Government & Politics

The Reason Clinton Was Never Indicted

Because Obama was guilty of the same crimes.

Paul Albaugh · Sep. 27, 2016

Move along, nothing to see here. That is what Hillary Clinton hoped would happen regarding her gross mishandling of classified information and her illegal use of a private email server. In July, FBI Director James Comey declared the FBI investigation complete and announced that there would be no charges. Let’s just move along with the election process, shall we?

As baffling as this fiasco is to most Americans, there didn’t appear to be any logical reason why the FBI didn’t recommend charges against Clinton. But on Friday, following 189 additional pages of reports from the FBI’s yearlong incursion into the scandal, the reason has been uncovered. And it should not bode well for the sitting U.S. president or for Clinton.

Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy reports that Clinton’s closest aide and confidante Huma Abedin was shown an email exchange between then-Secretary Clinton and a second person whose name she did not recognize. Abedin exclaimed, “How is this not marked classified?” Then the FBI agents did something that they should not do during an interview with an individual who is part of an investigation: They revealed the name of the pseudonymous person — the president of the United States, Barack Obama.

McCarthy reasons that this “obviously suggests that his recklessness may have been more widespread.” Further, he notes, “Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.”

But because the president of the United States was involved, there had to be a massive cover-up. Some might even call it the “Hillary Coverup Operation.” If Clinton were to have been charged for mishandling classified information then her defense lawyers surely would have pointed out that the president must be charged likewise. All they would have needed to look to was the case Nixon vs. the United States and they would have won the argument.

McCarthy notes that the FBI violated protocols by disclosing to Abedin the name of the person using the pseudonym. “The point of an FBI interview is for the interviewee to provide information to the investigators, not the other way around. If agents give information to potential witnesses, the government gets accused of trumping up the case.”

But, as McCarthy point out, this only becomes a problem if there is going to be a case. We now know why there never going to be a case. Because if there was, then there would have been public embarrassment and discredit brought upon Obama himself, as well as the Justice Department and the FBI. It might be a little late to be worried about that.

We now have a better understanding as to why back in April, Obama sought to influence the FBI “investigation” and the potential security threat that Clinton posed, all while insisting that’s not what he was doing: “I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI — not just in this case, but in any case.” He then had the audacity to lecture, “Nobody is above the law, how many times do I have say it?”

And yet, he declared, “I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security. Now what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing emails, that she has owned, and she recognizes.”

There you have it. Her carelessness was not a threat to national security, so it’s no big deal. Except that Obama was involved in the same “carelessness.”

So with the latest revelations, we can conclude that we have a sitting president who not only broke the law, but also has once again jeopardized our national security. And we have a presidential candidate who also broke the law and jeopardized national security. If this information is not enough to derail her bid to succeed Obama then nothing else will be.

Click here to show comments

Subscribe! It's Right. It's Free.