Judge Andrew Napolitano: â??The story stands that there is evidence, strong evidence to believe that Mrs. Clintonâ??s, one of her senior aides from the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, offered a bribe to an FBI agent, or a group of FBI agents, to change the classified markings on documents after they had been subpoenaed and after they have been surrendered. And in return for that change, offered or suggested the availability - you know, these bribe offers are never that precise. Theyâ??re not in writing. But offered the availability of cushy overseas assignments for FBI agents. Mr. Kennedy has denied this emphatically. The FBIâ??s own records are ambiguous as to whether or not he actually said this. A 302, an FBI memorandum written by an FBI agent says, â??He offered it and we rejected it.â?? Some of the emails now say he never even offered it. But look, something like this, Iâ??ve never seen this in my career, Bill, where an effort is made to change a document after it is evidence in a criminal prosecution. Thatâ??s obstruction of justice. Thatâ??s tampering with evidence. Thatâ??s offering a bribe. Why wasnâ??t somebody charged with these crimes by the FBI? Itâ??s the offer of a bribe. Itâ??s an attempted bribe. Itâ??s an attempt to alter evidence. Look, there are often intra-agency discussions about whether a document should be marked secret or top secret. These happen everyday because the lines between secret and top secret can be vague. And you may want to reduce the markings so that more people who need to see, can see it. But you canâ??t do this after itâ??s been subpoenaed and after itâ??s evidence in a case. Thatâ??s tampering with evidence and thatâ??s what it appears Mr. Kennedy attempted to do. It is a crime to bribe someone. It is a crime to offer to bribe someone. This was at-best a bribe, and at-worst, an offer to bribe.â??