Hillary Clinton should stop fearing Bernie Sander’s rise to serious contender. More than at any time in the personal email server and top secret leaks, she should be thinking about the scenario that looks imminent as of Friday; indictment. Odds are very high this will happen. Why? It is the fidelity to the rule of law by the FBI.
Clinton is charged with receipt of a Special Access Program email, as well as cut and pasted summaries of state secrets on her server and on her BlackBerry. This alone virtually guarantees the FBI will recommend that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury and seek her indictment for espionage. The question then will be, will US Attorney General (nominated by Barack Obama) Loretta Lynch attempt a cover-up to spare Hillary?
Every week, there is more and alarming information revealed about Clinton’s grave legal woes. Hillary’s first big problem is her well-documented failure to safeguard state secrets and the other is her probable use of her position as secretary of state to advance financially her husband’s charitable foundation. That in itself more than qualifies the FBI to do what is doing; investigate aggressively and thoroughly.
Additionally, the FBI acquired discovered on Clinton’s server by the Freedom of Information Act that there is top-secret email that has been denominated Special Access Program. For those not in the know, top secret is the highest category of state secrets. Other classifications are confidential and secret. The sub-parts of top secret, SAP is the most sensitive.
SAP is so secret that it cannot be received or opened accidentally. The rules are iron-clad. Clinton had previously said all of her governmental emails came to her through her husband’s server, a non-secure nongovernmental venue. She could only have received or viewed it from that server after inputting certain codes. The codes are changed at unpredictable times. That means she would have to inquire of them before being capable of inputting them.
Her excuse for this insight is legendary. Although she showed criminal indifference to her lawful obligation to safely handle all state secrets entrusted to her care, Hillary suggested that she is “hopelessly digitally inept” and may not have known what she was doing. That can only mean she attempted plausible deniability to the charge of failing to safeguard state secrets. Definition means probable federal prison time.
Plausible deniability is not a legal defense. There is no judge in the land, liberal or conservative, that would permit the assertion of it in legal filings or in a courtroom. No lawyer would permit a client to make the assertion for fear of being laughed out of court.
Ms. Clinton should be well aware as a lawyer that failure to safeguard state secrets is a crime for which the government need not prove intent. Plausible deniability is actually an admission of negligence and, hence in this case, an admission of guilt, not a denial.
Furthermore, Hillary Clinton knowingly signed an oath under penalty of perjury on Jan. 22, 2009, her first full day as secretary of state. That specific oath acknowledged that she had received a full FBI briefing on the lawfully required care and keeping of state secrets. In essence, it made her obligated to safeguard state secrets. There is no wiggle-room, it’s absolute. She cannot dodge it legally by declaring forgetfulness or any other form of negligence, and that negligence can and should bring prosecution.
What can data be made the primary target of the investigation? Because it is the most sensitive top secret there is. That would include names of moles (spies working for more than one government) and their American handlers, the existence of black ops (illegal programs that the U.S. government carries out, of which it will deny knowledge if exposed), codes needed to access state secrets and ongoing intelligence gathering projects. It can reach the level of treason. Having SAPs exposed by residing in a non-secure venue constitutes high criminality.
With all the seriousness of the FBI investigation, Ms. Clinton continues to whistle past the graveyard mocking the criminality of the situation. It is equivalent to taunting open field lions with no cover available. In reality, SAPs are so sensitive that most of the FBI agents who are investigating Clinton lack the security clearances needed to view the SAP found among her emails.
It should be obvious to even the most frenzied Hillary fan that she has criminally failed to safeguard state secrets. What should be obvious is if the charges were levied to any John Q. Public, they would have been indicted long ago.
The next big question after the FBI suggests an indictment is whether Obama-nominated Loretta Lynch and her Department of Justice will follow through or attempt a purely political cover-up. Is there a real rule of law in this nation? It’s now in the FBI’s court.