CHAT 348 COMMENTS
Just when we were thinking it couldn't get much worse with Hillary's email scandal, an inspector general's unclassified letter to lawmakers tells us the former secretary of state was keeping the most classified of all intelligence material -- beyond "top secret" -- on her homebrew server.
Fox News exclusively obtained the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).
Note there were several dozen of these SAP emails, not just the two we previously heard about that didn't even reach this classification. Those included satellite photos of North Korea. What do you suppose this is? Gross negligence is the important criminal standard here and it sounds as if it's been passed by the proverbial country mile.
Nevertheless, it's undoubtedly more than mere negligence, gross or otherwise. Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne's report continues:
“There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material,” a former senior law enforcement with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures told Fox News. “It is the most sensitive of the sensitive.”
So why was this public letter sent now? Although this does not come directly from the FBI, my sense is that we are being prepared for the recommendation of an indictment, probably indictments -- and that they will come soon, in all likelihood before we get too far into the primary season, possibly even before Iowa. It's a safe guess FBI Director Comey would not want to interrupt the electoral season more than necessary. That's one of the reasons 150 agents are investigating the case.
This does not mean, of course, that Clinton will be indicted. The Obama Justice Department could not be more politicized (at least in our system). The mainstream media will do their best to abet a cover-up -- a Google search of "New York Times + Charles McCullough III" yields, unsurprisingly, nothing on the letter, even though the allegations make Watergate seem the most minor faux pas. Who knows how many lives were put at risk, or even destroyed, by Clinton's "gross negligence."
So we are left with the equation of what happens if Hillary isn't indicted?
The most obvious part is that the rule of law will have, for all intents and purposes, ended in the United States. Equal justice flew out the window. How does the public react to that? A good portion of it will roll over, but a certain percentage will not. Their reactions will be contingent on a number of things -- whether Clinton is elected anyway (unlikely at this point, but possible), the steadfastness of opposition politicians and media, etc.
But in the final analysis, a democracy cannot exist without the consent of the governed. For that percentage in opposition, consent will have broken down pretty much completely. Then what? Civil war? That's perhaps a bit excessive, but civil wars can be of various types and evolve in different ways. All kinds of things could break down, which could result in anything from general disobedience to the law to mass tax refusal. Millions would no longer respect the system.
Loretta Lynch, Obama, et al, are actually facing a giant tinderbox, whether they know it or not. This is not your average Yogi Berra fork in the road. People fixate these days on the Black Lives Matter movement or on "social justice" activism on campus that is dominated by self-described "progressives" appalled by "microagressions" and such like. But what if the American heartland rebels? Left-wing rebellion in our culture has always been dependent on the center holding; it's a kind of play rebellion, college kids taking over a park while daddy pays their allowance. But suppose daddy started to rebel? That would be, as the saying goes, a whole other ball of wax.
Well, in not too long a time, we make get to see what that's like.
