Is the FBI Closing in on Hillary?
In an administration known for its disdain for accountability and appalling disregard for justice, FBI Director James Comey sets himself apart as a straight shooter and strong adherent of the equal application of the law. To those who know and/or have worked with him, Comey’s character is unimpeachable, his integrity unique, and his pursuit of justice determined, focused, and incorruptible in a capital where such traits are routinely eschewed.
According to Dr. Monica Crowley, quoted below, Comey is closely overseeing his crack cyber-forensic team, which has masterfully managed to do what many claimed couldn’t be done: they accessed the files on Hillary Clinton’s “wiped” email server. If they find ample evidence to indict her, as Crowley intimates below, and the Justice Department decides not to pursue charges, many political pundits foresee Comey resigning, or looking the other way when whatever illegal activity they found starts to leak.
Most observers agree that going after General David Petraeus, a true national treasure, for having some “Confidential” -- not “Top Secret” -- documents stored in a desk drawer, but not pressing charges on Clinton if she sent and received “Top Secret” documents would be seen as, at best, a blatant double standard, and at worst the same kind of collusive corruption we’ve seen for far too long in Washington.
But has the FBI found criminal offenses in their quest for justice? Apparently so. During an appearance on the "O’Reilly Factor", Dr. Monica Crowley was granted an extremely rare waiver: she was allowed to cite “anonymous sources” on the progress of the investigation. She had managed to find two unnamed investigation insiders, who gave her solid information that should result in an indictment of Mrs. Clinton for violations stemming from the use of her private email server.
According to Crowley:
“As of now, at least 671 emails that Mrs. Clinton sent or received through her private server contained classified material. Of those, at least four emails are extremely problematic in this investigation. Of those, two reached the highest classified designation which is Top Secret. One of those, which has been publicly disclosed, contained satellite data about North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. I am told that that particular document is an open and shut violation. I am also told that FBI Director James Comey is personally overseeing and directing this investigation, and as of now they do have enough to build a case against her if they so choose on two grounds: One, gross negligence of the mishandling of classified data, and two, obstruction [of justice] -- multiple counts.”
“…you are talking about classified material that may or may not have been stamped classified at the time, but that material, in intelligence circles, is known as ‘born classified’ at the time [it was sent or received], meaning that the information contained therein was so sensitive that it was assumed to be classified, and as secretary of state, she must have known that.”
It should be remembered that on March 10, 2015, when Hillary Clinton gave her first explanation about her server during a presser at the U.N., she clearly stated, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material, so, I am certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send any classified material.”
Later realizing her error, as is the custom with Mrs. Clinton, she’s now amending her words to claim that she did not send any email that was “marked classified.” But, that’s not the case either.
On Friday, the State Department released a security agreement Clinton signed on January 23, 2009. The agreement states:
“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.”
Clinton never told or asked the State Department about whether or not she could use her own, home-based email server, especially one not set up by the State Department. By storing those emails at home, she violated the “unauthorized retention” clause. General David Petraeus pled guilty to having “confidential” material (which comprised his own personal documents) in a desk drawer in his home. If having those files at home were an indictable offense, Clinton’s emails kept at her home is also an indictable offense. Then, there’s negligent handling.
“The private email server running in Hillary Rodham Clinton's home basement when she was secretary of state was connected to the Internet in ways that made it more vulnerable to hackers while using software that could have been exploited, according to data and documents reviewed by The Associated Press.”
The story continues:
“Experts said the Microsoft remote desktop service wasn't intended for such use without additional protective measures, and was the subject of U.S. government and industry warnings at the time over attacks from even low-skilled intruders.” Thus the less-than-secure server constitutes “negligent handling.”
It seems pretty clear that violations far beyond those committed by David Petraeus have been perpetrated in this case. But is Clinton “too big to jail,” as one attorney claims? Perhaps -- but if the FBI’s cyber-forensics team has found “multiple counts” of violations -- indictable violations -- one can be certain that FBI Director Comey will recommend that the Justice Department file charges. If an action is not pursued, it will be even worse for Clinton than if she had been indicted. Attempts to cover up are always worse than a crime(s) itself.
Whether or not she’s charged, if that FBI report finds evidence of multiple counts of violations, as well as numerous federal statutes enumerated by ex-NYC Mayor Rudi Giuliani, who counts as many as 15 violations, Hillary Clinton may well fall off the merry-go-round just before she is about to grab the brass ring for which she’s been long reaching.