Last weekend, Hillary Clinton dispatched her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to offer a defense of
her alleged espionage. The espionage allegations against her are that in order to escape public and
Obama administration scrutiny, she had all of her emails as secretary of state diverted from a secure
government server to a nonsecure server in her home in Chappaqua, New York, and, in so doing, failed
to protect state secrets in at least 2,200 instances during her fouryear tenure.
The essence of her husband's defense is that the secrets were not secrets. . .
Would all of our lives be safer if the government could break down all the doors it wishes, listen to all the
conversations it could find and read whatever emails and text messages it could acquire? Perhaps. But
who would want to live in such a society?
To prevent that from happening here, the Framers ratified the Fourth Amendment, which is the linchpin
of privacy and was famously called by Justice Louis Brandeis "the right to be let alone the most
comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." He wrote those words. . .
In 2014, President Barack Obama signed 12 executive orders directing various agencies in the
departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security to refrain from deporting some 4 million adult
immigrants illegally present in the United States if they are the parents of children born here or legally
present here and if they hold a job, obtain a highschool diploma or its equivalent, pay taxes and stay
out of prison.
Unfortunately for the president, the conditions he established for avoiding deportation had been rejected
by Congress.
In response to the executive orders, 26 states and the House of Representatives. . .
President Barack Obama's recent remarks to my Fox News colleague Chris Wallace about Hillary
Clinton's email issues were either Machiavellian or dumb. It is difficult to tell from them whether he wants
the mountain of evidence of her criminal behavior presented to a federal grand jury or he wants her to
succeed him in the White House.
He cannot have both.
His efforts to minimize his former secretary of state's diversion of emails from governmentsecured
servers to her own nonsecure home server by calling it "careless" may actually. . .
What if the latest craze among the big-government crowd in both major political parties is to use the power of government to force employers to pay some of their employees more than their services are worth to the employers?
What if this represents an intrusion by government into the employer-employee relationship? What if this consists of the government's effectively saying that it knows the financial worth of employees' services better than the employers and the employees do?
What if the minimum wage, now on the verge of being raised to $15 per hour everywhere in. . .
The FBI investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's failure to protect state secrets contained in her emails has entered its penultimate phase, and it is a dangerous one for her and her aides.
Federal law enforcement sources have let it be known that federal prosecutors and the FBI have completed their examination of raw data in the case. After the FBI acquires raw data -- for example, the nature and number of the state secrets in the emails Clinton failed to protect or the regular, consistent, systematic nature of that failure -- prosecutors and agents proceed to draw. . .
What is the connection between personal freedom and rising from the dead?
When America was in its infancy and struggling to find a culture and frustrated at governance from Great Britain, the word most frequently uttered in speeches and pamphlets and editorials was not "safety" or "taxes" or "peace"; it was "freedom." Two acts of Parliament broke the bonds with the mother country irreparably.
The first was the Stamp Act, which was enforced by British soldiers who used general search warrants issued by a secret court in London to rummage through the. . .
On Feb. 7, 1946, Arthur Terminiello, a Roman Catholic priest who was a fierce opponent of communism and believed that President Harry Truman was too comfortable with it, gave an incendiary speech in a Chicago hall that his sponsors had rented.
The hall held about 800 people, but nearly 2,400 showed up. Father Terminiello's opponents outnumbered his supporters by a 2-1 ratio. The atmosphere in the hall was electric, with almost everyone present taking sides for or against this priest -- all under the watchful eyes of Chicago police.
. . .
What if Hillary Clinton is in legal hot water and she knows it but won't admit it? What if she has decided to go on the offensive and make her case that she did nothing unlawful with her emails that contained state secrets?
What if the essence of her defense is that other secretaries of state used non-secure email devices and thus it was lawful for her to do so, as well as the point that none of her emails was "marked classified" at the time she sent or received them? What if these defenses. . .
Surely, Hillary Clinton hopes for the happy conclusion to the maddening string of primaries and caucuses that have exhausted her. Surely, she hopes to be the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party this year. And surely, she hopes to be elected president. These hopes are realistic probabilities in her own mind.
But if she is hoping for the end to her legal woes, that is a false hope -- and she knows it.
The relentless barrage of bad legal news for Clinton, which has been relegated to below-the-fold stories because of the primary news position of the presidential primary. . .