<\/p>\n
By Wesley Pruden
\nThe Washington Times<\/p>\n
More than a few obstacles lie in Hillary Clinton<\/a>\u2019s path to the White House<\/a>, but the threat of an indictment, or even conviction and a term in a federal pokey, doesn\u2019t have to be one of them.<\/p>\n If elected, she could take the presidency with her, becoming our first prisoner-in-chief.<\/p>\n There\u2019s very little stigma now for celebrities serving time. Even a Clinton<\/a>\u00a0is not guilty until a judge and jury says she isn\u2019t, and there may be a judge and jury lurking in Hillary<\/a>\u2019s future.<\/p>\n Cities and states routinely send aldermen, judges, mayors and governors to prison. Illinois, from whence Hillary<\/a> sprang, needs an entire gubernatorial wing at state prison. Prison could strengthen the character of any president as he (or she) reflects on life from the inside of a cell block.<\/p>\n Hillary<\/a> invites harsh judgments. Many voters think she would be comfortable with her own kind in the prison yard, laundry or kitchen. (She could finally learn to bake cookies.) Pollsters in New Hampshire, where voters will get their first opportunity to sift the candidates from a judgment seat, say the words most often heard to describe Hillary<\/a> are \u201cliar,\u201d \u201cuntrustworthy\u201d and \u201cdishonest.\u201d<\/p>\n Ordinarily, those are not words a candidate wants to come to the minds of voters when they hear the candidate\u2019s name. Richard Nixon famously said \u201cI am not a crook,\u201d and Hillary<\/a> could offer similar reassurance. America is a forgiving land and it\u2019s rewriting expectations at a speed unfathomable only yesterday, when men were men, and women didn\u2019t have to speculate.<\/p>\n But (with apologies to F. Scott Fitzgerald) the Clintons are like the rich, very different from you and me. They have forged a permanent pass to do as they please, and nobody is expected to think the worse for it, since they were worse before they left Little Rock. Ol\u2019 Bubba is a rascal, and we\u2019ve always liked rascals, some more than others. Hillary<\/a>, who is the garden-variety shrew who reminds many men of their first wives, could make like-minded friends in prison, sipping weak coffee and having a gossip with the girls.<\/p>\n Hillary<\/a> may beat the rap. But the FBI inquiry into playing fast and loose with the country\u2019s most sensitive secrets is by definition a criminal investigation. If she is found guilty she could be subject to 20 years in prison and required to pay a big fine. The cloud hanging over her prospects terrifies Democrats.<\/p>\n There\u2019s a precedent that makes Hillary<\/a> tremble, too. Gen. David Petraeus was found guilty of using smaller government secrets as thrilling pillow talk and he got 20 years, suspended for good behavior, and fined $100,000.<\/p>\n Judge Andrew Napolitano, who writes about the law for this newspaper, observes that Hillary<\/a>\u2019s excuse that the word \u201csecret\u201d was not stamped on the documents she put on her email server wouldn\u2019t necessarily exonerate her in a court of law.<\/p>\n \u201cBefore she became secretary of state she was required to go through a one-hour tutorial given by FBI agents, and she had to sign a record under oath [afterward], realizing she had to [protect] the secrets.\u201d Instead she subjected the secrets to the tender mercies of hackers, probably including the Chinese and maybe the North Koreans.<\/p>\n