With the rising “Bernie or Bust” movement, we may be seeing a building backlash at the Democratic establishment and the media’s barefaced attempt to both silence Bernie Sanders and any mention of Hillary Clinton’s career of corruption which continues daily whenever she opens her mouth with another deceit. Every opportunity she has been in a position of power—as “co-governor” of Arkansas or “co-president” with her husband, as Senator and finally as Secretary of State, she has conducted herself as if she believes the dictates of lawful behavior do not apply to her, and the media and law enforcement have been most accommodating to her in this regard. Who knows what crimes she will commit if voters are foolish enough to elect her to the most powerful office in the world.
Donald Trump thrives on expressing his failings in a public manner, and his “policies” would be more susceptible to public opinion; but with Clinton and her past history of blatant perjury and bald attempts to evade public disclosure laws by keeping all of her State Department communications on her personal server in her own home—which is a crime punishable by a prison term—secrecy from “prying eyes” with the help of a mainly female “inner circle” devoted to carrying out her every unethical whim and shielding her from any consequence, is business as usual. Some, like the Huffington Post’s Anis Shivani, might accuse Clinton of being “hypermasculine,” but claiming that women have ethically “superior” traits than men is just typical self-serving mythmaking. Absolute power, as it is said, corrupts absolutely; Clinton has already managed the latter without having yet accomplished the former.
But while Clinton and the media seem utterly oblivious to any danger posed by the FBI’s current probe into her illegal transfer of classified information to her own personal server, information that was used to benefit the Clinton Foundation and perhaps for “dirty tricks” against the Clintons’ enemies, the danger exists nonetheless—meaning there is hope for the country yet to prevent this criminal from attaining the White House. Unfortunately for Clinton, Bryan Pagliano—one of the few male employees connected to her term as Secretary of State—did not feel tied close enough to the Clinton patronage that he would willingly take the sword for her. Given immunity from prosecution, talk he has done.
Pagliano was an IT specialist at the State Department in one capacity or another until recently, when State cut ties with him after discovering his deal to testify against Clinton. What did Pagliano do for Clinton? He was the technical “expert” who followed Clinton’s instruction to allow her a means to evade State Department security procedures and her responsibilities under the FOIA law. According to former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano (unfortunately with a story the “mainstream” media has ignored, you can’t pick and choose your sources),
Pagliano has explained to federal prosecutors the who, what, when, how and why he migrated an open State Department email stream and a secret State Department email stream from government computers to Clinton's secret server in her home in Chappaqua, New York. He has told them that Clinton paid him $5,000 to commit that likely criminal activity.
He has also told some of the 147 FBI agents (actually, closer to 50) assigned to this case that Clinton herself was repeatedly told by her own State Department information technology experts and their colleagues at the National Security Agency that her persistent use of her off-the-shelf BlackBerry was neither an effective nor an acceptable means of receiving, transmitting or safeguarding state secrets. Little did they know how reckless she was with government secrets, as none was apparently then aware of her use of her non-secure secret server in Chappaqua for all of her email uses.
Supposedly the FBI has completed its acquisition of evidence and testimony (or lack thereof) from Clinton associates and is attempting to make “sense” of it. Whether Clinton is called in to answer to any criminal activities has yet to be revealed; although Clinton publicly ”welcomes” the chance to “clear things up,” one suspects that this is not at all the case. Whether or not she has made a “deal” with the Obama Justice Department (or the Democratic National Committee has) to delay the release of the investigation’s findings until after the Democratic Convention in the hope that no one will dare prosecute a presidential candidate, or one who is elected, seems to be the principle question at hand.
But will the public buy into that if and when they are finally confronted with the truth about Clinton that can no longer be ignored? As Napolitano noted, Clinton has ensnared herself in a web of lies that need only exposure to the light:
If she were to talk to federal prosecutors and FBI agents, they would catch her in many inconsistencies, as she has spoken with great deception in public about this case. She has, for example, stated many times that she used the private server so she could have one mobile device for all of her emails. The FBI knows she had four mobile devices. She has also falsely claimed publicly and under oath that she neither sent nor received anything “marked classified.” The FBI knows that nothing is marked classified, and its agents also know that her unprotected secret server transmitted some of the nation’s gravest secrets.
How can Clinton be allowed to get away with this? How can someone like this be trusted as president? People who think that Obama has misused his executive power won’t know what hit them if Clinton is elected, and they should have known better from past experience with the Clintons. Clinton’s media supporters are well aware of the danger to Clinton, which is why they have attempted to bury the story or claim that it isn’t sufficiently unlawful enough to cause her any harm; it isn’t even mentioned as the third “front” that Clinton has to deal with, even though it should be the most dangerous one for her and her megalomaniacal quest for power.