On October 12, the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that Hillary Clinton's security clearance had been removed "at her request" on August 30, 2018. This information emerged as part of State Department's ongoing review of the mishandling of classified information by Clinton with the use of her non-secured server.
Wall Street analyst and investigative journalist Charles Ortel doubts that this was all her idea.
"I doubt surrendering this clearance was her idea and wonder what her other options were, as well as what branches of the US government have been responsible for considering her clearance status, for how long?" he asked rhetorically.
On the other hand, the analyst presumed that "Hillary was given a chance to avoid the headline 'President Trump Pulled Losing Rival's Security Clearance, Breaking Precedent' and that this approach also appealed to the president's political insiders, prior to the looming midterm elections."
Ortel explained that "normally, obtaining a security clearance, especially a high level one, is an arduous process that involves comprehensive evaluation of risks to national security that are posed by a person's long-standing behavior, associations, and proclivities."
"To see what I mean, please visit the site where anyone can review documents that the FBI and other government officials considered as part of a (fatally flawed) investigation into corruption that targeted both Clintons between February 2001 and an as yet unknown date in 2015," he said referring to vault.fbi.gov website.
How Clinton Could Benefit From Retaining a High Level Security Clearance
According to Ortel, since 1989, when American multinationals, banks, and investors began to expand activities abroad, the US federal government has become much more relevant in supporting politically connected donors' winning contracts and obtaining support from multilateral government organizations where the US still exerts outsized influence.
"In simple terms, it makes much more sense for donors to pay, and then play with elected officials who typically are thirsty for funds needed to finance expensive and recurring campaigns," he presumed.
He expressed his firm belief that top officials should not retain these clearances, following their resignation, "particularly if they obtained them in 'light-touch' vetting that happened following an election."
Obama Administration Was Reckless in Performing Diligence on Hillary
Commenting on the ongoing State Department's review into the Clinton email scandal, Ortel, who has been investigating The Clinton Foundation's alleged fraud for over three years, said that the previous administration "was reckless in performing diligence on Hillary, Bill, Chelsea and many colleagues/donors who seem to have been funding lifestyle and election costs for the Clintons by 'contributing' to their 'charities'."
He recalled that the FBI had launched a probe in the Clinton email case in July 2015 and opened an investigation into the Clinton Foundation in January 2016. Additionally, the IRS opened a companion investigation in July 2016.
"What we do not know yet is why it has taken so long for so many experienced, empowered resources to fail spotting frauds and corruption that are evident in numerous public records found inside and outside the United States," Ortel highlighted. "We also do not know how many senior members of the Obama Administration knew about these felony crimes, yet failed to win convictions and incarcerations of Clintons and their co-conspirators."
Lock Them All Up
Ortel opined that from the beginning of his presidency Trump "has seemingly devoted less attention to the unresolved project of exposing" the Clinton Foundation's alleged fraud, due to the obstruction from Obama-Clinton supporters and the need to attend to other priorities.
According to the investigative journalist, Hillary Clinton, her family and associates could be involved in "the largest set of charity frauds ever attempted in history — in financial terms, likely more than $100 billion considering all affiliates and facets."
He warned that "left unchallenged, these frauds and their example will give current and future crooks comfort that 'Justice' is for sale in the United States and that fake charities, operating around the world but not controlled effectively by any regulator, are 'perfect' conduits and laundromats for dirty money and dirtier politicians."
The views and opinions expressed by the contributors do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.
The views and opinions expressed in the article do not necessarily reflect those of Sputnik.