Donald Trump has risen to frontrunner status in the Republican race for president by saying what others are afraid to.

And as he inches closer to securing the Republican nomination, he has taken aim at Hillary Clinton as his next target.

What he recently said he would do as president about the criminal investigation surrounding Hillary left mouths agape in the media and in Washington.

In an interview with Bill O’Reilly, Trump predicted the Obama regime would not bring criminal charges against Hillary.

But while Obama may cover up her criminal activity now, Trump pointed out the next president could have a say in pursuing the matter further.

And his comments won’t make Hillary or her supporters happy.

Newsmax reports:

Host Bill O’Reilly asked how the Democrats could protect Clinton from an FBI investigation, since the FBI is supposed to be “non-corruptible.”

“I hope they are not working together,” Trump said. “They are human. And they are people and they do talk, I would imagine. I would like to think that they don’t work together. But I would say that she is being protected.”

But Clinton can’t be protected from the statute of limitations because “on the assumption that somebody else got in, that’s a real dangerous situation.”

“So, if you were elected, then you would go back in and take a look at it?” O’Reilly asked.

“Well, you have a six-year statute of limitations,” Trump said, “and certainly this falls within that period of time. And you certainly have to look at it, very fairly. I would only do something that was 100 percent fair. But certainly that is something that you would look at.”

Evidence that Hillary Clinton broke the law continues to pile up.

But one thing protecting her is the fact that she is the Democratic frontrunner for president.

Should she be shielded from the criminal consequences of her actions because of her standing as a presidential candidate?

Many elites in the media and the political class believe there would be unsettling “optics” of one party pursuing criminal charges against the presidential candidate of the other party.

But don’t our laws still matter?

If they do, then the rule of law dictates Hillary must face charges — no matter who brings them against her.

Trump’s statement that he would investigate and bring charges against Hillary if that is where the evidence led is not something a typical politician would say.

As it becomes increasingly clear Hillary Clinton violated the law, escaping prosecution would mean there are two sets of standards — one for Hillary and one for everyone else.

General David Petraeus was convicted of sharing classified information with the author of his biography.

While sharing classified information is always serious, General Petraeus’ conduct did not risk the national security of the United States in the same manner as Hillary’s email scandal.

Sending classified information across an unsecured private email server opened up our most sensitive intelligence to foreign hackers.

Our enemies, such as China and Russia, could have gained full access to Clinton’s emails.

If General Petraeus was convicted for his mishandling of classified information, shouldn’t Hillary also face justice, no matter the political consequences?