Judge Andrew P. Napolitano has written another great report about what appear to be crimes committed by Hillary:
While the country has been fixated on Donald Trump’s tormenting his Republican primary opponents and deeply concerned about the government’s efforts to identify any confederates in the San Bernardino, California, killings, a team of federal prosecutors and FBI agents continues to examine Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state in order to determine whether she committed any crimes and, if so, whether there is sufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
* * * * * * * *
All of her behavior has triggered the FBI investigation because she may have committed serious federal crimes. For example, it is a crime to steal federal property. What did she steal? By diverting to her own venue the digital metadata that accompany all emails – metadata that, when attached to the work-related emails of a government employee, belong to the government – she stole that data. The metadata do not appear on her paper copies – hence the argument that she stole and destroyed the government-owned metadata.
This is particularly troublesome for her present political ambitions because of a federal statute that disqualifies from public office all who have stolen federal property. (She is probably already barred from public office – though this was not prominently raised when she entered the U.S. Senate or the Department of State – because of the china, silverware and furniture that she and her husband took from the White House in January 2001.)
Clinton may also have committed espionage by failing to secure the government secrets entrusted to her. She did that by diverting those secrets to an unprotected, nongovernmental venue – her own server – and again by emailing those secrets to other unprotected and nongovernmental venues. The reason she can deny sending or receiving anything marked "classified" is that protected government secrets are not marked "classified."
You can read the rest @
If this gets swept under the rug, it will be evidence that the administration of Obama ad-Dajjal is seriously corrupt.
But then we already knew that, didn't we?
By the way, her so-called husband should have been barred from holding office, too. Why do I say this?
US Constitution, Article XIV
3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
If you recall, during the Vietnam War Bill Clinton signed up for the ROTC Program to avoid the draft. He then went AWOL from that program to England, where he apparently planned and/or participated in antiwar activities.
If he took the oath when he signed up for ROTC (and normally this is a part of any such enlistment), then his giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US would have disqualified him from holding federal office, including that of President.
I pointed this out to members of the US Senate and House at the time of his first election campaign, and they refused to follow up on this issue. Realistically, they are NOT custodians of the US Constitution, and the oaths they take to support it are meaningless.