We’ve talked so ad nauseam about Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s scandals, lies and above-the-law attitude that reporting even on fresh ones almost feels like old news. There are just SO MANY that it’s almost become like, “Yeah, another blatant lie from Hillary — so what’s NEW?”I’ve heard from so many of you that you’re sick and tired of hearing about all her lies, indiscretions and downright violations — and yet Mrs. Clinton still seems unscathed when she should have long ago been prosecuted and locked up. And certainly NOT be a leading candidate for President of the United States! I’m with you on this 1,000 percent.
So I think you’ll be glad to hear what the FBI finally just said about the investigation into former Secretary of State Clinton’s unsecured email account. Yep, it’s CRIMINAL.
Via the New York Post:
The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
“It’s definitely a criminal probe,” said the source. “I’m not sure why they’re not calling it a criminal probe.
“The DOJ [Department of Justice] and FBI can conduct civil investigations in very limited circumstances,” but that’s not what this is, the source stressed. “In this case, a security violation would lead to criminal charges. Maybe DOJ is trying to protect her campaign.”Imagine that — someone in the federal government playing partisan politics and protecting their own! Like THAT would ever happen… oh, wait…
Clinton’s camp has downplayed the inquiry as civil and fact-finding in nature. Clinton herself has said she is “confident” that she never knowingly sent or received anything that was classified via her private email account.Of COURSE she has…
But the inspector general for the intelligence community has told Congress that of 40 Clinton emails randomly reviewed as a sample of her correspondence as secretary of state, four contained classified information.
If it is proved that Clinton knowingly sent, received or stored classified information in an unauthorized location, she risks prosecution under the same misdemeanor federal security statute used to prosecute former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, said former federal prosecutor Bradley Simon.
A key word here is “knowingly.” Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly denied sending or receiving any classified information from her personal account, despite the inspector general for the intelligence community’s confirmation that out of a sample of 40 emails, at least four indeed contained classified information from five different U.S. intelligence agencies.
And just last night, Fox News’ Judge Napolitano reported that some of the emails Clinton sent from her personal server —released via the Freedom of Information Act — pertained to topics such as the location of fighter jets during the NATO bombardment of Libya and the location of Ambassador Stevens in Libya.
So let’s assume for a moment that these emails were not MARKED classified. Is someone who’s unable, through her own judgment, to deem these classified, qualified to be President of the United States? Or, for that matter, Secretary of State or any other position of leadership?
The statute — which was also used to prosecute Bill Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, in 2005 — is rarely used and would be subject to the discretion of the attorney general.
Still, “They didn’t hesitate to charge Gen. Petraeus with doing the same thing, downloading documents that are classified,” Simon said. “The threshold under the statute is not high — they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention” of classified material, he said.
Given the low threshold — that they only need to prove there was an unauthorized removal and retention of classified material — things shouldn’t be looking very good for presidential candidate Clinton right about now. And we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg, thanks to the foot-dragging in releasing all of the emails in question.
It will be very telling to see, however, how Mrs. Clinton’s treatment in this investigation compares to that received by Gen. Petraeus — how the same standard is applied to different people. We’re just not used to Queen Hillary being treated like the rest of us. Let’s hope that day comes soon enough to save us all from a Hillary Clinton presidency.