Hillary Clinton's Security Violations Disqualify Her From Being President

Commentary
By Frances Rice

Revelations about how Hillary Clinton violated our national security laws show that she is not qualified to be our next president. Uncovered also is how President Barack Obama lied when he said he did not know Clinton was using a private e-mail account to conduct government business.

A headline posted on the Drudge Report:

REVEALED: OBAMA EMAILED HILLARY 18 TIMES!
FLASHBACK: CLAIMED HE LEARNED FROM MEDIA

Here is a cartoon that explains why President Obama is providing cover for Hillary Clinton's illegality.

Below are articles on the subject of Clinton's national security violations.

________________

http://nypost.com/2016/01/29/hillarys-lame-excuses-for-her-e-mail-misconduct-are-crumbling/

Hillary's lame excuses for her e-mail misconduct are crumbling
By New York Post Editorial Board

The State Department just knocked a gaping hole in Hillary Clinton's happy e-mail fable.

State, the Associated Press reports, won't release 22 of Clinton's messages to the public because they contain too much most-secret information.

OK: Clinton's only promised that none of her e-mails were labeled "classified" — so she's technically not a blatant liar.

But US intelligence agencies have determined these message contain enough sensitive information that even blacking out whole passages isn't enough to make them safe for public view.

These e-mails are part of a trove of 7,000 pages — the last from Hillary's private server the State Department was poring through — that were to be released this month.

But State's not done: Last week, it declared that the winter storm would cause a delay — conveniently until after Monday's Iowa caucuses.

And this week, State added another delay: It got a late start in getting clearances from various intelligence agencies, so it now won't finish until Feb. 29 — after the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries.

By holding the "top secret" e-mails on her home-brew server, Clinton should be looking at 22 criminal counts. But her campaign is claiming she's just a victim — of bureaucratic over classification.

Funny: Hillary's staffers should have no way of knowing if that's so — unless she let them view the e-mails, which would be another crime.

At a minimum, there's this: In just 11 months, the Clinton camp's defense has gone from claiming "no classified" material was ever on her private server to insisting nothing "marked" classified was there to telling America that, well, it's all "over classified."

Not that Team Hillary is alone in lame-denial-land. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Friday that the FBI's investigation "does not seem to be . . . trending" in the direction of an indictment.

How the heck would he know? No one in the White House should be privy to what's going on in this Justice Department probe.

Unless, of course, information is being illegally leaked . . .

To sum up: Hillary Clinton's defense of her conduct is now reduced to technicalities; the State Department looks to be slow-walking the release of her e-mails with an eye on the campaign calendar — and the White House seems to know a bit too much about an unfolding investigation.
It's almost like a coordinated cover up.
_________________

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/01/state-department-confirms-hillarys-server-had-top-secret-documents.php

State Department Confirms Hillary's Server Had Top Secret Documents
By John Hinderaker

The State Department is releasing the latest trove of Hillary Clinton emails today, and the Associated Press reports that seven email chains are being withheld entirely from production (as opposed to being produced in redacted form) because they are classified as Top Secret:

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained closely guarded government secrets, censoring 22 emails with material requiring one of the highest levels of classification. …

Department officials also said the agency's Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus will investigate whether any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of one of Clinton's primary defenses of her email practices. …

But The Associated Press has learned seven email chains are being withheld in full from the Friday release because they contain information deemed to be "top secret." The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called "special access programs" — a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, describing the decision to withhold documents in full as "not unusual."

No, it isn't unusual. What is unusual is that these Top Secret documents came from Hillary Clinton's home brew server, contrary to federal law and State Department rules.

Hillary's only defense, as best as I can tell, is that none of the emails on her server were stamped "classified," "Top Secret," or whatever. This could be because those that were stamped were deleted before the emails were turned over to the State Department.

In any event, her defense is irrelevant: both the federal law and the State Department regulation relate to documents that are in fact classified, not just those that are so stamped. Federal employees can't circumvent the law by failing to stamp the documents they create or receive. And Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was one of those specifically charged with knowledge of what documents should be, and are, classified.

PAUL adds: Hillary Clinton has argued for months that there is a dispute between the intelligence community and the State Department as to the sensitivity of documents on her server. The State Department's confirmation that documents on her server were "Top Secret" undercuts this defense.

The comment of State Department flack John Kirby that the documents "are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information" represents State throwing in the towel in this dispute, it seems to me, although Kirby does his best to make it seem like an accommodation, rather than a concession.

Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right

And, my dear fellow Republicans, he's all your fault.
By Tucker Carlson

About 15 years ago, I said something nasty on CNN about Donald Trump's hair. I can't now remember the context, assuming there was one. In any case, Trump saw it and left a message the next day.

"It's true you have better hair than I do," Trump said matter-of-factly. "But I get more pussy than you do." Click.

At the time, I'd never met Trump and I remember feeling amused but also surprised he'd say something like that. Now the pattern seems entirely familiar. The message had all the hallmarks of a Trump attack: shocking, vulgar and indisputably true.

Not everyone finds it funny. On my street in Northwest Washington, D.C., there's never been anyone as unpopular as Trump. The Democrats assume he's a bigot, pandering to the morons out there in the great dark space between Georgetown and Brentwood. The Republicans (those relatively few who live here) fully agree with that assessment, and they hate him even more. They sense Trump is a threat to them personally, to their legitimacy and their livelihoods. Idi Amin would get a warmer reception in our dog park.

I understand it of course. And, except in those moments when the self-righteous silliness of rich people overwhelms me and I feel like moving to Maine, I can see their points, some of them anyway. Trump might not be my first choice for president. I'm not even convinced he really wants the job. He's smart enough to know it would be tough for him to govern.

But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn't mean his candidacy can't be instructive. Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch carefully. Here's some of what they might learn:

He Exists Because You Failed

American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted.

Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."

Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.

It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.

Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that a Politico described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It's Thrilling

When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been long. That's not just a talking point about political correctness. It's the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can't fix a problem if you don't have the words to describe it. You can't even think about it clearly.

This depressing fact made Trump's political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it's thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he's wrong. It's especially exciting when you suspect he's right.

A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven't assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What's our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino-attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He's so obviously faking it.

They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they're looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How'd that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

Tucker Carlson is editor in chief of the Daily Caller.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572#ixzz3yeBpZpxz

Is Donald Trump Reaganesque?

Commentary
By Frances Rice

As the below article written in 2012 by Bruce Bartlett who was senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House demonstrates, if we had held Ronald Reagan accountable for his prior liberal policies and actions when he was a Democrat and even after he became a Republican, he would not have been elected and subsequently re-elected to be president.
______________

Why Ronald Reagan Would Not Lead Today's GOP
By Bruce Bartlett
June 15, 2012



This week, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, heretofore a pillar of the Republican Party, both for his successful governing record and family history as son and brother of presidents, came in for criticism from members of his own party. Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist, who enforces party discipline on tax issues, attacked him for being a "yokel off the bus" who was echoing Democratic talking points.

Bush's sin? He suggested that the GOP had moved so far to the right and was so radically opposed to compromise of any kind that his father, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan couldn't be nominated by the party today. As Jeb Bush put it:

"Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad - they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party - and I don't - as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground."

Conservatives might have ignored Bush's apostasy except that this was the second time in two weeks that he had strayed from the reservation. On June 1, he told the House Budget Committee that he would be willing to accept a budget deal that cut spending $10 for every $1 of tax increase. The GOP party line is that taxes must not be increased by so much as a penny for any reason. Bush also denounced the so-called pledge against raising taxes that virtually every Republican has signed, noting that he never signed it.

Norquist said that Bush had insulted Mitt Romney because he has taken the pledge.

I think Jeb Bush has the better of this argument. It is indisputable that Reagan was vastly more moderate, at least in terms of how he actually governed, than today's GOP. At the risk of being pedantic, here is a partial list of Reagan's actions that would have him expelled for treason to conservative principles if he were running for president today.

* As a Hollywood actor, Reagan had been the head of a labor union, the Screen Actors Guild, and was proud of the higher pay and benefits he negotiated for his members. As president, he praised labor unions, saying, "Collective bargaining...has played a major role in America's economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere."

* Franklin D. Roosevelt was Reagan's political hero and he voted for him for president 4 times. As president, he said, "F. D. R. was an American giant, a leader who shaped, inspired, and led our people through perilous times."

* As governor of California, Reagan signed into law the largest state tax increase in history up to that time. It increased California taxes by a third, including an increase in the top income tax rate. There were other tax increases as well, which raised the top rate to 11 percent from 7 percent when he took office, a 57 percent increase.

* Also as governor, Reagan signed into law California's first law permitting legal abortion - at the behest of his two most conservative advisers, Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger. On other social issues as well, Gov. Reagan was far more progressive than his image. For example, he authorized conjugal visits for prisoners for the first time in the state and broadened environmental protection.

* In 1981, Reagan proposed a large tax cut. But when deficits became a problem, he supported tax increases and signed 11 of them into law. Among them was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

* Reagan supported an increase in the capital gains tax to 28 percent from 20 percent as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

* In 1986, Reagan supported an immigration reform that gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. During the 1984 election, Reagan said, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."

* At the Reykjavik Summit with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986, Reagan, to the horror of his advisers, offered to abolish nuclear weapons. To their relief, Gorbachev declined the offer.

For these reasons, Barack Obama has often praised Reagan. Meanwhile, Republican leaders admit that Reagan would clearly be out of step with his party and would not be able to secure its presidential nomination today. Jeb Bush is not the only one.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party."

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA): Reagan "would never be elected today in my opinion."

Other Republicans note Reagan's commitment to compromise and working with Democrats to find solutions to pressing national problems.

Former chairman of the Republican National Committee Haley Barbour: "Let me make sure that one thing is clear about Ronald Reagan's Republican Party: Reagan did not demand or expect everyone to agree with him on every issue. He wasn't a purist. Some candidates are vying to be the most conservative candidate, and some voters are seeking purity in their choice. Well, in politics purity is a dead-dog loser. You need unity. And purity is the enemy of unity."

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Reagan wouldn't identify with this party. There's a streak of intolerance in the Republican Party today that scares people. Intolerance is a very dangerous thing in a society because it always leads to a tragic ending. Ronald Reagan was never driven by ideology. He was a conservative but he was a practical conservative. He wanted limited government but he used government and he used it many times. And he would work with the other party."

I worked for Ronald Reagan and believe he was a great president. But he was not a radical who made extravagant claims or sought to destroy government, as most Republicans appear willing to do today. He believed in conservative governance and getting things done, and if bending on principle was necessary, then so be it. I think Republicans would be better off emulating the real Ronald Reagan and less demanding rigid adherence to unachievable principles.

Bruce Bartlett's columns focus on the intersection of politics and economics. The author of seven books, he worked in government for many years and was senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/15/Why-Ronald-Reagan-Would-Not-Lead-Todays-GOP

Trump Support Growing Among Black Voters

By Frances Rice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The National Black Republican Association's endorsement of Donald Trump for President of the United States has been very well received by other Republican black leaders across the country. The response has been overwhelming, with other leaders contacting us to add their support of the NBRA's endorsement of Mr. Trump. Highlighted below are the leaders who gave us their permission to release their names to the public. Our subsequent press releases during the general election will include the names of other leaders who endorse Mr. Trump when he has become our party’s presidential nominee, which we expect will be the decision of the majority of Republican Party primary voters.  In our view, Mr. Trump’s nomination will be well-deserved, since we believe he is the only candidate who can both unify our party and attract new, independent and conservative black voters.

 

Bill Calhoun  

As Chairman of the Texas Federation for Republican Outreach (TFRO), Bill Calhoun has this to say regarding his endorsement of Donald Trump: "Our members are dedicated to identifying and engaging independent, black voters with two issues that hit closest to home: jobs and school choice.  Despite the fact that they overwhelmingly vote for Democrat candidates, the economic conditions for far too many African Americans is marginal. The Republican Party has a positive message and we have been  talking to voters about it.  We share information with them on two critical issues – how to increase their income in this new economy that the Democrats have created and the new strategies they must adopt to save and accumulate wealth to pass on to their families. It’s time for Republican candidates to help us by engaging black voters early in the primary season with an economic message that puts the blame for these conditions where it belongs, squarely in the hands of the Democrats and their public policy programs.  Donald Trump seems to be the only candidate for President willing to do this.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. Mason Weaver
 
Mason Weaver’s impressive biography shows that he is changing the way people think about how they do business; how they interact with their families, friends and the world. He has been training, educating, teaching and reaching thousands with his messages of hope for the future and empowering individuals with the tools they need to become the driving forces for positive change.  Mr. Weaver stated that his YouTube endorsement of Donald Trump is based on Mr. Trump’s business success and his focus on “making America great again.”  In a YouTube video, Mr. Weaver explains the Trump phenomenon: “no matter who he attacks or who attacks him, his polling numbers claim higher.” 

Dr. Deborah Honeycutt

 

Deborah Travis Honeycutt is a Conservative Political Activist, Public Speaker and family medicine physician. In 2004 Dr. Honeycutt was President of the Georgia Academy of Family Physicians and in 2005 served as Chairman of the Board of Directors. On the national level she has served on many committees as well as a five-year appointment to the American Academy of Family Physicians’ Commission on Education. She was twice the Minority Constituency Delegate and twice the Georgia State Delegate to the American Academy of Family Physicians. While providing her endorsement of Donald Trump as our next president, Dr. Honeycutt stated: “Mr. Trump is the only candidate strong enough to withstand the media backlash when he begins to repeal Obamacare and unravel what the Democrats have done to put our national security and economy in jeopardy.” 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ken Jordan and Brenda Battle Jordan

 

Ken Jordan and Brenda Battle Jordon are on the Genesee County Republican Executive Committee in Michigan, as well as the Flint Right To Life Board. Brenda is the former Director of Black Americans of Genesee County and is currently a member of the Westwood Heights School Board. The Jordans said they are sadden by how our school system is designed to benefit teachers’ unions – major donors to the Democratic Party – at the expense of black children trapped in failing urban schools. At the time the Jordans announced their endorsement of Donald Trump, Brenda stated: “Mr. Trump is self-financed and will not be deterred by union money from returning control over our schools back to parents and local communities, such as the Westwood Heights School District in Flint, Michigan.”

National Black Republican Association Endorses Donald J. Trump

Announcing National Black Republican Association Endorses Donald J. Trump
By Frances Rice

We, the grassroots activists of the National Black Republican Association, are pleased to announce our endorsement of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States of America.

As citizens who happen to be black, we support Mr. Trump because he shares our values. We, like Mr. Trump, are fiscally conservative, steadfastly pro-life and believers in a small government that fosters freedom for individuals and businesses, so they can grow and become prosperous.

We are deeply concerned about illegal immigration, a major cause of high black unemployment, especially among black youth.

Black Americans across America are beginning to wake up and see clearly the reality of what is happening in black neighborhoods. Democrats have run black communities for the past 60 years and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands, witness Detroit, Baltimore and South Chicago.

We believe that Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he can push back against the mainstream media, end political correctness and free black communities from the destructive grip of socialist Democrats.

We urge our fellow black Americans to seize control over their own destiny and leverage their vote the way other groups do. It is way past time black Americans stop having their vote taken for granted by Democrats, hold politicians accountable for the content of their policies and not vote merely based on the label of their party.

We just might get that Trump-Sanders race

By Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Hillary Clinton's email woes grow while Sanders gains and Trump stays strong.

Back last summer, I wrote about the prospects for a Trump-Sanders 2016 race. Trump, of course, remains atop all of the polls for the GOP nomination. And now Bernie Sanders is crushing Hillary Clinton in CNN/WMUR's latest New Hampshire poll, 60% to 33%. That's right, Bernie has a 27-point lead among New Hampshire Democrats.

There's no question that Hillary is in real trouble. As Peter Wehner noted in Commentary, "Mrs. Clinton is now running as basically the third term of President Obama. She may tweak what he did here and there, but she is fully embracing Mr. Obama. In an election year in which anger and disgust at the political establishment and business as usual are dominant, and in which only a quarter of the American people believe the country is headed in the right direction, that is a dangerous strategy to adopt. In addition, there's a historical burden Mrs. Clinton faces: Since 1948, a political party has won three straight presidential elections only once, when George H.W. Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan, who was much more popular at the end of his second term than, in all likelihood, Mr. Obama will be."

With the Middle East on fire and the U.S. economy looking shaky, the "Obama's third term" strategy isn't looking very good. But Hillary was part of his administration, so what else can she do?

She also faces increasing legal problems. In particular, as the email story trickles out, it's now clear that she had beyond top secret material on her secret personal email server. As Politico reports: "In a copy of the Jan. 14 correspondence obtained by Politico, Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III told both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations committees that intelligence agencies found messages relating to what are known as 'special access programs,' or SAP. That's an even more restricted subcategory of sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, which is top secret national security information derived from sensitive intelligence sources."

As intelligence experts like to point out, normal federal employees would face career-ending consequences, if not prison, for this sort of mishandling of classified information, which made it easy for foreign nations to learn extremely important secrets about U.S. intelligence - and U.S. methods of gathering intelligence. In Charles Krauthammer's view, what Hillary did is worse than what Edward Snowden did: "What people have to understand is that there is nothing higher, more secret than an SAP. And that, from some people I've talked to, this is worse than what Snowden did, because he didn't have access to SAP. And that, if this is compromised, this is so sensitive, that the reason - and the reason it is is that, as a result, if it's compromised, people die. It also means that operations that have been embedded for years and years get destroyed and cannot be reconstituted."

Hillary used this insecure private-server setup, it seems clear to me, because she wanted to be sure that emails she sent as secretary of State wouldn't be available under Freedom of Information Act requests that might hurt her politically. (Under the Freedom of Information Act, the government doesn't have to turn over emails that aren't in its physical possession. Former secretary of State Henry Kissinger gamed the system to keep his correspondence out of public hands, but not in a way that was deemed to have made secrets vulnerable to foreign espionage.)

Hillary, on the other hand, chose a method of protecting herself politically that exposed the nation to serious harm. Even if she escapes indictment (she's a Clinton, and hence presumptively above the law), this will hurt her, and help Bernie. And if she's indicted, well, Bernie's prospects are looking awfully good.

Meanwhile, no Republican candidate has yet managed to gain sufficient traction against Trump, who just got an endorsement from fellow anti-establishmentarian Sarah Palin. So will it be a Trump-Sanders race after all? It's looking likelier by the day.


Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School:
How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors


http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/20/glenn-reynolds-hillary-clinton-emails-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-column/79054166/

Hillary For Prison?