A few weeks ago, the U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, had what she called an “informal” discussion with Bill Clinton at the airport in Phoenix, being both there by “coincidence.” Isn’t it remarkable how the Clintons’ arrogance seems impervious to even the most obvious impropriety? The meeting was seen as inappropriate given that Hillary Clinton was still allegedly under investigation for illegally storing classified information on her personal email server, a byproduct of it being more “convenient” for her and her underlings to conceal their communications from public scrutiny (in direct contravention of FOIA). Despite their denials, there is no doubt that Lynch informed Bill Clinton that the FBI was not going to recommend charges against Hillary Clinton, and thus it was “safe” for her to speak to FBI investigators, something that she refused to do before despite claims she was “ready” and “eager” to do so.
That the FBI failed to force Clinton to speak to them early in the investigation means that their “vetting” of her answers was cursory at best and not at all serious. Despite the fact that the FBI investigation found numerous instances of factually false statements made by Clinton in the past concerning her use of her personal server, its investigators decided that Clinton did not “intend” to illegally store classified information on her server. Are we to be taken as fools? Bryan Pagliano, who set-up her server and was given immunity to testify, was apparently undercut by the refusal of Clinton’s chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills—supported by a literal army of lawyers on the Clinton payroll—to even acknowledge she knew anything about what he was doing for Clinton. The FBI meekly decided to proceed no further on Pagliano’s testimony, no doubt "accepting" Clinton's own likely perjured "explanation" of Pagliano's activities on her behalf.
Thus we are left with either that Clinton, by not understanding what classified information is, isn’t quite as intelligent a prospect for president as we’d like that person to be (she flunked her Washington, DC bar exam, although she did pass the much less arduous Arkansas exam, persuading her to stay with Bill, unfortunately for us)—or she didn’t “intend” on classified information being exposed to hacking. Either rationalization suggested by the FBI ought to be very concerning, as does the third, more likely reason which the FBI in its cowardice refused to say for politically expedient reasons: that Clinton in fact knew very well what she was doing was illegal, but she didn’t give a damn because no person or law will stand in the way to the full flower of her megalomania.
Since the FBI refused to do anything useful, it appears that the State Department has decided to reopen its own investigation, this time to see if sanctions against Clinton’s underlings—all female and all who clearly are under her “spell” and patronage, and who certainly perjured themselves over and over again about both Clinton’s and their own involvement in crime—are warranted. These of course won’t include prison sentences, of course, but the declining of security clearances. But it all is another snow-job, since I doubt this would be a problem that Clinton can’t handle—by simply ignoring enforcing any sanction against her drooling sycophants and slaves. As she has shown time and again, laws and rules do not apply to her.
Donald Trump may not seem to believe that rules governing common human decency apply to him, or common sense in accordance to prevailing reality, for that matter; xenophobes, jingoists and national chauvinists (or is it National Socialists?) who lap-up his every syllable are equally immune to the accusations of fantasy. But this is no more reprehensible than Hillary Clinton being given yet another “Collect on Go” on her Monopoly board of crime. No one has the guts (save perhaps first Bernie Sanders and now Trump) to stop her, despite her leaving a trail of corruption and perjury as far as the eye can see.