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.