Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of sensitive, classified, and even top secret information has finally prompted widespread discussion as to whether she committed crimes. The discussion is warranted, particularly given the Obama administration’s aggressive posture in cases involving leaks and the mishandling of classified material.

The prosecution of General Petraeus springs immediately to mind. As Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor, points out:

[Petraeus] was tarred, feathered and ridden out of the CIA on a rail for sharing some information (his own notebook) with his biographer who was both in the military and had a top secret clearance. Yet, Petraeus did not have a secret server set up to house his classified and top secret information or digital satellite imagery; he destroyed nothing; and, there was no “leak.”

The potential consequences associated with Petraeus’ breach pales in comparison to the likely damage caused by Hillary Clinton putting top secret information on a home brew server susceptible to Russian, Chinese, and other hostile hackers.

Powell also recalls the case of Fox News reporter James Rosen. The Holder Justice Department not only seized his emails immediately and without his knowledge, they suggested he was a criminal “co-conspirator” in a leak case—under the Espionage Act—which carries a ten-year term of imprisonment.

By contrast, the Justice Department moved at a snail’s pace when it came to Hillary Clinton. It was obvious all along that Clinton’s email server contained information relating to the national defense ( the standard under the Espionage Act) and always likely that some of this information was classified, if not “top secret.”

How could it be otherwise? We’re talking about the Secretary of State’s communications in her official capacity.

Yet the government (1) permitted Clinton to use a private server, (2) waited months after knowledge of her use of the server became widespread to seize the server, and (3) allowed sensitive emails and other information from the server to remain in the hands of Clinton’s attorneys even though they lack the requisite security clearances.

According to Powell, the Holder Justice Department “destroyed Arthur Andersen and its 85,000 jobs on unfounded charges of obstruction of justice for destroying documents the Supreme Court said it had no legal obligation to keep.” Hillary Clinton had clear legal obligations with respect to the retention and return of her emails (see FOIA and the Federal Records Act), but admits to destroying tens of thousands of them. Yet no grand jury has been convened and the Justice Department only now seems to show any interest in investigating.

Clearly, the Justice Department needs to make up for lost time. But, for the same reasons that it lost the time in the first place, the DOJ is unlikely to make up for it.

JOHN adds: I agree. Some have speculated that Obama may have Mrs. Clinton indicted because he detests her and her husband. I think he may well detest the Clintons, but Hillary was his Secretary of State, after all, and her dereliction of duty occurred in her official capacity. For her to be indicted would be a terrible black mark against his administration, one that I don’t believe he will permit, regardless of how he feels about the Clintons.