The left is amazingly skilled at twisted narratives. They understand the power of words. They’re not “illegals,” they’re “undocumented workers.” It’s not “constitutional infringement,” it’s “commonsense gun regulation.”
For Hillary Clinton, it’s not a federal criminal investigation concerning her email scandal; it is, instead, a “security inquiry”- whatever that means.
Truly, if the left spent half as much time fostering economic growth as they do sugar-coating nefarious deeds, we would have our debt paid-off in no time.
Earlier this month, Hillary Clinton attempted to significantly downplay the seriousness of the investigations being conducted into her email scandal. The former Secretary of State is being investigated by federal authorities for maintaining a private mail account hosted on a private, unsecured server over which she transmitted thousands of classified and top-secret documents. When discussing the federal investigations into her conduct, Clinton called the FBI’s investigation a “security inquiry.”
FBI Director James Comey was quick to clarify that he does not even know what a “security inquiry” means. “We’re conducting an investigation… That’s what we do.”
Still, despite the fact that she remains the target of four federal investigations, Clinton has attempted to shrug-off the seriousness of her violations.
On Thursday, just hours after President Obama announced his endorsement of Clinton, the White House broke from Clinton’s strategy of downplaying the scandal and labeled the investigation into her conduct as “criminal.”
On Thursday, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest,
“Previously the President has used one public forum or another to comment on the FBI investigation into Mrs. Clinton and her e-mail conduct. At one point he stated that as far as he could see there was no damage done to national security. You yourself from this podium have suggested that the investigation wasn’t trending toward any focus on Mrs. Clinton herself. I wonder if you could address for us the potential conflict of interest that might exist when the President of the United States, the head of the executive branch, is openly saying ‘I want this woman to succeed me in the Oval Office’ and you have other employees of the executive branch, career prosecutors, FBI agents working this case who have now just heard how the President wants to see this case resolved in essence. Isn’t there some conflict there?”
“James, there’s not. You noted instances where the President was asked about the FBI investigations. And in each of those answers the President made clear that that is being conducted independent of any sort of political interference. That is a principle that the President is resolutely committed. You mentioned my comments, my comments were actually also in response to a question and were a reference to a published reports of comments from FBI officials that — about the direction of the — of the investigation. But, look, the reason that the President feels confident that he can go out and make this endorsement and record a video in which he describes his strong support for Secretary Clinton’s campaign is that he knows the people who are conducting the investigation aren’t going to be swayed by any sort of political interference. They aren’t going to be swayed by political forces. They know that their investigation should be guided by the facts and that they should follow the evidence where it leads. The President has complete confidence that that’s exactly what they’ll do.”
The reporter wasn’t buying it and questioned,
“So when a career prosecutor or an FBI agent working on the Clinton investigation hears this President speak openly about how he wants Hillary Clinton to succeed him, you don’t think that that career prosecutor or that FBI agent takes that as some indication as to how the President wants to see this case resolved?”
Earnest replied, (emphasis added)
“No. I think those career prosecutors understand that they have job to do, and that that job they are supposed to do — which is to follow the facts, to pursue the evidence to a logical conclusion — that’s a job that they are responsible for doing without any sort of political interference. And the president expects them to do that job, this is the reason that we actually ask career federal prosecutors to take the lead on these kinds of matters. They don’t have political jobs. They have career jobs as law enforcement officers and as prosecutors and investigators. That’s what their responsibility is. And that’s why the President when discussing this issue in each stage has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference and that people should be treated the same way before the law regardless of their political influence, regardless of their political party, regardless of their political stature and regardless of what political figure has endorsed them.”
The White House has continually asserted that Obama does not get involved in investigations. Of course, that’s entirely untrue. He has frequently weighed-in on state cases (like the Trayvon Martin case) and even used his executive privilege to shield disgraced former Attorney General Eric Holder from prosecution.
Clinton has worked to downplay the seriousness of the investigations since the earliest days of questions concerning allegations that she maintained the email account in order to obscure shady dealings with foreign nationals to sell them influence in exchange for contributions that would help finance her inevitable bid for the presidency.
However, Clinton has augmented her denial efforts in recent weeks after the release of a damning Inspector General (IG) report that maintains that Clinton did, in fact, break federal law in refusing to “comply with the Department’s policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.“
In essence, the report clarifies that whatever the DOJ decides to do, the evidence shows unambiguously that Clinton had pledged to conduct State Department business in accordance with the department’s policies for protecting sensitive materials and that she failed to do so thousands of times.
In this matter, intent is irrelevant. Even if we accept that it was a supposed mistake, the end result is the same: she violated the law and has continually insisted that she did not, in fact, violate the law. Her actions were not merely violations of the Federal Records Act, but also of the Espionage Act’s 18 USC 793, known by many as the “gross negligence” statute.
Though she continues to pretend that there is not substantive criminal investigation, the fact remains that Clinton is the target of very-serious federal investigations.
Whether she will face justice for her criminal acts is another matter yet to be seen.