![\"Kayleigh](\"http:\/\/abovethelaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/11\/Kayleigh-McEnany-300x300.jpg\")
<\/p>\nKayleigh McEnany<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
It is quite an odd scenario when your 12-month outlook contains the following possibilities: criminal charges and potential imprisonment, or holding the nation\u2019s highest office. Such is the fate of Hillary Clinton.<\/p>\n
Clinton, who has been at the epicenter of scandal (e.g., lying to the parents of the deceased in Benghazi<\/a>, engaging in alleged quid pro quo corruption at the Clinton Foundation<\/a>, bullying her husband\u2019s sexual assault accusers<\/a>), now faces an FBI probe not on one, not on two, but on three counts of alleged misconduct.<\/p>\n In July of 2015, the FBI began an \u201cextremely serious\u201d probe<\/a> into whether Clinton mishandled classified information when she chose to conduct State Department business on a private server in her home in violation of federal law.<\/p>\n The probe has continually ballooned<\/a> with the surfacing of new information. In November, for example, the FBI expanded its investigation into whether Clinton and her team provided \u201cmaterially false statements\u201d to agents during the course of the case.<\/p>\n And just yesterday, an anonymous source told Fox<\/a> that the FBI agents \u201care investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed\u201d to see if there were violations of public corruption laws. This comes after a formal complaint was filed Friday<\/a>, alleging that the former Secretary of State gave \u201cpreferential treatment\u201d to wealthy campaign donors, running afoul of ethics laws and regulations (ironically passed during her husband\u2019s tenure).<\/p>\n So much for being a woman of the people! But anyone half cognizant knows that was never the case since most of us would not consider ourselves \u201cdead broke\u201d upon leaving the White House<\/a>.<\/p>\n For a moment, though, take only the first two subjects of FBI investigation \u2013 misuse of classified information and lying to agents \u2013 and consider the following narrative:<\/p>\n \u201cAs alleged, this defendant used a secret, non-government e-mail account to transmit classified and unclassified information that he was not authorized to possess or disclose. As if those allegations are not serious enough, he also allegedly later shredded documents and lied about his conduct to federal agents in order to obstruct their investigation.\u201d<\/p>\n Although this account could largely describe Clinton\u2019s illegal email activity, this excerpt from the Department of Justice<\/a> involves not the prosecution of Clinton but the 2010 prosecution of Thomas Drake, an NSA employee whose actions were uncannily similar to those of Clinton\u2019s.<\/p>\n As a result of Drake\u2019s actions, Obama\u2019s Justice Department, under the direction of Eric Holder, slapped Drake with a 10-count indictment<\/a> alleging violations of the Espionage Act (prescribing felony violations), obstruction of justice laws, and false statement laws, all statutes that Clinton too could find herself on the wrong end of.<\/p>\n Drake and Clinton engaged in several of the same dubious actions. According to the Drake indictment<\/a>, (1) Drake, like Clinton, \u201cused a secret, non-government e-mail account\u201d; (2) Drake, similar to Clinton wiping her server clean, allegedly tried to \u201cprevent the discovery of evidence linking [him] to his retention of classified documents\u2026\u201d; and (3) Drake purportedly \u201clied about his conduct\u2026 in order to obstruct [FBI] investigation,\u201d an allegation the FBI is currently investigating with regard to Clinton.<\/p>\n To be sure, there are some differences. For instance, Drake willfully retained and transmitted classified information to a reporter, whereas Clinton, according to the allegations, merely maintained and exchanged classified information in an illegal fashion. But these differences actually make the moral rationale for prosecuting Clinton even stronger. Drake is lauded as a hero by many for his arguably commendable motive of exposing government misconduct in surveillance. Clinton, on the other hand, was motivated by the sole selfish purpose of covering, hiding, and burying her correspondences as Secretary of State.<\/p>\n With Drake, the government mishandled the case and ultimately dropped the charges<\/a> in exchange for a misdemeanor guilty plea with a sentence of one year\u2019s probation and community service. Nonetheless, the Drake case provides relevant precedent when it comes to prosecuting Clinton. Obama\u2019s Justice Department indicted Drake based on the following three statutes, all of which Hillary\u2019s attorneys would be wise to observe.<\/p>\n (1) The Espionage Act (18 USC \u00a7 793 (e) and (f))<\/strong><\/p>\n Drake, like Clinton, utilized a home computer system to exchange emails containing classified information on a non-government email account. With this server, Drake transmitted information he was not authorized to possess in violation of 18 USC \u00a7 793(e).<\/p>\n Though Clinton was authorized to possess the classified information, she is nonetheless subject to the subsequent provision of the Act, subsection (f). In direct violation of the words of the statute, Clinton, although \u201chaving lawful possession or control\u201d of information relating to the national defense, permitted through gross negligence \u201cthe same to be removed from its proper place of custody [the State Department],\u201d thus violating 18 USC \u00a7 793(f).<\/p>\n There is little doubt that the gross negligence standard is met by setting up a private email server in Clinton\u2019s home, thus violating numerous security protocols, including a diplomatic cable<\/a> from Hillary Clinton herself urging State Department employees to avoid conducting official emails on private email accounts.<\/p>\n Moreover, Clinton\u2019s defense that she did not know the information was \u201cclassified\u201d since it was not labeled as such will provide little cover since the Drake indictment concerned<\/a> some stored information the was not officially labeled \u201cclassified\u201d at the time.<\/p>\n (2) Destruction of Evidence (18 USC \u00a7 1519)<\/strong><\/p>\n Drake was also charged with obstruction of justice since he \u201cknowingly altered, destroyed, mutilated, concealed and covered up records\u2026. with the intent to impede, obstruct and influence the investigation of a matter within the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation\u2026.\u201d In an attempt to conceal his relationship with the aforementioned reporter, Drake allegedly \u201cdeleted classified and unclassified information on his home computer.\u201d<\/p>\n Likewise, we know that Hillary Clinton, in the face of a subpoena, wiped clean her unauthorized private email server<\/a> located in her home in Chappaqua, New York in what Representative Trey Gowdy called a \u201cunilateral\u201d decision that made her the \u201csole arbiter\u201d of which of her 60,000 emails should be handed over to authorities and which were deemed personal. As Judge Andrew Napolitano points out<\/a>, \u201cShe now has admitted to destroying subpoenaed evidence after she was on notice of the existence of the subpoena. That\u2019s known as obstruction of justice, as well as destruction of the documents.\u201d<\/p>\n (3) Lying to Federal Officials (18 USC \u00a7 1001(a)(2))<\/strong><\/p>\n Drake\u2019s indictment alleged that he \u201cknowingly and willfully [made] a materially false, fictitious, and fraudulent statement and representation, that is, falsely stating to special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he never gave Reporter A classified information.\u201d<\/p>\n Perhaps this statute is why Clinton was so reluctant to testify<\/a> before the Benghazi Select Committee regarding her emails. Perhaps this statute is why Clinton did not answer<\/a> the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform\u2019s question about whether \u201cany senior agency official ever used a personal account to conduct official business.\u201d<\/p>\n Forced to choose between stonewalling or perjuring, Clinton chose the former and, in doing so, might have found a way to outwit 18 USC \u00a7 1001.<\/p>\n In the prosecution of Drake, Obama Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer stated without hesitation<\/a>: \u201cOur national security demands that the sort of conduct alleged here \u2014 violating the government\u2019s trust by illegally retaining and disclosing classified information \u2014 be prosecuted and prosecuted vigorously.\u201d<\/p>\n