Based on twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s recent boast, she ignores the morale. Following the indictment of Steve Bannon for failing to respond to a subpoena issued by a House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill non-violent riot, a taunting Clinton boasted by retweeting the fact she “has never been indicted for anything”. Writes Lt. Col. James Zumwalt
The folktale “The Gingerbread Man” is the tale of a farmer’s wife who bakes a gingerbread man that suddenly springs to life, running from numerous pursuers, while repeatedly bragging he will never be caught. However, he ultimately meets his end when a sly fox gobbles him up. While there are various morals to the story, one warns braggarts to exercise caution lest their boasts trigger their own demise.
Based on twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s recent boast, she ignores the morale. Following the indictment of Steve Bannon for failing to respond to a subpoena issued by a House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill non-violent riot, a taunting Clinton boasted by retweeting the fact she “has never been indicted for anything.”
While accurate, she shrugs off three incidents that normally should cause a braggart not to poke a finger into the eye of Lady Justice by making such a boast. Hillary committed two transgressions for which she was most fortunate not to have been indicted, but really should have. And, by choosing to boast about this, she ignores her involvement in yet another indictable transgression – the facts of which are only now coming to light – that may well trigger her demise.
The first transgression occurred in January 1995 when Independent Counsel Ken Starr deposed then-President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary as he investigated the suicide of White House adviser Vince Foster and other issues stemming from the Whitewater land deal scandal. In his 2018 memoir, Starr compared the answers both Clintons gave to questions. He reported President Clinton “bobbed and weaved, but was always pleasant as he avoided answering,” while Hillary was a different story. Of her he wrote, “In the space of three hours, she claimed, by our count, over a hundred times that she ‘did not recall’ or ‘did not remember.’ This suggested outright mendacity. … human memory is notoriously fallible, but her strained performance struck us as preposterous.” Starr seriously considered criminal charges against Hillary but opted not to do so due to difficulty proving she had lied. But, clearly, Mrs. Clinton dodged an indictment bullet in 1995.
As for her second transgression, the following timeline is relevant. In February 2013, Hillary Clinton resigned as secretary of state under President Barack Obama. In March 2015, it was revealed she had used an unauthorized email carrier to conduct business as secretary of state, possibly committing a security no-no by transmitting classified information over it. In April 2015, she announced her candidacy for the 2016 presidential election.
This unauthorized-carrier activity ultimately triggered an FBI investigation – an agency headed by James Comey. Of relevance is that, at this time, there was an ongoing investigation into possible illegal activities by President Donald Trump that were alleged in a report put together by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. The Steele report suggested Trump had colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election. Of concern is how heavily weighted against Trump and pro-Hillary were members of the investigative team. This is of import if one considers the laxity with which Hillary was questioned by the FBI about her unauthorized server – not only was the interview not recorded, she was not even put under oath. Additionally, members of her staff who might be possible witnesses were allowed to remain present while Hillary was questioned.
While Hillary was not indicted for this transgression either, of interest is the first draft of the report Comey wrote downplaying her possible criminal conduct. The initial draft was suspicious for two reasons: First, it was written before Hillary was even interviewed, suggesting the interview was mere formality and not intended as a true fact finding effort; and, second, the term initially used by Comey to describe Hillary’s conduct in that report was “grossly negligent” – the exact standard of guilt required by law – but was quickly deleted after Comey was advised of this, replaced instead with the non-culpatory words “extremely careless.”
Comey’s report exonerating Hillary was unsurprising. He had a long history of not finding the Clintons guilty of questionable activities. Additionally, some FBI agents were also rankled by Obama’s emails to influence the outcome of Comey’s report as the president, too, had communicated with Hillary on her unauthorized carrier. Once again, Hillary was fortunate to dodge an indictment bullet.
Hillary’s third transgression is emerging from the investigation conducted by Special Counsel John Durham into the origins of the Trump/Russia collusion claims emanating from the Steele report. Now into his third year, Durham has filed two indictments that appear to beat a path directly to Hillary’s door.
One indictment is against former Hillary attorney Micheal Sussmann for allegedly lying to the FBI in 2016. He failed to disclose something that immediately would have made the Steele report suspect – i.e., that he was on Hillary’s pay roster. Sussman worked for the law firm of Perkins Cole, which Hillary and her campaign had hired and for which Steele had prepared his report.
The second Durham indictment roped in Igor Danchenko – the Russian-born analyst behind the Steele report – who lied several times to the FBI concerning the work he did on it.
A “wow” observation from one who has been closely following Durham’s actions tells us, “while there is still so much we do not know about the Russiagate investigation, we can say with a certainty that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s role was NOT to find wrongdoing but to cover up the wrongdoing perpetrated by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.”
Former Bill Clinton adviser Dick Morris has predicted that Sussmann’s indictment will lead to a Hillary indictment. Just like the fox eventually did with the gingerbread man, “It might be that we’ve finally caught up with Hillary,” Morris added.
While Morris noted the Sussmann indictment was prompted by the fact the five-year statute of limitations was about to run out, he said “the real point here is that the trail … leads to Hillary. The point is that that led to two years of investigating and almost impeaching Trump, and it was totally phony.” He also suggested that, since she is no longer in power, Hillary can no longer escape her misdeeds.
In the fable, the gingerbread man taunted his pursuers with, “Run, run, as fast as you can, you can’t catch me, I’m the gingerbread man!” The last one to hear him say that was the fox. Hillary may experience a similar fate as additional Durham indictments are filed.
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience.
Please follow Blitz on Google News channel