One of the week’s more interesting controversies came a couple of days ago when we learned that three State Department contractors inappropriately accessed the passport files of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain. Bush administration officials chalked it up to “imprudent curiosity,” fired the workers, and launched an investigation. It’s still unclear whether those involved had political motivations, and why it took months for State Department leaders to learn of the breakdown.
CNN seems to believe it has a scoop — one of the contractors worked for a company that is run by a CEO who advises Obama.
The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.
John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.
Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month.
The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
Several far-right blogs (and a couple of the less grounded Obama detractors on the left) pounced on the story, pointing to it as evidence of … well, it’s not at clear what. But they know it’s serious and sinister. Or something.
Look, I realize anti-Obama desperation is setting in some corners, but this is thinner than thin.
I’m trying to imagine the elaborate conspiracy theory that might make this interesting. The CEO of a consulting services company advises Obama. The same company contracts with the State Department (the company has other government clients, and State has contracts with other companies). A low-level employee at the company accesses information he or she shouldn’t have, along with two other contractors from other, unrelated companies.
I get the sense that Obama opponents believe the CEO and the low-level employee were somehow in cahoots, accessing private data for campaign purposes. Is there any evidence pointing in that direction? No, not even a little, but I guess it’s a slow news day.
By way of Josh Marshall, I was especially surprised to see Time’s Jay Newton-Small dig deep into the nonsense well.
The idea that it may have a campaign operative is hardly surprising…. The question throughout this mini-scandal has been: what, if anything, of interest was learned. But with today’s revelation a new question arises: will Obama be forced to distance himself or fire yet another advisor for lowering themselves to “politics as usual” tactics, ie doing opposition research on McCain?
This is foolish to the point of embarrassment. The contractor was a “campaign operative”? That’s based on what, exactly? The CEO of the company is guilty of “lowering themselves to ‘politics as usual’ tactics? What? There’s no reason to believe the CEO was even aware of the activities of a low-level staffer in his company. Why should Obama fire him, exactly?
Perhaps the most important question: since when is Time magazine publishing nonsense that would appear foolish in the comments section of a right-wing blog?
There’s just nothing here, folks. Maybe some evidence will emerge pointing to some wrongdoing by someone of political interest, but based on the available facts, it’s a non-story.