clinton White House. While defense procurement law affected multiple constituencies, it paled when compared to the armed camps surrounding any healthcare initiative. So why would Mrs. Clinton try to keep those deliberations a closely guarded secret, especially given FACA’s common-sense restrictions?
The First Lady’s lawyers eventually appeared in Federal court, arguing with impeccable Clintonian logic that FACA was not applicable because “the First Lady is really the functional equivalent of a Government employee.” But possibly the best explanation of Ms. Clinton’s actions was given by the official White House spokesman, an amiable Democratic apparatchik named George Stephanopoulos. If the names of the 400 outside experts consulted by Mrs. Clinton were disclosed, Stephanopoulos argued, then “they would become subject to lobbying, to enormous pressure, and would not be able to do the work they have to do in a short period of time.” Translation: Mrs. Clinton is a vociferous advocate for public interest laws like FACA, until they conflict with what she envisions as her personal interests – or any agenda advancing her larger ambitions.
While Mrs. Clinton used her White House clout back then to beat the rap on FACA, she may have a tougher time with the espionage laws. The national security crimes of Title 18, US Code, were passed during World War I, contain rigorous language and mandate tough penalties for the careless compromise or deliberate disclosure of classified information. To Washington bureaucrats, nothing is sacred and all sensitive information is wildly over-classified (other than their spouse discovering that secret affair). But from Jonathan Pollard to Edward Snowden, the espionage laws reflect a continuing reality: American secrets are one of our few advantages in an increasingly hostile world.
Our leaders now inhabit a complex decision-making environment where top-secret, highly-compartmented information justifies daily policy choices. Executive branch and intelligence community assessments are integrated, blended and often indistinguishable. With cyber and other espionage threats growing, home-brew computers and personal aggrandizement are excesses deserving special contempt. Was it just yesterday that anyone appointed to high office understood that the first requirement was protecting the nation’s secrets? And acting as if you knew that occupying a “position of special trust and responsibility” always demanded unquestioned honor?
Ken Allard, a retired Army colonel, is a military analyst and author on national-security issues.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.