If there’s anyone in Washington today who seems to consider herself immune to, exempt from, and somehow above and beyond the laws that the rest of us mere mortals are bound to abide and obey, it’s Hillary Rodham Clinton.
On Sunday, Clinton appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where host Chuck Todd asked her about the FBI’s investigation of her possible violations of the Espionage Act by mishandling secret, classified and/or highly sensitive national security secrets on her own private, provisional email server.
In response, Clinton gave one of the lawyerly replies that’s caused Americans to distrust her to the point where the number-one single word that Americans associate with Hillary Clinton is “liar.”
“I have now put out all of my emails,” Clinton said. “Go and ask others for their emails. Ask everybody else who’s in public office. I’m the one who’s done it, and I did it because I thought it was the right thing to do.”
Yeah—either that, or the threat of going to jail.
That very same day, almost as if it had been waiting in the wings with its scripted analysis at the ready, the self-described “fact checker” Politifact.com released its assessment of Hillary’s “Meet the Press” evasions.
Get this: Because Hillary Clinton had released some of her emails to the FBI—after destroying more than 31,000 of them, and after a delay of more than three months—Politifact rated her claim that “I have now put out all my emails” to be “Half True.”
In other words, you can bet your next paycheck that if Politifact rates it as “half true,” then it’s just another in a long line of steaming, stinking piles of Clinton baloney.
And since that’s what everyone has come to expect from the Clintons and their cheerleaders in the national media, the questions we all must confront today are these:
Can President Barack Obama’s Justice Department be trusted to earnestly investigate, let alone indict and prosecute, his own party’s front-runner for the White House on the eve of the presidential election?Do you trust Obama’s Justice Department to enforce the law against his party’s front-runner for the White House?
And if the Justice Department doesn’t indict Clinton—effectively telling the American people, “Don’t worry, we checked everything out, not a smidgen of anything to see here, so just move along”—can we truly have faith that an impartial jury would have found the same thing?
Remember, this is the same Justice Department that effectively thumbed its nose at congressional investigators probing the Obama administration’s disastrous and deadly “Fast and Furious” fiasco, in which its agents willingly assisted in smuggling guns to the Mexican drug cartels. All this apparently done for no other reason than to legitimize the claim—made by everyone from President Obama to Hillary Clinton—that 90 percent of the firearms used in crimes in Mexico originally came from the United States.
And regardless of whether it’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch or anyone else who sits at the helm, this is still the same Obama Justice Department whose former boss, Eric Holder, holds the dubious distinction of being the first attorney general of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress.
And the fact is, Justice Department attorneys would have countless reasons—both admitted and not so much—why they might not find it prudent to indict the person who might, in less than a year, hold their professional and political futures in her hands.
Writing in USA Today this week, Ronald J. Sievert, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Department of Justice and professor of national security and international law, noted that:
“[The] Justice [Department] has not always had a reputation for being strong and aggressive, especially in the face of an intimidating defense. What a DA will indict in a week, and a U.S. attorney in a month, will take Justice more than a year if they ever pull the trigger at all. They tend to be hamstrung by endless memos, briefs, meetings and approvals from multiple levels and divisions... [A]t this very moment, many good lawyers at DOJ may be using all sorts of sophistry and rationalization to try to avoid applying the plain language of the law to Hilary Clinton. A jury, which should make the final decision, may never get the chance.”
All these issues raise important questions that Americans should consider carefully.
First and foremost, did America’s enemies get access to our nation’s most sensitive and fragile national security secrets? And if so, wouldn’t it be better to face that fact and try to stanch the arterial bleeding than to simply rinse away the blood in the hope that nobody will notice?“What a DA will indict in a week, and a U.S. attorney in a month, will take Justice more than a year if they ever pull the trigger at all.” — Ronald J. Sievert, a 25-year veteran of the U.S. Department of Justice
The only answer we know for sure, is that we’ll never know the answer for sure. And that should send a chill down the spine of everyone who cares about the rule of law and who cares about the security of our nation.
After all, the joke around Washington is that if the FBI really wants to know what was on Hillary’s server, they should just ask for a backup copy from the Chinese, Iranian or North Korean intelligence services—or for that matter, WikiLeaks.
The strategic questions facing Democratic Party leaders are just as thorny.
Do the Democratic Party elders really think it’s wise to nominate as their candidate the one and only person who can unite all Republicans, all gun owners, all union members, most Millennials—and a major bloc, if not a majority of, undecided—to vote not for someone, but rather against everything that Hillary represents?
Think about it.
Has any American politician in living memory been more universally reviled as an arrogant, imperious, self-entitled, money-grubbing, patronizing, pathological liar than this leftist, liberal, hippy hick from Arkansas and her sleazy Bad Grandpa husband with his Mustang, his saxophone, his cigar and his leering, lingering creepy grin?
Have the American people so abandoned the notion of the rule of law that they’re willing to vote for someone whose number-one identification in the minds of voters is “liar”—simply because she’s a woman?
Do the American people want to risk electing someone who—for all we know—might be facing felony national security indictments by the time Inauguration Day arrives?
And let’s not mince words here: Does anybody in America really believe that Hillary Clinton will face any consequences whatsoever—whether or not what she did was criminal, traitorous or anything else—let alone indictments, prosecution or punishment?
And isn’t that the core of the cancer that eats at the heart of the rule of law in America today?