Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

The legendary Clinton immunity-from-crimes seems to be crumbling.  What does this mean?  Let’s look at the facts.  In a recent article, the State Department Inspector General “sharply criticized” Mrs. Clinton for her usage of a home server to conduct confidential and highly sensitive State Department business. Even us average Janes and Joes know her conduct was wrong, but the Clinton spin machine is hard at work, saying otherwise.  But, anyone with any common sense isn’t listening anymore.

When the issue of wrongdoing was first raised, a high-up Clinton aide brushed it off and said to never speak of it again.  In essence, a “gag order” was issued to cover up the wrongdoing.

Mrs. Clinton tries to rely on the fact that “former Secretary of State Colin Powell (and others) also violated some of the same rules by using private emails for work-related business.”  This fails as an excuse.  First, just because one person breaks rules does not justify another person to do the same.  Otherwise, we would be a nation of chaos, not a nation of law and order.  Further, Colin Powell is no longer in office and is not running for the highest office in the land.

Mrs. Clinton claims that she followed the policies that were in place at the time, so she did nothing wrong.  However, the Inspector General states, “… as the danger of security risks increased during her tenure department guidance against using private emails became “considerably more detailed and more sophisticated. … Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.”  Thus, her claim, which may have been true during her early days as Secretary of State, is not true for her entire tenure, and her willful and wanton negligence placed national security at risk.

Mrs. Clinton and her former chief of staff both declined to be interviewed by the Inspector General.  So much for transparency and a willingness to cooperate with the investigation.  A usual sign of guilt.

Even after being warned about the risks involved in using her personal server, Mrs. Clinton put her personal business and emails above national security, and refused to cooperate in securing her communications.  The acquisition of sensitive national security materials by a hacker could have enabled a hacker to blackmail Mrs. Clinton.  There is no way that a politician of her education and experience did not know this.

top-hillary-then-and-nowIt was mentioned there was no evidence of her server being hacked, thus no harm, no foul.  That is no excuse either.  Driving drunk and not causing an accident does not exonerate one from the law prohibiting drunk driving.

Another, scary thought is perhaps she already has been compromised.  That begs the question whether it would have been willingly or unwillingly.  Perhaps the purpose of a personal server was because she was selling state secrets and didn’t want to be caught.  Remember, China secrets were sold on Bill Clinton’s watch.  And, as recently as last year, the specter of her selling secrets to China was raised again.

Of course, the usual spin that political opponents are going to “misrepresent” her innocent actions is old news.  That is a tired old defense mechanism.  Her actions were not innocent.  They were wanton, in reckless disregard for national security.  What she would do now — now that she has been caught — to implement better procedures is irrelevant.  What is relevant is what she did then — against advice, and against Federal regulations.  She even now admits her actions then were “a mistake, but…”

Clinton only provided 60% of her emails to the investigation, and it was noted that there were none from her first few months.  What happened to them?  And her assertion that the people at the State Department who received her emails would have copies does not, in any way, absolve her from her responsibility to provide copies for the Federal records.  She was criticized on this count.  And, when she left government service, she should have turned over all of her emails.  She did not.  The Inspector General comments that getting what records she allowed them to have was, in essence, a chore met with much resistance.

The FBI is wrapping up its investigation on whether her personal server potentially exposed national security secrets.  It should be interesting to hear its report.

However, the Inspector General’s report shows, beyond a shadow of doubt, that Mrs. Clinton puts her personal desires above the well-being of this country.  Putting her into the highest office in the land would be disastrous.  Would you trust her to have the nuclear codes?  Heck, she might go on Ebay and auction them to the highest bidder.  Oh, Saudi Arabia just put its bid in, followed closely behind by China.  And, we’re off and running.  It’s a neck-to-neck race to the finish line.  Who will win?  What does it matter?

In the beginning of this article, I asked “what does this mean?”  I think the Inspector General’s report means, since it wasn’t suppressed, that we are witnessing the end of Hillary Clinton’s career.  She has lost her usefulness and her handlers are in the process of throwing her under the bus.

Bye Bye Miss Commie-American Pie.

Works referenced:

Yahoo: State Dep’t Probe Slams Hillary

RedState: Did Hillary Clinton Sell US Secrets?


iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?