What happens if Hillary Clinton isn’t indicted? Before answering that question, we have to be certain there is sufficient evidence for indictment, and not merely small, technical, inadvertent violations, the real thing: actual criminal conduct, and not just a little. Does that exist?
If media accounts can be credited, there are hundreds, if not thousands of classified, top secret and above documents that crossed Clinton’s unsecured, personal server. In this case, there is reason to believe media accounts, particularly any non-Fox News accounts, because the legacy media have been determined to minimize Clinton’s involvement and criminal conduct, and even so, the scope of her grossly negligent, arguably criminal, handling of national security materials is broad, deep and disastrous to America.
Let us assume, for the sake of this article, that ample evidence exists. Consider this from Roger Simon at PJ Media:
Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified ‘several dozen’ additional classified emails — including specific intelligence known as ‘special access programs’ (SAP).
Note there were several dozen of these SAP emails, not just the two we previously heard about that didn’t even reach this classification. Those included satellite photos of North Korea. What do you suppose this is? Gross negligence is the important criminal standard here and it sounds as if it’s been passed by the proverbial country mile.
In fact, we now know that the exposure was far greater than “several dozen.” Those several dozen e-mails are apparently only the trunks of trees with many branches involving many SAPs, all of which crossed Clinton’s server, and were in the hands of a great many people not lawfully able to view them. Even members of congressional intelligence oversight committees lacked sufficient clearance to view these materials and had to sign additional non-disclosure agreements.
Nevertheless, it’s undoubtedly more than mere negligence, gross or otherwise. Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne’s report continues:
‘There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material,’ a former senior law enforcement with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures told Fox News. ‘It is the most sensitive of the sensitive.
Even if Clinton and her cronies somehow were so dense as to fail to recognize such material, that doesn’t matter. “I didn’t know,” “it wasn’t marked ‘top secret,’” or “it’s someone else’s fault” isn’t a defense to the laws involved. What does Simon think the consequences of no indictment might be?
So we are left with the equation of what happens if Hillary isn’t indicted?
The most obvious part is that the rule of law will have, for all intents and purposes, ended in the United States. Equal justice flew out the window. How does the public react to that? A good portion of it will roll over, but a certain percentage will not. Their reactions will be contingent on a number of things — whether Clinton is elected anyway (unlikely at this point, but possible), the steadfastness of opposition politicians and media, etc.
But in the final analysis, a democracy cannot exist without the consent of the governed. For that percentage in opposition, consent will have broken down pretty much completely. Then what? Civil war? That’s perhaps a bit excessive, but civil wars can be of various types and evolve in different ways. All kinds of things could break down, which could result in anything from general disobedience to the law to mass tax refusal. Millions would no longer respect the system.
Loretta Lynch, Obama, et al, are actually facing a giant tinderbox, whether they know it or not.
First, let’s understand that the FBI doesn’t assign 150 agents to investigate a single person committing a single crime or series of crimes. The sheer number of investigators involved–if this number is right–indicates a much broader criminal conspiracy with multiple suspects and scores of witnesses. The sheer number of former–and potentially current–State Department employees that would have to be criminally liable in this case is, for the moment, unknowable, but it would be substantial. At the very least, all of Clinton’s closest advisors like Huma Abedin–she of the deep Muslim Brotherhood connections–and Cheryl Mills, would surely have unlawfully handled innumerable documents. God only knows how many went home on unsecured laptops, smartphones, iPads, etc., or lay unsecured on desktops, in drawers, in cars; you name it.
If they are doing a competent investigation, the FBI will be working backward, discovering exactly when restricted materials began cycling through Clinton’s home server, exactly who was involved in setting it up and maintaining it, who had access, and why, and they will run down each and every e-mail and who had access to it and why. It’s the only way to try to discover which hostile foreign intelligence services had access to it and when, to say nothing about mere hackers. It’s also the only way to identify each and every crime and criminal.
Notice too that the State Department is slow rolling release of e-mails–a great many that have been released have been so heavily redacted as to consist of more black ink than readable type–even while under court order. This may be primarily incompetence, but I’d suspect they’re doing all they can to hide documents and minimize damage up the chain of command–protect the highest ranking Obamites–and to try to protect current employees who have criminal involvement.
And remember, gentle readers, above all, it’s not the crime that trips up people like Clinton and their lackeys, it’s always the cover up. The number of people chargeable for lying to FBI agents alone–yes, that’s a federal felony–must already be considerable.
So. Assume there is more than enough evidence to charge Hillary Clinton and a great many of her lackeys. This is a case that has the potential to blow any legacy Barack Obama might possibly have so far out of the water even his serial lies can’t rescue it. Even the Media might not be able to save him, though they would surely pull out all the stops.
What are the chances Loretta Lynch, an Obama appointee, would do anything to harm The One? Nil. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Zero. Dick. Squat. Forget all of that stuff about nailing the Democrat front-runner. Barack Obama couldn’t care less about the Democrat Party or Hillary Clinton. He’d throw her under the bus in a second just like he has done with so many others.
But what about FBI Director Comey? Couldn’t he raise a fuss? Let us assume he is truly the honorable man he is billed to be, and that he would be willing to put his position and future on the line for principle: upholding the rule of law. He could try. He could go to the press, he could lobby the Congress, but ultimately, all he could do is resign in protest, and if he did that, Mr. Obama would simply appoint a toady that would be certain to give him no trouble. There would be no lack of high-ranking FBI assistant directors longing for the Director’s chair.
What about the Congress? At least some Republicans would complain and give bold speeches about the rule of law and equal justice, and then, they would do nothing, just as they have done nothing when Mr. Obama has repeatedly violated the law and the Constitution. Barack Obama will finish his term unmolested by the Congress.
Ah, but what about the people? Are the Obamites actually facing a giant tinderbox? No. At best they face a sputtering match.
Bill and Hillary Clinton began a long process that has been accelerated and worsened by Barack Obama: criminal, gangster government. Americans are no longer outraged when high officials, and particularly the president, not only bring shame on their offices, but when they blatantly violate the law, even imperil Americans and America. At each new outrage, in-your-face trespasses that would have seen the immediate impeachment and conviction of past presidents, Americans now merely shrug their shoulders, shake their heads, and mutter “bastards; what else is new?”
Oh, Conservatives will be outraged. Conservative pundits will inveigh against the injustice of it all. Fox News will keep the very legitimate story alive for a decent interval, just as the legacy media will do its best to ignore it, and then the next outrages will come to light, the public’s “pissed off” meter will peg, and then zero out again until the next outrage, and so on and so forth.
But if Lynch refused to prosecute, wouldn’t she have to explain herself? No. Prosecutors decline cases every day of the week. They have no obligation to say anything. Lynch might spout some self-serving tripe, but that’s about it.
Just for the fun of it, let’s say Lynch did take the case. She could easily stretch it out well beyond the election. If Clinton won, that would be the end of that. If she lost, Lynch would leave the mess for whoever has the bad luck to inherit a DOJ full of radical leftists determined to undermine any Republic president and the rule of law. Or she could deal Clinton the most inconsequential misdemeanor possible, garnering only a token fine. As for any co-conspirators? Don’t make me laugh. Remember at whom they might point fingers.
And the best part of it all? Do not, for a second, imagine that Barack Obama will leave office without pardoning anyone that might do him the slightest harm should a Republic successor have the courage and conviction to actually charge the DOJ with investigating and prosecuting all the wrongdoing of the Obama Administration. It doesn’t matter what a Republican candidate says, that is not going to happen.
Barack Obama has already established that he can get away with pretty much anything he pleases. We’re just waiting to see how bad it’s going to get, and how much more damage will be done, in this long, final year.