The NY Post seems to confirm that story. The motivation behind this action sounds like some very Frank Underwood shit:RUMINT is starting to churn out now that Valerie Jarrett was the one responsible for leaking the information about HRC's email server. How true that is, I don't know, especially considering HRC's emails had already been hacked by Guccifer some time ago (the time frame escapes me at the moment). I'm linking to the search result from Google under the news tab, so that those with the time can choose their sources that they want to read through.
Last fall, during the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, Jarrett was heard to complain bitterly that the Clintons were turning congressmen, senators, governors and grass-root party members against Obama by portraying him as an unpopular president who was an albatross around the neck of the party.
Jarrett was said to be livid that most Democrats running for election refused to be seen campaigning with the president. She blamed the Clintons for marginalizing the president and for trying to wrestle control of the Democratic Party away from Obama.
And she vowed payback.
That bit about the Clintons trying to marginalize the President seems a little spurious. Several polls conducted in the months leading up to the midterms showed Obama polling unfavorably among likely voters, and the general "feeling" amongst democrats was that successful democrats were going to have to distance themselves from the President and his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act. The winds were definitely not in the President's favor and any (D) with two eyes could see it. Essentially, if Hillary Clinton really saw the need to manipulate congressional democrats against Obama, then she was either incredibly oblivious to the zeitgeist or she executed an INCREDIBLE smear campaign against a politician who was set to retire in two years. In short: for no good reason. It just seems incredibly unlikely.
I have two other issues with this piece: the first is that it comes from the NY Post. That should be enough. The second is the author, Edward Klein. His short Wikipedia page should tell you enough about him. He loves unsourced quotes and anonymous sources. They're the bread and butter of his craft. He's a terrible, thoroughly discredited journalist who in all likelihood should not be taken seriously. I'm not even saying that because he leans conservative. I don't even particularly like Hillary. I say that because this type of garbage journalism is abhorrent and is poisoning the well of discourse. And if this report turns out to contain the same level of falsehood as some of his other works, then Columbia ought to just go ahead and rescind his journalism degree. It may very well be that an Obama staffer deliberately sabotaged the campaign of the likely democratic nominee for some previous slight. That kind of storyline would work amazingly well in the narrative framework set up set up by his most recently-published book. But knowing the history of the author, it's beginning to seem more far-fetched.
I'm going to bookmark this post, and if later details confirm what this story is saying, I will absolutely come back here and say that I was wrong.