I've long said Hillary Clinton is insufficiently stupid to have believed she could operate an unsecured home server without compromising the security of any data transmitted through it or stored on it.

For just as long, it has been my contention that the server was the faucet through which she pumped information she was selling (yes, selling) to foreign entities, both public and private.

I.T. security protocols would've easily flagged attempts at intrusion if targeted toward the State Department's secure servers, through which then-secretary of state Clinton ought to have conducted business.  Likewise, the transfer or copying of said information from a secure server is a detectable act with access being tightly controlled and records kept of who looked at what and when.

"Convenience," the excuse proffered by Clinton for not following even the most basic of security procedures, is, in a way, a rare instance of Clinton telling the truth, just not in the way she would have us believe.

She claims that it was more convenient to utilize a home server, using linked devices to conduct business.  More truthfully, it was more convenient to offload state secrets absent the prying eyes of government I.T. security staff.

In his now infamous "exoneration presser," fired FBI director James Comey admitted that Clinton's server was "likely compromised" by foreign actors, but he also claimed there was "no evidence" of such an intrusion.  During disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's recent testimony, we discovered that this assertion was just another in a long line of brazen falsehoods tumbling out of Comey's mouth.

To drink a shot of liquor every time Comey says something that might be true might prove an entertaining parlor game for teetotalers.  Beyond stating his name, there's precious little else he might say that is not suspect.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, (R-Texas) gave Strzok a moral shellacking over Strzok's extramarital affair with his co-worker and co-conspirator, Lisa Page, wondering aloud whether Strzok bore the same smirk he exhibited in that day's hearings when he looked his wife in the eye and lied to her about his fidelity.

A legitimate point, as the character of the smirking doyen was at issue, given that Strzok had spent the better part of that day swearing that his personal biases did not bear on his public duties, an assertion belied by both the evidence and common sense. 

The resulting furor from Democrat members of the committee overshadowed the point Gohmert was making – that from Strzok's own mouth came yet more confirmation that Hillary Clinton's home server was compromised by a "foreign entity"; that there was indeed evidence of the intrusion and the theft of data; and that Comey had lied yet again, as he most certainly knew of this prior to his tortured-logic exoneration spectacle.

Representative Gohmert emphasized that the "foreign entity" responsible for placing the digital back door into Clinton's server was not Russia.  "And this is a foreign entity, not related to Russia in the least!"

Who is this unnamed foreign entity?  Gohmert knows but isn't saying, as that information is likely still classified.  This revelation causes numerous questions to spring to mind, not the least of which, the timing of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein's splashy unsealing of indictments against Russian targets over "election meddling," coming within hours of Strzok's damning admission.

The difficulty in unraveling the perfidy of the Clintons, the previous administration, and their overseas entanglements has always been the sheer scope of the corruption.  When investigating one crime, ten more are discovered, leading to ten more for each of those.  The high levels at which these crimes have been committed – President Obama's Cabinet and the president himself – compound the problem as their ideological allies within the permanent bureaucracy continue to obstruct, misdirect, and cover up in the name of "resistance."

It strains credulity to believe that the vast investigative resources of the federal government have been brought to bear against the Trump administration simply to enable a twice failed presidential candidate to avoid accountability for carelessly handling classified information. 

While the Clintons have made their careers by enmeshing in criminality nearly everyone with whom they come in contact, their lives, politically and physically, are nearing the end.  Even the risk of Clinton "bringing everyone down with me" is likely insufficient motivation for such herculean efforts to conceal and deceive both the public and the Trump administration.

It is my assertion that the Democratic Party, under the shadow leadership of President Obama, is mounting such a vigorous defense to hide its own involvement in the criminality that characterizes all things Clinton – most notably, the money-laundering operation known as the Clinton Foundation.

President Obama knew of Hillary's illicit server.  He communicated with her on it.  Both surely knew that any electronic device with even a tangential connection to either of them would be targeted by every hacker on the globe with nefarious purpose.  Logic then would dictate that any information passed through, or placed on that server, was placed there to be picked up – a digital dead drop, if you will. 

Politicians have made an art form out of evading accountability for bribery and financial malfeasance in office.  It simply isn't conceivable that the unprecedented contortions of the Deep State displayed since the arrival of Trump would be triggered by a desire to conceal garden variety influence-peddling.  However, as a reason sufficiently important to warrant committing hundreds of additional crimes to prevent its discovery, treason stands alone.

The same mindset that has no difficulty in short-circuiting the Constitution by enacting through judicial and executive fiat those policy aims they could never accomplish legislatively also has little problem with bypassing national security restrictions, if they believe that their purpose is sufficiently noble.  We saw this in Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, selling nuclear secrets to the Soviets to maintain a "balance of power."  Indeed, nearly every instance of domestic espionage in modern times has been rooted in this misshapen sense of moral imperative so fondly inculcated on the left.

Future investigations must answer these questions: who is the "foreign entity" of which Rep. Gohmert spoke?  What information did they receive?  Were they the end-user, or merely a conduit to another power?  What connection did they (and others in that time frame) have to the Clinton Foundation?  Where does the money trail lead?  Who benefits from the information and the policies stemming from it?

We learned that Russia was not the "foreign entity" that compromised Clinton's server, a revelation quickly swept from the headlines by a blanket indictment charging Russians with hacking everything from our elections to the Colonel's secret recipe of herbs and spices.

How do we know that the timing of the indictment is more instructive than the content within?  There is nothing in the indictment that hadn't already been alleged more than a year ago, and there is no new evidence provided to bolster the claims.  In other words, this indictment has been sitting in Rosenstein's or Mueller's pocket, as cleanser for a damaging news cycle – prosecutorial "BleachBit" for an investigation tainted from its inception.

The author writes from Omaha, Neb. and welcomes visitors to his website at www.dailyherring.com.

Image: Marc Nozell via Flickr.