Edward Morrissey has a stunningly clear article on The Fiscal Times website questioning whether former Secretary of State, former Senator (D) New York and former First Lady Hillary Clinton could still be President of the United States of America, if she lost her top secret security clearance. While Morrissey never answers his own question, his recitation of the facts in the Clinton email saga is clear and brilliant.

Hillary Clinton’s private server held information that did not belong to her. The information classified or not belong to the people of the United States of America. Hillary, or her staffers, according to the Clinton campaign, forwarded the “relevant” work emails to the state department and then wiped the server clean. We cannot and probably will not ever know if staffers “accidentally” deleted emails that belong to the people of the United States. All of this, as Morrissey points out, thwarts Freedom of Information requests and one judge has already admonished Clinton.

Actually, every word out of Mrs. Clinton’s mouth has thwarted the opportunity to tease out this whole email contretemps.

Mr. Morrissey points out that past malefactors have felt the judicial weight of violating the law:

Furthermore, the transmission and retention of classified material in this system violates criminal statutes, specifically 18 USC 793 and 18 USC 1924. Federal prosecutors have tried and convicted others for these crimes; David Petraeus, Sandy Berger, and John Deutch (pardoned later by Bill Clinton) all plea-bargained on such charges. Those with much lower profiles have done prison time for violations, in cases much less elaborate and deliberate than the secret server Hillary Clinton used to avoid legitimate and constitutional oversight by Congress and the courts. Others simply suspected of it have lost their clearances and their ability to be employed in responsible government or contractor jobs – a consequence that still has not been felt by Clinton or her aides that transmitted classified material through an unsecured and unauthorized system.

Next, Morrissey points out that the coverage of the email/server issue so far has been covered only as to how it affects the campaign. The mainstream media has not drilled down on what this says about Mrs. Clinton as a public servant, only on how it affects the day to day Presidential campaign.

The final two paragraphs of the article are pure gold, for me anyway:

The distinctive concept of American exceptionalism is loyalty to the rule of law over pure nationalistic or ethnic identity. Officeholders pledge to support and defend the Constitution that guarantees the rule of law, rather than a parcel of land or tribal identity. That law binds all equally, from the humble American worker to the President of the United States, or so we expect. Even when applied imperfectly, we expect our institutions to try to make it a reality.

Hillary Clinton’s arrogance and its treatment by the media challenge that national identity to its core. Pundits have called Clinton’s second presidential run another attempted “coronation.” Perhaps that is more accurate than anyone cares to admit.

That is the essential point. The Constitution. The Rule of Law. That is what makes these United States different. Even the lowest of the low may petition the government and the highest of the high may not blatantly, willfully and with arrogance violate the law.

To answer Mr. Morrissey’s question, no Mrs. Clinton cannot be President without a Top Secret security clearance. Mrs. Clinton has proven that she has no respect for the Constitution, the Rule of Law, or the People of the United States of America. Her security clearance should be revoked now.