Former Amb. John Bolton: If Politics Triumphs Over Legalities in Clinton Email Investigation 'Real Risk' that 'FBI Will Explode'
( CNSNews.com ) – John Bolton , a former undersecretary of state and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said in a radio interview that if politics "triumph over the legalities" in the ivestigation of former Secretary of Sate Hillary Clinton's email server "there’s a real risk for [President] Obama and for the attorney general that the FBI will explode."
Bolton was interviewed Sunday by Investigative Radio host Aaron Klein.
“As a former ambassador, you obviously have to be very well versed in the consequences of using private email to perhaps pass classified material. If you did that, I wonder what consequences you would have faced," Klein said.
"Clearly Hillary Clinton – I don’t think there’s really much of a question at this time about whether she violated the law. Do you think that she’s actually going to be indicted?" the radio host asked Bolton.
”Do you think that we’re actually going to see action from the FBI and ultimately from the Justice Department?”
“Well, I think that the pressure is definitely building,” Bolton responded.
“And just to take the politics out of this for a second, what Hillary Clinton and her top aides did was not just make a few small violations of laws to protect classified information. They made wholesale violations, and they did it for a sustained, indeed for a four-year period. So this is far more serious than what happened to General Petraeus.
“And it’s one reason why I think both the FBI and I believe the people in the Justice Department, the prosecutors who would oversee the handling of the case, are moving more and more to the conclusion that serious indictments are warranted here," Bolton continued.
"Now look, it’s possible in this administration that politics will triumph over the legalities, but I think if that does happen, there’s a real risk for [President] Obama and for the attorney general that the FBI will explode.
“And a lot of things that we don’t know about, that are not on the public record at the moment will come on the public record. It may not be the same thing as hiring Archibald Cox in the Watergate investigation. But if this potential prosecution is tanked for political reasons, it’ll be a very loud explosion.
"And it will stain Obama’s legacy forever, it will damage Loretta Lynch’s professional reputation, and I think it will have a profound impact on the presidential election.”
In January, the State Department confirmed that Clinton’s private server, which she kept in her upstate New York home, contained at least 22 “top secret” emails.
Petraeus, the former director of the CIA, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified informaton after he admitted sharing military secrets with his mistress in 2011 for the biography she was writing about him. He was sentenced to two years of probation for what a federal judge called a "serious lapse of judgment."
Related: Napolitano Challenges Clinton’s Statement That ‘My Predecessors Did the Same Thing’
Tags
Who is online
29 visitors
John Bolton is a hyper partisan clown. His words are virtually meaningless, in any objective sense.
John Bolton , a former undersecretary of state and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
Yeah that sounds like quite a clown , the kind that accomplishes things in the real political world . Thanks for proving that the clown is you John .
Petey,
He was those things under a REPUBLICAN administration... that makes him automatically irrelevant as far as John is concerned.
That's the fact.
John Bolton is a hyper partisan clown.
That's being far, far too kind. Does anyone really take anything that moron says seriously anymore? He makes Sarah Palin look like a Rhodes Scholar.
He's John Bolton. He's automatically wrong based just on that alone.
Ah, another attack the person so words don't matter derailment from John. No real surprise.
Ad hominem indeed. When that's all you have...
Same old, same old, John can't discuss the contents of the thread, only the source of it. And if he doesn't agree with the article, the source is always wrong.
There's also his patented "who cares?" non-response.