Remember when Hillary said that the FBI had not contacted her?
Asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” whether she had been interviewed by the FBI yet, the former secretary of state replied, “No.”
That, as they say, is no longer operative. Clinton is going to be interviewed by the FBI.
Somehow Clinton knows ahead of time that she is not going to face an indictment:
The FBI is investigating Clinton’s unconventional email server and use of a personal email account, and some Republicans are speculating it will lead to an indictment.
Clinton said there’s no chance of that happening.
And in that same time, someone has gotten to Ron Fournier. Someone seems to have reminded him what can happen to those who run afoul of the Clinton’s. Previously, Fournier has been tough on Hillary Clinton, calling her secretive, unaccountable and dishonest. Out of nowhere, Fournier now asserts that the bar to prosecute Clinton should be higher than it is for the car thief or, for that matter, a man. A man like John Kiriakou, Thomas Drake and David Petraeus.
(In case you missed it, Drake had his life destroyed for “one count of exceeding the authorized use of a government computer.” He was trying to expose illegal activities. Candidate obama was all for whistle blowers but President obama has waged a war on whistle blowers.)
“Legally, though, there’s a big bar that you have to get over to prosecute anybody for these crimes, much less somebody who’s running for president, and as critical as I’ve been of Hillary Clinton, and I am very critical of Hillary Clinton, I do understand that when somebody is running for president, there is a higher bar you have to get over, because we can’t have a system in which we’re constantly charging people who are running for president with a crime.”
Fournier inexplicably asserts that running for President acts as an immunity against all crimes.
Host Joe Scarborough was astonished:
“Actually, the bar is ‘reckless [disregard]’ of classified information….”
And Scarborough went on:
Scarborough went on to provide a handful of examples of what would happen to regular people, or even a congressman, if they left out a single piece of classified material outside of a secure area, much less sent or received over 2,000 e-mails containing classified information.
“The scale of this is so remarkable, I do not know how James Comeydoesn’t do something definitive, election year or not,” Scarborough said.
Clinton’s actions parallel the Petraeus case closely. Petraeus pleaded guilty to one count of “removing and retaining classified information.” He shared classified information with Paula Broadwell, who at the time had the security clearance level to view the documents.
Now Fournier believes she should not face the same fate as Petraeus because she’s a girl. It would be one heck of a message to to give anyone a pass on crimes because he or she is running for President. That would confirm the existence of a multi-tiered justice system- one for the Clinton’s and one for the rest of us.
“It is marked ‘confidential,’ ‘secret’ or ‘top secret,'” Judge Napolitano said, adding that Clinton signed an oath her first day in office, in which she said she understood her legal obligation to know what is secret whether it’s labeled so or not.