In order to understand why Bernie Sanders is the true Democratic front-runner, and why Hillary Clinton should concede the nomination to Sanders, take a closer look at the FBI's email investigation. Few people know more about the FBI probe than Jason Leopold, and his latest piece in Vice explains the potential repercussions of this ongoing saga. In an article titled FBI Reveals New Details About Its Probe Into Hillary Clinton's Use of Private Email Server, Leopold highlights the FBI's response to a recent court order:
The declaration addresses why the FBI can't publicly release any records about its probe in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by VICE News...
But the FBI, which consulted with attorneys within its Office of General Counsel "who are providing legal support to the pending investigation," cannot divulge any of them without "adversely affecting" the integrity of its investigation...
Hardy noted that the FBI's probe was launched after the bureau received a referral from inspectors general of the State Department and the intelligence community about Clinton's use of a private email server.
The FBI's refusal to release records in the probe speaks volumes, primarily because supporters of Hillary Clinton can't imagine any wrongdoing, much less criminal indictments.
However, a refusal to release records pertaining to Clinton's private server should concern the Clinton campaign, primarily because this is a criminal investigation. In terms of legal opinion stating that indictments are warranted, former attorney general Michael Mukasey explains why Clinton likely faces criminal indictments in a Wall Street Journal piece titled Clinton's Emails: A Criminal Charge Is Justified:
Yet--from her direction that classification rules be disregarded, to the presence on her personal email server of information at the highest level of classification, to her repeated falsehoods of a sort that juries are told every day may be treated as evidence of guilty knowledge--it is nearly impossible to draw any conclusion other than that she knew enough to support a conviction at the least for mishandling classified information.
The simple proposition that everyone is equal before the law suggests that Mrs. Clinton's state of mind--whether mere knowledge of what she was doing as to mishandling classified information; or gross negligence in the case of the mishandling of information relating to national defense; or bad intent as to actual or attempted destruction of email messages; or corrupt intent as to State Department business--justifies a criminal charge of one sort or another.
In terms of state of mind, Clinton intended to circumvent U.S. government networks for a reason, and knew enough about intelligence as Secretary of State to also know that a private server could jeopardize Top Secret data.
Clinton's intent and motive directly lead to criminal indictment.
There's a reason American's can't see the 22 Top Secret emails found on her private server; another potential criminal offense. Thus, I explain in this YouTube segment why Hillary Clinton likely faces FBI indictments.
Like anyone else in the country, Hillary Clinton can't claim negligence as a defense for criminal activity, especially if we're supposed to believe she's knowledgeable enough about state secrets to be president.
Democrats around the country should rally around Bernie Sanders, before the Clinton campaign spins FBI indictments into a partisan ploy by Republicans, and before future division occurs within the party. Furthermore, I discuss why Hillary Clinton's defiance regarding this email investigation is the height of white privilege in this CNN appearance on New Day with Victor Blackwell.
It seems bizarre that many people don't care, but Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic nominee not linked to an FBI investigation, or at risk of FBI and Justice Department indictment. It's only logical that rational individuals would nominate a person who isn't at risk of FBI indictment after Election Day, especially since Bernie Sanders defeats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton.
If you counter the arguments presented with "Mukasey is a Republican," remember that many of the judges who've already ruled in this saga were appointed by Democrats. The rulings of Judge Emmet Sullivan are highlighted in a Washington Post piece by Robert O'Harrow Jr. titled How Hillary Clinton's email scandal took root:
The unfolding story of Clinton's basement server has outraged advocates of government transparency and mystified political supporters and adversaries alike. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., who is presiding over one of the FOIA lawsuits, has expressed puzzlement over the affair. He noted that Clinton put the State Department in the position of having to ask her to return thousands of government records - her work email.
"Am I missing something?" Sullivan asked during a Feb. 23 hearing. "How in the world could this happen?"
...Leading that effort was Mills, Clinton's chief of staff. She was joined by Clinton adviser Huma Abedin, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy and Lewis Lukens, a senior career official who served as Clinton's logistics chief. Their focus was on accommodating Clinton.
...Speaking in open court, Sullivan said legitimate questions have been raised about whether Clinton's staff was trying to help her to sidestep FOIA.
"We're talking about a Cabinet-level official who was accommodated by the government for reasons unknown to the public. And I think that's a fair statement: For reasons heretofore unknown to the public.
And all the public can do is speculate," he said, adding: "This is all about the public's right to know."
When indictments likely hit, Judge Sullivan's words will be viewed as prescient.
Judge Emmet Sullivan is absolutely right to say "We're talking about a Cabinet-level official who was accommodated by the government for reasons unknown to the public."
Finally, Bernie Sanders isn't at risk of being charged under espionage laws. Clinton could possibly face consequences from the Espionage Act, as stated in a Huffington Post piece from 2015 titled How Hillary Clinton Could Be Targeted Under The Espionage Act:
...It remains to be seen whether Clinton could be found to have violated the Espionage Act, a law that the Obama administration has used repeatedly against whistleblowers. The relevant section of the law says that it is a crime to retain classified material...
The Justice Department leveled just that charge against NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake and James Hitselberger, a former Navy linguist who sent classified documents to an archive at the Hoover Institution. Former Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee also was infamously charged with 10 counts of retaining classified data for storing information on tapes.
There are two big hurdles to making such a determination in Clinton's case, said Steven Aftergood, who heads the Federation of Americans Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. Officials have said it does not appear as if Clinton discussed classified matters over email, and the secretary of state has broad latitude to decide what is classified.
Since this article was written, we know that Hillary Clinton possibly discussed classified material with her associates. We also know about the 22 Top Secret emails. In fact, we know a great many other developments that lead to possible indictment under the Espionage Act.
The likelihood that convenience wasn't the only excuse for Clinton undermines the defense relying upon negligence, or the inability to know that classified intelligence should never have been on a private server in the basement of a private residence. I ask in this YouTube segment why Hillary Clinton needed a private server and discuss in this CNN International appearance with John Vause that Clinton faces possible FBI indictment.
Does anyone on the planet know why Clinton never used a State.gov email address?
If you can't answer the question, then logically, Bernie Sanders is the true Democratic front-runner in 2016.
Go ahead, speculate, but any speculation as to why Hillary Clinton needed a private server leads to Bernie Sanders becoming Democratic nominee.
Furthermore, with possible indictments looming, I explain in another segment on CNN International that Democrats fearing Trump must vote for Bernie Sanders.
Rather than simply engaging in ad hominem attacks, or claiming that you don't like H. A. Goodman, simply explain why Clinton needed a private server, and then why this need for the server doesn't correlate to criminal charges. Basic logic dictates that Bernie Sanders is the clear front-runner, and has been since the day the FBI began its investigation. As for how the Clinton campaign views the FBI, I highlight this bizarre viewpoint in my latest YouTube segment.