32a05a79c2f111a0ff0394fdd570ad71Continuing my series on the current presidential candidates, I provide a bit of insight into Hillary Clinton.  I’ll not bother with her positions; they change with the rapidity of underwear.  I’ll focus, rather, on an unlikely source:

The Huffington Post, not normally a vehicle for criticism of Hillary Clinton, indeed, not normally a vehicle for observing that anything in Progressive World is less than paradisiacal, recently published rather a remarkable article. A sampling: 

The FBI’s upcoming interview of Hillary Clinton will be a turning point in the race for Democratic nominee, especially since Clinton won’t be able to speak to James Comey and his FBI agents in the same manner her campaign has communicated with the public. Unlike loyal Hillary supporters who view the marathon Benghazi hearings to be a badge of courage and countless prior scandals to be examples of exoneration, the FBI didn’t spend one year (investigating this email controversy) to give Clinton or her top aides parking tickets. They mean business, and lying to an FBI agent is a felony, so Hillary Clinton and her aides will be forced to tell the truth. The doublespeak involving convenience and retroactive classification won’t matter to seasoned FBI agents whose reputations are on the line; the entire country feels there’s a double-standard regarding this email controversy.

Hillary and her aides will be “forced to tell the truth?” Really? “I don’t recall.” “I have no recollection of that.” “I don’t remember.” “I can’t recall if I read, said, saw, discussed, did, touched, glanced at, thought or mentioned that.”   The idea that this is serious, and Hillary and her minions will tell the truth just because they’re being interviewed by the FBI—“On the advice of my counsel, I invoke the 5th”—is laughable. It assumes the Department of Justice is willing, in the case of the 2016 Democrat front-runner—Hillary Clinton! Democrat royalty! She who must be crowned and obeyed!–to enforce the law, any law. If Loretta Lynch is not willing to prosecute her for tens, if not hundreds, of violations of our laws relating to national security information, she’s surely not going to bother with a “lying to a federal agent” charge.

All Hillary and her minions have to do is what they have always done: stonewall, dissemble and obfuscate, and run out the clock. The only way this might change is if one of Hillary’s top minions like Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin, became convinced Hillary was throwing them under the bus. In that case, the truth—or at least a part of it—might come out. They are, however, far more likely to stonewall with the winking assurance all of this investigation business is merely a formality, theater for the rubes in flyover country.


The entire article doesn’t miss the point quite so obviously. It correctly observes, for example, that claiming negligence, or simply making mistakes, is no defense. Under federal law, the mere fact that national defense materials aren’t properly handled is sufficient for felony charges. Intentions or booboos aren’t a defense. “It wasn’t classified when I handled it,” is no better.

1. What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?

There was a political motive in circumventing U.S. government servers and networks. Clinton didn’t go to the trouble of owning a private server (something her predecessors never did) for work and private use, without thinking of the political ramifications.

An editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel titled Clinton’s abysmal record on open government explains the possible political motive regarding Clinton’s unconventional email practices:

‘The issue immediately at hand — and under investigation by the FBI — is Clinton’s use of a private email server for State Department communications. Clinton may have violated national security laws by making top secret documents vulnerable to hackers and available to people without proper security clearance…[skip]

And donations to the foundation from foreign governments have raised conflict of interest questions for Clinton as secretary of state, an office with power over foreign affairs and favors second only to the president’s.’

As stated in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws.’

We can’t even see Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches, do you think Clinton wanted the public to know information about her foundation?

Why did she set up her own private server? So that she could violate the law with impunity, and leave no evidence of her lawlessness. It’s that simple. Did her minions know what she was doing and why? Of course they did, unless they’re complete idiots, which, even with the Obama Administration’s unbelievably low ethical and intellectual standards, is unlikely.

2. Were all 31,830 deleted private emails about yoga?

According to ABC News, Clinton’s staff had an amusing way of deciphering how to delete over 30,000 emails:

A Time magazine cover story about the email scandal released last week reported: ‘This review did not involve opening and reading each email. Instead, Clinton’s lawyers created a list of names and keywords related to her work and searched for those. Slightly more than half the total cache — 31,830 emails — did not contain any of the search terms, according to Clinton’s staff, so they were deemed to be ‘private, personal records.

There is also evidence Clinton’s most senior aides were tasked with destroying this particular evidence. In this context, “private” is best defined as “particularly incriminating.”


4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?

An article in Madison.com titled Emails: Clinton sought secure smartphone, rebuffed by NSA explains the issue of Clinton’s Blackberry:

‘WASHINGTON (AP) — Newly released emails show a 2009 request to issue a secure government smartphone to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was denied by the National Security Agency.’

A month later, she began using private email accounts accessed through her BlackBerry to exchange messages with her top aides.

‘We began examining options for (Secretary Clinton) with respect to secure ‘BlackBerry-like’ communications,’ wrote Donald R. Reid, the department’s assistant director for security infrastructure. 
’The current state of the art is not too user friendly, has no infrastructure at State, and is very expensive.’

Standard smartphones are not allowed into areas designated as approved for the handling of classified information…’

Clinton used a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA. Along with the issue of political motive, and why she deleted tens of thousands of emails, the unsecure Blackberry use could easily lead to indictment.

There is no lack of damning, egregious violations of national security and the law in this investigation. This wasn’t a matter of convenience. Again, it was a matter of conspiracy to violate innumerable laws, and to deny investigators evidence of those crimes.

5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano?

Mr. Pagliano recently received immunity. He’s told the FBI, most likely, about his conversations with Hillary Clinton. Any discrepancy in stories could lead to a felony charge for Hillary Clinton or Pagliano’s immunity to be revoked. Both have every incentive to tell the truth.

Oh, such credulousness! Pagliano has “every incentive” to tell the truth. Hillary Clinton doesn’t tell the truth even when it would serve her better than lies. She is not suddenly going to decide honesty is the best policy when everything she has said about this situation to date, including “a’ and “the,” has been a lie.

6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a private server?

This is a simple question with no logical answer circumventing political repercussions. If Clinton and her staff are able to evade this issue, future government officials will also be able to have Top Secret intelligence on unguarded private servers.

We must remember, gentle readers, this is the Huffington Post. There is a political component involved, but this is primarily a national security, criminal matter. Unless the laws are changed, future politicians won’t be able to violate national security regulations because Barack Obama took an eight-year vacation from the rule of law. That one traitor and criminal got away with a crime does not invalidate all future prosecutions by an ethical Department of Justice for the same crimes.

7. Was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents?

The answer to this question could lead to hundreds of other questions.

Of course there is such information “mingled!” Most importantly, it will lead to hundreds of felonies and millennia in jail. There have already been reports of “coincidental” communications with various domestic and foreign entities and players immediately followed by substantial donations to the Clinton Foundation.

10. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?

Foreign nations and hackers already tried to compromise Clinton’s server.

These questions could easily give Bernie Sanders the nomination. I explain that Clinton faces possible DOJ indictment in the following appearance on CNN International. Although Bernie can win without Clinton’s indictment, the email controversy will most likely become a giant story very soon. With issues revolving around trustworthiness before the FBI interviews, Clinton won’t be able to prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination in 2016.

They “tried?!” “Guccifer,” a Romanian hacker with no particularly technical knowledge, completely compromised Clinton’s server. 

There can be no doubt, none, that the foreign intelligence services of our enemies—and no doubt, our friends—have every byte that was ever stored or passed through Clinton’s server.


This should absolutely disqualify Clinton from any public office–or from freedom outside the walls of a federal prison. Any ethical, honest candidate would withdraw from the race. Of course, any ethical, honest candidate would never have done what Clinton did in the first place. As for this giving the nomination to Sanders, that’s unlikely. Democrats expect their politicians to be crooks and traitors, and the media dutifully covers for them.

So, McDaniel, what if you’re wrong? What if the DOJ actually does its job and prosecutes Hillary and everyone else that mishandled national security information? Won’t you be embarrassed then? No. To whatever degree my exposing the potential for the kind of lawlessness for which the Obama Administration has become infamous helps to encourage the DOJ to actually do its job and participate in the rule of law, I’ll be gratified. Any embarrassment should be on the part of employees of the DOJ who have become justly known as weaponized political thugs for the Democrat party rather than an integral part of our system of justice. If, by some miracle, DOJ corruptocrats do their jobs, consider the horror of Americans being so amazed they would even think of lauding them for doing the minimum they are paid to do: enforce the law.

Remember that even if Hillary and her minions are indicted, that’s no guarantee the DOJ will actively and competently prosecute any case. Remember the Black Panther case, where the DOJ had already won, yet threw in the towel, the better to uphold racial solidarity with the downtrodden thugs that grotesquely and unquestionably violated federal election law.

Remember too that Barack Obama will, on his way out of the White House, issue a blizzard of pardons that will make Bill Clinton’s pardons of Marc Rich and other miscreants appear a mere afterthought. It is entirely plausible that DOJ will make noises about upholding the rule of law knowing Obama will pardon Clinton before he leaves office.

The most horrific horror story in this ugly situation will occur if Hillary is not prosecuted, and is elected to the presidency. She will be the subject of innumerable blackmail plots by not only hostile foreign governments, but criminal cartels.


Is there any sentient being that believes Hillary would not sell out the nation to protect herself?

Oh yes, we must elect Hillary Clinton. What difference, at this point, does it make?