Hillary Clinton to Resign due to WikiLeaks Scandal!?

ATLANTA–  I am finding the fallout from the WikiLeaks document release to be utterly fascinating.  While most of the revelations have not been all that surprising, the increasing indications that Hillary Clinton may have skirted the edges of international law truly are.  Not three weeks ago, the media was openly discussing whether Hillary Clinton should challenge Barack Obama in 2012 for the Democratic nomination, given the poor showing by Democrats in the midterm elections.   Now, on the basis of these revelations from WikiLeaks, there are increasing and credible calls for Mrs. Clinton’s resignation. 

What a stunning and completely unexpected turn of events.  Can Mrs. Clinton weather this storm politically?  WikiLeaks still has plenty more to reveal and the scandal has already reached historic proportions.  Hillary Clinton may need to channel Bill Clinton to get through this one. 

About these ads

About Stephen VanNuys
Stephen Van Nuys is a happily married CPA who works for a large accounting firm and resides in Atlanta, Georgia. He is a Christian and an avid follower of politics and current events. He is also a big-time baseball fan. Stephen and his wife are runners, having completed multiple 10k’s and half-marathons between them. They place importance on being environmentally conscious and actively serving others through their church and other outlets. Mr. Van Nuys’ political leanings are socially conservative and economically libertarian. He may express his perspectives on current events strongly, but he welcomes disagreement, particularly where others believe his missives to be ill-informed or just plain wrong! He enjoys good debate and discussion and is writing here as much to express his perspectives as he is to learn about others.

32 Responses to Hillary Clinton to Resign due to WikiLeaks Scandal!?

  1. Conspiracy Alert: Hillary Clinton should challenge Barack Obama in 2012 for the Democratic nomination…Now…there are increasing and credible calls for Mrs. Clinton’s resignation

  2. BaldManMoody says:

    I find it hilarious that Assange has been offered asylum in Ecuador. There is actually a chance I could run into him if he lives in the capital city. HA!

    Incidentally, my wife was not a fan of the publication of all of this information. I am left to wonder how she would have felt if it had all been under the Bush administration.

    • I’m actually not a fan of its publication either. I think it is a terrible reflection on our country and really damages us abroad. Plus, I honestly think it could have happened in any administration.

      Not sure why that random Army guy stationed in Iraq would have had access to all those docs- seems crazy. But it is even crazier that he handed them off to an anti-American nutcase who would turn it into a big media bonanza and tick off half the world. The random Army guy deserves solitary confinement.

      As to Assange, hope they nail him on sex charges and put him on an international sex offender list.

      • BaldManMoody says:

        Random army guy is in the brig last I heard. I have followed Wikileaks since it first started leaking documents on Iraq and find it rather intriguing.

        This “anti-American” nutcase as you call him is actually prepared to leak documents on Corporate America (one large American bank in question) and is also prepared to go after Russia. All I can say is expect a lot more if the site exists through the New Year.

        As for the sex case, he is currently just sought as a witness if you actually read into it. Sweden has yet to give him documentation of any “charges” against him in a language he can understand (i.e. English) and he purports that it was consensual, albeit unprotected sex with two women while there. Furthermore, when those charges came out it was immediately following the last major leak so I would personally question the validity of them and I think there are other powers afoot.

        One thing for sure, Assange has challenged the establishment – I think he will be made a martyr by them personally.

      • Yeah, I was reading that the guy is in the slammer. You should check out my newest post on what they should do with him.

        That is true that Assange has shaken the establishment, but towards what end and for what purpose? The stuff on Hillary Clinton is the only thing that seems truly scandalous to me thusfar. And some people are questioning whether that is credible, I’ve read. The rest of the stuff just seems to crack the door a little bit on how the State Department assesses other governments. It really doesn’t add much to the public discourse and it undermines confidence in the U.S. I think it is terrible thing for our country and an embarrassment. It is within the realm of being as bad as a terrorist attack- though clearly not on that order given no direct loss on life.

        My thing is, what is Assange’s agenda? What would he replace the current order with? Would he truly expect government and big business to publicly post every internal document that they create as part of making their policy decisions? Nobody would expect that- nor would they want to do that if they were in a position of authority. I don’t think that is really helpful – there is a high degree of necessary privacy around such matters.

        I think it’s all just a meaningless publicity stunt. Nothing more. It’s worthless and embarrassing.

      • BaldManMoody says:

        Hey, check my comment on the other posting along with the articles posted there. Assange advocates focusing on businesses that are unethical and where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing. If you actually goto the Wikileaks site (http://mirror.wikileaks.info) you can see some of the postings he has for actual business cases.

        I think he does exactly what the MSM does not have the courage or ability to do in many instances, as they cannot conceal their sources to the level that wikileaks allows. If he learns of wrongdoing he actually exposes it and forces them to either come clean or be good corporate citizens.

        I think if you read the interview, in particular, you will come to some different conclusions on Assange and his positions.

        Otherwise, your comment above “It really doesn’t add much to the public discourse and it undermines confidence in the U.S. I think it is terrible thing for our country and an embarrassment” – I couldn’t agree more and I think it highlighted some known weaknesses that nothing was being done about. Other than that, I will go with what I see about Hillary in the cables (and Condoleeza before her) – I hate the UN, but if we aren’t following protocol/rules of the organization (i.e. spying on members while at the UN) – then I am all for it being aired to the globe.

      • “If he learns of wrongdoing he actually exposes it”

        Has he learned of no wrong doing in Russia, China, France, Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan, etc? I see a lot of America’s secrets being spilled…

      • “I hate the UN, but if we aren’t following protocol/rules of the organization (i.e. spying on members while at the UN)”

        Oh and we are all very certain the that US is the only perpetrator of these evils… No way some other country is spying on anyone, especially not in the UN.

        So far I think the guy is pointing out what everyone already knows. The only “shocking” news I’ve found out of all of this is that his crusade is biased towards one country which naturally makes him an enemy of the state instead of a pure hearted do gooder, and two, that all these documents were assessable. The later, to me, is the most important. I have no problems with my Government having a “Top Secret” level of communication. Just as wikileaks “conceals their sources” for protection of the source and to maintain a level of trust with the source, every country “conceals” meetings and deals to maintain a level of trust. Should Mr. Assange truly want to be “open” and transparent, he’d pull the veil back on everything, including his source. But he doesn’t for the same exact reason nations don’t do 100% of their dialogue on prime time television.

      • BaldManMoody says:

        Ever actually been on Wikileaks TP? Go down the list at http://mirror.wikileaks.info and you will see plenty other countries than just the US with some unsavory details. It is just that he has maximized release on these details relative to the US government.

        And I am all for CIA to have a secret level of communication, but I think this all has pointed out a glaring weakness in the US intelligence infrastructure that should get plugged relatively soon I would imagine.

        I have been looking for it, but there were apparently studies back in 2006 to 2009 that were essentially saying that what happened was going to happen. I read the article on it on like Monday, but I can’t find it anymore.

        Otherwise, big release is planned next year on Russia and a large American bank next year to my knowledge.

      • BaldManMoody says:

        Little more food for thought with regards to the “rape” charges against Assange:

        http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/02/when-it-comes-to-assange-r-pe-case-the-swedes-are-making-it-up-as-they-go-along/

        “Apparently having consensual sex in Sweden without a condom is punishable by a term of imprisonment of a minimum of two years for rape. That is the basis for a reinstitution of rape charges against WikiLeaks figurehead Julian Assange that is destined to make Sweden and its justice system the laughing stock of the world and dramatically damage its reputation as a model of modernity.”

        “That further evidence hasn’t been confected to make the charges less absurd does Sweden no credit because it has no choice in the matter. The phenomena of social networking through the internet and mobile phones constrains Swedish authorities from augmenting the evidence against Assange because it would look even less credible in the face of tweets by Anna Ardin and SMS texts by Sofia Wilén boasting of their respective conquests after the “crimes”.”

  3. I’m left to wonder why Assange hasn’t blown the skirt off of major left leaning countries. All this time I thought diplomacy was two sided and evil knew no bounds.

    • yeah – true. though if he were politically motivated by left/right issues, I’d think he wouldn’t do anything to damage Obama’s already weakened presidency.

      I think he just goes after folks with a lot of power to the degree he can.

  4. Pingback: Should the WikiLeaks Culprit, Bradley Manning, be Executed? « American Missive

  5. mainenowandthen says:

    “spying” on U.N. Delegates – who have had their own post office billboard of active international spies – is hardly limited to the machinations of Hillary Clinton (who is pretty clumsy in that particular genre, if you consider her performance in the Clinton regime scandals), so no big deal.

    Espionage (the release of private and privileged information with the intent to do harm to the targeted entity), on the other hand, is considered a severe crime by most nations and both Assange and this low-ranking military hacker can certainly qualify with their concentration on national security (for many countries) matters.

    Nope, I don’t see this guy as some anti-establishment hero – not when he is doing this for personal gain and is so selective in the information he is targeting. Admittedly the mainstream media has lost any semblance of journalistic integrity, but Assange is scarcely an ethical model to hold up.

    • BaldManMoody says:

      Not really sure what he is doing for personal gain other than notoriety and most likely ending up a martyr.

      All I can say is I trust the man with nothing to lose then the people with everything to lose.

      • BaldManMoody says:

        Also, I would say that I find it very telling that the US government puts pressure on Amazon to close off Wikileaks website.

        Seems rather similar to when the Chinese dissident won the Nobel Peace Prize and there was no access to internet, phonelines outwards, and so forth.

        Just saying. Maybe we really ought to think about what this says about our power structure.

      • I don’t find anything telling about this action. “US government puts pressure … to close off … website [which discloses top secret information]”

        Chinese government Shuts down Internet, phonelines and communication systems to prevent access to a dissident who speaks out about leadership.

        One, The US Government is headed by a Noble Peace Prize winner. So that area is flip-flopped :)
        Two, The US Government is “applying pressure”… very, very, very different than unilaterally terminating the site, which the US Gov. has the technological power to do.
        Three, the US Government has the right to retain and protect State Secrets. The Chinese guy getting an award is not exposing state secrets.
        Four, Assange’s rage against the US Government is not being silenced by the US Gov. The guy could live in the US with a “happy” life while recording one multi-platinum album after another blasting the Government for any and every cause he wants. All the US Gov. is doing is attempting to prohibit the release of top secret information.

      • BaldManMoody says:

        “Reuters’ Mark Hosenball writes that “U.S. authorities could face insurmountable legal hurdles if they try to bring criminal charges against” Assange. “Three specialists in espionage law said prosecuting someone like Assange on those charges would require evidence the defendant was not only in contact with representatives of a foreign power but also intended to provide them with secrets. No such evidence has surfaced, or has even been alleged, in the case of WikiLeaks or Assange.”

        “If you could show that [Assange] specifically conspired with a government person to leak the material, that puts him in a different position than if he is the recipient of an anonymous contribution. If he’s just providing a portal for information that shows up, he’s very much like a journalist,” said Jack M. Balkin, a Yale professor of constitutional law.

        http://wlcentral.org/node/425

        AND

        http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/02legal.html?_r=2

      • BaldManMoody says:

        Then, the US government should go after the press that published the secrets as well.
        :D

        And trying to use semantics to distinguish the situation really shows that you are at the end of your rope on this one.

        What do you think the backroom conversations were? Shut it down or we shut all of Amazon down? I mean really.

        And if the US Gov’t was really dedicated in its attempts to silence him publishing secrets why didn’t they go after the site back when the helicopter video showed up or the other Iraq/Afghan war leaks?

        I think Obama’s silence on the whole matter is interesting, while Hillary was made to look like a fool and is out saber rattling.

      • “What do you think the backroom conversations were”

        Semantics? You question my evaluation of semantics and then lean back on conjecture and state that I’m at the end of my rope? Yeah I don’t think so.
        I question the report, yes. Because while it implies a lot, it is wide open. “Puts pressure…” is a wide open statement… a purposefully wide open statement. It could imply anything from some low level janitors in each organization having casual conversation over a slop bucket all the way up to the President lining up an armored tank division at the door step of Amazon.

        And even aside from this point, the distinction in actions taken clearly distinguishes the Chinese from the US… or do you believe that the US doesn’t have the technical wherewithal to take down the website, or the internet for that matter? China took unilateral steps to silence a dissenting voice. The US Government “put pressure” on a server host to block the release of state secrets. They are very different in nature even without fully disclosing the full meaning of “put pressure.”

        As to this… “Obama’s silence on the whole matter is interesting, while Hillary was made to look like a fool” …
        My first comment on this blog was about this. Part of me finds it unfathomable that so much Classified Data could leak… most of it absolutely meaningless. And then the juiciest parts tend to be the most damning for the single largest potential political threat at home… There is probably nothing there and this is what it appears to be and I tend to view it this way 99.999999999999%. However, if it is a means of extinguishing political threats then this would make Nixon look like a Saint. And at any rate, if I were a better writer, I’d have a premise for an amazing thriller.

      • BaldManMoody says:

        “And at any rate, if I were a better writer, I’d have a premise for an amazing thriller.”

        Here, here.

      • mainenowandthen says:

        Seems to me that the man “with nothing to lose” is lacking any substantial base to stand on in his approach to life and therefore no principles to guide him. This is trustworthy?

      • Not only trustworthy, but a form of heroism to some.

      • BaldManMoody says:

        Maine:

        Check out this interview with Assange – maybe it will change your view on that he is “lacking any substantial base to stand on in his approach to life and therefore no principles to guide him”.

        When I said “nothing to lose” I was referring to his position within the world. He runs a whistleblower site – while on the other hand all of the folks within the power structure that are seeking him out are career politicians and heads of Companies (will be next). They have everything to lose and he really has relatively little to gain other than notoreity for a whistleblowing website that is ran completely free of charge and provides a much needed service (allowing someone to call out unethical behavior whether it be in the political or business world). Furthermore, those people’s identity’s are then protected like they should be until they would choose to reveal themself.

        http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/an-interview-with-wikileaks-julian-assange/

      • people’s identity’s are then protected like they should be until they would choose to reveal themself

        Curious… does this standard apply to state secrets or intellectual property rights?

      • BaldManMoody says:

        “Curious… does this standard apply to state secrets or intellectual property rights?”

        Good question. After all Bush admin leaked state secrets relative Valerie Plane and also leaked to help support the Iraqi war.

        I don’t really think this has to do with “intellectual property rights” and the reveal of sources is a matter of journalistic integrity.

      • After all Bush admin leaked state secrets relative Valerie Plane and also leaked to help support the Iraqi war.

        Wasn’t her code name ‘Plame’?

        At any rate, I’m not sure why you mention any previous Admin. The question was referencing the standard you cited, “protected like they should be…” yet some how you seem to disparage the Government through comparisons to an authoritarian regime of China for attempting to maintain the same standard. What if a site were set up called http://www.LeakedWikiLeaks.org which exposed all of wikileaks sources and conversations? Would you condone it for its enforced transparency of others as well?

        Or perhaps you are suggesting this information was intentionally released or leaked similar to your assertions of Valerie Plame and the previous Administration?

  6. BaldManMoody says:

    Had to check and see if a site like that existed. That would be more than a little funny.

    Yes, it was Plame.

    Gov’t was not trying to maintain that same standard when a low level army intelligence officer has access to every document available on SIPR (and the same goes for the State Dept., et al). Even corporate networks are walled off to job function for people within.

    The only legitimate complaint lodged against Wikileaks thus far that I have seen was failure to redact sufficient enough information from informants in the Afghanistan files. However, they opened it up to all of the organizations critiquing (HRC, UN) to assist in redacting further and none of them came forward to help to my knowledge. Furthermore, my understanding is that they also worked to make sure that no critical local names within documents were revealed with the military I thought … would have to review the myriad articles I have read on it to be certain.

    • Gov’t was not trying to maintain that same standard when a low level army intelligence officer has access to every document available on SIPR (and the same goes for the State Dept., et al)

      That’s not necessarily true. I’m fairly certain the government attempts to maintain this information, but a leak is by definition, not part of the protocol. Citing the leak does not necessarily mean the government intended for the information to be diciminated.

      Or are you implying that this leak was actually a “controlled” leak? This is the second time in two comments such implications seem to have been made.

    • Even corporate networks are walled off to job function for people within.

      And yet …

      He runs a whistleblower site – while on the other hand all of the folks within the power structure that are seeking him out are career politicians and heads of Companies (will be next)

      Assange advocates focusing on businesses that are unethical and where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.

      So, are you saying that, the fact wikiLeaks has obtained confidential information means that the institution at risk was not trying to maintain that same standard? Is this then the justification for all “whistle blowing”? That in truth the institution being “exposed” actually intend for the exposure and was not living up to the standard of confidentiality?

  7. mainenowandthen says:

    “Whistle blowers” historically concentrate on one particular act or issue that they feel is dangerous to the welfare of either/and a specific group or general public welfare.

    Assange casts a wide net, frequently employing information obtained through illegal or unethical means and designed to cause specific harm (publishing names of Iraqis or Afghan citizens who “collaborate” with U.N. forces, for instance).

    Nope, I don’t accept this guy as an altruistic interventionist, nor any other type of admirable crusader. Got to admit, his conviction as a hacker some years ago colors my opinion. I don’t like those guys. In addition, Assange has long term associations with Leftist organizations that raise questions in my mind about his motives in releasing sensitive national communications.

  8. Saw the charges against this guy. Gotta say, despite the “disturbing” revelations that some of America’s ambassadors have less than favorable opinions of their counter parts, I’m still proud to be an American, where at least the term “rape” has more meaning than “didn’t wear a condom.” That’s just ridiculous.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers

%d bloggers like this: