At a campaign rally Monday in Springfield, Illinois, Donald Trump unloaded on Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton, saying any “honest” government wouldn’t allow her to be running for president. One the main reasons she’s running, said Trump, is because “she wants to stay out of jail.”
“Hillary is running for a lot of reasons, one of them is because she wants to stay out of jail,” said Trump. “[I]f we had honest government, Hillary wouldn’t be allowed to run.”
“People are in jail right now for doing five percent of what she did and the Democrats are not gonna to prosecute her,” he said, noting, however, that “there’s a six-years statute of limitations on that crime.”
Citing the case of General David Petraeus, who was slapped with a $100,000 fine and two years probation for sharing classified material with his mistress, Trump said Clinton had done “so much worse” and she knows it’s a “real problem.”
“If I win, we’re going to look into that crime very, very seriously folks,” he vowed.
“People are in jail right now for doing five percent of what she did and the Democrats are not gonna to prosecute her.”
Bluster aside, the truth is Trump is right. The current regime is thus far sparing the Democratic frontrunner from what is a clear violation of security protocols and overt negligence in the handling of classified material, the extent of which dwarfs Petreaus’ actions. Even with the Obama administration running interference (for now) for Clinton, the intelligence community is increasingly unable to ignore just how much of a disaster Clinton’s communications violations were.
As Politico reported Tuesday, the FBI’s initial inquiry into Clinton’s emails looks like it’s now become a “full-blown investigation“:
Even as Hillary Clinton tries to put questions about her private email server behind her, the FBI has stepped up inquiries into the security of the former secretary of state’s home-made email system and how aides communicated over email, POLITICO has learned.
The FBI’s recent moves suggest that its inquiry could have evolved from the preliminary fact-finding stage that the agency launches when it receives a credible referral, according to former FBI and Justice Department officials interviewed by POLITICO.
“This sounds to me like it’s more than a preliminary inquiry; it sounds like a full-blown investigation,” said Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the FBI. “When you have this amount of resources going into it …. I think it’s at the investigative level.”