Friday, July 10, 2015

#Hillary Lied About Her E-Mails And Broke Federal Law.Here's Why She Won't Be Prosecuted

Once again, Mrs. Clinton has revealed to us that if she tells you the sun is shining, you'd better make sure you have an umbrella handy.

Tuesday, she had her first interview after dodging the press for months with CNN’s sycophantic Brianna Keilar. Keilar is the CNN reporter whom covers the Clinton campaign. Seeing as she has every incentive not to offend the famously vindictive Mrs. Clinton and risk losing access just 16 months before the election,most of her questions were predictably softball, with little follow up.

And then, this exchange occurred.

It started out with Ms. Keilar addressing something that's recently come up, polls from various sources. They show that the majority of Americans, for some ode reason consider her untrustworthy and an out and out liar.CNN’s national poll shows that 57% of Americans see her that way, and ABC News and the Wall Street Journal put that number at 52%.

It started out OK. Ms. Keilar allowed Mrs. Clinton to sing the old 'victim of the vast right wing conspiracy' song.

“This has been a theme that has been used against me and my husband for many, many years,” she said. “And at the end of the day, I think voters sort it all out.”

After that, the conversation turned to the recent controversy surrounding Mrs. Clinton's private e-mail server she used as secretary of state and certain e-mails she destroyed.

Mrs. Clinton declared forcefully that, “You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions that are – I’ve never had a subpoena. . . . Let’s take a deep breath here.”

Actually, she's received three, al before she destroyed her private e-mail server, as committee chairman Trey Gowdy pointed out.Even Democrat ranking member Elijah Cummings admitted that much, saying “Obviously everyone—including Secretary Clinton—knows Chairman Gowdy issued a subpoena.”

She of course couldn't leave well enough alone.

“When I mailed anybody in the government, it would go into the government system,” she said. “Now I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system.”

There are enough outright lies in that small paragraph to warrant a serious trial.

Even storing Federal records on a private server is a serious violation of the Federal Records Act, for reasons that should be obvious and a violation of the agreement Mrs. Clinton signed when she started at the State Department. Mrs. Clinton was likewise required to turn over any and all records in her possession to government, which she quite obviously did not do.

Not only did Mrs. Clinton fail to turn over work-related emails, but she and her staff also edited some of those emails before submitting them, as the Examiner's Sarah Westwood reported.

In legalese, this shows intent. Mrs, Clinton intended to deceive congress.Not only that, but the committee obtained a number of e-mails that were work related and were either edited or somehow missing from the 55,000 Mrs. Clinton turned in:

The missing materials, which the State Department says it does not have, came to Congress by other means. They include writings about the jockeying for oil contracts in Libya after President Obama engaging in a war without congressional approval to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi. This comes among her back-and-forth emails with Sidney Blumenthal, a former staffer who had been barred from employment in the Obama administration, to continue offering his insight and advice on Libya. [...]

But the proof of intent to deceive comes in the fact that Clinton or her staff actually edited some of the emails and turned over censored versions to State before destroying her copy of the originals.

I think we can reasonably be certain that cash donations to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for an inside track on oil deals or for Federal contracts involving Libya and other areas were the subject of some of these communications, but what's already known is damaging enough.

Another, much more serious problem than the usual lies and corruption is the fact that Mrs. Clinton's private server was almost certainly hacked by foreign agents. Her server lacked the normal security given to classified information within the government's official system. Professionals who have examined the security of Hillary private e-mail account have said that the question is not whether the account was hacked, but to what degree.

Not only were classified communications almost certainly compromised, but there's not telling what kind of personal, perhaps even indictable messages might have been scooped up. Imagine a president in the midst of negotiations with a foreign power like China, Russia or Iran suddenly confronted discretely with an ultimatum that unless she made certain far reaching concessions, certain information she desperately didn't want revealed would be made public.

Federal Law(36 CFR 1234.24) requires agencies to collect all records from “external electronic mail systems” so that they can be stored inside government archives. There's also a federal law (44 USC 3106) that authorizes legal action through the Attorney General and the Justice Department “for the recovery of records” that are threatened by destruction, deletion or erasure. Willfully destroying a federal record is a felony, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Mrs. Clinton is already guilty of that crime as well by admitting she destroyed her server.

Like I said, a lot of lies in one paragraph. Now, an actual reporter might have brought these matters up in follow up questions, but, well..

Mrs. Clinton felt free to destroy her private server and laugh at the subpoenas. She knew that President Obama's Attorney General and the DOJ were not going to take any action against her, again for obvious reasons. Among them is that there's no longer a requirement to do so.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, there is no such thing as a truly independent special prosecutor's office any more. When the Democrats dominated congress after Watergate, they passed the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 that created a special prosecutor, later called an Independent Counsel position, which could be used by either Congress or the Attorney General for investigations of Officials in the executive branch. It was totally independent of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. That's who Kenneth Starr worked for, whose work led to President Clinton's impeachment for the felonies of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of office.

As I've mentioned before, one of Mr. Bill's last 'gifts' to the country before he left office in 2000 was to eliminate the Office of the Independent Counsel totally and replace it with the very different Office of Special Counsel, controlled by the Attorney General as part of the Justice Department.

For those of you who've been wondering why IRS-Gate, Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other scandals haven't been fully investigated and prosecuted the way Watergate was, you now have your answer. And now you also know why Eric Holder laughed out loud when congress cited him for contempt.

Congress itself has no real police power anymore. They can investigate matters and subpoena documents, but they have little power to compel testimony or prosecute anyone the Obama Regime wants to protect. Congress does have the remedy of hiring its own prosecutor and impeaching the president, but the process is likely to take longer than 18 months, and certain members of the Republican establishment are afraid that going there would be 'messy.' So that's highly unlikely, just as Mrs. Clinton being prosecuted for breaking federal law is.

The problem Mrs. Clinton has is that unlike her husband, she's not really good at lying. Not only does she lack the delivery skills to pull it off, but she lacks Mr. Bill's astounding memory and forgets what lies she told people previously. That's actually even more disturbing in a way, because it shows an innate contempt for those she wishes to rule to tell them such obvious and easily debunked whoppers.It's as if we're not worthy of the effort to do it really well.

I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about whether someone like this should be president.


Anonymous said...

I'm a Democrat who thinks that Hillary is an ethically bankrupt snake. But I will gladly pull the lever for her over any one of the incompetent jackasses currently riding in the GOP clown car. When the rest of those morons can't outpoll Donald Trump, you know something's wrong.

Rob said...

Trump is a flavor of the month, who is mouthing platitudes people want to hear, since they're not used to hearing honesty from much of our ruling class.

He's this year's Perot and will be gone soon.

OTOH, Let's be honest with each other, anonymous.Someone whom can look at Mrs. Clinton and write what you just did was always going to vote for her anyway.

I'd have more respect for you if you said that if Hillary gets the nomination, you simply wouldn't cast a vote for president in 2016. That at least would be a principled decision.

Bernie Sanders used to have some of my respect for saying exactly what Scott Walker did, that the American worker is being targeted. But then he came out whole hog supporting illegal migration, which is a huge part of that targeting and he knows it, or ought to. Anyway, he's a Jew if a secular one, and we both know how at least a third of your party feels about Jews, so he's not going anywhere.

The only Democrat I see that actually does have principles and that I might possibly vote for is Jim Web, but he likewise has no chance with the new ultra Left Democrat party.

We have a good shot at being served up a choice of Hillary or Jebby, in which case I myself will probably not vote.