Hillary Is Guilty but Unlikely to Face Obama DOJ Prosecution

Online media is chattering about the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server and her handling of classified information, saying it's almost finished. Often, the media repeats the statement that there is no evidence that she wilfully violated the law, in what feels like an effort to prepare us for the whitewashing of Hillary. The statement seems to have originated with CNN, the network that acts as if it were a Hillary Super PAC, so we could dismiss it as electioneering by CNN for its Anointed One. ~~~~~ Much more worrisome are comments by President Obama minimizing his former Secretary of State's diversion of emails from government-secured servers to her private non-secure home server by saying it was “careless." Obama is a lawyer, and even mediocre lawyers know that carelessness is a type of negligence. Further, as President, Obama knows, or is bound by his office to know, that 'espionage' -- the failure to protect state secrets by removing them from their proper place of custody -- is a rare federal crime -- it can be proved by gross negligence, the failure to perform a high legal duty when that failure carries with it the great probability of an improper result. An example would be leaving a backyard swimming pool uncovered and unfenced while knowing that young children often play in that backyard. The high legal duty of the swimming pool owner is to protect the young children because the failure of doing so would likely be the death-by-drowning of a child. Clinton had the high legal duty to protect state secrets and the failure of doing so would likely be the exposure of state secrets contained in her emails. ~~~~ What did she do that was grossly negligent -- i.e., criminal under the statute? Clinton knowingly diverted all her government emails from secure government servers to her own private non-secure server at her New York residence. In the 60,000 emails she diverted were 2,200 containing state secrets. Because the essence of espionage is the removal of secrets to non-secure venues, the crime is complete upon removal. This means the case against Hillary is made simply by proving diversion of all her official emails, including some containing state secrets, to a non-secure server. ~~~~~ Obama’s statement that Clinton caused no harm is irrelevant -- the government doesn't need to prove the defendant caused harm. So, Obama’s effort on Fox News to criticize the law's classifying of secrets into “confidential,” “secret” and “top secret," -- saying “there’s classified and then there’s classified” -- is wrong and Obama knows it. He earlier obeyed his duty to enforce federal laws by telling his Department of Justice to prosecute under the same espionage law a sailor who took a selfie inside a nuclear submarine and sent it to his girlfriend and a Marine lieutenant who correctly warned his superiors about an al-Qaida operative masquerading as an Afghan cop in a US encampment but mistakenly used his Gmail account to send the emergency warning. The evidence of Clinton’s failure to protect state secrets is far more overwhelming than these two cases because it went on for four years, and secrets too serious for the FBI to review came from her own unsecure server. ~~~~~ Dear readers, there is no instance of unprosecuted behavior involving such a huge volume and regularity of failure to protect state secrets. The FBI is now conducting interviews with Clinton’s aides, including longtime confidante Huma Abedin. Clinton is expected to be interviewed by the FBI in coming weeks, if she agrees. She could instead reach a settlement that would let her plead guilty to one misdemeanor count and pay a fine. General Petraeus did that, using the same lawyer Hillary has -- but Pertaeus was put on probation. Has anyone ever run for President while on federal probation? I think not. But, short of a plea bargain, nobody will predict that President Obama will allow the Justice Department to prosecute Hillary. The highly politicized Obama DOJ will once more refuse to serve justice. But voters will have the last word.