Drive around long enough in any conservative town in America and eventually, one will see a bumper sticker with an increasingly-popular slogan: Hillary for Prison 2016.
While few expect the insulated bureaucrat to wear prison orange, the fact is that it is becoming increasingly apparent that the question should not be whether Hillary Clinton should be our next president, but whether she should be tried for her crimes like EmailGate.
Clinton, in an effort to obscure her shading dealings, utilized a private unsecured email server to conduct State Department business and in doing so, left national security secrets vulnerable to any quasi-competent hacker who cared to snatch these top-level documents from the air.
Clinton has bounced around with various excuses. She has tried denial, she has blamed others. Mostly, she has feigned indignation amidst mounting damning evidence. She has worked to muddy the waters surrounding her criminal behavior and now, a former CIA official has made it remarkably clear: Hillary Clinton “absolutely” endangered American lives with her criminal actions.
In an interview on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, former CIA officer Charles Faddis articulated candidly the extent of Clinton’s crimes.
Faddis claimed that there was “zero ambiguity- none” regarding the illegality of Clinton housing top-secret and classified documents on an unsecured server.
Guy Benson details the conversation:
Faddis added that the very existence of that information on her server means that highly classified information must have been moved off of a “completely separate channel” under a process that is “specifically forbidden.” If you had done this while working at the CIA, Hemmer asked, what would’ve happened to you?
Faddis’ response: “My career’s over, I lose my clearance, I lose my job, and then I go to prison, probably for a very long time.” Fades explained that the “consequences are enormous” when information at this level of secrecy is made vulnerable to foreign penetration. “The reason this stuff is in this channel is because it’s going to do incredible damage to US national security if it gets out in the open. That’s why we protect it this way.” When Hemmer inquired whether Hillary’s conduct could have cost lives, Faddis didn’t hesitate. “Absolutely. Without question,” he asserted.
In truth, the legal standard is remarkably clear. Former CIA director David Petraeus was prosecuted for doing the same thing when he divulged similarly classified information to his mistress. Yet, for some reason, Clinton has yet to see the inside of a courtroom for her crime.
Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano explained the legal requirements for an indictment and claimed that Clinton’s crime is “the negligent treatment, the failure to protect national security secrets. The government does not have to show that she intended to treat them negligently. The government does not have to show harm. It only has to show negligent treatment. The evidence is overwhelming.”
Under this legal standard, it seems that a first-year law student could prosecute and obtain a conviction if the upper echelon of bureaucrats would allow for Clinton to be indicted for her misconduct.
Again, the question at this point is not whether she’s ready for the presidency, but why the heck she isn’t being arraigned.