Hillary’s E-Mail Scandal is Different

Member Group : Jerry Shenk

For nearly twenty-five years Bill and Hillary Clinton’s numerous scandals have headlined or provided a persistent backdrop to American politics. But, Hillary Clinton’s email scandal is different.

In a February 2 letter to a U.S. District Court Judge, the FBI officially confirmed that it has been investigating Clinton’s use of a private server in her New York home to conduct official government business.

Shady land deals, Rose law firm records, cattle futures, allegations of sexual abuse, infidelities, Oval Office assignations and even Bill’s proven acts of perjury and subornation of perjury pale in comparison to Hillary’s alleged criminal violations of national security laws. ("Alleged" is included only to satisfy America’s legal standard of "innocent until proven guilty.")

But Hillary is guilty: The security classifications of her emails aside, the proof is in the unequivocal evidence of an illegal, unsecured, private server on which she conducted all of her official business while Secretary of State.

Highly-classified information from secure government systems appeared on Clinton’s unsecured, vulnerable system. So far, more than 1,600 known examples of classified information have been documented on Clinton’s home-brewed server. And recent document releases reveal that her server traffic containing national-defense secrets included at least twelve and as many as 30 other private e-mail correspondents, some lacking adequate security clearance. Legally, no one is permitted security access in a non-secure environment. Certainly, foreign interests, including unfriendly interests, hacked Clinton’s non-secure server to acquire some of America’s most sensitive information.

Clearly, Clinton’s email arrangement was a premeditated, intentional violation of law.

Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the retired chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency told CNN, "If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail," while decrying a "lack of accountability…in a person who should have been…more responsible in her actions as…Secretary of State…" Flynn urged: "…Hillary Clinton…should step down and let this FBI investigation play out."

Democrats defended the indefensible throughout Bill Clinton’s two terms, apparently unembarrassed by the lies the Clintons’ behavior put to Democratic pretensions about women’s rights, sexual harassment, honest government and money in politics. They’re circling the wagons around Hillary, too.

However, some centrist Democrats who are not among the hard-left, power-driven ideologues protecting her realize the danger Hillary’s candidacy poses. If Clinton is nominated and is then indicted, the party’s chances of keeping the White House will vanish.

Democrats hope that the FBI won’t recommend criminal charges. They hope that, if charges are recommended, a politically-weaponized Justice Department won’t prosecute, or that the president will pardon Clinton without excessive political damage, following which a gullible public will accept that an investigation conducted by Obama appointees and career FBI agents is just another politically-inspired Vast-Right-Wing-Conspiracy©. They hope that a compromised President Clinton wouldn’t be vulnerable to foreign-policy blackmail.

Some Democrats believe Hillary’s withdrawal would be best for their party and America. But they know, if she’s confronted and still wins, Hillary is a vengeful woman. So they remain silent, cautiously, if dubiously, hopeful.

But, hope doesn’t alter hard evidence.