President Trump’s new acting Attorney General, Matthew Whitaker, just might be top cop America’s been waiting for…

One year ago, former US Prosecutor Matthew Whitaker wrote an article for CNN, titled: Mueller’s Investigation Of Trump Is Going Too Far. In his article, Whitaker addresses the criticism of Robert Mueller’s ever-widening investigation into President Trump and his family’s financial ties to Russia. In the article, Whitaker warns against Mueller crossing a red line with his Russian election meddling investigation spilling over into an investigation of  Trump and his family’s finances.

Whitaker wrote: Last month, when President Donald Trump was asked by The New York Times if special counsel Robert Mueller would be crossing a line if he started investigating the finances of Trump and his family, the President said, “I think that’s a violation. Look, this is about Russia.”
The President is absolutely correct. Mueller has come up to a red line in the Russia 2016 election-meddling investigation that he is dangerously close to crossing.

In a July 5, 2016 op-ed that appeared in USA Today, Matthew Whitaker also argued that he would indict Hillary for the crimes she committed related to the handling of classified and top secret information on her private server.

In his op-ed, Whitaker discusses how, as a “reasonable prosecutor” he would indict Hillary Clinton for her gross negligence in her removal of information from State Department security, as well as the crimes she committed when she either sent or received classified and even top-secret emails on her private server.

From the USA Today article: According to FBI Director James Comey’s statement, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been charged with violating several different code sections, and he detailed the evidence that supports bringing criminal charges.

Yet, Director Comey’s judgment was that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring the case. I disagree. I believe myself to have been a reasonable prosecutor, and when the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted.

One statute that Secretary Clinton could be charged with violating is 18 U.S.C. section 793(f). 

(We’re pretty sure this section applies to Hillary Clinton’s use of a private unsecured server for top secret goverment business)

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Of the emails either turned over or recovered by the FBI, 110 contained information that was classified at the time it was sent or received, of which eight email chains contained information that was top secret at the time it was sent.

A reasonable prosecutor may ask, if on numerous occasions, an unknown State Department employee had taken top secret information from a secured system, emailed that information on a Gmail account, and stored the information on a personal server for years, would that individual be prosecuted? I believe they would.

H/t The Gateway Pundit

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.