By Jon Dougherty

(NationalSentinel) Earlier this week, Tom Fitton, the president of government watchdog organization Judicial Watch — which has been doing yeoman’s work exposing the various aspects of “Spygate” — implored Attorney General William Barr to reopen the case into former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s criminal abuse of classified emails.

As we reported, Fitton said in a July 3 video, not only is there enough evidence to investigation Clinton, but also “her former colleagues at the State Department, frankly, in the Obama White House and in the Justice Department itself.”

Judicial Watch has been out front for more than two years uncovering, through Freedom of Information Act requests and lawsuits, damning information regarding the “Spygate” scandal initiated by the previous administration to undermine President Donald Trump or run him out of office.

“I mean as if Benghazi wasn’t bad enough” — a reference to a terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 in which a U.S. ambassador and three American special operators were killed — “they lied about it, then they got caught,” and in the process, Judicial Watch discovered that under Clinton, national security had also been compromised, Fitton noted.

“This isn’t Judicial Watch saying this, this is the testimony of a former State Department official,” Fitton noted further.

In a second video released Wednesday, Judicial Watch reported that John Hackett, a former top official at the State Department, warned his superiors repeatedly about Clinton’s email issues. In particular, he first warned about Clinton’s use of an unsecured Blackberry device, then warned about how she had deleted some 30,000 emails without following strict National Archives regulations and restrictions.

Hackett would go on to warn that the formal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) review process for Clinton’s email documents may have been tampered with.

“This disturbing testimony points to an Obama administration conspiracy to hide and destroy Hillary Clinton’s emails,” Fitton said in a statement.

“Even worse, the testimony suggests Clinton’s Benghazi emails were under-classified to protect Hillary Clinton,” he added.

“Attorney General Barr needs to prioritize reopening the Clinton email investigation.”

Let’s recall that even former FBI Director James Comey’s pained exoneration of Clinton during an unprecedented July 5, 2016 press conference suggested that she broke laws:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. 

And again, knowing what we know now regarding Comey’s role (and that of former Attorney General Loretta Lynch) in ensuring that Clinton would be exonerated, it’s not beyond the pale of reason to expect that there are possibly thousands of other emails she sent through her home-brew unsecured server that were classified.

Recall, too, that the former lead counsel for the FBI told congressional investigators that he was of the mindset that Clinton should have faced charges for criminal mishandling of classified emails.

In fact, James Baker said he was “appalled” at the amount of “highly classified” information that passed through Clinton’s unsecured email server, adding that he believed she should have been criminally prosecuted for that conduct.

“(T)he nature and scope of the classified information that, to me, initially, when I looked at it, I thought these folks should know that this stuff is classified, that it was alarming what they were talking about, especially some of the most highly classified stuff,” Baker told lawmakers.

The legal standard to charge someone for mishandling classified information under the Espionage Act is “gross negligence” — not intent. That’s important because Comey, during his July 5, 2016 presser, intentionally changed the language to suggest that intent, not actions, are what the FBI looks at in such cases:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

In her testimony to lawmakers last year, former FBI lawyer (and Peter Strzok lover) Lisa Page said the Obama Justice Department blocked the FBI from charging Clinton with “gross negligence.”

In her testimony, Page said that the FBI “did not blow over gross negligence.” In response to a question from Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), Page testified the FBI, including Comey, believed Clinton may have committed gross negligence.

“We, in fact — and, in fact, the Director — because, on its face, it did seem like, well, maybe there’s a potential here for this to be the charge. And we had multiple conversations, multiple conversations with the Justice Department about charging gross negligence,” she said.

You Might Like

But Obama’s Justice Department, then led by Attorney General Loretta Lynch, said nope.

“The Justice Department’s assessment was that it was both constitutionally vague so that they did not actually feel that they could permissibly bring that charge,” Page testified.

That’s an obviously politicized and biased assessment, given that Obama and Lynch were neck-deep in the effort to ensure Clinton breezed into the White House while Trump was destroyed.

But does any of this matter at this point? Can Clinton, like Fitton suggests, even be charged by now?

Given a case that was adjudicated in federal court this week, the answer would seem to be a resounding ‘yes.’

A former State Department employee who worked at Foggy Bottom during Bill Clinton’s administration was just sentenced to 40 months in prison after taking Chinese bribes and providing the Communists with requested information.

As Fox News reported: 

A federal judge sentenced former State Department employee Candace Claiborne to more than three years in prison and a $40,000 fine Tuesday for accepting thousands of dollars in cash and gifts from Chinese intelligence agents in exchange for information.

U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss said, “sentencing is never easy,” but also called Claiborne’s crime, “a truly grave offense, a betrayal of her employer and a betrayal of her country” before giving her 40 months in prison in a Washington D.C. courtroom.

Speaking of Benghazi, Clinton committed her ‘alleged’ violations of the Espionage Act during a time of war; that is, the war on terror that continues to this day.

13-star AMERICAN. ORIGINAL. Tee — Order yours now!

Under current federal statutes, persons accused of committing crimes that endanger national security can be charged up to six months after said war is over, “as proclaimed by the president or a joint resolution of Congress.”

Given that the war on terror is ongoing and that a Clinton-era State Department employee was just prosecuted and given jail time for acting against her country as late as 2011 (Clinton left the State Department in 2013), you bet Tom Fitton is correct.

Clinton can be indicted and prosecuted — and jailed — for what she did. And she should be.


  • Follow Jon Dougherty on Parler — the Twitter alternative

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Subscribe to our Brighteon channel

Sign up for our daily headlines newsletter

We’ve reduced the number of ads on our site to enhance the reader experience. Please support us by patronizing our remaining advertisers. Thanks!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x