Remember when the firstÂ Stuxnet story broke,Â a story most of were gleeful about and knew in our hearts Israel had winged it’s bug to Iran’s computer system and managed to do major damage. Then came the second Stuxnet story – the Â Obama story, leaked of course, that the U.S. was taking credit for a major part in the assault. Now comes the issue of impeachment. While we often notice that Obama has failed his oath of office over and over, he has also failed to protect his Constitutional obligation to take “Care” that “laws be faithfully executed.” Notice that the word “Care” is capitalized in Article 2, Section 3 (more below). The Washington Post in January 2013 ran a story saying Eric Holder was looking into the leaks. Did Obama useÂ Stuxnet to help Obama’s 2012 election chances to the detriment of national intelligence for both the U.S. and Israel?
Prosecutors are pursuing â€œeverybody â€” at pretty high levels, too,â€ said one person familiar with the investigation. â€œThere are many people whoâ€™ve been contacted from different agencies.â€
The FBI and prosecutors have interviewed several current and former senior government officials in connection with the disclosures, sometimes confronting them with evidence of contact with journalists, according to people familiar with the probe. Investigators, they said, have conducted extensive analysis of the e-mail accounts and phone records of current and former government officials in a search for links to journalists. Source: WaPo January 2013
Mark Thiessen at WaPo follows up today and says “this is big” even though there was a “collective yawn” from Washington when the first story ran. Thiessen is asking if an impeachable offense has occurred.
Thiessen believes that only some closest to Obama would have had access to the leaked information – a “tiny universe of individuals,” a person who was “in the room” when Obama was briefed. Either a “senior administration or White House official leaked – the first possibility:
That would be a potential crime and certainly a violation of the officialâ€™s oath of office â€” and in the case of a White House official, a violation of their contractual commitment to theÂ Executive Office of the President. As one former senior Justice Department official told me, â€œIt would be grounds for firing and likely prosecution, and it would definitely call into question the competency and security of the presidentâ€™s supervision of his White House staff.â€
Or Obama gave approval for the leak – a second possibility:
The president personally authorized a senior official to disclose classified and sensitive national security information regarding ongoing intelligence or counterterrorism operations.
This is potentially an even bigger scandal. Since the president has ultimate declassification authority, this would mean no crime was likely committed. But it is hard to imagine a credible argument that such a disclosure was made to advance the national security interests of the United States.
Quite the opposite, the Stuxnet leak was incredibly damaging. It exposed intelligence sources and methods, including the top secret codename for the program (â€œOlympic Gamesâ€). And it exposed the involvement of a U.S. ally, Israel.
Thiessen’s opinion, perhaps informed by “former senior government lawyers” he mentions having a conversation with, is that the information was leaked to help Obama with the 2012 election and:
One anonymous senior official is quoted by the Times as saying â€œFrom his first days in office, he was deep into every step in slowing the Iranian program â€” the diplomacy, the sanctions, every major decision.â€…
As one former top Justice Department official told me [Theissen] â€œif done for political gain, rather than for a bona fide purpose advancing the public interests of the United States, it could be grounds for impeachment.â€
I can think of several impeachable offenses, first and foremost the violation of his oath of office over and over. The most glaring example is cavalierly ignoring his Constitutional obligation to the Rule of Law…“shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed…” Article 2, Section 3. Once moe, note the word “Care” is capitalized. He and his administration have refused to enforce our immigration and illegal alien laws and very publicly announced that it would not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). When Congress refused to create certain environmental requirements and make them law, he directed the EPA to do it without the consent of Congress. That’s for starters.
There is little hope in America for Constitutional-loving citizens. Our Congress does not have the courageÂ to stop the lawlessness or to protect the Constitution. Graphic courtesy of SodaHead. Thanks to Fox News.