Posted on 03/07/2016 3:32:45 PM PST by Kaslin
Last week’s Washington Post bombshell, the news that the Justice Department has given immunity from prosecution to the former State Department staffer who maintained Hillary Clinton’s “homebrew” email server, is forcing Mrs. Clinton and her apologists to alter their media strategy.
For months it has been obvious that a serious criminal investigation of the former secretary of State’s reckless mishandling of classified information has been underway. Yet Camp Clinton has maintained that the government is merely engaged in a “security inquiry” that is focused on the physical server itself -- not a probe of criminal suspects. This has never made sense. The FBI, which has assigned many agents to the case, is in the criminal investigation business.
Plus, when the now-immunized former staffer, Bryan Pagliano, invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege in refusing to testify before the House Benghazi committee, it signaled that he feared truthful answers would incriminate him.
Now with Pagliano apparently poised to cooperate with the FBI, the claim that Mrs. Clinton is not a criminal suspect is untenable. So Clinton and her supporters are changing tack: instead of implausibly insisting there is no crime to investigate, they argue that there is no crime worth prosecuting.
This narrative was first floated a few months ago. The story goes like this: retired General David Petraeus, the former CIA director, committed a classified information offense that -- according to Clintonistas -- was far more serious than Mrs. Clinton’s conduct, yet Petraeus was permitted to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor count. Ergo, a prosecution of Mrs. Clinton over her comparatively minor misconduct cannot be justified.
When Camp Clinton first began spinning its Petraeus yarn, I explained that it relies on Anne M. Tompkins, the former U.S. attorney for western North Carolina who oversaw the prosecution against the general. Tompkins, who just happens to be a Hillary Clinton donor, exploits the aura of authority from her obvious familiarity with the Petraeus case to suggest that she is a reliable source on Clinton case -- which she dutifully portrays as weak. To note just the most obvious problems with her analysis: even when she worked for the government (which she no longer does), Tompkins never had anything to do with the Clinton investigation; and she can’t possibly know the full extent of the FBI’s evidence because the probe is ongoing and, quite properly, the FBI is not commenting publicly.
Moving right along, though, Ms. Tompkins relates that, despite his serious crimes, General Petraeus was permitted -- by Tompkins, of course -- to plead guilty to a mere misdemeanor. Thus, she reasons, it would be unthinkable to file charges -- particularly, harsher felony charges -- against Clinton, the purportedly lesser offender.
Precious, no?
The Obama-appointed prosecutor who plea-bargained egregious felonies down to a slap on the wrist for the Obama-appointed CIA director would have us view her irresponsible charging decision as the gold standard for evaluating similar cases.
And how’s this for a small world: the defense lawyer who beguiled Tompkins into giving Petraeus a near-total pass just happens to be David Kendall -- Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer.
Was he a jerk or an actual human being?
What happens to someone in a case like that in terms of an enlistment? I guess that is meted out after the proceedings.
I was surprised it wasn’t Private, E-1.
IIRC, Petraeus mishandled classified info by allowing his mistress to view it. She happened to be an army reserves intel officer with a top secret security clearance. She was never charged with receiving or misusing info above her clearance.
Yep, much worse than Hillary setting up a “private server” to circumvent oversight and FOIA laws, dumping 1000’s of messages on an unsecured server, hiring an unapproved company to operate the server containing classified material, culling inconvenient messages that probably tied her to gross corruption and malfeasance, attempting to erase the server after being caught, etc.
Leona Clinton is gettin no-ways tired of yew peasants thinkin The Law applies ta her...
LOL! Donald Trump does whatever he damn well pleases. :)
...didn’t realize that so many people were involved in both cases.
more accurately, so many of the SAME people.
Those that upheld fidelity to the law, aka those that swore and held up their honor to keep Confidential, Secret, Top Secret and SAP under the Classified Umbrella, Secret, have been now relegated to the dust bin of history as chumps for all their hard work. And that is a shame, sin, use any adjective you want to describe how they and possibly their life's work has been cast aside by one Wymen's arrogance, hubris, and frankly disdain for the American ethos and traditions.
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.