As anyone that served in the Nixon Administration can tell you, it’s never the lie so much as it is the covering up of the lie that will usually get you in trouble. Barack Obama is about to learn that.
Former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy laid out an analysis in a recent column in National Review that explains how former President Barack Obama made sure former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was not indicted in the criminal investigation into her use of a private email server.
McCarthy explained how the decision was really Obama’s not to prosecute.
Why? Because Obama communicated with Hillary Clinton on her nonsecure account with his own private account using a pseudonym.
This would have blown up to everybody that he had a private email account and that he likely shared classified information with her on it because she was the Secretary of State.
So not only would Clinton potentially have committed a crime, so would Obama. Something he would not want to be exposed. How does McCarthy know they communicated?
Because when the scandal broke about Clinton’s email, John Podeats communicated with Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, telling her that the exchanges between Obama and Clinton should not be disclosed, but withheld with a claim of ‘executive privilege.’
Then Obama claimed he learned about Clinton’s email through the news “The same time everybody else learned it,” an obvious lie.
But that lie resulted in a consequent panicked cover-up: Clinton campaign secretary Josh Scherwin emailed former White House Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri: “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it on the news.”
Scherwin’s email was forwarded to Mills.
Mills emailed Podesta: “We need to clean this up — he has emails from her — they do not say state.gov.”
McCarthy explains Obama, through a stroke of malevolence, used a trick that helped cover-up that it was really about defending himself and the fact that he likely sent classified information.
Obama had his email communications with Clinton sealed. He did this by invoking a dubious presidential-records privilege. The White House insisted that the matter had nothing to do with the contents of the emails, of course; rather, it was intended to vindicate the principle of confidentiality in presidential communications with close advisers. With the media content to play along, this had a twofold benefit: Obama was able (1) to sidestep disclosure without acknowledging that the emails contained classified information, and (2) to avoid using the term “executive privilege” — with all its dark Watergate connotations — even though that was precisely what he was invoking.
Note that claims of executive privilege must yield to demands for disclosure of relevant evidence in criminal prosecutions. But of course, that’s not a problem if there will be no prosecution.
Then despite the fact that Clinton was under investigation, weighed in o media interview where he said for public consumption he did not believe she should be prosecuted because she hadn’t intended any harm to national security.
Of course, the intent is not the standard. But it was improper for him to weigh in on her guilt or innocence because that indicated to the people investigating that they should conform their decisions to his view. And if they were not going to prosecute anyway, it now looks like he influenced them.