Posted on 01/14/2016 4:28:58 AM PST by Kaslin
The federal criminal investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's failure to secure state secrets was ratcheted up earlier this week, and at the same time, the existence of a parallel criminal investigation of another aspect of her behavior was made known. This is the second publicly revealed expansion of the FBI's investigations in two months.
I have argued for two months that Clinton's legal woes are either grave or worse than grave. That argument has been based on the hard, now public evidence of her failure to safeguard national security secrets and the known manner in which the Department of Justice addresses these failures.
The failure to safeguard state secrets is an area of the law in which the federal government has been aggressive to the point of being merciless. State secrets are the product of members of the intelligence community's risking their lives to obtain information.
Before she was entrusted with any state secrets -- indeed, on her first full day as secretary of state -- Clinton received instruction from FBI agents on how to safeguard them; and she signed an oath swearing to comply with the laws commanding the safekeeping of these secrets. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets -- known as espionage -- would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.
In the cases of others, those threats have been carried out. The Obama Department of Justice prosecuted a young sailor for espionage for sending a selfie to his girlfriend, because in the background of the photo was a view of a sonar screen on a submarine. It prosecuted a heroic Marine for espionage for warning his superiors of the presence of an al-Qaida operative in police garb inside an American encampment in Afghanistan, because he used a Gmail account to send the warning.
It also prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for espionage for keeping secret and top-secret documents in an unlocked drawer in his desk inside his guarded home. It alleged that he shared those secrets with a friend who also had a security clearance, but it dropped those charges.
The obligation of those to whom state secrets have been entrusted to safeguard them is a rare area in which federal criminal prosecutions can be based on the defendant's negligence. Stated differently, to prosecute Clinton for espionage, the government need not prove that she intended to expose the secrets.
The evidence of Clinton's negligence is overwhelming. The FBI now has more than 1,300 protected emails that she received on her insecure server and sent to others -- some to their insecure servers. These emails contained confidential, secret or top-secret information, the negligent exposure of which is a criminal act.
One of the top-secret emails she received and forwarded contained a photo taken from an American satellite of the North Korean nuclear facility that detonated a device just last week. Because Clinton failed to safeguard that email, she exposed to hackers and thus to the North Koreans the time, place and manner of American surveillance of them. This type of data is in the highest category of protected secrets.
Last weekend, the State Department released two smoking guns -- each an email from Clinton to a State Department subordinate. One instructed a subordinate who was having difficulty getting a document to Clinton that she had not seen by using a secure State Department fax machine to use an insecure fax machine. The other instructed another subordinate to remove the "confidential" or "secret" designation from a document Clinton had not seen before sending it to her. These two emails show a pattern of behavior utterly heedless of the profound responsibilities of the secretary of state, repugnant to her sworn agreement to safeguard state secrets, and criminal at their essence.
Also this past weekend, my Fox News colleagues Katherine Herridge and Pamela Browne learned from government sources that the FBI is investigating whether Clinton made any decisions as secretary of state to benefit her family foundation or her husband's speaking engagements. If so, this would be profound public corruption.
This investigation was probably provoked by several teams of independent researchers -- some of whom are financial experts and have published their work -- who have been investigating the Clinton Foundation for a few years. They have amassed a treasure-trove of documents demonstrating fraud and irregularities in fundraising and expenditures, and they have shown a pattern of favorable State Department treatment of foreign entities coinciding with donations by those entities to the Clinton Foundation and their engaging former President Bill Clinton to give speeches.
There are now more than 100 FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton. Her denial that she is at the core of their work is political claptrap with no connection to reality. It is inconceivable that the FBI would send such vast resources in the present dangerous era on a wild-goose chase.
It is the consensus of many of us who monitor government behavior that the FBI will recommend indictment. That recommendation will go to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who, given Clinton's former status in the government and current status in the Democratic Party, will no doubt consult the White House.
If a federal grand jury were to indict Clinton for espionage or corruption, that would be fatal to her political career.
If the FBI recommends indictment and the attorney general declines to do so, expect Saturday Night Massacre-like leaks of draft indictments, whistleblower revelations and litigation, and FBI resignations, led by the fiercely independent and intellectually honest FBI Director James Comey himself.
That would be fatal to Clinton's political career, as well.
A drunken lezzie whore ? ... what could go wrong ?
“She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets — known as espionage — would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.”
Hillary gave them her best “vacant stare”, then defiantly, shrieks “I’m a Clinton!”
The media have very little interest in the Clinton scandals/corruption. They had no interest in anything questionable in Obama’s background. But they can sure tell you about a Republican candidate’s spouse who got a speeding ticket 20 years ago. That speeding ticket is very relevant. Benghazi, not so much. Compromising state secrets? Forget about it.
I have confidence that by the end of the FBI investigation they will ultimately find no wrong doing other than perhaps some minor oversights, I can’t help believing we are being set up.
Where Hillary obama and the progressive liberal democrat/rino communist uniparty are concerned cynicism must needs rule the day.
It's’ impossible, after SUCH a casual approach to vetting -and after routinely ignoring compliance protocol and tradition, to NOW say: ‘wait a minute... you have broken the law’.
The Clinton's are poster children for THAT culture in our government.
Yep, as soon as the indictments fly, poor old Hillary will come out of the closet, profess she has an illness (alcoholism) and that she was an emotionally abused wife. “But prosecute me if you must”
Maybe, finally, the witch will receive her more than justified comeuppance. Her criminal past extends back into the 1990s, perhaps earlier.
Killary for prison in 2016. Except, if she is indicted, she won’t be in prison this year. I doubt if her trial will happen this year. There are too many ways of delaying it.
Maybe next year.
Of course, if nobama pardons her, this is all a moot point.
A lot of these articles build up Comey. He may be all that is stated about his independence and honesty, but I wonder if this is a set up for when the FBI finds nothing major and the DOJ just smothers anything that comes out. I also wonder that Comey knows the might that would descend on him and all that he holds dear if he does other than what is expected by the Obama machine. OTOH, if Obama decides that Hillary must go, the FBI investigation is the ready tool.
The media is going to be drug into chaos whether they like it or not. Once the results of the FBI investigation are leaked, it’s Katie bar the door for the Clinton. All the hunkering down in the world won’t save the Hildebeast.
If you doubt that the results will be leaked, consider that info is already dripping out of the FBI including the meeting to proceed with a criminal investigation.
Once the results are known, Trump will broadcast it as he attacks Hillary. I have to expect Sanders ultimately will have to do the same. The media with its fixation on Trump can’t ignore what he says.
Watch the polls after that. If Hillary’s likability is in the tank now, it will be even lower after the country learns of her feathering her nest instead of serving the country.
I’m sorry, but phony, fake, cover-up investigations do NOT!!!! work that way. If you’re going to fake it, you announce an investigation, and then six months or so later, you quietly announce “Nothing to see here.”
You absolutely, positively do NOT slowly ratchet things up over the course of a year, one headline-grabbing leak after another — State Dept servers seized, top-secret email found, a 2nd email, a 3rd email, 150 agents on the case, probe expanding, etc. There is NO remotely good reason to raise expectations on an investigation, just to fake it and announce “Sorry, didn’t find anything.”
If the FBI does not recommend charges, I invite you to ping me with an “I told you so.”
I’m sorry, but phony, fake, cover-up investigations do NOT!!!! work that way. If you’re going to fake it, you announce an investigation, and then six months or so later, you quietly announce “Nothing to see here.”
You absolutely, positively do NOT slowly ratchet things up over the course of a year, one headline-grabbing leak after another — State Dept servers seized, top-secret email found, a 2nd email, a 3rd email, 150 agents on the case, probe expanding, etc. There is NO remotely good reason to raise expectations on an investigation, just to fake it and announce “Sorry, didn’t find anything.”
If the FBI does not recommend charges, I invite you to ping me with an “I told you so.”
I don’t believe fake investigations don’t work that way. See post 11.
“Once the results are known, Trump will broadcast it as he attacks Hillary. I have to expect Sanders ultimately will have to do the same. The media with its fixation on Trump can’t ignore what he says”
Especially if Sanders pulls off a couple early Primary wins, the Media will be all in to go hardy left with Bernie. Soros will make it so if no one else.
Of course, if nobama pardons her, this is all a moot point.
Oblamer will be out of office before the trial so if she must be presumed innocent before trial as required by our justice system, then what will he pardon? No, the hag is a goner because Trump certainly won’t pardon her. I’ve got to believe that there is justice even at the top level. Although justice wasn’t served regarding Jon Corzine.
I also wonder how and why Obama put someone with integrity to head such an important entity.Everyone else that he appoints seem to be corrupt Marxists.Could it be that Obama really wants Clinton to go down and then blame it on Comey to other Dems?”I couldn’t control the guy”.
Ford pardoned Nixon in advance.
That was definitely a curious pick on the kenyan’s part, not at all like the others, as you note.
Just throwing this out there, but maybe HRC is going to be the bag holder for BO. She was his SoS. Her negligence is tarnishing his legacy. She would be just another bump under the Obama bus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.