...like the one that occurred circa 2003 thru 2006, over Cheney-Rumsfeld outing of the CIA's worldwide WMD counter-proliferation network, headed by Valerie Plame. A second issue was likely CIA opposition to the invasion of Iraq (or at least to the manufactured WMD issue). A third was likely Cheney-Rumsfeld's intention to nuke Iran. This was very talked about in 2006, and it's my opinion that Bush Sr. intervened with his "Iraq Study Group" (spring '06)--of which Leon Panetta, future CIA Director and then Pentagon Chief under Obama, was a member--to save Jr.'s administration and maybe Jr's ass, from CIA retaliation, and to stop Cheney-Rumsfeld's armageddonish interference in the flow of Iranian oil to China.
Michael Hayden doesn't make idle chitcat about FBI investigations. He was NSA Director '99 to '05 and CIA Director '06 to '09 (after which Panetta took over). Hayden's too deep. He wouldn't fool around with the things he said in the Tech Crunch interview. He was on a mission. His content was the seriousness of what Clinton did. And he said it would be absurd to presume that the Chinese and other foreign governments didn't get into her private server.
His mission may have been to pressure the FBI to threaten Clinton with an indictment recommendation, in order to elicit rock-solid guarantees from her of no private servers in the White House and someone to watch over her (and her Neo-Con pals, and maybe Bill)--like I think Leon Panetta was doing, of Bill, back in the day. Panetta was Bill's chief of staff. I think Panetta was CIA even then, which is why CIA employees welcomed him with open arms and champagne corks popping when he returned as CIA Director in '09, according to reports (that, and relief that Cheney-Rumsfeld were gone).
Or, Hayden's mission may have been to get the word out that Hillary is done. They don't want her as president. And something's holding things up at the FBI. That could be AG Loretta Lynch (a Clinton supporter), the one who would act on an FBI recommendation of indictment, who may be trying to protect Clinton.
I favor the former, that the CIA/NSA want something from Clinton. And what they may want--besides guarantees about sensitive information and maybe about rogue operations (like Blumenthal's in Libya)--goes back to those events in 2006. They fear the Neo-Con influence on Clinton--and they do have reason to. She has Robert Kagan (chief of "The Project for a New American Century"--Cheney-Rumsfeld's blueprint for world domination) as an advisor.
The Clinton supporters in this thread who poo-poo Michael Hayden's remarks (which occurred yesterday) are fools or simply blind partisans. I don't like the man either. I don't like the CIA. I don't like the NSA. I don't like the FBI. But that doesn't mean that I don't pay attention to what they're up to, and try, as well as I can, as an ordinary citizen, to understand what's going on with our government. It's our duty, to my mind. Further, naive Clinton supporters, who are not paid bots, are going to feel crushed if this ton of bricks comes down on their candidate.
It probably won't--because the rule now is "we need to look forward not backward" on the crimes of the rich and the powerful. Clinton is now a player among the rich and the powerful. She's a made woman. Half a billion dollars from Goldman Sachs, et al, into her pocket, in 2 years time. That's some salary. However, if she is caught between more powerful forces--as I've suggested, CIA vs Neo-Cons--she may go down. There is still time for them to do it and not risk President Trump (even more unpredictable), since Bernie Sanders is still viable, is still winning primaries, refuses to quit and demolishes Trump in all polls.
It's hard to believe that any of the powers-behind-the-throne in Washington DC would want Sanders, but, then, he's so honest, why wouldn't they? He would be very straightforward with them. They would know exactly where they stand. Even empirebots are human beings. Even they might find honesty refreshing. Even they--or some of them--might be disgusted by the corruption all around them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
