Home | About | Donate

Clinton and Snowden: Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others


Clinton and Snowden: Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

Juan Cole

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly attacked Ed Snowden for being careless with government information. So it is ironic that she has been found guilty of being . . . careless with government information. She, of course, will suffer no consequences, since she is part of the ruling class.

Here’s an ironic juxtaposition:


"...while she has admitted that (her) Patriot Act vote was a mistake..."

Just another instance of Hillary saying whatever she thinks will work, at the time, to achieve whatever goal she then has in mind.
She also lied and told a National Audience that she was a Progressive, when it seemed that it would be to her advantage, which, in itself, was done to undermine the True Progressive she was then debating.


Great article, or indictment, Mr. Cole.

If this type of material were aired across the MSM, the chances of Hillary winning any election would be significantly altered... in spite of the best methods of Mass Deception.


"She, of course, will suffer no consequences, since she is part of the ruling class."

No, that is not the reason. She will not suffer "legal" consequences because there was no proof of willful intent. She will of course suffer political consequences which could be severe. The legal situation of Snowden is unclear but certainly he had willful intent to release classified information, even if he believed as do many others that it served a beneficial purpose for the people of the United States.


You miss the point. The no proof of willful intent clause is not applied equally to all in this country. The flip side of that is the ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law clause and how many people at the lower economic and social strata have been nailed with that one? Where's the intent when aggressive law enforcement and hostile courts work overtime to detain, arrest and even convict based on laws a person may not have known were on the books? Where's the intent when someone is unjustly put on a no fly list or detained by provisions of the Patriot Act? Where's the intent when someone is pulled off the street and frisked for simply fitting a profile? The government uses the law to punish and control without regard for intent all the time, except, of course, when it involves high ranking figures like Clinton.


Where in the law is "willful intent" the benchmark for indictment? If you find it, pass it along to the defence attorneys of all those that were charged with crimes pertaining to classified info, and punished. Most were far milder than what leaked from her "secret file center".


Re Hillary's "mistakes": Her Iraq war vote and Patriot Act votes. A great movie of the '80s, "The Verdict" (Paul Newman, dir Sidney Lumet, wr David Mamet) has Newman as a washed-up lawyer representing an impoverished working class couple. He rejects what they see as a fabulous offer by the other side to settle the case. Confronting him, the husband says this: "You people, doctors, lawyers, you're all the same. It's always "what I'm gonna do for you," then you fuck up......and people like us have to live with your mistakes the rest of our lives."

For the benefit of the point-missers, let me repeat: It's always "what I'm gonna do for you," then you fuck up......and people like us have to live with your mistakes the rest of our lives.

Get it Hillary? Yeah, that's what I thought.


You are all over, as usual, with boilerplate talking points. Kevin Gosztola already answered you on these issues:

"What Comey did not state in his remarks was the fact that the Justice Department has prosecuted these offenses as strict liability offenses. That is, because individuals signed non-disclosure agreements, including Clinton, prosecutors have reasoned that those officials knew, before they mishandled or were “extremely careless” with information, what was permissible conduct. So, whether those officials intended to commit a crime or not, the violation of statutes governing classified information is enough for prosecution."...Kevin Gosztola.


The government is guilty of breaking national and international laws right and left. It seems there is no end to the corruption in all departments. This part of the article is why they do so with impunity...
"she put persons of conscience like Snowden in a position where they had to risk their lives to let Americans know that the National Security State had repealed the Constitution."
That statement is so spot on. We watch in horror as they cherry pick the constitution to bolster their arguments and ignore it when needed. Obama is a constitutional lawyer, he knows exactly what he's doing when he breaks the laws. Passing the TPP is his big gift to the corporations as it permanently surpasses the constitution and hands over our sovereignty to them. Hillary has to be president to finish the job.
Obama knew she had the server so of course he had to put his finger on the scales of justice to be sure he wasn't brought into it too.
Hillary is looking forward to throwing back some shots with her buddies in the Republican party as they plan to invade Syria and confront Russia (the enemy they need right now).
This may be over in their minds but it won't be forgotten. We just witnessed the theft of an election played out in plain sight, and now the culprit walk free of charges for clear felonies. Dem's have succumbed to the money and influence of the ruling class. Notice you haven't heard a word about it from any of them. They are useless and should be discarded.
Never Hillary


This guy is impervious to reason. His job is to prop up the Official Talking Points to lend legitimacy where there is NONE.


Everyone on the left today seems to claim that they are a progressive but Clinton has said that she is not a socialist. So I think that is really the difference in all these claims. People further on the left are using the more traditional definition of progressive which does get into socialism while those who are center left are using the more recent definition of progressive which largely means anyone who is considered to be a liberal but who is not a socialist. The problem is that both the terms "liberal" and "socialist" have become politically toxic with large numbers of people so we are winding up with all progressives on the left even though their views can be quite different.


Somebody get this freaking troll off of me.


Lrx does not "miss the point," Lrx posts Clinton campaign spin.


Only the moderators can do that. Since Lrx posts in a calm tone of voice with no bad words, it does not "insult" anyone here according to the community guidelines, despite its constant onslaught of insulting posts.

If i ran a web site, such a transparently obvious troll for a specific political party machine would long since have been blocked.


I just scroll past
Never read them


If more people voted for Sanders than any other candidate (and needless to say, I'm talking about the TRUE vote counts), how is the above quote valid?

I see you here a lot. I imagine you read the same articles that I do. Many of these cite verifiable statistics and citizens' polls and in ALL of these, it's clear that a MAJORITY of citizens want to see Progressive policies implemented.

What's missing is the WILL on the part of those in power.

In a functioning system, the follow all lead to remediation:

  1. A media that tells the truth and creates air time for HONEST debates
  2. A court system that holds criminals (even in high places) to account
  3. An election system that reflects the will of the people via vote counts
  4. A congress that passes laws and policies that reflect citizens' wishes
  5. An economic system that rewards honest work (rather than graft & corruption)

This is a partial list.

NONE of these areas are operating... as intended. All have been bought out, occupied, or co-opted.

It could be argued that much in the way of Constitutional protections, Human Rights, and Civil Liberties got washed away with the War Against Terror. A dangerous farce!

Therefore, if citizens HAVE no agency within a system fraught with systemic corruptions, the matter is not their intelligence or awareness level.

As mentioned, polls show that majorities "are already there."

Now some people--I believe--prop up this argument because their job is that of Agent Provocateurs. They want to create enough anger so that people will FIGHT back.

Fighting would likely result in many casualties and set up a pretext for further erosion of Civil Liberties.

When the U.S. was a set of 13 colonies it was unable to break away from the British Empire's rule without help from Indians and the French.

Similarly, how the world's people are going to burst the chains of the global oligarchs cum corporations is not going to be through voting. It will be a collective effort that is partly the result of protests, strikes, and OLD methods; and partly the influence of Mother Nature and agencies used by invisible forces (the Spirit World). Some of the latter works through the power of mind and that is why Masters like Christ taught the premise that "wherever two or more join together in peace, whatever they ask for shall be done."

There is a power to group meditation and shared creative visualization. Too often this power is used selfishly (as purveyed by entities like the authors of "The Secret" who appeared on Oprah, or Anthony Robbin's style seminars)... and people perhaps win a car or make $.

But the same power CAN and MUST be used at higher levels to produce results that will alter the paradigm. It's either that or really, the demise of this planet's life support systems.

I believe this shift is happening and it's infuriating to materialistic minds or those whose only prism for discerning progress is ACTION, typically of the wild, wild west sort.

I have news for them... Reality is far more nuanced than a Cowboy movie.

A new insight just flashed on... inside my brain. And it's that there is a real parallel between this OFT REPEATED Talking Point and the whole basis of Trump's campaign; nor is there any dearth of Trump supporters stationed in these "Progressive" threads.

The analogy?

Trump never talks about the wars of aggression that unleashed SOME reciprocal terrorism on the part of Arab people fed up with being bombed back to the Stone Age.

He never talks about NAFTA having CAUSED the migration of Mexicans over the border.

He doesn't understand why Black Lives Matter is important.

What he does do is blame these various groups for things they had little to nothing to do with causing or creating.

In parallel, the NUMERO UNO message repeated in these threads literally on a daily basis is that which mocks fellow citizens and refers to them as SHEEPLE.

However, are these individuals the causative agents for what the elites are doing up to and including the falsification of major votes (election outcomes) to produce outcomes resonant with their own ambitions and objectives?

In both instances people are AIMING at the wrong targets.

I'd like to think that people who post here are smarter than the pompous, narrow-minded, jingoistic fools that go to Trump's rallies. But then, lots of THEM are here which probably explains why there's such a need, reflex, or paid assignment to shoot at everyday people.

How else can power (and the actual authors of the acts and doctrines of destruction) get away with mass murder?

And by the way, the gap between citizens' wishes and what elites set into policy is largely GLOBAL because corporations have in many instances subcontracted governments to do THEIR bidding. And the War Department with its claim to half the U.S budget (annually!) is a MAJOR player in this debacle to Democracy gone global.


Not sure where you got the faint praise from...

But, Okay...


Thank you, Mr. Cole, for this very good article.

I especially appreciate your highlighting the un-equal treatment under the law between how Hillary Clinton is being treating preferentially versus how Snowden, Manning, and other whistleblowers have been treated mercilessly.

I also especially appreciate your criticizing The Patriot Act and The Espionage Act -- both of which are abusive, unconstitutional, illegal laws that should be repealed immediately!

I'd like to add the following points:

The Espionage Act was passed in 1917, not 1919.

One of the increasingly alarming signs that we are not living in a democracy, but are all threatened by a lawless government controlled by the oligarchy's "national security state" is that the U.S. Constitution clearly describes the constitutionally required process for changing or amending parts of the U.S. Constitution. A majority of the state legislatures must approve the change, then a majority of the U.S. Congress must approve the change, then the U.S. President must sign the legislation into U.S. law.

By passing The Patriot Act (and the NDAA!) the Congress and President knowingly and willfully violated the U.S. Constitution's legal requirements for changing the Constitution, and unconstitutionally "over-ruled" the 4th Amendment that protects all U.S. citizens from unreasonable search and seizure without a court-ordered warrant, against an individual suspected of having committed a crime, or of being about to commit a crime. Total surveillance of the entire U.S. (and world!) population outrageously violates the specific protections and requirements established by the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment.

I have never heard a legitimate explanation of how the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution can legally be changed or over-ruled by a mere "law" that outrageously failed to go through the constitutionally required process of amending the U.S. Constitution.

Lastly, Presidents Bush and Obama, the Congresspersons from 2001 to the present, and former Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton all swore oaths to "protect the Constitution of the United States" -- but then turned around and violated the Constitution of the United States by voting for (or signing) the Patriot Act (and the NDAA) which over-rule the Constitution without going through the constitutionally required process to change the Constitution.

Are these not blatant signs that many U.S. top government officials are violating their oaths of office, are violating the U.S. Constitution, and are violating the fundamental laws and principles of U.S. (so-called) democracy?


She also said her vote for the U.S. War against Iraq was "a mistake."

She also said the TPP was "the gold standard" -- but now she claims she is against it (but only) "as it is currently written."

She also (as I recall) advanced the XL Keystone Pipeline when she was S. of S. -- but now she says she opposes it.

She also called black youths "super-predators" -- but I think she called that "a mistake."

She also said her original opposition to gay marriage was "a mistake" (as I recall).

If she hasn't done so already, I anticipate her saying that her recklessly mishandled emails, paid speeches, and Clinton Foundation actions are all riddled with "mistakes."

She's pretty loose with admitting her "mistakes" -- but has she ever sincerely apologized (or ever expressed genuine, heartfelt remorse) for her bad actions and harm to others?


Excellent points! Well stated!