Nobody who knows the status of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s server is talking. … The FBI interviewed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for many hours on Saturday morning.  On Saturday afternoon CNN Senior Producer Teddy Davis tweeted “Sources tell CNN’s Evan Perez: expectation is that there will be announcement of no charges in Clinton email probe w/in next two weeks or so”.  –Washington Examiner

Hugh Hewitt, who is a national radio host and a daily blogger makes some good points in this article regarding the impossibility of knowing yet whether Hillary will be indicted or not.

Yesterday, DB, among others, posted an article mentioning that CNN’s Evan Perez had tweeted that Hillary would not be indicted.

This seems to be a general certainty among high-profile conservatives as well, including Rush Limbaugh.

Limbaugh recently mentioned in his radio program that it was not likely that Hillary would be indicted.

Indicting the presumptive nominee of a major political party would surely be seen by many as interference with the political process.

Additionally, Hillary herself has made it clear that others in government knew about her email arrangements and private server.

Barack Obama himself apparently received communications from Hillary directly and responded. Obama himself, therefore, participated in a security setup that is now seen as potentially unlawful.

If Hillary were indicted, Obama would surely be her first witness.

You thus have the following spectacle, were an indictment pursued to trial by the Justice Department:

The potential overthrow of the Democratic candidate for President and the necessity for the President of the United States himself to testify, presumably risking further civil and criminal charges himself.

But Hewitt believed that there was no way Perez could make such an assertion.

More:

Nobody who knows the status of the investigation into Clinton’s server is talking, and those who are talking as if they do — well, they simply do not know what is truly going on but have some incentive to pretend to do so.

They cannot know, in fact, unless they know (1) what has been recovered from the server by the forensic specialists working on the server and (2) the precise details of what Secretary Clinton said in her interview.

That is because 18 USC 1001 makes it a crime to make false statements to federal agents. Unless someone was in the room with Secretary Clinton who knew exactly what had been deleted, the CNN “source” would have no idea — none — of whether the investigation is close to wrapping up.

These are good points.

However Hewitt goes on to write that, while he does not know the outcome of the current investigation, he does know, “Clinton’s actions were incredibly reckless and damaged the country’s national security.”

For instance, Hewitt mentions an interview that he had conducted with on May 15, 2015 with former CIA Acting Director and long time Deputy Director Michael Morell.

HH: What did you make of the secretary of state having a private server in her house?

MM: I don’t think that was a very good judgment. I don’t know who gave her that advice, but it was not good advice, and you know, she’s paying a price for it now. Yeah, it was not good.

But if either Hewitt or Morell wanted to be perfectly truthful, they’d have to admit that the entire scenario is questionable.

Take three of the biggest supposed threats to the US at the moment: Russia, ISIS and China.

It is well known by now that Wall Street funded the Russian Revolution and that on and off the US has continued to play a powerful role in Russia’s sociopolitical evolution.

ISIS, as we discussed the other day, has admittedly been funded by the US and its allies since its inception.

And China’s Mao attended the Yale Divinity School and may actually have been a member of its notorious Skull and Bones society.

The US nominally opposed Mao but covertly did much to support his ultimate takeover of China.

In all three cases we can see that the US and its intelligence operations and certain military facilities supported entities now seen as hostile to the US.

Thanks to the Internet and what it has revealed about political systems around the world, the reality is that US “enemies” are individuals and groups funded by Western globalists.

Conclusion: The expansion of internationalism is, in fact, based on the creation of international tensions and military activities. The assumption that Hillary “jeopardized” national security is valid so far as it goes. But it doesn’t go very far at all.