Don’t get too excited. When it comes to the Clintons, perjury is merely an inconvenient speed bump on their five decade road to absolute power. In the ’90s, then-President Bill Clinton lied under oath about his sordid sexual affair with 22 year-old White House intern Monica Lewinsky. An evidence-stained blue dress proved later that the president was a perjurer. But with the help of the Clintonistas and a lackey media (I’m looking at you CNN), Mr. Clinton managed to save himself with an alchemy that turned felony perjury into “lying about sex.”
Which brings me to Hillary Clinton’s OF-109 form.
According to people who would know, like National Review’s Shannen Coffin, on or near her last day as Secretary of State, per government policy, Ms. Clinton was required to sign what is known as the OF-109 form. Coffin, a former senior lawyer at the State Department, says that the OF-109 is an acknowledgement that the departing State Department employee has returned and/or turned over all official documents and records to the State Department.
Three crucially important points here:
- Those records are not limited to classified material. All records must be left in the hands of the State Department.
- Those records would include emails.
- The OF-109 is signed under penalty of perjury.
Now, no one knows if Ms. Clinton signed the OF-109. The mainstream media has shown zero interest in pursuing the form. In fact, as of yesterday at 3:13 pm Greenwich Mean Time, the media dropped the email scandal entirely.
Which is why God created Fox News.
For two days now (today will undoubtedly be the third), Fox News has requested the status of Ms. Clinton’s OF-109 form from the State Department. For two days now, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has dodged, weaved, parsed and ducked in ways that would impress Sugar Ray Robinson.
The reasons for the dodge are obvious. There is no upside to answering the question. If Ms. Clinton did sign the OF-109, she’s almost certainly guilty of perjury; she swore under oath that the State Department had everything when she knew that a lot of that everything was sitting in a server at a black-site known as her Chappaqua home.
If Ms. Clinton did not sign the OF-109, why not? Why was she given an exemption? Was the exemption legal? Where did the breakdown occur? Who is responsible for the breakdown?
Like I said, don’t get excited. Signing this OF-109 would only mean Ms. Clinton committed perjury. The media is not going to damage her over a little thing like perjury. It’s not like she owns a car elevator, owns a tanning bed, or is in the same political party as an obscure nobody who says dumb things about rape.
Clinton is a Democrat.
Clinton is a woman.
The media wants to talk about important things, like why Scott Walker won’t vouch for Obama’s Jesus-loving patriotism.
John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC