So, the legend of Hillary Clinton’s self-sacrifice continues.

In the latest installment of liberals’ attempt to instill heroism into an urepentant grifter, the world learned Friday that former Secretary of State and failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had her security clearance removed at the end of August — ostensibly at her own request.

She was making a point, apparently.

In a letter dated Sept. 21 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, Charles Faulkner, the State Department’s acting assistant secretary of legislative affairs, wrote that Clinton’s security clearance was revoked on Aug. 30, according to The Hill.

This happened just days after President Donald Trump caused an inside-the-Beltway uproar by revoking the the clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

TRENDING: Tim Tebow Teams with Trump Administration To Fight Human Trafficking

Hillary Clinton loses security clearance after server scandal https://t.co/FM6XX2jA48 via @washtimes — Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) October 12, 2018

On Saturday, the Clinton sycophants at CNN helped publicize the idea that Clinton took the step to show solidarity with Brennan after retired Adm. William McRaven wrote a column in The Washington Post volunteering to have his own security clearance revoked.

“She read this message & decided to take the step of voluntarily withdrawing her security clearance, which she maintained after leaving her post as Secretary of State to write her book, customary for former Secretaries,” Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill wrote on Twitter.

So it was all Hillary’s very own idea to give up her security clearance. And she kept quiet about it because she’s such a patriot at heart. Doesn’t that sound just like her?

Is removing her security clearance sufficient punishment for Hillary Clinton's mishandling of sensitive U.S. documents? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 4% (54 Votes) 96% (1180 Votes)

“She did this quietly so as to not allow Trump to use our national security for partisan purposes yet again,” Merrill wrote. “Because that’s what was in the best interest of the country.”

Of course, it couldn’t possible be that it was in the best interest of Hillary Clinton, could it?

It couldn’t be that a woman who used to be secretary of state, and treated her country’s national security secrets like cafeteria gossip when she was at it, had a feeling Trump might not stop with Brennan when it came to revoking security clearances? It couldn’t be that she did it quietly because it was almost as big of an embarrassment to her as losing an election that should have been in the bag back in 2016?

Clinton’s chief of staff while she was secretary of state, Cheryl Mills, has also lost her clearance along with four others whose names were redacted from the letter.

In the letter, as USA Today, reported:

RELATED: Mainstream News Outlet Trots Out 'Mostly Peaceful' Line Again, Suggests Police Responsible for Louisville Violence

“The State Department noted to Grassley and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the judiciary committee, that it was still examining all of the documents it received from the FBI after the bureau’s investigation was completed.

“After its review is complete the State Department said it will begin investigating whether there were any ‘valid security incidents’ and whether Clinton or her staff broke any rules.”

The update from Faulkner was in response to a previous request from Grassley for an update on the State Department’s review of Clinton’s email servers back on March 30, 2017.

In that letter to then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Grassley wrote (footnotes omitted): “On July 5, 2016, Director Comey announced that ‘[a]fter a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision.’ Director Comey stated that Secretary Clinton and staff were ‘extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information’ and ‘there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information…’”

And Grassley continued to point out that Clinton has somehow eluded the consequences of her misbehavior: “However, Director Comey did not recommend criminal prosecution. In announcing that decision, he also noted that ‘(t)o be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.’

“It is unclear what steps the State Department has taken to impose administrative sanctions.” Grassley’s killer quote, though, made it clear just how unusual the treatment of Hillary Clinton really was. “Any other government workers who engaged in such serious offenses would, at a minimum, have their clearances suspended pending an investigation. The failure to do so has given the public the impression that Secretary Clinton and her associates received special treatment.” It’s been over two years since former FBI Director James Comey made his announcement to the nation that the former secretary carelessly exposed critical classified United States documents. And Grassley has been on top of this oversight and asks all the right questions. Why weren’t there any sanctions imposed on Clinton or her staff after being found to have mishandled classified information? The rest of the nation might like to know the answer to this question as well. While I sleep just a bit better at night knowing the Clinton machine has a bit less power and access, I still wonder, like Sen. Grassley, what is taking so long for the powers-that-be to do the right thing and initiate consequences against those who for so long abused their power and authority as representatives of our government, especially Hillary Clinton? Grassley was right. Any other employee would, at a minimum, lose their security clearance for doing what Hillary did. Fortunately, she gave her security clearance up — for the good of the country, of course.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.