The ability to compromise can be a virtue when reasonable people of differing perspectives are able to set aside their differences and come to an agreement that, while not perfect, is fair and equitable and provides a common ground for all concerned. This enables the participants in such a negotiation to satisfy enough of their core requirements and adequately address the concerns of those involved that such an agreement is sensible and, indeed, desirable.
Politicians frequently work out compromises in order the achieve a consensus among politicians from both sides of the aisle so that legislation can go forward.
However, there is another meaning to that term “compromise.” This “compromise” is hardly virtuous, but treacherous. In this regard, “to compromise” means to weaken or undermine.
When an undercover agent's identity and mission is divulged to his/her adversaries, it can be properly said that the agent has been “compromised.”
When a nation's secrets are provided to its enemies it may be said that the nation's security has been compromised.
Finally, people may also be compromised also when they act in a nefarious way and others become aware of their conduct. This sort of compromise creates a vulnerability for that person and can leave such an individual open to blackmail or other covert coercion.
This is the world in which Hillary Clinton now resides as a direct result of her conduct -- or rather, misconduct.
While there have been numerous reports about Hillary Clinton's private e-mail server that she used to send tens of thousands of e-mails, including e-mails that contained ultra-sensitive national security information, one of the key problems that this outrageous situation has created has not been addressed in the media.
We will consider how her “extremely careless” actions with respect to national security materials may continue to have a profound impact on Hillary Clinton for years to come, leaving her vulnerable to blackmail, especially if she was to become the next President of the United States.
When I was an INS special agent and was about to interview or question an individual I often began by reminding that person that “There is only one version of the truth.”
Someone certainly needs to remind Hillary Clinton of that fundamental fact.
Not unlike so many individuals I interviewed or interrogated, for Hillary, telling the truth is an evolutionary process. She provides one version of what she claims is the truth, finds out that her tangled web of deception is not working, and so she attempts to amend the “truth” numerous times, hoping that eventually she will con those to whom she is speaking.
On July 5, 2015 James B. Comey, Director of the FBI, delivered prepared remarks at a press briefing to address the findings of the FBI investigation into the issue of the private e-mail server and e-mail accounts that Hillary Clinton used to send ultra-sensitive information that had serious national security implications.
She initially claimed that she never sent any classified information. But an investigation by the FBI proved otherwise.
There are three excerpts from Mr. Comey's remarks that should be considered today (I urge you to read his entire prepared statement- I am not taking his words out of context, only seeking to focus on the areas of immediate concern):
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
This sentence has been the focus of considerable discussion in the news media about whether “extreme carelessness” is the same as gross negligence, the phrase included in the criminal statutes that deal with mishandling of classified materials.
The title of a Real Clear Politics report, Rudy Giuliani: Hillary Broke The Law; "Gross Negligence Equals Extreme Carelessness" that unequivocally states the opinion of the former NYC Mayor and United States Attorney. That report was posted on the same day that James Comey held his news conference on July 5th.
It is virtually impossible, in my judgment to draw that fine line that delineates where extreme carelessness ends and gross negligence begins. However, the bottom line is that there is no way a reasonable person could not conclude that Hillary's actions concerning extremely sensitive material that had extreme national security implications was even close to being appropriate.
Interestingly, Comey's statement included this excerpt:
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
The conclusion that must be considered as that because of Hillary Clinton's apparent malfeasance, that the highly sensitive information that her e-mails dealt with were accessed by leaders of adversarial governments and other “hostile actors,” to Mr. Comey's terms.
This would have compromised America's national security and likely would have compromised the safety of our intelligence officers and those who may have assisted them overseas and may well have had other serious ramifications for our nation.
Nevertheless, Mr. Comey then went on to say:
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.
The last paragraph addresses the fundamental fact that others who engaged in comparable misconduct would apparently face consequences including “administrative sanctions.” That term administrative sanctions could include stripping such an individual of his/her security clearance and having their employment by the United States government terminated.
In other words, any other person who engaged in the activities Comey referenced, would face serious consequences. Yet this fatally flawed government employee- she was, at the time of her misconduct, the Secretary of State, is now a candidate for the highest office of the United States government.
I hate to engage in sheer speculation, but with the stakes being as high as they are, I find it important to ask the question about why did she not only erase thousands of e-mails, something that the FBI tried to explain away as something most folks do, but why did she use a method to make the recovery of those deleted e-mails impossible?
Most people do not go to that extreme when they delete old e-mails. So it must be presumed that she took that extraordinary measure to make certain that those e-mails would never see the light of day and not just to free up space on her computer.
This calls into question two issues. Whether those e-mails were destroyed to prevent FBI agents and others who were investigating her activities from gaining access to those materials to stymie their investigative efforts. This alone would constitute a felony, “obstruction of justice.”
This raises the question as to why she would resort to felonious conduct.
It is entirely possible that she was concerned that those e-mails provide evidence of further breaches of our national security and her judgement. Those e-mails might also provide evidence of serious conflicts of interest which could lead to evidence of crimes she may have committed, especially if these e-mails contain clear evidence of how she engaged in a “pay for play scheme.”
The other issue that most be considered, now that it is obvious that hackers had access to her e-mail account, is that those very same e-mails that she thought were gone forever may experience a technological “reincarnation” at the hands of America's enemies and/or “hostile actors” FBI Director Comey referenced in his prepared statement.
This is, perhaps the most disquieting issue of all. If America's enemies hacked into her e-mails Hillary Clinton, herself, could well be compromised and subject to blackmail as I noted earlier.
This is one of the key reasons that officials who have security clearances are supposed to conduct themselves in a manner that does not leave them vulnerable to blackmail and compromise.
One of the first lectures I received when I entered on duty with the former INS involved the admonition about how federal agents must comport themselves to avoid conflicts of interest or even appearances of impropriety that could compromise them so that they could not be subject to such blackmail.
What would President Hillary Clinton do if she received a message from our enemies who would demand that she take particular actions or not take other actions if she did not want her hacked resurrected e-mails to be made public?
An honorable person would never compromise America's security and would have to resign.
An honorable person would not have gotten himself/herself into the predicament Hillary Clinton now finds herself in.
Hillary's e-mails might literally become the “gift that keeps on giving” to America's enemies and adversaries and our nation and our citizens may well pay one hell of a price for her lack of integrity.
Where Hillary Clinton is concerned, misery would most certainly have company. If she was compromised, America would be compromised, along with the lives of 320 million Americans.